Cannabis Sativa

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
promote one Karanacs' recusal, rest of pr/ar left to her today
Karanacs (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
27,640 edits
promote 2
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{TOClimit|3}}
{{TOClimit|3}}
==December 2009==
==December 2009==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Seattle Sounders FC/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Singapore/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1997 Qayen earthquake/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1997 Qayen earthquake/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Accurate News and Information Act/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Accurate News and Information Act/archive1}}

Latest revision as of 18:32, 29 December 2009

December 2009[edit]

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:32, 29 December 2009 [1].

Seattle Sounders FC[edit]

Nominator(s): SkotyWATalk|Contribs 18:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Seattle Sounders FC is an association football (soccer) team that plays in the highest league in North America (Major League Soccer). Want to learn about a great success story, on and off the field, in a relatively young league? Then follow the link and start reviewing!

Cptnono, George and I have worked with Awadewit to get her approval before re-nominating the article. almost-instinct has also done a thorough copyedit at the suggestion of Awadewit. Thanks go to both Awadewit and almost-instinct for their phenomenal help in cleaning up the prose of the article. SkotyWATalk|Contribs 18:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a comprehensive and well-written article on a sports team. While the article focuses a lot on the history of the team, that is because it is so new, so I feel the balance is appropriate. The prose is accessible to the layperson, like myself, who only discusses soccer a few times a year, at family gatherings. :) Awadewit (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - neets FA criteria, a well written and interesting read. Dincher (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images were checked at the last FAC and no new ones have been added. Awadewit (talk) 18:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: I have actually read every source that this article uses. In my opinion, they all meet WP:RS and are used appropriately. Awadewit (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Much better, good work to all involved. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 11:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Based on the small amount I read, the prose does look much improved from the last FAC. However, I did spot a glaring redundancy in the first sentence: "Seattle Sounders FC is a Major League Soccer soccer team based in Seattle, Washington." The second "soccer" has no reason to be there, and I'm sure a better spot could be found for the link there. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason that slipped through all of the copy edits is because the acronym specification "(MLS)" appears between the two appearances of "soccer". Thank you for pointing it out though. I've cleaned it up. --SkotyWATalk|Contribs 20:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I finally got a chance to read through the entire article, and the only real flaw I found was that several references from newspapers didn't have the publisher in italics. I fixed them myself, though, because there weren't that many to do and it wasn't worth complaining about them here. Everything else looks great. The entire article is vastly better than it was during the first FAC, and all the standards are met. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my involvement in the Peer Review and previous FAC. WFCforLife (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm biased but this article is awesome. The recent input from Awadewit was fantastic. Cptnono (talk) 09:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 18:32, 29 December 2009 [2].

Flag of Singapore[edit]

Nominator(s): User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because...after a year of work, I feel the article is ready for this again. The main issue last time around was over the sourcing of images. I have talked to the user and gave me some ideas on what can be done. I tried to get more information from the SG government, but not much luck there. All dead URLs have been either replaced or removed and just managed to get a PDF copy of the Main 2004 rules, which I am willing to upload to the Commons once I find out legislation is public domain in Singapore. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments

  • There's a mix of {{citation}} and {{cite ___}} templates. This causes inconsistency (compare refs 45 and 46), so I suggest you pick one type or manually write them. There's also a few Day Month Year dates in the refs, when most use ISO style—change them to the dominant style.
  • No dab links or dead external links, which is good. (The link checker complains about two mindef.gov.sg sites—something about "Excessed redirect limit (8)"—but they work for me.)
  • Some images have alt text. Now add some for the blue Straits flag and the photos.

--an odd name 06:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Templates fixed (not sure how to do an interview, but I gave it a shot. I did the dab link and url link check before I even came here tonight. I am fixing the alt text issues now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text clearance from Eubulides moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; that fixes all the alt text problems reported. Eubulides (talk) 07:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 4 (Foong..) needs a page number
  • Current ref 16 (Noor..) lacks a last access date.
  • Current refs 18 and 19 (Singapore Arms..) both lack publishers and last access dates.
    • Comment: See my comment about the citation of legislation below.
  • Current ref 48 (Leong..) lacks a publisher. This is a journal article and should be formatted as such, not as a website.
  • What makes http://www.singsingapore.org.sg/songs-lyric.asp?sid=27 a reliable source?
  • What makes http://flagspot.net/flags/sg~war.html#const a reliable source? Note that FAC criteria have changed to needing high quality sources, so it needs to not only fulfill WP:SPS but be a "high quality" source.
  • : Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List of Singaporean flags is very short and mostly redundant to the main article. I suggest merging it. Reywas92Talk 01:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Reywas92. There's not much extra there. --an odd name 02:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about citation of legislation. In a comment above, Ealdgyth mentioned that footnote 19, a reference to the Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Act (Cap. 296, 1985 Rev. Ed.), lacked the name of its publisher and the date when it was last accessed. Zscout370 therefore changed the footnote to "'Singapore Arms and Flag and National Anthem Act (Cap. 296, 1985 Rev. Ed.' (PDF). Government of Singapore. 1985. Retrieved 2009-11-19". This is not the correct way to cite a piece of legislation. I am of the view that it is unnecessary to indicate the publisher of a piece of legislation and the date of publication for the following reasons:

  • I do not see why the publisher of a statute must be indicated when a citation in the usual legal form as shown above provides all the information that is needed to locate the statute in question.
  • In particular, it is unnecessary to provide a separate date of publication, at least for Singapore statutes, because a properly cited statute will already contain a reference to the date when it was passed.

In any case, I note that in past FAs such as "Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India" and "Roe v. Wade", pieces of legislation are rightly not cited in the same way as books. Finally, if it is felt that a statement regarding when the legislation was accessed should be added (e.g., "Retrieved on 19 November 2009"), I think this is acceptable. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't anyone want to comment on this point? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - I'll make any straightforward changes as I read through (feel free to revert any inadvertent changes in meaning I make), and post queries below. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Until 2004, the flag was used exclusively by government departments and educational institutions on a year round basis. - I find this sentence ambiguous.
That sentence used to be tied in with the second one, so I tried to break it up last night. However, this is how the flag was legally used. I will add a source mentioning that. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I massaged the prose a little, and cannot see any deal-breakers prose-wise left. It appears comprehensive. I am a little concerned by the size of the further reading section relative to the refs, which does make me wonder what other material is out there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the further reading is part of the references, such as the National Symbols Kit of 2001. However, I am in the process of trying to get more books about this subject and hopefully be able to expand this more. Just last night, I added two flags to the list and I actually had to recreate User:Zscout370/List of Singaporean flags (I can move it back to the main space, if others agree). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not happy with the images. OK Tony (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The flag used to represent the Settlement"—not "used to" in the sense of "did", but "that was used to". I had to reverse-disambiguate this on reading it.
  • Can you pipe just the first three words rather than the huge splotch of blue? "occupation of Singapore by the Japanese during the Second World War"
  • Does "Second World War", then, need a link? I don't think so—unless you can find a section or daughter article to link to: it's too general.
  • "British Empire" linked twice within 10 seconds? No.
  • Why is "national day" linked? Is it hard to work out?
  • The "Spectators" image is microscopic ... some modern work of art? Try 250px.
  • Caption: "Note the national flag behind him is defaced with the Lion Symbol numerous times." No, we can't see that, because the image is tiny. Please enlarge appropriately. MoS says not to say "Note that".
  • The Airlines image is hardly appropriate: the flag is a tiny red dot, which is the point of it ... and, well, so what. Too many images: why not enlarge the rather impressive one with helicopters and move it up a little, instead?
  • Warship pennent: the image looks kind of weird at that size. Tony (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • "The crescent moon (an Islamic symbol) was originally intended to assure the island's Muslim Malay citizens that the island was not a Chinese state" here
Comment: This book has not provided a source for the assertion. I've not come across it elsewhere before. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I recall coming across that in the past somewhere too...Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, I'd like to see a better source for it. I have not seen that statement in any of the descriptions of the flag's design until now. The official explanation is that the waxing crescent moon represents a young nation on the ascendant. This makes me wonder if the explanation in the book is nothing more than unsubstantiated speculation. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, in which case (as I had heard it), some discussing and refuting would be good, if it can be found. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the burning, flags get burned in protest a lot. In this case, it was outside of Singapore and it had nothing related to do with independence or territorial issues; just most anger against Israel. Now, about the crescent, the earliest reference I have seen is this 1998 but that has no source. This page just mentions the crescent is an important symbol of Islam and that does give a book reference at the bottom. I will add it in, but need to do it in pieces. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Brilliant. Let me know if you want the page reference to the actual book by Lee Kuan Yew mentioned in the article; I have the book at home. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go right ahead. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"There had been much ado over the flag, for again racial sentiments had to be respected. The Chinese-speaking wanted red for good fortune, the Malays red and white, their traditional colours for courage and purity. But Indonesia already had red and white for their flag, and so had Poland. The Chinese, influenced by the five yellow stars on the flag of Communist China, wanted stars. The Malays wanted a crescent moon. We settled for a crescent moon with five white stars instead of the traditional one star for Islam. The five stars represented the five ideals of the country: democracy, peace, progress, justice and equality. Thus we reconciled different racial symbols and ideals.": Lee Kuan Yew (1998). The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew. Singapore: Times Editions. pp. 342–343. ISBN 9789812049834. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I have checked the prose and found it to be of high-quality; the article is also well-researched and provides sufficient context without straying into a distracting level of detail. I believe it meets all the criteria.  Skomorokh  21:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The Rolling Stones once came to our country in 2002–03 and on their opening act had rubber-inflated whores with our flag gripped in their latex hands. The second night, the flags were gone and the Stones said this was insisted by the authorities. This is documented by a book that is co-authored by Chris Jagger and approved by his brother Mick (The Rolling Stones: Fruit of the Loom Tour ; Licks World Tour 2002/2003). Although the book's publisher is Print-on-Demand (vanity press?), it is written by a band member's brother and vouched for by the band. Furthermore, fan reports seems to confirm the incident,[3][4], and the newspaper links in those reports might be of use as well (to get more reliable sourcing or to vouch for the book's account). This information could help "spice" up the article in terms of international appeal and "pop-culture savviness". Jappalang (talk) 09:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard about it before, but then, I am one of these guys. Anyways, Jappalang, if you want to add it to the article, given with the sourcing and all of that stuff, it would be perfect. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright concerns: According to section "197 Provisions as to Government copyright" of the Copyright Act, the Government is "entitled to the copyright in every original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work first published in Singapore" or by its commission.[5] The interpretation seems to imply all coats of arms and flags of Singapore are copyrighted (for 70 years since first publication/official unfurling or 1963 + 70 + 1 = 2034 for our national flag). Note that the Guidelines do not declare our flags to be in public domain, so why are they uploaded as "free images"? Jappalang (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our flags would qualify for {{PD-ineligible}} since it comprises simple shapes (stripes, crescent, and stars). File:Flag of the British Straits Settlements (1874-1942).svg would be expired crown copyrights (British property). This should be reflected in each image file's description. They are not out of copyright simply because someone drew them but because it is likely they cannot be copyrighted (although still protected by law). Flags with our coat of arms, however, would still be a no go (which luckily none are in this article). Jappalang (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Flag of the British Straits Settlements (1874-1942).svg would also qualify for PD status due to age (50 years for works of the British Government). However, Jappalang, can you find out if Singaporean legislation is public domain? If so, I am going to upload the Flag rules so we do not have to play link hunt again. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is probably not. According to the Copyright Act (Cap. 63, 2006 Rev. Ed.):
197(2). The Government shall, subject to this Part, be entitled to the copyright in every original literary ... work first published in Singapore, ... if first published by or under the direction or control of the Government.
197(3)(b). Copyright in a literary ... work, to which the Government is entitled ..., where the work is published, shall subsist ... until the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was first published, and shall then expire.
— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is a first. Even the most copyright harsh copyrights even put their laws into the public domain. Oh well. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is there doesn't appear to be any exemption for laws in the Act. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 19:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding linkrot: Wherever possible, can archival URLs (from http://www.archive.org or http://www.webcitation.org) be added to citation templates using the parameters |archiveurl= and |archivedate= to avoid linkrot? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly acceptable. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I read this some time ago, but declined to review then since it seemed a little rough. Much better now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:48, 29 December 2009 [6].

1997 Qayen earthquake[edit]

Nominator(s): ceranthor 20:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is a fully comprehensive and equally engaging account of this earthquake. Since it passed GA in February, I've been steadily improving it. Malleus and Ottava both looked over the prose and made some comments, so I feel that the article is now ready to become an FA. ceranthor 20:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responded to comments. ceranthor 21:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally you show reliablity by outside use of the site by reliable sources, so the links to information from the site itself is not as good as having a reliable news site/etc. use it. I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. (Sorry for the delay, I"ve been sick) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ceranthor, when citing to a press release, it helps to discuss the text cited and explain why it's the best source for the text, or why another source can't be found, or how that source is used and whether it's biased. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I don't have time to do anything else today, but ScienceDaily is highly reliable. I think this provides enough support. I will try to finish these concerns tomorrow. ceranthor 02:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, see the results just for the opening of WFN.
The UN story is actually supported by a UN source - wow. I feel incredibly stupid. I think these have all been resolved. ceranthor 14:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've left these two others out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firm Oppose (Flat out of time. Looks like Hamiltonstone and Karanacs are doing a good job. Will defer to their judgment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)) This article really has no business being here. This is my fourth review of the article. It seems that whatever specific examples I provide, are corrected, but the authors don't bother to even eyeball the rest of the article for similar errors! Here are just two (symptomatic) issues in paragraph 1, Section 1:[reply]

  • (Grammar issue:) "The first major earthquake in that region since 1979, magnitudes of 7.3 Mw, 7.2 Ms, and 7.7 Me were recorded, and a Mercalli scale intensity of X, or disastrous, was assigned to the worst-hit area.[1]
    • After first appositive, "The first major earthquake in that region since 1979," the reader expects, "it registered magnitudes of 7.3 Mw, 7.2 Ms, and 7.7 Me ..." instead you go into passive voice and the reader is no longer sure of the (grammatical) subject.
  • "(the epicenter is) close to the sparsely populated mountainous border with Afghanistan."
    • (Clarity issue) Since you are talking about a sparsely populated border, you likely mean "border region." However, a border region is only vaguely defined, so what does "close to a border region" mean? How close? Why is it not in the border region? In such situations, it is better to simply say "close to the border" (i.e. without the "sparsely populated") or "in the sparsely populated border region." Or if the border region is a province, you could say "close to the XYZ border province."
    • (Coherence issue) Besides, why do we need "sparsely populated?" In other words, don't introduce something ("sparsely populated") before it is really needed in the text; it throws the reader off.

As the examples suggest, the problem is not one of grammar alone; there are outstanding clarity and coherence issues. The reader is nonplussed at many turns. There are redlinks for technical jargon; how do those help if you don't also give us accompanying explanations, or at least some hints. Copyediting alone is not going to cut it. You need to have the article peer-reviewed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; Fowler, I think you're nitpicking here. I am completely willing to resolve your concerns, but I don't think they're worth opposing over. Karanacs, the co-director of FAC, said "she believed the prose now met the criteria". I really think you're here to help, but are starting to just nitpick here. ceranthor 14:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't insult my reviewing by describing it as nitpicking. "Nitpick" (especially in its nominalized version, though you haven't employed it) is the latest weapon in the armament of the less than prepared nominators. When I have time later in the day, I will go through the article one more time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, I've been preparing the article steadily since it passed GA in February. I don't think it's ill prepared. It also had 7 supports the last time around, if you count hamiltonstone's. ceranthor 15:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - reposting support. I don't see any changes that have done enough to merit not supporting. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Meets the criteria by and large. No major issues that I can see. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Criterion 1a. I found found the article engaging and well-written. I think the Science Daily source is reliable; they say the article was "adapted from materials provided by the University of Colorado" and I see no reason not to believe this. Thanks for an interesting contribution. Graham Colm Talk 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all three of you. ceranthor 17:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Only reviewed criteria 1a. A comment such as "This article really has no business being here," is really uncalled for Fowler. Especially considering the amount of supports the article has received. If you are still under the impression that the article is so poor then why not go ahead and give a copy-edit? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 08:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. ceranthor 08:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to see if you can obtain some free images. Shame we have none of the earthquake. Have you checked out USAID for possible photos and more information on relief efforts? Himalayan 21:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had a bit - I've looked around and haven't found anything, unfortunately. Good to see you again, btw. If you find anything, I'll put it in asap, just ping me. Perhaps you have better connections than I do. ceranthor 00:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (at present). I had given contingent support earlier. Prompted by Fowler & Fowler's remark, I went back and read more carefully. I have found a number of prose and content issues that I should have seen before, which i think mean the article does not meet FA criteria. However, give me a couple of days, and I hope I can address most of these issues. They include:

  • Material in Background and geology that belongs in later sections
  • Reference to a Japanese geological team's work, but not to the important part - their conclusions

There is one matter i would ask a nominating editor to address:

  • The article has this at one point: "it registered magnitudes of 7.3 Mw, 7.2 Ms, and 7.7 Me and a Mercalli scale intensity...". Later, it has this: "Up to 155 aftershocks, some of which reached a magnitude of 5.5 on the Richter scale,..." The mix of technical measurements, and lack of explanations in most cases (Mercalli scale is an exception), presents the reader with a comprehension problem. Moment magnitude scale and Surface wave magnitude are at least wikilinked, but the lay reader won't know what they are, nor why they differ. Me lacks any link or explanation at all. In my part of the world at least (Australia), the measure of earthquake intensity used in everyday conversation (eg. news reports) is the Richter scale. There is no comparison offered here between Richter and other measures and, most annoyingly, we are offered a Richter measure for the aftershocks, but a completely different (and less well-understood i think) measure for the main quake. Can this be addressed? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Now addressed, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an issue with the use of a reference too. The article said this: "The 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering in Vancouver, Canada concludes that there are a number of increasingly common issues leading to the large death tolls in Iranian earthquakes. These problems are mainly a result of poorly constructed homes, not just traditional structures."
However, in fact it was not the conference that said this - according to hte footnote it was a paper by T. Mahdi. What the paper actually says is this:

In recent years and due to the relatively high cost of traditional construction, lack of proper construction material and the lack of qualified trained people, the quality of the newly constructed traditional buildings has been deteriorated. Accordingly, most of the existing buildings that considered as “traditional” ones have not met the minimum requirements for such buildings. Unfortunately, no official regulations exist for these buildings in Iran. Furthermore, the blame for high causalities in previous Iranian earthquakes was squarely laid at the door of these buildings. On the other hand, and due to the existence of new materials and systems that have been supported by relatively good codes of practice, most of traditional buildings have been replaced by new systems such as reinforced concrete frames, steel frames, confined masonry buildings, and semi-engineered brick buildings.

The text requires tweaking both to cite this more accurately and to report it more accurately. I'll try and get to this later. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC) I have now made an attempt to fix this.hamiltonstone (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I won't express a view about whether it should be promoted. As this diff shows (which covers edits all but two of which are my own), I have done quite a bit of work revising the article. I am surprised at some of the 'supports' this attracted as, while i'm very happy with ceranthor's efforts and would like to see the article promoted, it had a lot of issues. Looking back, i have no idea why i supported it the first time, and had it not been for F&F's intervention, i may not have gone back over the piece. I hope editors will also check and respond to Karanacs, and then maybe it can get promoted. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been exceptionally busy. I will do my best to get to this today or tomorrow.
Done! ceranthor 15:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few small edits, and I'm now ready to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose by Karanacs. I think there are still some comprehensiveness issues.

  • I was glad to see a discussion of the types of houses that fell, but I think this would likely be more appropriate in the damage section rather than the background section.
  • There is still no discussion of previous earthquakes in the area or mention that this was the third(?) earthquake to hit Iran in a very short amount of time. (Have you been able to get the other source I had linked?)
  • I think there is information in "Preliminary Report of The Damage Due To The Qayen Earthquake of 1997, Northeast Iran" which would be very useful to this article.

Karanacs (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to get that source. I'll keep looking though. ceranthor 10:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you fetch it form here? Ruslik_Zero 11:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you still can't access it, email me and I'll send it to you. Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emailed. ceranthor 15:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sent you a PDF of the article. Let me know if it doesn't come through. Karanacs (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm sorting through it now. Unfortunately, my weekend is consumed from 12-7 tomorrow, so I'll do my best in incorporating it. ceranthor 00:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has this info been worked in, and has Karanacs been pinged to have a look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and yes, via email. ceranthor 22:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check on prose in a randomly selected paragraph:

  • "Most homes in the stricken area that fell were built traditionally,"—sounds like an area that fell to the Roman army. "Most seriously damaged homes in the stricken area were ..."? Please check your own prose (after gaining strategic distance by thinking "defensively"—that is, with eyes open to potential wrong meanings.
  • "The walls ... were unresistant to the earthquake"—It's not idiomatic (specifically, "unresistant"—if that is in the dictionary, it's still an odd one). "were extremely vulnerable to the massive forces involved in earth tremors" ... or something like that? PS "resistant" is OK a few lines further on.
  • "Exhibited"; yes, native speakers use this too, but it's not nice. "were more resistant to earthquakes than ...; however, the heavy roofs and weak joint connections between the major structural elements of such buildings close to the epicentre were typically unable to withstand the onslaught." ... perhaps? And the commas could go in the "exhibited" sentence.

I opposed this first time around. I'm afraid that I'm still uncomfortable, although it's better than it was in terms of 1a. I don't want to stand in the way of promotion if other people strongly support this one, though. Tony (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I addressed those. I did ping a copyeditor who pretty much sorted out all the problems from last time, at least to my satisfaction. That paragraph was recently added, so it makes sense it's weaker than the rest. If you're still unsatisfied, considering the length of this FAC, it might just have to be archived. I am awaiting now both Sandy and Karen's input on whether it's ready or not. ceranthor 14:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support After just a read-through, seems fine but I've not checked it thouraly, so weak. Bottom of the pile, eh Cer? A dubious honor you have of making it here :) ResMar 03:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another spot-check:

  • "the cost of the damage at 1997 $67 million.[6] The estimate was later raised to 1997 $100 million."—this is not the standard way of expressing the inflation-adjusted values. Please see what Julian Coulton et al. do in the hurricane articles.
  • "Most homes in the stricken area that fell were simply constructed"—"had been".
  • "height to width ratio"—strictly speaking, two hyphens are required for easier reading.
  • "between major structural elements of such buildings"—I think we need "the" here, unless you want to emphasise that it was only some of the major structural elements. In fact "the" before "weak", as well, would stop this meaning leaking back to roofs.
  • "sent 9,000 tents, over 18,000 blankets, canned food, rice, and dates"—I guess the tents did end up being "over" the blankets, but that's not the "over" you mean here. Better style—I think—is "more than".
  • "A specialist British disaster rescue organisation, the International Rescue Corps, offered to send a team but were refused visas, and a Swiss offer of additional assistance was also turned down." Any reason why? It seems incredible to the reader.
  • Logic issues: "No more survivors were expected to be found in the rubble." So no more were expected then, but did that turn out to be true? Either "... rubble, an assumption that turned out to be true", or something like that.
  • Ellipsis dot spacing: still not right. See MoS.

It's borderline in terms of the prose. I'm wearying and also aware of the good faith and hard work of the nominator; if this is promoted, my advice to the nominator is to get a native speaker on board before taking the article to FAC. Tony (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this has been here a while so if you feel it's not ready it can be archived. I've gone through and fixed the majority of your concerns - as for the rubble one, I don't believe any more were found, but no sources say that, so I'd let the reader make their own conclusion. Taking care of the inflation and ellipses. ceranthor 04:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think the material which has been recently added to the article allows it to meet comprehensiveness concerns (and makes it a much better article). I've copyedited the article again, with special attention to the newly-added material (which was the focus of Tony1's prose comments above). My apologies for the delayed response - I had no computer access last week. Karanacs (talk) 19:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Karanacs 02:31, 28 December 2009 [7].

Accurate News and Information Act[edit]

Nominator(s): Steve Smith (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I apparently want to make my home province look like a banana republic. Seriously: this legislation was so offensive that the Supreme Court of Canada decided to pretend that Canada's constitution included a bill of rights so they'd have some basis on which to disallow it.

Also, the article is quite short, so if you want to feel like you're doing your part to ease the FAC backlog without actually doing much work (that's certainly my objective), this article might be a good one to review. Steve Smith (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Fixed a Disney-related dab link; there are no others.
  • External links (all two of them) work, and full dates (all two of those) are ISO style in refs and Month Day, Year in prose.
  • Alt text looks good.

--an odd name 05:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Everything fine. RB88 (T) 04:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Although short, the article seems comprehensive, and it's certainly well-written. When I peer-reviewed this article, I liked it a lot, and I haven't changed my mind. On a re-read just now, I found only one quibble to raise. Should Alberta Online Encyclopedia in citation 32 be in italics, and is the publisher Heritage Community Foundation rather than the encyclopedia? Nice article. Finetooth (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Thanks for your comments, and for the earlier peer review. Steve Smith (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support: I am close to supporting this article, which is well-written and details quite a fair bit over a controversial act. I believe, however, there are some issues that need resolving:

  • A better image would be the title page of the Act's proposal (if it exists on paper).
  • Done.
  • "... one of the traditional parties:"
    Who are the traditional parties?
  • The Liberals and Conservatives. I wasn't sure how to include that in there without digressing unduly into the general history of Alberta politics (this article already has quite enough digressions for my taste).
  • "The 1937 Social Credit backbenchers' revolt had forced Aberhart to abdicate a portion of his power to ..."
    A short history of the revolt (basically what caused the revolt) before this statement would do good to avoid disruptions (otherwise readers might jump to the revolt article and never come back).
  • Not certain that I agree. As I said, there are already quite a few digressions here, and I'm concerned about diluting the focus further.
  • "While the initial plan was to have this commission headed by C. H. Douglas, social credit's British founder, Douglas did not like Aberhart and did not view his approach to social credit as consistent with its true form, and refused to come."
    A bit long and clunky, I advise breaking it up into shorter sentences.
  • Done.
  • "... was also cutting, with one British paper referring to Aberhart as "a little Hitler"".
    Rephrase to "... was also cutting; one British paper referred to Aberhart as "a little Hitler"." By the way, which paper was it?
  • Done (though I used a colon instead of a semi-colon), and I have no idea.
  • File:Stewart Cameron cartoon Bowen-Aberhart.jpg
    It seems this image can be adequately expressed in words. The article does not make any critical comment about this cartoon. Basically it only describes that there was a cartoon and it looked like this, but nothing about the impact of this work. This seems to fail WP:NFCC #1 and 8.
  • I take your point on #8, though I disagree, but what free equivalent are you suggesting exists or could be created (#1)? Steve Smith (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, #1 is "no free equivalent is available"; in this case, text adequately describes the contents of the cartoon and hence, a "free equivalent" (text) is available. Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will support once the above are resolved. Jappalang (talk) 02:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. Steve Smith (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the non-free image issue, I consider the remaining unstruck issues not opposable to my support. Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I raised the image issue at WP:MCQ, where the one editor to chime again agrees with your interpretation. Accordingly, I have deleted the image. I'd be willing to hear your case on the other changes as well; my immediate reaction is that they're not helpful, though I stand open to being persuaded. Steve Smith (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, the non-free image was the only thing standing in my way of support. I am not certain of the "other changes" you mention; if they are the unstruck issues above, they are simply improvements I felt could be made, rather than obstructions. So here is my support. If images are needed to break up text, the previous Aberhart portrait could do. Jappalang (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:39, 23 December 2009 [8].

Neville Chamberlain[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel it meets the criteria. It is the main article from which the recently promoted Rise of Neville Chamberlain was severed. It was a FA candidate in 2005, in case you are wondering why this is Archive 2, and a quick read of that nomination shows you that the process is as different today from then as night from day. I believe it is well written, it is a GA that has had a peer review, thanks to the Bundesarchiv donation, it is very well illustrated, and is a scrupulously fair look at a man whose reputation, in the public view, lies in rubble.Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Favourable! 2c is good. Provisionally clear 2c, have indicated on article talk a few skerricks of clean up, but 2c is fundamentally good and easily fixed. Would like to note that "In an effort to recoup diminished family fortunes, Joseph Chamberlain sent his younger son to establish a sisal plantation on Andros Island in the Bahamas.[7] Neville Chamberlain spent six years there, but the plantation was a failure, and Joseph Chamberlain lost £50,000 (approximately ₤4.2 million today)." is incorrectly referenced against Purchasing Power Parity. Nev is a capitalist, he should be indicated against per capita GDP or share of GDP measures as it relates to capital expenditures (percentage of total social output directed towards investment). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. I don't have time tonight to work these through. I may come back to you on the 50K quid thing, but I will probably do that on your talk page. Thanks for looking at these.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've made that change, Fifelfoo, as well as the changes you proposed on the article talk page. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical review No dabs or dead links, some images lack alt text 09:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I've put in alt text where needed. Should be clear now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support - All comments covered, now Supporting promotion of the article. This is an amazing article, but I have a question about a source. I recently finished Richard Toye's Lloyd George and Churchill: Rivals for Greatness, and the final two chapters or so focus on the 1939-1945 period, and particularly on the grudges between Chamberlain and Lloyd George; Toye cites some pretty damning evidence that they loathed each other, and that neither wanted to serve with the other in Churchill's government. Which was a problem, as Churchill wanted both in (for various reasons) and went to some lengths to try and have both serve in the Cabinet: Toye makes quite a good case, for example, that it was Churchill and his contacts that ended the criticism of Chamberlain in the newspapers after he left as Prime Minister and entered the Cabinet, for purpose of trying to get Chamberlain to agree to serving with Lloyd George. I looked through the article and didn't see much about this after the middle of the article. I'd add material myself, but frankly my editing skills are nowhere near yours, Wehwalt, and I wouldn't want to mess your prose up. And I'm not even sure how much of this should go in, although I'd think a sentence or so might be a good idea. But I'd certainly never oppose on the issue, and would like to highlight that I don't think this is a major or even minor issue - just one of clarification or emphasis that could certainly be made even after the article has passed this, which I'm sure it will. Apologies if this seems a tad indecisive, but I thought I'd make mention of it. Skinny87 (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no serious effort at bringing LG into the government under Baldwin or Chamberlain, both because of the antipathy and because Lloyd George was financing candidates opposed to the National Government (he controlled a rather large electoral fund). Yes, you are quite right, Chamberlain put his foot down and said it it is him or me when Churchill considered giving LG office in the summer of 1940. I can put in a sentence about that. Notably, Churchill never gave LG office, even once, within a couple of months after Chamberlain's death, he was in full control of the Conservatives, and LG lived until 1945, and was quite active until 1943. In an earlier version of this article, I discussed that Churchill was instrumental in stilling criticism of Chamberlain, I cut it out to save space. I'll put it back.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be great, thanks for the (re)-addition and whatever you can about Chamberlain and the press. Yes, Toye makes quite a credible case that LG didn't actually want office, but simply liked having the attention from Churchill and others making the offers. Because of Wehwalt's rapid response, I think this Comment is satisfied. I'll look over the rest of the article when I can, but I'm currently moving to Support. Fantastic effort on a much-maligned but incredibly important British politican. Skinny87 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha, I'm not even done yet! I still hadn't added the info on Lloyd George. I wanted to review my sources first! Thanks so much for the praise and support. I'll add the Lloyd George material now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od)I've found a few things which need rectifying, though they in no way tamper with my supporting the article. Just small things in no particular order:

  • 'Englefield, Dermot' isn't listed in the Bibliography - does it need to be?
  • 'Chamberlain worked to bring his Conservative Party...' - Was it still 'his' party, or had Churchill become party leader by that time? I'm a little hazy on that, so it's just a clarification.
  • 'Sir Austen did not live to see his brother's final climb to the top of the greasy pole, having died two months earlier' I noticed in the companion 'Rise of...' article, the greasy pole comment is in quotes - it should probably be here as well, and maybe cited, so it doesn't look like opinion.
  • Second paragraph of Domestic Policy is barely more than a sentence - can it be merged into the previous or succeeding paragraph?
  • On my firefox page, the Lloyd George photo is rather squeezing the text and makes it look odd - purely a decorative point, but would it look better removed, or moved elsewhere? Perhaps into the 'Lord President of the Council and death' section?

Skinny87 (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill became leader of the Conservative Party in early October 1940. I've done the other things. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm curious as to why you are using a portrait of him as the lead image, not something like File:Arthur Neville Chamberlain 03.jpg, or a photographic portrait? Connormah (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's from the cover of Time. Surely it's a photograph? I did look at the image you mentioned, there are problems with it because it purports to be out of copyright in the US, but there is no indication when/where it was first published, so it would raise a red flag. Incidentally, are you comfortable that the image of his signature is PD-ineligible? Durova's raising questions about it over on my talk page on Commons.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence that it's copyrighted, though? Surely, it can be copyrighted, but does that always mean it is? I'd highly doubt that it is, but I could be wrong. Connormah (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I rather doubt it. And the signature was done in his capacity as a servant of the Crown, and any crown copyright has expired.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see here at p.440. A workaday signature is unlikely to be deemed copyrighted, only a particularly distinctive one.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His is a pretty ordinary signature, nothing unusual, so I'd say we're safe. Connormah (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's at least legible. Are you happy on the photo points? Thanks for your comments, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox death date lists it as 8 November, but the article mentions 9 November multiple times. Which is the correct one? Connormah (talk) 07:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I must have missed that, or perhaps subtle vandalism snuck in along the way. I'll make that change. It is the 9th.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • General
    • A boringly recurrent plea from me for consistency in capitalising words: "Government" in this article is variously capitalised and not. E.g "the Labour government", "the Czech government" and "the British government", but "the Chamberlain Government" and "the de Valera Government". There are 53 instances of "government/Government" in the article, of which, most could properly be lower case – those in quotations naturally excepted. (The National Government is, perhaps, properly capitalised, though I shouldn't care to explain quite why.)
    • Prime Minister – the French one (Daladier) is reduced to lower case. Quite right perhaps, but so should the Anglo Saxon ones be – or else none of them. Our own ones are variously capitalised and not. Consistency, please!
    • Parenthetical dashes – I believe (but am no authority) that the WP standard is n-dashes with a space each side, rather than (as here) m-dashes with no spaces. Do not take my word for this, but you might like to check.
These things are done. Prime Minister is capitalized wherever it occurs in the text. Government is only capitalized in quotes or in "National Government". WP:DASH seems to indicate that unspaced mdashes are the way to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Domestic policy
    • "it involved the state in the great expansion of leisure accommodation for the working classes" – It isn't obvious to me what this means. Could you elaborate?
  • Road to Munich (March 1938 – September 1938)
    • "Britain had no military obligations towards Czechoslovakia; France had a mutual assistance pact with Prague." The wish to avoid repetition is understandable, and of course most readers will realise at once that "Czechoslovakia" and "Prague" mean the same thing here, but it is nevertheless potentially confusing. Perhaps something like, " Britain had no military obligations to Czechoslovakia, but there was a mutual assistance pact between France and Czechoslovakia" There's another "Prague" for " Czechoslovakia" later in the para, which should also, I think, be made plain.
    • "Over the next two weeks, Lord Runciman" – his peerage has just been mentioned: perhaps just "Runciman" here?
    • "…advisers how to respond if war seemed likely. In consultation with his close advisor" – adviser or advisor – one or the other, please. (The idiomatic English version is the former.)
  • Munich conference
    • "the Czech government in Prague protested the decision" – ambiguity between U.S. and UK usage here – "objected to the decision" would be safer
  • Aftermath and reception
    • "Anglo–German Agreement" – should this be an n-dash or just a hyphen?
Per WP:DASH, unspaced n dash.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "come right to Buckingham Palace" – a very un-English construction (if that matters). "come straight" would be more idiomatic
    • "his wife, Queen Elizabeth" – piping: suggest first two words should be left out of the piping
  • Path to war (October 1938 – August 1939)
    • "he instead reshuffled his Cabinet" – is the meaning of this clear to a non-British reader? (I don't know, but think it worth pondering)
I've piped this to "Cabinet shuffle"--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lord President of the Council and death
    • "for the first time since his ouster" – is this a U.S. idiom? It is new to this English eye. Perhaps "…his ousting"?
    • "M.P.'s lost their heads…" – I haven't got the book quoted, but would be mildly surprised if the apostrophe was there.
    • "with the Benelux nations" – does this need spelling out?
I've simply linked to Benelux.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He offered to honour Chamberlain by making him a Knight of the Garter" – sorry to be a pedant about this, but this grates to an English reader: the prime minister officially recommends to the sovereign that an honour should be bestowed. I should rephrase this on the lines of "He asked if Chamberlain would accept the highest order of British chivalry, the Order of the Garter."
    • "He wrote John Simon" – in English usage "He wrote to John Simon"

The above is a collection of really very minor comments. The article is first rate, and clearly deserves to be FA. I shall be happy to give my support. Tim riley (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of all of these concerns, and I've made a couple of specific comments above. Many thanks for going through the article, and for being involved in the article's peer review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments leaning to support from Brianboulton: This lengthy list is the main part of my comments on this article. They are mainly relatively small prose points which will require little fixing; some are mere suggestions. I hope to returm and complete the review within 24 hours. Overall this is a lucid and involving account of a man whose political life climaxed with a major crisis in European history. The Munich sections are particularly well done.
  • Lead
    • First sentence in its present forms reads as tough NC was a both a British Conservative politician and PM of the UK for a brief three-year period. I would amend to "...British Conservative politicain who served as Prime Minister..." etc
    • "Prime Minister" in caps throughout (except for the ODNB) See MOS guideline
    • "best known for his appeasement policy, surely?
    • Suggestion: "declaring war on it on 3 September 1939." Germany is a pretty big "it". Can this part of the sentence be rephrased along the lines: "...in the face of Hitler's continuing aggression, for declaring war on Germany on 3 September 1939.
    • "were widely popular among Britons..." It might be as well to add the modifier "at the time"
  • Early life etc
    • How about a main template to your excellent "Rise" article?
It's at the top of the article. Should it be moved?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • £50,000 is equated to a current value of £29.1 million. That's an inflation factor of nearly 600, and is wildly out compared with conversions I have done on other articles, relating to around 1900. Using the Current Year converter template I get £50,000 = (approximately £6,833,000 as of 2024). This seems reasonable. Are you sure about te £50,000 figure?
Please see Fifelfoo's struck comment right at the start of this. Reviewer conflict, please advise, I'm willing to go either way--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See article talkpage for my argument. Brianboulton (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggestion: "...and beginning in 1925" → "which in 1925 became"
    • "At age 49, he remains the oldest man to enter Parliament for the first time and later become Prime Minister." There is a clumsiness about this phrasing, which I suggest could be shortened to "At age 49, he remains to date the oldest parliamentary debutant who later become Prime Minister."
  • MP and minister
    • "The Unionists won the election, and Chamberlain declined to serve again as Chancellor,..." I think this is probably a "but" connector rather than an "and"
    • The budget deficit of £120 million seems ridiculously small by today's standards. It may be worth noting that its present-day value is around £6 billion (the current year converter again).
  • Premiership: "the most sophisticated press management system employed by a Prime Minister..." etc. Is this an early appearance of the spin doctor who became such a beloved institution in British politics in the 1990s? A link would be fun.
  • Domestic Policy
    • "the great expansion of leisure accommodation for the working classes." What is "leisure accommodation" referring to?
    • Some repetitive prose in these sentences: "Chamberlain had further plans for the reform of local government, but these plans were not enacted because of the war. The Chamberlain government planned to raise the school-leaving age to 15, but this was scheduled for implementation on 1 September 1939 and did not go into effect because of the outbreak of war." I suggest reduce to "Chamberlain's plans for the reform of local government were shelved because of the outbreak of war in 1939. Likewise, proposal to raise the school-leaving age to 15, scheduled for implementation on 1 September 1939, could not go into effect."
  • Relations with Ireland: "There was no provision in the treaties for British access to the Treaty Ports in time of war, but Chamberlain and de Valera orally agreed the British would then have access." Needs rephrasing: only De Valera agreed to this, Chamberlain merely accepting the verbal assurance. I would like to see a specific citation for this, and if possible to know when this happened.
Self doesn't make it clear; neither does Macklin. Either in the final negotiation (March 1938) or in April
  • European policy - early days
    • Verbose phrasing: "by the fact that" → "because"
    • I'd insert the phrase "while the Foreign Secretary was on holiday" earlier in the sentence. Thus: "Chamberlain also bypassed Eden while the Foreign Secretary was on holiday, by opening direct talks..." etc
    • "At the Cabinet meeting..." → "At a Cabinet meeting..."
    • "...Hitler began to press Austrian officials to allow Anschluss..." Not "officials", surely? The Austrian government, perhaps? And "accept" might be better than "allow"
  • Road to Munich
    • It would be interesting to know where Chamberlain "noted" the comment at the start of this section
    • Suggestion: "...unwilling to limit his government's discretion by giving commitments."
    • Suggestion: "The Nationalists by now strongly had the upper hand in this war,..."
    • Suggestion: "...and agreed to follow the British position on Czechoslovakia."
    • I'm sorry for the two Sudeten farmers, but they seem entirely detached from this narrative. Was Germany thought to be moving troops in response to these incidents?
Yes, they refused to stop for Czech border checks at the Czech-German border, and they were shot by the border guards. I will clarify--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...with only First Lord of the Admiralty Duff Cooper dissenting." Another phrase that would sit more easily earler in its sentence: "...Henderson and secured their backing, with only First Lord of the Admiralty Duff Cooper dissenting, for his policy..." etc
  • September 1938: Munich
    • Can the image of Chamberlain leaving Berchtesgarten be made a bit more prominent, or less tiny as Tony would say. Also Ribbentrop ought to be identified in the caption.
He is now. It's actually at Munich airport.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fouth para: I don't think "Additionaly..." is necessary. Also I'd like to avoid the "after" rpetition in the last sentence of this para, by saying "only under considerable pressure"
I took the suggestion but then reshuffled the paragraph a little bit so that the sentence isn't too long--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image Neville & Hitler: see previous comment re sizing. Ditto the Munich group photo (see Cosmo Gordon Lang)
    • Could we be reminded of who "Wilson" is?
    • "...and requested that the Germans not bomb Prague if the Czechs resisted, which Hitler seemed agreeable to." Ambiguos wording. For clarity the phrase needs to end: "...a request to which Hitler seemed agreeable."
    • Unnecessarily inirect expression: "including language stating that..." → "including a statement that..."
    • "the King" should not be capitalised (see earlier comment re titles). King George VI OK, otherwise "the king"
I'm reluctant to change all the prime ministers and kings to lower case. The problem is, do we lower case "Chancellor of the Exchequer" "Health Secretary"? I seem to be getting split guidance about the Prime Minister question, I am inclined to say that the MoS is merely a guideline and consistency is more important. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll deal with the balance as soon as possible. Brianboulton (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All good. I've implemented except where comments were made. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments (Brianboulton)

  • Path to war
    • "Having considered a general election immediately following Munich,[138] he instead reshuffled his Cabinet." Make clear this is NC not Hitler
    • "Despite Hitler's relative quiet as the Reich absorbed the Sudetenland..." "Quietness" maybe?
    • Second paragraph: the last sentence would be more effective if it ran with the final sentence of the previous paragraph: he thought about calling an election, decided such a course would be suicidal (I wonder what he meant by that) and shuffled his Cabinet instead.
      • He was afraid that if he called the election, he would lose it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Even Churchill and Lloyd George praised Chamberlain's government for issuing the guarantee to Poland." Just an observation: I'm a bit surprised to see Churchill and LG linked in this way, since at this time their positions were poles apart - LG was an out-and-out appeaser and admirer of Hitler.
      • True, but it shows the war fever at the time I've gotten another book on the runup to war, I'll see if it adds anything to this.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be worth explaining that Britain sent only a low-ranking delegation to the talks with Molotov, led by Admiral Reginald Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax. (!!!!) This led the Russians to doubt the seriousness of the mission. You could mention this, if only to get that ridiculous name into the article.
      • Uh, I think it would be a distraction. I'll mention the low level delegation.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Declaration of war
    • Rather clumsy: "At 6:00 p.m., the Commons met, and Chamberlain and acting (in the absence of the ill Clement Attlee) Labour leader Arthur Greenwood entered the chamber to loud cheers." Suggest "When the Commons met at 6:00 p.m., Chamberlain and Arthur Greenwood (deputising for the sick Labour leader Clement Attlee) entered the chamber to loud cheers."
  • Phoney war
    • Whose metaphor is "a sea of lengthy memos"? (Sounds like a sly joke - First Lord of the Admiralty ho-ho-ho)
  • Downfall: no comments, very well done
    • I'll plead guilty. Didn't you notice that he was "deluged" by the sea from the First Lord?
  • Lord President etc
    • Slightly awkward phrasing: "Some of Churchill's great speeches, such as his "We shall fight on the beaches" speech to the House, met with only half-hearted enthusiasm there." Suggest: "Some of Churchill's great speeches to the House, such as "We shall fight on the beaches", met with only half-hearted enthusiasm there."
    • Anachronism alert: "As chair of the Lord President's Committee,..." I don't think "chair" was used in the sense of chairman in 1940. Gender sensitivity did not exist.
    • Convoluted sentence, grammatically suspect in its middle reaches; advise split "However, renewed pain, compounded by the night-time bombing of London, which forced him to go to an air raid shelter and denied him rest, sapping his energy, and he left London for the last time on 19 September, returning to Highfield Park."
    • It might be worth identifying Sir Archibald Sinclair as the then leader of the Liberal Party.
  • Legacy and reputation
    • When was Feiling commissioned by the Chamberlain family? Which govt was in power at the time?
Churchill's, They were considering whether to have him do it quite soon after Chamberlain's death, though they considered his writing rather idiosynchratic, which it is, reminded me a bit of Conrad Black's bio of Nixon, there's commentary mixed freely into the text. The book was finished in early 1944, but the Chamberlain family felt it would not get a good reception during wartime and decided to hold off on publication until after, as it proved, 1946.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Link in quotation (Pontius Pilate) probably unnecessary since he is pretty well known.
  • General comment: The article is a great achievement. Personally I think it benefits from the separation of Chamberlain's rise into another article; we get to the meat much more quickly, and you are able to provide a detailed, measured legacy section which ends the article perfectly. My one serious niggle is the equation of Joe's £50,000 to £29 million today, which I hope to see amended soon. Brianboulton (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments and advice, I will get on that tomorrow, just too tired tonight to deal with it. I suspect the true answer lies somewhere between the two figures, I mean Chamberlain built a railroad on Andros and hired a large number of workers for six years, to say nothing of plants, etc. I may just rewrite the damn thing to avoid the figure. Of course, most of the other pound figures in the articles deal with government deficits and the like so I'm not sure I'd be gaining anything. What would you think of putting the equivalent values into a footnote?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The £50,000 might be replaced by "heavy losses", for I am sure that the round figure of £50,000 is an esitmate anyway. Alternatively equivalents could go into a footnote, which would enable you to explain that there are different methods of calculation that can be applied. The note might read: "According to MeasuringWorth.com, £50,000 has a current value of £x using an equivalent purchasing power basis and £y as a proportion of gross domestic product" or some such. I would have no problem with the GDP equivalent basis for government deficits, but again a footnote should explain the method used. Brianboulton (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have done all those except for the money question, which I want to study a bit more and will probably do tomorrow. I am very hopeful that Karanacs will promote this article on Tuesday and will put the money thing in long before then. Right now I am leaning towards a footnote.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I am happy to accept your assurance that the money matter will be settled appropriately, and am equally happy to support the article's promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning towards Support - This is a great effort, very well structured, detailed, balanced, referenced, and illustrated. Just a few points:

  • In Munich conference you zero in on Churchill's good wishes to Chamberlain as the latter departs, then in Aftermath and reception you mention WSC's dismay at the outcome, even though the outcome seems, at the time, all that could have been expected - to me it appears that WSC has done an about-face with no explanation as to how or why.
I've sliced it. What Churchill said seems to be the subject of dispute. Apparently Harold Nicolson wrote in his diary that Churchill said "I congratulate you on your good fortune. You were very lucky." Best to say nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While we're at it, to convey the depth of the anti-Munich crowd, you could employ WSC's "unmitigated defeat" quote, and there's another which I've only seen once but would love to see here, namely (words to the effect) "Britain had the choice between shame and war. She has chosen shame, and will get war".
I will add the one then, I am very cautious about other people's quotes, but I guess people will expect to hear from Churchill here.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Commons opened a debate on the Munich Agreement on 3 October; though Cooper opened the debate by setting forth the reasons for his resignation - repetition, how about "Cooper began by setting forth..." or some such?
  • In Path to war you have With matters appearing to go better... - how about "appearing to improve"?
  • In Lord President of the Council and death you have He proffered his resignation to Churchill on 22 September, which the Prime Minister was reluctant to accept, but as both men realised that Chamberlain would never return to work, Churchill finally accepted it. - minor but maybe another word to avoid repetition of "accept(ed)", e.g. "Churchill finally aceded/agreed"?
  • Images are excellent but I think most are rendered a bit too small to discern decent detail without double-clicking - like to see them increased in size a little.

All in all, though, well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've implemented those. I appreciate the praise. This was a tough article to write in the flat, NPOV tone that I favor. I think it's come out extremely well, but then I'm biased.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No probs, it has indeed come out well and I'm more than happy to support. One tiny thing, re. Cooper, we still have a bit of the repetition I mentioned earlier since you say "The Commons opened..." and then "Cooper opened..."; can we just change one "opened" to "began" (or "commenced" or some such)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the support, I've made the change.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments I haven't finished reading this engaging article yet but I have three short comments:

  • Why is the "Anglo-Irish Trade War" hidden in a piped link? Surely it deserves a sentence of its own.
  • Is there something missing here, "Chamberlain, as Chancellor, had taken a hard-line stance against concessions to the Irish, but persuaded that the strained ties were having effects on relations with other Dominions, sought a settlement with Ireland" such as having been persuaded?
  • I don't like "which contained three paragraphs, including language stating that the two nations considered the Munich Agreement" - language stating? How about "a statement"?

I will return later, hopefully to add one word "support". Graham Colm Talk 16:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did those things, and somewhat expanded the explanation of the dispute between Ireland and the UK. Looking forward to one word from you!:)--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Brian's comments above and I have no doubt that the nominator will make good use of them. I said earlier that I would return here to hopefully add one word. This I have done, but I want to say a little more—I am often amazed by the generosity, time and talent that contributors bring to Wikipedia. This is such a bloody good article, and I feel pride from the tiny, tiny part I have played in giving it freely to the world. I have learned something from this, which has changed my thinking. I know that this FAC is not complete and that image and source reviews are still to be done, but I fully support the promotion of this example of our best work. Graham Colm Talk 20:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this is a great article, I'm not an MOS Maven or scholarly type at all, but I found the prose engaging and the sourcing to be admired. Well done!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 01:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on images per above. Cheers, NW (Talk) 22:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've dealt with Brian's last concern, the money matter. We have six supports (Skinny87's support is not bolded), plus NuclearWarfare's image support, plus of course the nominator. Image check done, technical check done. I don't think we're missing anything here, and (knock wood) I think we finally going to have a FA about a British Prime Minister, just three months after I idly picked up a book on Chamberlain in a Cardiff bookstore. My thanks to all the reviewers and commentators for helping an article which failed FAC over four years ago be greatly improved.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have read only the lead and the concluding section on legacy, but these seem well-written and represent a balanced summary of the postwar historiography. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:39, 23 December 2009 [9].

North Carolina class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The North Carolina-class battleships epitomized the problem faced by 1930s designers: how to fit a maximum of firepower, armor and speed into a 35,000 long ton ship. Both ships of the class, North Carolina and Washington, served with distinction in the Second World War, with Washington sinking the Japanese battleship Kirishima in the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. Both ships were decommissioned soon after the war's end; North Carolina was preserved as a memorial and still exists today, while Washington was broken up for scrap. The article passed a Military history WikiProject A-class review in September. Any and all comments are welcome! Regards, —Ed (talk • contribs) 04:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit image clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2c. 20:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Dates are consistent. Apart from noted below, citations are consistent. Resolved 2c at Talk: Fifelfoo (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present and is of good quality (thanks), but there are a couple of problems:
  • Alt text is missing for File:USS North Carolina Fit out NARA 1941-04-17.jpg.
  • A few of the phrases in the alt text cannot be verified by a non-expert just from the image, and need to be reworded or merged into the caption; see WP:ALT#Verifiability. These include "Proposed" (in "Proposed schematics"), "Design schematic, more similar to the eventual design", "16 inch" (in "two levels of magazines for the 16 inch shells"), "instructions" (in "another yells instructions"), "The explosive force", and "The King".
Eubulides (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that alt text viewers were supposed to use the caption and alt text together? I.e. so information in the caption should not be repeated in the alt text? For example, in the king image, the caption starts with "King George VI of the United Kingdom ...", while the alt text has "the King". —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @"instructions", would you rather that it say a guy is 'yelling something unknown'? —Ed (talk • contribs) 05:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd replace "the King" with something about a man in a naval uniform of very high rank. And for the other image I'd just say that the man is yelling at the other men. Eubulides (talk) 05:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hah, wrong edit summary, but does this satisfy your concerns? Sorry Fifel, I assumed it was Eubulides. :-) —Ed (talk • contribs) 06:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the above problems have been fixed (thanks) and I struck them, but there are still some phrases that can't be verifiable by a non-expert who is looking only at the images (see WP:ALT#Verifiability): 'Proposed design "A"' (nothing in that image says it's proposed, or is "A"), 'Proposed design "XVI"' (likewise), 'The explosive force from the torpedo' (the image doesn't establish to a non-expert that it was a torpedo, or even that it was an explosion), '—the King—' (can't tell it's a king from the image; besides, the caption already says it's the King, and alt text shouldn't repeat the caption; just remove '—the King—' to fix the problem). Eubulides (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Schemes and torpedo are fixed, but I disagree on the last point... It seems like a good time to IAR. I fully understand what WP:ALT#Verifiability says, and what you are stating is within the letter of the policy, but I don't think it is in its spirit to willfully mislead a reader. Even the blind should know that he is the king, not a "high ranking naval officer" or "person decorated with ribbons" etc. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Even the blind should know that he is the king" But the blind will know that he is the king, because the caption will be read aloud to the blind, and the caption says he's the king. With the proposed change, the blind will find out that he's the king at the same time the sighted reader finds out. Both sets of readers will look at the picture (or listen to the alt text) and will see (or hear about) a man of high rank; and will then later read (or hear) the caption, and find out that he's the king. That's a good thing: the visually impaired will get an experience that is similar to that of the sighted. But when the alt text says "the King", the visually impaired gets a different experience than the sighted: one that repeats the caption in an undesirable way. (Thanks for fixing the other problems, by the way; I've struck that part of my comments.) Eubulides (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how this is an "undesirable way". I'm not discriminating against the blind by ensuring they know which guy (ie the one with ribbons) is the king, am I? The caption does not—and should not IMO, because it ought to be obvious to people seeing the image—signify which one is the king. The blind do not have this advantage of seeing who is in front, hence the mention in the alt text.
Also, keep this in mind: "high rank" can equate to many different people who could be or were accompanying the King, like generals and admirals (and all of the accompanying ranks, like vice admiral or lieutenant general, etc.) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we've spent way too much time on this already, but removing the identification of the king from the caption would be a clear mistake. Most readers won't know the king from a hole in the wall. (These days, most readers won't recognize any British figure from World War II, other than Churchill.) All that's clear from the image itself is that it's some high-ranking guy. It's not at all obvious to a non-expert that the guy happens to be His Majesty. And "high rank" accurately reflects his title, regardless of whether the phrase is interpreted as rank of nobility or military rank: the king was Commander-in-chief of the British armed forces. Eubulides (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You miss my point. (a) there is no identification in the caption as to which guy the King is, but (b) if I am describing what the image is to the visually impaired, I need to inform them which one is the king and not just say "a guy of high rank with many ribbons". "High rank" is accurate in a very ambiguous sense because it can be interpreted in so many ways. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "there is no identification in the caption as to which guy the King is" Yes, that is a problem, and as a sighted reader I at first thought that someone else was the King. But that is a problem that should be fixed in the caption (so that everybody can benefit from the fix) rather than in the alt text (where only visually impaired readers would benefit).
  • "if I am describing what the image is to the visually impaired, I need to inform them which one is the king" You need to inform everybody of that, not just the visually impaired. That is why that information should be in the caption. And once it's in the caption, then it should not be in the alt text, because alt text is supposed to not repeat what's in the caption. For more on this, please see WP:ALT#Repetition.
  • '"High rank" is accurate in a very ambiguous sense' For alt text that's exactly what is wanted here. All that a non-expert reader can tell from the image is that the person in question is high-ranking. Alt text should describe only the visual appearance of an image: it's not supposed to explain the image (that is the job of the caption, or of other adjacent text). In this caes the alt text should accurately describe the (limited) information that can be verified by a non-expert reader who is looking only at the image. For more on this, please see WP:ALT#Verifiability.
Eubulides (talk) 03:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- you have a point; hope I have clarified this.[10]
  • I regret that I still cannot budge. Describing the king as a "man of high rank with military ribbons" willfully and deliberately misleads a visually impaired reader, regardless of what is in the caption. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. Well, it's awkward, but I appended "(see caption)" to the "the King" in the alt text. Please bear in mind that the alt text is read aloud first, and that it normally cannot assume the reader knows what's in the caption. To help remind editors of this I put the alt text first in the Wiki markup for that image (that's the normal practice; see WP:ALT#Goal). Eubulides (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, that should do it for the alt text, and I struck my above comments. No problem! I understand that you want the very best for the article. Eubulides (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Some of the links in the source section and those in the external links section need to use the cite web template.
    External links done, not sure which ones you mean for the sources? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In the "web" section, the 6th link and the last link are not within a citeweb etc template.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you add the WW2 portal to the article
    The Military of the United States portal is probably relevant too.
    They don't really have a lot of relevance to this article... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of abbreviations does appear not to be consistent in regards to knots; personally I think in regards to this one we should consistently use “knots” over “kn”
    Done. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest the below has confused me somewhat considering it has already been stated that the first few designs included 16 in guns.
    "Standley's only addition to the characteristics was that a switch from quadruple 14 in to triple 16 in turrets be possible if the 'escalator clause' in the Second London Naval Treaty was invoked. This provision allowed … to raise the 14 in limit to 16 in if Japan or Italy still refused to sign after 1 January 1937….[19][20][21]"
    You are correct. I have copyedited this.[11] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheers.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the main battery section we have started using the abbreviation “cal” but have not started further up the article that this means “calibre”. Can the abbreviation be added after the first use of the full word or be replaced.
    Done, I think.[12] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barrel Life: AP and training rounds have been talked about; did these ships fire HE for shore bombardments? If so is there any information of there effect?
    The source, http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.htm , doesn't say anything about HE. I'm guessing that HC replaced/superseded it? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thanks, nothing to worry about then.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondary battery, do we have a photograph or diagram to illustrate the weapons talked about?
    Thanks.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely detailed article thus far.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Thanks for the review! :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I currently don’t have the time to go over the rest of the article in such a nitpicky fashion (fortunately for you I guess!) however scanning over the rest of the article it all appears to be of the same high quality. So I have no problems supporting the article as I am sure you will address the one outstanding issue in regards to those two internet sources.
  • Support--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. There are a number of niggling little things that are revealed by a careful reading of the text. I've fixed a few, but others remain, including:
  • "Five more design studies were put forth in late September ...". I've never heard of a study being "put forth" before. Why not simply "produced"?
Done (by Ed ... damn, I should have just procrastinated a few more minutes :) - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) ::*[13], good thought. Dank, like five more minutes and you would have been clear. ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To meet the design requirement of 27 knots, the engine system was designed to supply 115,000 shaft horsepower (shp), but with the new technology, this was increased to 121,000 shp." Strange punctuation.
Fascinating ... that style of letting the readers know about a common unit abbreviation is common, but I don't see it once at WP:MOSNUM ... I do see for instance "kilocalorie (symbol kcal)". Is that what you'd like to see here Malleus, "115,000 shaft horsepower (symbol shp)"? It's such a common unit, used in the sidebar and footnotes, that it wouldn't be my call to write out "shaft horsepower" every time, but I wouldn't mind, either. - Dank (push to talk) 21:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My objection was to "but with the new technology". What new technology, and why "with"? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new technologies are the "several recent developments", I think. I see Ed removed the "with". - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The outer two compartments, as well as the anti-torpedo bulge, were to be kept empty, while the third and fourth compartments were filled with liquid." The tenses seem inconsistent here. The bulge was to be kept empty, but the fourth compartment was kept empty.
Done by Ed. - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Vincent-Trammell Act limited company's profit from the ship's construction to 10 percent ...". Shouldn't this be "ships' construction"?
Done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... while two unions ... were currently in conflict". Were currently?
Done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Increased use of welding was proposed as a possible way to reduced weight and bolster the structural design efficiency". I don't feel I understand that phrase "structural design efficiency".
Removed "efficiency", I think "structural design" was meant. - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... these men were reembarked in preparation for returning to the United States with troops returning home ...". Awkward repetition of "returning".
Done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... many devices onboard the ship were fouled up". Hardly the right formal register for an encyclopedia article.
Done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... she practiced for battle". Shouldn't this be "practised"?
Both the noun and verb are "practice" on this side of the pond. - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm astonished that an "s" sound isn't represented as an "s" on your side of the pond, but nevertheless grateful for having learned something today. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the Bureau of Ships began to study what it would take to move these ships at 31 knots (36 mph; 57 km/h), four knots faster than their current attainable speed. These proved fruitless due to how much would need to be modified." What does "these" refer to here? "Current speed as of now?
Done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, no matter if the belt was taken off or not, the all of the hull form aft would have to be greatly modified ...".
Done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ships' powerplant incorporated a several recent developments in turbine equipment ...".
Done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... a TDY jammer present in March 1946". What's a TDY jammer, and why was the ship made a present of one?
I Googled it and I still don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Ed? - Dank (push to talk) 22:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It took me a little hunting and checking of sources (I had forgotten what it did), but I believe these address this? [17][18] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Malleus Fatuorum 19:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, thank you very much for your copyedits and concerns above. I will address the list above as soon as I can, but it is finals week at my college. I'll most likely be able to get to it Friday, barring a snow day tomorrow (we're supposed to get a decent amount, like 12–24 inches). Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I think this one is reasonably well-written (but hyphens please in 14-inch gun, etc? and should "in" as an abbreviation be used in main text?). Can this nomination be held here until the nominator has a chance to fix Malleus's issues? This is clumsy: "19,000 yd (11 mi; 17 km)–30,000 yd (17 mi; 27 km)"; couldn't it be "19,000–30,000 yard (11–17 mi; 17–27 km)"? And please note the requirement of a spaced en dash anyway when there are spaces within either element.
  • "Over the coming months"—next months (don't we know how many?)
  • "the latter's weight"—awkward possessive, and what is the latter?
  • Pic with caption "Proposed design "XVI", more similar to the final design"—why is it so tiny? Useless. Please see [[19]] for how to upsize. We shouldn't have to click on it to see what on earth it is, and people with slow connections are actually worse off if they have to click. I see another diagram that is hopelessly small. Please enlarge the size of many of the pics.
  • "King George VI of the United Kingdom"—"King" is black; the rest is blue. This is odd. Consider piping the first three items instead. Tony (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The overall immune zone's outer limit"—why "overall"?
All done, Tony, except for image issues and hyphens on guns. I've browsed Category:Naval guns of the United States and I'm not any closer to understanding the conventions. - Dank (push to talk) 22:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will take a look at the images, but I'm not keen on forcing an increase in size if the default is supposed to be upped to 220px (assuming that is still going to happen?). Hyphens are a must, will go through and fix those (Dank, leave me a message on my talk if you want to know what the conventions are. They aren't difficult, but they vary per country, making it rather confusing). Not sure on "in", and not sure what you mean with your en dash comment. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't generally use acronyms without either linking them or saying what they stand for, unless it's obvious. And ... this is a pretty minor ... but you don't want to say that a wave was scrambled. It's okay to say that radar is scrambled because what's meant is that the signal, the information, is scrambled. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good thought. Changed :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony - hyphens[20], image sizes[21]. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm not one for insisting on perfection; I think this is good enough now. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Feel free to list any additional comments. I like to have articles I write held to the highest standards, even if that does mean it takes me hours to fix errors. :) Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 23:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would, but I'm happy that this article now meets the FA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, that's fine as well. Many thanks for all of your help through this process! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions The article could be much improved by attention to two areas.

  • Comprehensiveness The lede mentions treaty limitations, but the article does not give the area its due. All navies after the Washington Naval Treaty had to design battleships within treaty limitations, viz 35,000 tons of standard displacement, some 10,000 or more tons less than battleships then on the building ways of the US, Britain, and Japan. Those limitations meant tradeoffs between speed, calibre, and armour. US ships were also constrained by the lock width of the Panama Canal. While the subject extends beyond the scope of this article, it may be helpful to introduce the Design section with a short discussion of the problems posed by treaty limitations. That will put the rest of the relevant text on tradeoffs in better context.
  • Writing
    • "every design beside "II": You should break up this sentence, and the one following. You overuse dashes as punctuation. In many places a comma or period would be better.
    • "because, in the Bureau's view, the formula used to calculate its effectiveness was not realistic, and that a tapering of": "that" is extraneous.
    • "They were modifications of "XVI"—a design derided as "not being a true battleship"—that was 714 ft. long,": Can you rephrase this?
    • "turrets weighed slightly over 1,400-long-ton": tons, not ton, and the hyphens are unneeded as the term is not used as an adjective.
    • "The North Carolinas carried ten twin enclosed base ring mounts' worth of 5 in/38 caliber Mark 28 Mod 0 guns. Originally designed to be mounted upon destroyers built in the 1930s, it was so successful . . . ": "ten twin enclosed base ring mounts' worth" is stilted, and does not tell the average reader what a "base ring mount" is. The "it" commencing the second clause of the second sentence in context could mean the mount or the gun.
    • "The guns could be elevated to a maximum of 45 degrees; turrets one and three could depress to -2 degrees, but due to its superfiring position, turret two could only depress to 0 degrees." The guns depress, not the turrets.
    • "156,295-pound": why the hyphen?
    • "assisgned seventy-five": Spelling. It can be helpful to paste the text from the page (without markup) into a text editor with a spell checker.
    • "The engine system was divided into four engine rooms, all on the centerline of both ships": What does "of both ships" add?
    • "ranged from 16 in on both sides to 14.7 in": Not much of a range. Are there in fact only two values, one for sides, and one fore-and-aft?
    • "at either ends": "either end", or "the ends".

A sentence-by-sentence review of the text may show other items.

These comments are not an Oppose, and I may not be able to revisit this article for some time. Kablammo (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done with the writing bits (i.e. not comprehensiveness concerns), except "ranged from 16 in ..." - Dank (push to talk) 05:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re comprehensiveness, would using some of the relevant bits from Iowa-class battleship be enough? I can add a little more beyond what that says as well. No worries on not being able to revisit, becuase my WP time has been greatly reduced as well.
Re 16 inches, I don't have access to the source at the moment and Parsecboy (talk · contribs) wrote that section, but if my memory is correct, that is right. I should have the source again by Christmas and will double-check then. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re comprehensiveness: I hope I have addressed this? [22] It doesn't appear that Panamax affected the design much... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • Thanks for the fixes. I still think "16 in turrets" needs to be "16-inch turrets". "In" is just too close to the preposition for the readers, unless part of the parenthetical unit conversion. There are lots of occurrences in this article. Tony (talk) 10:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed that. Now done throughout, but I left "X ft Y in (Z m)" and similar alone. - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support wrt the quality of the prose. Some of the images are too small although there is room to enlarge them. The one showing torpedo damage in particular is very difficult to decipher without clicking on it. I have looked at the article as a non-logged in user with Explorer, Firefox and Safari. Graham Colm Talk 10:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess Ed is still tied up with school, and I confess to incompetence in a variety of image issues. I see that Ed was concerned about making a change that would then get muliplied if the default thumbnail size is increased. Anyone who wants to take a whack at the image problem is more than welcome, as long as whatever you do is easily reversible (in one edit would be ideal!) if Ed disapproves, or if it needs to be reversed after the default thumbnail size increases. - Dank (push to talk) 13:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I increased the size of the torpedo damage image. Dank was right re default thumbnail. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well written. ceranthor 14:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I reviewed this article at A-class and it has improved much since then. In fact, it's a bit more than I care to read about but it is very comprehensive for those interested. I toured North Carolina in 1995 and this article is more informative than what you find on the ship itself; not to mention there is no entrance fee. Good work Ed. --Brad (talk) 09:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the article now double/triple/quadruple/etc. cites most of the ship summary paragraphs, thanks to you. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the hyphenation seems iffy; I could be wrong, so I've asked Maralia to look it over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:33, 19 December 2009 [23].

Cockatoo[edit]

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC), Snowmanradio (talk · contribs)[reply]


"Who's a pretty boy then? EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK!!!! (best imitation of why they are challenging pets) I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it fulfils criteria of comprehensiveness and proseworthiness...alot of folks have done work on this article, members of wikiproject birds, Snowmanradio, Sabine's Sunbird, KimvdLinde, and Sasata gave it one hell of a grilling at GAN to help me shove it towards here. Have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some images need WP:ALT Text, while others need better descriptions. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 02:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have buffed up some briefer ones, and added alt text to those that were missing alt text. Let me know if there are some you think could be better worded. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review All images are appropriate, sourced and correctly licensed. The Palm Cockatoo image caption needs an Imperial conversion for the weight Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Palm Cockatoo caption amended. Snowman (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical review No DABs. Ref 14, Brown & Toft appears to be dead. The alt text for the short-billed black includes the name of the zoo, which cannot be deduced from, and is not describing, the image. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text and caption amended and re-balanced. Snowman (talk) 11:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You just need to decide what to do with the dead link. If there is no alternative url, just keep the ref but kill the link Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sucked, it was a great paper to have fulltext available on line..anyhoo, I killed the link and added the issn number. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (added here to keep all my comments together) I've read this through twice now, and I have no serious issues. Although I am a member of the bird project, my only edits have been a couple of corrections when this was up at GA Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I am not an expert on the subject, but I've read through the article and the prose is interesting, comprehensive, and well written. The images support the article well. I feel as if this article has everything a FA should have. DR04 (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I can't support or oppose since I wrote a decent sized chunk of the text, but I'm mostly happy with the article. My only problems are the last paragraph of distribution, which seems a bit light considering it is dealing with both habitat and movements, and the Popular culture section, which is dominated by the utterly trivial and to my mind completely irrelevant Cockatoo Ridge Wineries advertising campaign. I'd be inclined to ditch that entire bit and move the two other bits (the painting and symbol) up to the start of the section (relationship with humans). Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the cultural bit, I intended finding a few others as I did figure the Cockatoo Ridge bit takes up quite a bit of space considering what it is, however it was hard to find other citeable material on first scan. I hate removing material so will have another look as there must be other notable depictions (no footy teams that I know of though..). Comment re habitat/movements noted, will see what I can do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The wineries bit really isn't about cockatoos, really. It's about puns and innuendo and Miss Australia and advertising standards in Australia and incidentally involved a cockatoo. Does it matter to an article about a bird family who the model was, what previous accomplishments she had, or anything else really? I really think it needs to go. "In Culture" sections are all fine and good for species or animals that have a great deal to say in that area (albatrosses), and if there is nothing to say then not having them is fine too (Procellariidae or antbird). If you are really struggling to find something to say about cockatoos in this section that suggests strongly you don't need this section. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, point taken. Pop culture material can be tricky to reference at times. I have been surprised that more hasn't turned up given how iconic cockatoos are, and am at a loss to explain this as it seems somewhat counterintuitive. Real life means I am on and off in patches and will give it one more shot today to minimise the section having undue weight. In short, my preference remains to add rather than subtract to balance it out and will try the former first but consider the latter if zero turns up. Give me a day or so. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Just numbered links in the refs for 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 and 83. They need titles for the links.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fixed them all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Overall it is very well-done, I'm not of the belief that Cockatiels are Cockatoos, but if you want to make that point, I'd think something needs to be said in the Aviculture section as the needs of a cockatiel are vastly different than those of a large Cockatoo, they are also a much-less demanding bird than their larger counterparts. Other than that, good job!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cockatiels are included in the cockatoo group of parrots. I have made some amendments, which goes some way to fix the aviculture. I think that black cockatoos are unusual in aviculture outside Australia, which I would like to add, but I have not found a reference. Snowman (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did get a general ref that white cockies are more common than black ones in captivity, as that holds true everywhere..Also the debate about whether the cockatiel is a parrot or cockie has been finally settled pretty recently. I take your point on care and thought we had embellished it enough but we can add to highlight the difference in aviculture needs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update to Mike - I did try to emphasise it a bit more in the lead now on the differing requirements in aviculture. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

I read the article and have the following comments. I also did some edits myself; I'll be happy to explain if needed, but please revert changes which make no sense at all.

Etymology
  • "The derivation has also been used for the family and generic names Cacatuidae and Cacatua respectively." - Could you cite this? This seems to be where Cacatua comes from (Vieillot only validated it).
I need to get to a library for this one, as it is frustratingly obvious but no source comes right out and spells it out...I will be at the library wednesday or friday Oz timeCasliber (talk · contribs) 14:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit of a stretch of course and it is fairly obvious. Still, it might be best to cite it properly, especially as there are also other suggested derivations. Ucucha 14:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy
  • "Phylogeny of the family Cacatuidae based on the available literature" - that's a bit too easy. Specific cites would be better.
  • Rethink - I have shortened the caption to "Phylogeny of the family Cacatuidae": I think it is all referenced in the text. Snowman (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, there's nothing in the text saying that C. haematuropygia is basal to the other Licmetis species. (The text also doesn't explicitly say that Cacatua, Calyptorhynchus, and their subgenera are monophyletic - but that's nitpicking.) Ucucha 15:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think parrot ancestors are mentioned in the modified taxonomy in such a way as to indicate monophyly of the cockatoo group. There is no mention of paraphyly or polyphyly in the text. You have found a problem with references for the Red-vented Cockatoo placement. I usually find that the full text of these sort of scientific sources are subscription only. Snowman (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you are referring to there. Everything I mentioned is within the cockatoo family, so I don't see why you mention "monophyly of the cockatoo group". And the cladogram that is currently there certainly comes from somewhere, so I presume someone has the sources. Ucucha 18:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was replying to the comment regarding monophyly and the position of the Red-vented Cockatoo in the phylogram. Snowman (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you need to be afraid of including red links in the species list. (i.e., link all subspecies, or drop them all - Ucucha 13:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • Current problems: subspecies of Major Mitchell's are not linked, Cacatua sulphurea is missing nominate subspecies. Ucucha 20:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "woodpeckers where their ranges overlap" - was going to ask "Don't woodpeckers occur everywhere where cockatoos occur?", but Wikipedia learns me that there are no woodpeckers in Australasia. Poor Aussies. You learn something new every FAC. So this part refers to the Philippines and parts of Indonesia? If so, it may be made more precise by saying so. (I am not up to speed with the far SE distribution on woodeckers, will look into it - just quoting the source currently)
  • "Cockatoos can be noisy and demanding pets." - OR? ;-)
References
  • Consistency (2c) needs some work. That was quite enough ref-bickering for me. Fifelfoo may find some more issues, though. Ucucha 22:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Resolved comments moved to talk. Ucucha 20:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC); and again. Ucucha 20:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)) That's a lot, but it's still a good article which will eventually get there. I didn't see any issues with structure or comprehensiveness, but concentrated on the text and not on the big picture, so I may add more comments when I read the article again. Ucucha 02:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My adding the range map messed up the layout (at least for me), as there is bad-looking white space next to the map and another white space at the start of the taxonomy section. Perhaps you can get a somewhat smaller picture for the lead and/or move the cladogram down a paragraph or two and strike a few of the pictures next to the species list. OK, fixed that myself to an acceptable layout, but the current lead picture may not be the best one - please check. Ucucha 22:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The choice of bird for a taxobox image is always going to be tricky. Theoritically, the type species of the type genus is the White Cockatoo Cacatua alba, a guess at the original prototype might be a dark grey one like the Gang-gang, or earliest offshoot (Palm) or best known... Sulphur crested? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should give too much weight to the type species--at the end of the day, that's just a nomenclatural construct. The current picture may not depict the cockatoos as well as they should, but you're better qualified than me to say that. At any rate, there's a lot of good pictures to choose from.
And I just see that Sandy has promoted this - congratulations! I'd still encourage you to have a shot at resolving the above issues, though. Ucucha 23:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, will make a poll on the talk page for a picture, and Sabine's Sunbird was going to sort out a couple of issues. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But we're getting close now - just a few more things. Ucucha 20:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowmanradio comments
  • Taxonomy: Inn the taxonomy section, I think there is confusion with the use of the term "white cockatoo" to refer to the genus Cacatua, to a broader traditional use that include other genera. I think that the terms "white cockatoo" and "black cockatoo" are too confusing to use in the introduction and could mean different things to different people - often this is not intuitive as the terms contradict actual colours and the phylogeny chart. Snowman (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, on second thoughts I agree, as the definitions differ. Will amend the body of the text a bit later too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... but do have softer growling calls when feeding"; How do they call and eat at the same time? or does this refer to the producer calls of the chicks? Snowman (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • that didn't strike me as odd, I just thought of birds making growling sounds in between munching seeds or whatever. It refers to adults here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... diversified into the many types of macaws, lories, lovebirds and other true parrots (family Psittacidae)." I am not sure where "Nestoridae" fit in here. Snowman (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In order to clarify their placement in the psittaciformes, I thought it necessary to clarify the nestoridae branched off first, then cacatuidae, then the other parrots. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure that is correct; it is case of rephrasing the text. I think that the Nestoridae offshoot (currently the last line of a paragraph) should be incorporated into the paragraph better and possibly in chronological sequence to make it easier to read, and ovoid "splitting off before the remaining psittacines radiated across the southern hemisphere" in the paragraph being contradicted by the last line. Snowman (talk) 11:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made an attempt at rewriting this without internal contradictions and in chronological order to make it easier to read. It might need further copy-editing. Snowman (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good and nothing is jumping out as a definite improvement - I have been waylaid by RL events in the past day or so, so thanks for fixing it folks :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support except:

  • "The advertisement featured former Miss Australia Erin McNaught with a Sulphur-crested Cockatoo perched on her shoulder, beside the sexually implicit slogan "She loves a cockatoo". The advertisement received mixed reactions from the public. It was later pulled from circulation in favour of an alternative picture beside the slogan 'Who's a cheeky girl, then?'—a common expression taught to domesticated cockatoos." Spare us this, please. None of the just-quoted text is needed, nor in any way germane to our understanding of the cockatoo's cultural significance, though it may titillate a cockatoo :-) And actually, there is a more significant issue with this text in any case: the only cited ref actually does not substantiate the claimed facts that the "advertisement received mixed reactions from the public" or that "the slogan 'Who's a cheeky girl, then?' [is] a common expression taught to domesticated cockatoos". Either retain just "Cockatoos have been used frequently in advertising; a cockatoo appeared in a 'cheeky' 2008 advertising campaign for Cockatoo Ridge Wineries." or even get rid of that too. Good work otherwise :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I toned it down. Sabine's Sunbird had commented above about it too, and upon reading about it I felt it probably went into more detail than is necessary. I also sat down and thought that it might not be appropriate or necessary really for schoolkids, so I have pruned it as suggested. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thank you! hamiltonstone (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - All ready to put down some comments but they appear to have been fixed from the version I printed to the current version. Excellent. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 02:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note (and where is Fifelfoo?): this article needs citation cleanup. It mixes citation and citet, for some reason, a few publisher years are in italics, and I found and left several other samples. They are samples only; please check all citations for consistent use of the citet family of templates, consistent formatting of author names and distinction between publisher and author, and consistency in page nos and dates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I got all the remaining citations (3 found) and italicised years, one page number range and one old format accessdate. Will continue with ref fixes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Much better :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I need to sign off for a while..present wrapping etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Present wrapping? What didja get me?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're waiting <tap, tap, tap> ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting... Ucucha 22:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now now..no peeking till Xmas ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:33, 19 December 2009 [24].

Dick Turpin[edit]

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 19:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


More skullduggery. Most British folk have heard of Dick Turpin, and most would imagine him to be a charming rogue. The real man was very far from the Victorian myth. Handling stolen goods, robbery, thuggery, murder, and a swift hanging for the relatively innocuous crime of horse theft. Parrot of Doom 19:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • No dabs or dead external links—good.
  • Images have alt text that looks good. Consider adding the text of the fifth entry of the parish register to its alt—the caption says "see fifth entry", but those unable to see the image can't. ("Richardus Filius Johannis et Maria Turpin bapt. Sept. 21", from what I see.)
  • Ref dates are all ISO style—good.

--an odd name 09:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - A very interesting article on a odd character from English history. I couldn't see any major problems, although there was a slight prose issue with the lead: the section "from his prison cell, but the letter was apprehended by" - shouldn't have a "but" conjunction, instead it would read better as "from his prison cell, which was apprehended by". Also link the Earl of Suffolk mentioned briefly in the text. Otherwise a very nice article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. That was because it used to say the letter contained a plea for help, but with more sources I discovered that the contents of the letter aren't known, so I deleted the phrase. Thanks for spotting it :) Parrot of Doom 10:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: An interesting read. There are prose issues; I've not had time to note them all, but here are those I picked up in the lead. I will try to return later.
    • "He then disappeared from public life..." I think you mean "public view"
    • The word "resurface" appears twice in close proximity. Better to use a synonym (reappear?) for second mention
    • "...one of whom he might have accidentally shot and killed during a skirmish with those trying to arrest him." etc. This episode needs a sharper summary. Who were "those trying to arrest him", and where did this happen?
    • "made enquiries as to how he made..." Awkward repetition, should be rephrased ("made enquiries as to the source of his money"?)
    • "but the letter" should be "when the letter" or similar, not "but"
    • There is something odd about "Although considered during his lifetime to be an unremarkable figure,..." I imagine this means that he wasn't a high-profile criminal in his day, rather than that a process of "consideration" took place in his lifetime. Rephrasing advised.

Brianboulton (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • See these changes. There isn't the space to expand upon exactly what happened when Malcolm King was shot as the story is by no means straightforward, so I've shortened that. The unremarkable figure bit...that's similarly difficult. During his last few years he was considered a notorious criminal, but once he was dead he became largely forgotten (unremarkable). Of course now the story of Dick Turpin is somewhat 'remarkable', but that's explained by the second half of the sentence. Many other criminals of this age could have been as memorable as Turpin, had they been written about by a famous Victorian author (who was also the source of the annoyingly persistent Tom King myth). Parrot of Doom 12:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Need to note that Oxford Dictionary of National biography links require a subscription . (It's only outside the UK, I know, but that kinda includes most of the rest of the world..) Same for JSTOR links.
  • I'd like to point out that the lead image is not a good idea to try on horseback, just as a public service announcement. (grins).
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support This is an entertaining and clearly written article. I really do love the 18th century. :) Here are my suggestions:
  • Turpin's true identity was revealed by a letter he wrote to his brother-in-law from his prison cell, which was apprehended by the authorities. - "who was apprehended" or "which was intercepted"?
  • The letter wasn't intercepted, his bro-in-law refused to pay for it, it went by default to the main post office, where Turpin's teacher recognised the handwriting. It was then apprehended by the local bod. Parrot of Doom 17:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the word "apprehended" is used for letters, though - it is usually used for people. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that "apprehended" probably isn't the right word, but as the letter came into the hands of the authorities serendipitously I don't think "intercepted" is the right word either. Changed it to "fell into the hands of". --Malleus Fatuorum 22:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turpin used his pistols to beat Lawrence's bare buttocks until they were badly bruised, and the gang beat him around the head with their pistols, emptied a kettle of water over his head, and forced him to sit on the fire while bare-buttocked. - This sounds silly.
  • It is the language that sounds silly (e.g. "forced him to sit on the fire while bare-buttocked") - we need to rewrite it. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just re-read it and now see what you mean, lol. Dick Turpin, scourge of the authorities, robbing people while bare-buttocked :) I've edited it Parrot of Doom 20:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if a little bit of background information on what kinds of crimes were given the death sentence in 18th-century England could be added to the article. People were executed for many "smaller" crimes, particularly theivery in the 18th century, than later. There was a dramatic change in the early 19th century regarding this issue. It might be worth pointing out to readers that Turpin lived in a really different time when it came to "justice".
  • I may be able to add something about the changes in the law making deer theft more serious. I've tried and failed to find something that tells us why horse theft was such a heinous crime. Parrot of Doom 17:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have several books on crime in the 18th century - I'll look through them this weekend and see if I can find something. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm. After looking through what I have, I think the one I want is The London Hanged, but I don't own that one. Off to the library. Awadewit (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops I forgot about this, will get on it tonight. Parrot of Doom 22:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, I added a line about how deer theft was viewed. It wasn't a particularly serious offence as things went (compared to horse theft). Parrot of Doom 23:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a single line stressing the penalty for horse theft. I'm not completely satisfied that the source offers the reader much by the way of why the offence was so serious. It almost certainly was because in the 16th century horses were owned mostly by the aristocracy. I'd like to add a better source that explains why it was still an offence in 1739 (it was repealed by Robert Peel's government in the 19th century), but I can't find much better right now. Hopefully you'll have more luck at the library. Parrot of Doom 23:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken a first stab - a general statement about property. Let me know what you think. Awadewit (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fiddled with it a bit and moved things around to improve the flow, but its a welcome addition and I thank thee kind sir. Parrot of Doom 15:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also suggest adding a sentence or two explaining that The Genuine History of the Life of Richard Turpin is part of a tradition of crime narratives and crime confessionals that were published during the 18th century in which the entire point was to publish a sensationalized story quickly.
  • I regret I've been unable to do this. I lack the sources which state explicitly that such practices were normal. Parrot of Doom 23:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken a first stab at this - the prose still needs some work, but let me know what you think. Awadewit (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good stuff, again I fiddled slightly but its a welcome additino. Parrot of Doom 15:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks fine to me, however you can reduce the width of a quote box if you like. Parrot of Doom 17:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "edit" button is buried by text - it is three lines into the text and the quote box is overlapping the text. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these are helpful! Awadewit (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a little concerned here at the library. Every book about 18th-century crime that I have looked at so far has mentioned Turpin and there are lots of little details about him that are not included in the article. Everything I have run across so far falls into that category of "that would interesting to have in the article, but I'm not sure it is necessary" - judgment calls. I'm wondering, however, if the writers consulted any books about eighteenth-century crime, like Crime & Punishment in Eighteenth-Century England by Frank McLynn, The London Hanged by Peter Linebaugh or Tyburn's Martyrs by Andrea McKenzie? Awadewit (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of stuff that's been published about Turpin isn't true. Do you have any specific examples of what you think is missing? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - here are three:
  • A transcription of the ballad "Turpin's Appeal to the Judge"
  • A discussion of the lead image (which is, apparently reversed and cropped from the original), which shows Turpin is leaping over a turnpike, "the most advanced technological form of land transport then known" (Linebaugh 208). Linebaugh puts this depiction of the mythological Turpin in historical perspective.
  • Linebaugh would appear to be regurgitating many of the myths that are patently incorrect, and does not mention the source of the turnpike drawing. He also says that Turpin's activities were enabled by his payments to local innkeepers, etc, but this is almost certainly wrong - the rewards offered for Turpin's capture, and those of his comrades, were enormous, Turpin would never have been able to trust anyone with such monies on his head. Parrot of Doom 09:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm rather astonished by that comment. The image came from the Gutenberg version of Rookwood. Is the accusation that Gutenberg reversed and cropped the original? --Malleus Fatuorum 05:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image to which I'm referring is reproduced in Linebaugh on page 208, if you would like to see it. I would guess that the 19th-century publisher altered the image, not Gutenberg. We can, of course, contact the archive where Linebaugh got his original image and track down the details. Awadewit (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expect we could, but does it matter whether Turpin was jumping from right to left or right to left in an imagined illustration? It didn't happen anyway, Turpin didn't ride from London to York. I can see this might be a valid objection in the now unlikely event that the Rookwood article were ever presented at FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not all that important - which is why I put that point in parentheses (the entire illustration has a person in it gazing at Turpin in astonishment, btw). What is important is that he is portrayed jumping a turnpike. Linebaugh views this point as so important that his chapter contains the illustration and he explains how this informs the myth of Turpin. Malleus, you're smart, don't make me repeat myself. Awadewit (talk) 05:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smart or not, I'm struggling with this, so I'll have to leave it to my arch-enemy, the dreaded Parrot of Doom. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 05:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linebaugh gives the source of the image as a collection from 1950. Unless we know for certain when the drawing was created, I don't think we can say much more. I don't know when the 'jumping a turnpike' thing came from, as Ainsworth merely borrowed the story of Turpin's flight from London to York from other sources (it was being enacted on stage in 1819) and embellished it with 'Black Bess'. Parrot of Doom 10:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently, part of the myth of Turpin is that he was honest, in his own way and to his own class. This is important because the myth is partly about class tensions. So, for example, one source explains "One newspaper reported that the famous highwayman Dick Turpin and an accomplice, after fleeing a public house in Whitechapel upon the approach of a constable, paid their reckoning by Penny Post..." (McKenzie 98).
As I said above, the inclusion of any of this material is a judgment call. However, I am a bit concerned that I could so quickly find material. That is why I was wondering if books on 18th-century crime were consulted for this article. Awadewit (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You'd probably be best presenting a range of examples, as many of the 'truths' of Turpin are myth. Barlow (1973) is an astonishingly detailed look at the man, I'm almost certain it's the best source to use, as he quite convincingly dispels many of the myths surrounding the legend. He goes to great pains to study many of the newspaper reports, and (it seems to me) expertly manages separate the real reports, from those that were made up, or who assumed Turpin was the culprit in whatever crime was being reported. There's no contemporary images of Turpin so the turnpike one was selected as it most resembles the legend (unless someone has painted a 'stand and deliver' portrait that we could use), but I think the book it came from is given a pretty fair weighting. I very much doubt that there is any truth to Turpin's 'honesty', but possibly the article could use a few lines on how his activities were reported. I'll have a look and see what I can come up with. Parrot of Doom 09:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The individual examples I gave above are much less important than the question I asked, which still hasn't been answered. Have histories of 18th-century crime been consulted for this article? Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because with regard to Turpin I've yet to see one that doesn't manage to confuse fact and fiction. The two main sources are detailed biographies - other works offer only a page or two about the man. Parrot of Doom 18:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, all of the sources I looked at are very careful to delineate the difference. I would suggest looking at the three sources I listed above as a start. Awadewit (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • McLynn claims that Turpin shot King, but he has no way of knowing this as contemporary accounts are by no means accurate on the matter - in fact some claimed that Bayes killed King. McLynn also makes the mistake of presuming that King was Tom King, but Turpin never associated with a Tom King, who is a fictional character. Linebaugh claims that Turpin married Hestor Palmer, which isn't true. He claims that Turpin stole cattle, but there is little evidence for this. Linebaugh also mentions Tom King as a real person, and makes no effort to separate Ainsworth's writings from reality. I'm unable to read McKenzie's book online. From what I've been able to read of the former two books, I'm unconvinced by any argument to include them here. Parrot of Doom 19:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linebaugh is the foremost authority on 18th-century crime, but if you don't want to include his book, that's fine. I would suggest that you acquire McKenzie's book, as it is almost entirely about the myths and literature surrounding 18th-century criminals. One of the weaknesses of this article is that it focuses so much on sorting out the "truth", which of course is nearly impossible to do at this late date, and neglects the myth of Turpin. A thorough explanation of the myth of Turpin, why it developed, and what it signified in the culture at the time is important. You say above, for example, "I very much doubt that there is any truth to Turpin's 'honesty'", but that is not the point I was trying to make. As I stated above "Apparently, part of the myth of Turpin is that he was honest, in his own way and to his own class. This is important because the myth is partly about class tensions" (note my emphasis on the myth of Turpin). While it is important that this article attempt to untangle fact from fiction, I do think it is extremely important that it also explain the myth and its role in 18th- and 19th-century society. The more I look into the sources, the more I see that is available for this purpose. Awadewit (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I can buy that. I'll have a look at what Sharpe says, as I think he summarises much of the myth in one chapter. My problem with the Linebaugh book is that it makes basic mistakes about Turpin that might confuse the reader were he to read them. He may be an authority on crime, but I don't believe he's an authority on Turpin. Parrot of Doom 20:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, have a read through again of the Modern View section, and let me know what you think. Parrot of Doom 22:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an improvement - thanks. I am happy to support what I believe to be a well-written and comprehensive article. Awadewit (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review All the images have acceptable licenses. The sources of them are given and are verifiable. Graham Colm Talk 21:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I read this article about a week ago but forgot to add my support with regard to criterion 1a. What a nasty bloke Turpin truly was, thanks for dispelling the myth. Graham Colm Talk 21:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Something is off with the quote boxes on IE8, but I can't figure out what it is. They all appear to be formatted the same, but some of them are causing huge strangely placed white spaces. Can you get someone on IE8 to have a look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've changed the quote box template. Has that fixed the problem? (I use Firefox, don't have IE8 to check myself.) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, all set now: I've never seen that before, weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks Sandy. I know the power of the Dark Side is hard to resist, but you should allow me to remove your mask, and bring you over to Firefox or Opera :) Parrot of Doom 21:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • And if I switch sides, what dumb guinea pig would be left to tell us how all the IE user see the page?  :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:33, 19 December 2009 [25].

Cleveland Bay[edit]

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article on a fairly rare British horse breed has gone through GA and PR, as well as being looked over by other equine editors and having a prose review by Malleus. I believe the article meets all of the FA criteria, and I look forward to any and all comments! Dana boomer (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WIkiProject Equine members reviewed this article and support its FA nimonation. Montanabw(talk) 01:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Minor stuff, probably not even for you to worry about.

  • No dabs or dead externals, and dates look nice and consistent.
  • Images all have alt text that looks good. Does the navbox image really need an alt? (It seems purely decorative.)
  • I'm not sure about the navbox image - I didn't write the alt text for it, and I'm not sure where the line is drawn between decorative and non. If the alt text should be removed, please let me know and I will do this.
  • The infobox isn't bad, except it's repetitive in the last third: can't we just link the organization names instead of saying "Breed standards" thrice? It also uses colons after attribute names ("Distinguishing features:", "Country of origin:", ...), which seem redundant.
  • This has never come up before in FACs, and I'm not really sure how to change the breed standards part. IMO, the colons aren't redundant, but they can be removed if other reviewers agree (and again, this hasn't come up before).
  • It's part of the standard horse infobox, Dana is stuck with it until we come up with a more elegant solution across the infobox in general (for all 350 horse breed articles, :-P) , part of the problem is multiple nations have different breed standards, the other part is that the horse infobox was derived from the dog breeds one, which operates a bit differently... Montanabw(talk) 03:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the book titles in the "Notes" section all necessary or WikiProject standard? Dent, for example, seems to unambiguously be the Cleveland Bay Horses book in "References".
  • This is my prefered referencing style, and has been considered OK for other horse breed FAs. It is the referencing style generally used in the Equine WP, although not a written guideline.
  • Agreed, it's universal format in the horse breed FAs. Note in particular Thoroughbred. Once we get huge articles with massive numbers of footnotes and sources, it becomes a necessity. The need isn't as strong in shorter articles like this one, but in theory they could get there. Montanabw(talk) 03:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--an odd name 01:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies interspersed above, thanks for your comments. Dana boomer (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Note I'm a WikiProject Equine member, but I haven't done any serious work on this article (I may have done some small edits in the past, I can't remember.) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In the first line, would "England" be more accurate than Great Britain? Also 250 pounds (in Uses) needs a conversion to proper units (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I dislike supporting without offering suggestions for improvement, but I couldn't find anything at fault with the article (other than the one typo and missing italic I fixed). Well done. Sasata (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (moral or otherwise) I reviewed this for GA, and it has been buffed up nicely since then. Looks great and I am at a loss to offer any further tweaks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review:Images check out Could English information be added to File:Cleveland Bay hw-1-.jpg and File:Cleveland Bay.jpg? Ideally, could a link to the source be added as well? This doesn't appear to be own work, so it should be possible to tell from the source that this is licensed as claimed.
    • I can add English information. However, I can't find a source link, so I think that may be a moot point. I have done a Google search for "Archiv vum Besëtzer" and "Paul Berens" and come up with nothing.
      • User:Cornischong, who I gather is the original uploader (?), was active on en-wiki as recently as August and has e-mail enabled. It might be worth checking with him/her for further information. Steve Smith (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Attelage en double paire.jpg needs source and author information. Steve Smith (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't seem to find this. I know who uploaded it to the French wiki, but the original French page seems to have been deleted because it was transferred to commons - therefore I can't see if there was originally more information on the source and the author.
      • It might be worth contacting an fr-wiki admin to see if there's anything in the deleted versions of that page. There's a list of them ; the third column indicates their English proficiency, with "M" indicating a native English speaker and numbers indicating a non-native speaker, with higher numbers speaking better English. Steve Smith (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find answers to either of your questions above. Does this mean that I need to remove the photos? If so, it is going to remove all three of my purebred Cleveland bay images from the article. The only one I can find to replace them with is File:Brewster park drag 1887.jpg, which isn't as nice a photo, but I believe has the correct licensing. I've done a bit of searching on the web, and can't find anything else under the proper licensing that could be uploaded. Do you have any suggestions? Dana boomer (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I think we need to get this straightened out or remove them. I know it's asinine to require the removal of images that improve the article on the basis that the correct hoops haven't been jumped through but, well, welcome to Wikipedia. Steve Smith (talk) 08:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have dropped notes on the page of a French admin about the third image, and on Cornischong's page about the first two. If I don't get a response soon, I'll try another English-speaking admin and drop Cornischong an e-mail. Please let me know if there is anything I can do in the meantime. Dana boomer (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the Attelage image, the French admin has responded with this:<quote>Hi, the deleted text says "Beideler René" and {{GFDL}}. There was no upload template. It seems very reasonable to assume that Beideler René (d · c · b) is the author, but it's not 100% certain. He later uploaded some properly-tagged photos which include metadata. --Gribeco (d) 11 décembre 2009 à 03:52 (CET) </quote>. Thoughts? I don't speak French, so I can't contact the original uploader personally. Dana boomer (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that on Pitke's user page, s/he says s/he speaks an elementary level of French. Maybe Pitke can help or knows someone with sufficient fluency who can... User: Wandalstouring is German, but he too may also know some French speakers. Ditto for another German who sometimes shows up here, Kersti Nebelsiek. Not that German speakers inherently will know French, but Europeans are far more likely to either be multilingual or know people via their own wiki who are... All three either check in here often, or they have a direct link to their home language talk pages here. Maybe drop some messages Montanabw(talk) 20:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, thanks for the note. I'll drop a note to a couple of those editors. Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped a note to Wandalstouring, and his reply was: <quote>The uploader hasn't been active in the French wikipedia since summer 2006. He has a history of images with dubious copyright here. Greetings Wandalstouring (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)</quote> Because of this, I am assuming that we have no way to verify the image licensing, and so I have exchanged the image for the Brewster park drag image mentioned above. Due to receiving no response from Cornischong on their talk page, I have sent an e-mail asking about the image licensing on the two other questionable images. Thanks for being patient as these issues are worked out. Dana boomer (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that. The new photo looks good. Steve Smith (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for taking several days to reply on the final two questionable photos. After e-mailing Cornischong, I quickly received a response stating that "Besetzer" was the owner of the horses and "Paul Berens" was the coach who had the photos taken. I then e-mailed back asking how this allowed him to release the photos, and so far have received no response. I am assuming (perhaps in bad faith?) that this means he did not have permission to release the photos. Because of this, I have removed the photos from the article. My question now is - should all three of these photos be deleted for not having proper licensing? Again, apologies for the delay. Dana boomer (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As well you should be sorry about the delay! You've missed the deadline! No, wait, that's not right. Anyway, yes, they probably should be tagged for deletion, but I'm not very familiar with Commons deletions, and that's outside the scope of this FA review in any event. Sorry to have to do this - I feel like participating in an FAC in such a way as to make the article worse is actually against the whole idea. But, well, rules are rules. Steve Smith (talk) 06:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Even better than when I reviewed it in PR. --mav 23:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:33, 19 December 2009 [26].

Xa Loi Pagoda raids[edit]

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 14:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article is about the synchronised attacks by the govt of Ngo Dinh Diem on Buddhist temples across S Vietnam on Aug 21 1963, leaving maybe hundreds dead. As a result of this, the US decided to support a coup against Diem, which came in NOvember. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 14:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments One dab link; no dead external links. I fixed the infobox alt to actually show, and proofread other alts. --an odd name (help honey) 21:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Polished off the dab YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 00:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1a/b/c/d/e, 2c is good. 01:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixits:
"In a country where the Buddhist majority was estimated to comprise between 70 and 90 percent of the population in 1963" which country? RVN? "Vietnam"?
Run on sentence "Many monks from outside Saigon, including prominent Buddhist leaders,…"
What's a "group of septet,"? A buddhist term? Seven people? But we haven't discussed seven people, we discussed 10. group of seven generals. [then introduce the generals]
Journalists do not deserve an article, use "as had journalists", you haven't introduced a specific group of journalists acting as a politicised agent, "as the Buddhists had prepared themselves for the attacks, as had the journalists"
Awkward, "The vehicles were American models provided as part of the military aid program." try, "The American made trucks had been provided as part of the United States' military aid program for the Diem government."
"surrounded Xa Loi from several fronts" fronts are normally multi division military areas. Try "angles" or "approaches". Approaches is best as its a term from siege warfare, and this is the "breach and storm" phase of a small siege
"The journalists were informed as soon" again. No article. You haven't established "The journalists" as a social agent. Journalists is the generic.
Use strategy instead of paradigm "frequently played them against each other in a divide and conquer paradigm to weaken any chance of a coup attempt."
Soldiers from, surely? "The army also contained substantial numbers of the Buddhist majority"
Surely this is a red link that we should eventually get around to? "He claimed that the Buddhist Intersect Committee "
the Nhus? "hung up banners attacking Diem and Nhus"
When was the first drop in public sector morale? Public sector is anachronistic, "civil servant"? "government employee" "government officer" in re: "released from jail, resulting in a further drop in public sector morale."
A nation can't realise anything, surely US officials, or the US government? "Once the US realized"
"they reacted disapprovingly" tense conjuction. The US is not a plural collective unless you mean the people within it comprising it (in the en_GB plural collective form).
Fifelfoo (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all of these YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 14:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Saw this one lingering for a few days without review and decided to offer a few cleanup suggestions.

  • Remove hyphen from "early-May" in second paragraph of lead?
  • Background: "In a country where the Buddhist majorityt was estimated to comprise between 70 and 90 percent of the population in 1963, President Ngo Dinh Diem's pro-Catholic policies that antagonized many Buddhists." Remove "that".
  • "The application of the law caused indignation among Buddhist on the eve of the most important religious festival of the year". Make Buddhist plural.
  • Another little typo: "government-sposnored".
  • Don't like the multiple Vietcong links in this section. I imagine that's not unknown to too many people.
  • Xa Loi Pagoda: "The attendance had approximately three times higher than that at the previous Sunday's rally." Replace "had" with "was", I believe.
Done all those listed above YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 23:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done all YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 15:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I noticed a mix of British and American English in this article. What version of English do you prefer to use in this article? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to US for this one YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 15:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Support User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I know next to nothing about the topic, however, it was in-depth and interesting. I can't comment on 1b or 1c though. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 00:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I think this is generally pretty good, and close to meeting the FA criteria, but there are still a few things need fixing first:
  • "... thereby causing the general public and South Vietnam's American allies to blame the army, diminishing their reputations and ability to act as future national leaders." This doesn't quite make sense. The subject of the first part is "army", which is singular, but in the second part we're told about their reputations (plural), and "ability to act as future leaders". I'd guess that the second part is really discussing the generals, and not the army.
Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 07:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... and Buddhist monks converged from rural areas." You don't converge from, you converge on.
Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 07:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The police and army broke up the demonstration by firing guns on and throwing grenades into the gathering ...". This reads rather strangely to me. Does one really fire a gun on someone or something?
At, I thihnk YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 07:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... Halberstam opined that that ...". Apart from the stuttering, "opined" is a dreadful word that I'd opine ought to be excised from the language.
done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 07:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aware that the Americans would not neither oppose a coup nor respond with aid cuts or sanctions ...". Should that be just "neither"?
yup. done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 07:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the afternoon before the raids, trucks filled with soldiers were seen by journalists as they headed past the offices of media outlets ...". This is ambiguous. As written it looks like it was the journalists who were headed past the offices of media outlets.
tweaked YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 07:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... as Xa Loi's brass gong was clanged to signal the attack." Is "clanged" the correct technical term? Seems a bit slangy to me. The image caption to the right says "rung".
Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 07:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nhu's men vandalized the main altar and confiscated the intact charred heart of Thich Quang Duc, which did not burn during his re-cremation." The chronolgy/tense is puzzling me here. Are we saying that the heart hadn't burnt during his re-cremation, or that it didn't burn in a future re-cremation, i.e., one that occurred after the raids?
Twaked. it hadnt burned during the recramate of the funderal YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 07:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... some of the Buddhists were able to flee the pagoda with a receptacle containing the remainder of his ashes." Why "remainder"? What happened to the rest of his ashes?
Good point. I meant everything except his heart, but obviously, the heart wasnt ashes.rm remainder YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 07:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One monk was thrown from the balcony down to the courtyard six meters below". Is there only the one balcony? From the picture, it looks like there are several.
Cahnged to indef. The books were all definite, but you're right, they seem to have just gone definite without cause YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 07:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later, Thich Quang Do, one of [the] leading arrested monks, who later went on to become one of the leaders of the now-banned Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, said after being released following the deposal of Diem, when asked why the leaders had not fled to avoid arrest, that 'We had done nothing wrong; therefore we could not flee. If we had, it would have been an admission that we were guilty.'". Is this an official attempt on the world's longest sentence record?
chopped YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 07:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Hue, student protestors had turned on an ARVN officer after he fired into their path." I'm not sure what this is saying. Did the firing damage this path that the students were apparently so fond of?
Into where they were, not into a specific paved road YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 07:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two of the detained students were paraded at a press conference in which they forced to falsely admit to being communists ...". Should that be "were forced"? Were they forced during the press conference?
tweaked to show they got tortured before teh confession YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 07:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the diplomatic and press corps assembled at the airport to farewell him". When did "farewell" become a verb? Why did nobody tell me?
It seems pretty common parlance, wrong or not, but I changed it to see him off YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 07:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, General Dinh softened the punishment at the behest of a fellow officer ...". Softened it from what?
Tweaked. jail -> house arrest YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 07:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Malleus Fatuorum 18:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. All of my concerns have been addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support I still think a single line needs to be addressed but it is certainly not a concernt that would prevent promotion.

I never knew the whole background of this so thank you and awesome work. A few notes:

  • "In May 1963, a rarely-enforced 1958 law known as Decree Number 10 was invoked" IS there a comma missing (I hate commas so maybe there isn't.
No I don't think so YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 03:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There could be a comma pair: In May 1963, a rarely-enforced 1958 law, known as Decree Number 10, was invoked. Part of the problem lies in the awkward structure: In May 1963, so and so invoked the rarely enforced 1958 law known as Decree Number 10. OR Responding to xxx, in May 1963, such and such (authorities) invoked the rarely-enforced 1958 law known as Decree Number 10. Auntieruth55 (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 13:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...with more self-immolations..." Is there an article for this to Wikilink?
At the moment there is no page dedicated to the 7-8 self-immolations against Diem in 1963 YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 03:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both sides accused the other of failing to uphold their obligations." Even though it is in the background section, a couple lines of detail would not hurt in my opinion.
Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 03:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The monks told members of the US press corps in Saigon that they knew the raids were coming." - Is this line needed?
Tweaked. Why would it be redundant? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 03:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reader already knows that the monks knew from the previous line. Why does it matter that the press corp knew? Did this increase coverage? Did they inform them with the intent of increasing coverage? It comes across as an unfinished thought.Cptnono (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 13:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thumbing of images seems off
  • File:ChuaXaLoi002.jpg should be uprighted
Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 03:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might consider removing either Tu Dam or Dieu De
I decided to keep it YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 03:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The meeting was a useful public relations exercise in showing where American government policy stood on the attacks against the Buddhists." "Exercise" isn't needed or should be explained (was it PR emphasizing policy or show?)
tweaked YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 03:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • Refs missing Maclear and Warner. • Ling.Nut 09:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 03:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. The prose is certainly not perfect, but I'm not opposing. It's good work on the whole. Spot-check: [Thanks for fixing these. Worthy article. Tony (talk) , 17 December 2009 (UTC))

  • "On the evening of August 18, 10 senior ARVN"—here, MoS suggests "ten" to avoid a clash of numerals.
Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 03:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd normally object to such a density of ref numbers, but heck, some of this could be contentious, and it's great to have the sources pinpointed. I'm glad you're using a number of sources. The narrative is complex and in places intimately detailed. Sometimes it ascribes motives and feelings to people in power. I hope your sources are goooood. For example, "the usually apolitical Saigon public" ... that's a big statement to make, which seems to require great cultural insight to survive the translation into English and anglo cultural eyes. What does "usually apolitical" mean, anyway. When were the unusual instances?
All the sources are by award-winning non-fiction writers or professors who wrote iconic books. The book that said "usually apolitical" didn't go into specifics but did say that before 1963 there was basically no demonstrations against the government at all YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 03:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in order to" ... more than one instance of this.
Done with Control F YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 03:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Word missing? "that would anger the Vietnamese public and the Americans off his shoulders".
Changed punctuation for clarity YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 03:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better ("Nhu's motive was to avoid responsibility for a violent operation that would anger the Vietnamese public and the American leadership."); but it's clunky, and "shift off" isn't nice. Even better might be: "Nhu's motive was to avoid responsibility for a violent operation—which would anger the Vietnamese public and the American leadership." Or "distance himself from". Tony (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 13:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In doing so"—which, angering or getting the Am. off his shoulders? I'm a bit unclear about these few sentences.
Ditto YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 03:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • opportunity ... opportunity.
Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 03:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nhu and Johnson: TINY IMAGE and consequently tall caption. It's short vertically, so there's even more reason to boost the (horizonatal) pixel number. I'd try 240 or 250. Nothing else in the vicinity.
Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 03:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might audit for longish grey paragraphs: there are a few.
Dvidied a few YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 03:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images in the "Raids" section: need to be bigger, IMO.
Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 03:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dent the public and American confidence" ... "dent the confidence of the Vietnamese public and the Americans"?
Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 03:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 13:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added a ref. The website has an editorial staff and is a member of an international vexillogy organisation YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 13:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NW (Talk) 04:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Images should be good now. NW (Talk) 20:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:33, 19 December 2009 [27].

Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick[edit]

Nominator(s): Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Alright. Malleus and I have given this thing the copy-edit going over quite a few times now. It has been reviewed quite thoroughly by User:Hamiltonstone. Owing to to the topic's obscurity, it was a bit difficult to illustrate, so thanks especially to User:Notuncurious, who has made some very helpful images and helped alleviate that problem! The article's definitely there or thereabouts in terms of content and referencing, and already was at the last nom when it got sidetracked with RM matters ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • technical checks No dabs, no deadlinks, could subscription only links be indicated in ref? Images have alt text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'll try to find a way of indicating subscription. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2c:
Citations are unusual, can you explain what "Innes (ed.), Registrum Episcopatus Glasguensis, vol. i, no. 139, pp. 117–18 Shead and Cunningham, "Glasgow"" is meant to mean? Do you actually mean Shead and Cunningham, "Glasgow" in Registrum... Innes (ed.), ... ?
Similarly it is usual to give the author and title of the chapter cited, "can be found in Barrow (ed.), Acts of William I, pp. 68–94"
Generally your citation of multiple works on a single line is inconsistent. Check your semi-colons.
Images:
The third map lacks a caption and is visually crowded. 21:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
1c:
With such extensive primary sourcing I would like you to convince me that this isn't Original Research. I am highly concerned that a number of points are referenced against primary sources only. Which standard history did you use for WEIGHTING the narrative? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input Fifelfoo.

Citations are unusual, can you explain what "Innes (ed.), Registrum Episcopatus Glasguensis, vol. i, no. 139, pp. 117–18 Shead and Cunningham, "Glasgow"" is meant to mean? Do you actually mean Shead and Cunningham, "Glasgow" in Registrum... Innes (ed.), ... ?

That's one note with two references. There should have been a semicolon there ... inserted one.[28]

Similarly it is usual to give the author and title of the chapter cited, "can be found in Barrow (ed.), Acts of William I, pp. 68–94"

I'm not certain I understand the query ... but taking a guess, you think this work is an edited collection of articles? If so, this work is an edited book of charters, rather than an essay collection. The section referenced, pp. 68–94, is the 3rd chapter of the intro, entitled "Analysis of the Acts of William I".

Generally your citation of multiple works on a single line is inconsistent. Check your semi-colons.

I'll double check for missing semi-colons.

The third map lacks a caption and is visually crowded. 21:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Added. You mean the image has too much info in it, or there are too many images in its area of the article?

With such extensive primary sourcing I would like you to convince me that this isn't Original Research. I am highly concerned that a number of points are referenced against primary sources only. Which standard history did you use for WEIGHTING the narrative?

There should be no original research in the article. References to primary sources included in the wikipedia article should also be in the secondary sources referenced with or next to the primary source refs. Also, many of the references that look to be for primary sources can also be taken to refer to the editorial commentary. In all instances, primary source referencing should be entirely for the convenience of the reader (allowing the more advanced reader to verify the assertions of the wikipedia article AND the secondary source).

Without wanting to misunderstand what you mean, there shouldn't be much of a meaningful narrative for the whole article. There are narratives in sections, and this will be derived from the secondary sources referenced. For instance, the narrative (and its weighting) in the #The_Anglo-French_world section is based [largely] on Barrow Anglo-Norman Era. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Names of Donnchadh and his descendants written in black as part of a genealogical table; grey background
Donnchadh and his descendants
No, I can't read that image (shown at right, using the same size as in the article). I can (barely) make out the header and the word "DONNCHADH", but I can't read anything else, so the image is essentially useless in the article. It's a low-quality image anyway, so I don't suggest making it larger, or anything like that. Just turn it into text. Eubulides (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to forgive me ... when I made it I didn't have any intention that it would be fully visible in the article. You click on it to make it visible. There's too much info for it to be visible otherwise, surely? A single click seems not too much to ask, but I don't know community sentiment on the matter. I hope I'm understanding right? It can be removed, sure, but there's important info there. It can be in the article too, sure, but usually in textbooks such info is in such illustrations. If it's purely a matter of ugliness then I apologize,. I'm no master at such things. Usually even nominating an FA leads to someone more pro at such things redesigning them. I suppose I could actively recruit someone. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eubulides (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this is going to be a sticking point, then I'll volunteer to produce SVG versions of both family trees. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the images, Eubulides (and, yeah, I was kinda curious why you only mentioned one of these). :) @ Malleus, don't worry, not that fussed. It's just that I honestly don't see what is gained by depriving readers of such a reference ... was trying to get at why they need to be disappeared (I really still don't understand, but I'll go with it). I guess if I wanna restore them I'll look into the tl| thing. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably do the SVG versions anyway, as, like you, I think the images add useful information, and it would be a shame to lose them on an FAC technicality. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SVG is an excellent idea; thanks for volunteering. The info is definitely worth presenting; it's just that a featured article must present info well. Please see File:Coenwulf family tree.svg and its use in Coenwulf of Mercia #Family and succession for an example. Eubulides (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are gifs pasted into an SVG file, but they're still gifs; Inkscape can't convert gifs to SVG. Try rescaling those images if you don't believe me. Those are not good examples. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Compare them to File:DescentChildrenOswiu.svg in the Wilfrid article, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. File:DescentChildrenOswiu.svg is a better example. Its text is small but is still readable in the article. (A quibble: I would have made the text somewhat larger; partly it depends on whether the image is intended to be displayed at smaller or at larger sizes.) Eubulides (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support - I read this before and on a read through now, found some small quibbles (and at least one place to tweak Deacon's nose).

ONce these quibbles are dealt with, I'll be happy to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the feedback. Tell me if there's anything more that you see. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved all struck comments to talk. See here All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review (Support on images as of 12:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC))
  • NW (Talk) 02:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on refs
  • Holy Cow! You don't make it easy on me, do you!? :-)
  • I've been wading through them and so far seem to have found only two missing: Stringer, "Acts of Lordship"; Barrow, Robert I.
  • I have a strong suspicion that some are in the refs but not the notes (e.g., Stringer "Periphery and Core". I have always considered this a forgivable sin... • Ling.Nut 10:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this ...
  • I've been wading through them and so far seem to have found only two missing: Stringer, "Acts of Lordship"; Barrow, Robert I.
Cheers. "Barrow, Robert I" was a mistake for "Barrow, Robert Bruce"; I've now corrected this. I've also added a cite to Stringer, "Acts of Lordship", though I'd originally meant to cite Stringer "Acts" more. :/
  • I have a strong suspicion that some are in the refs but not the notes (e.g., Stringer "Periphery and Core". I have always considered this a forgivable sin...
Thanks again. Added this now. Thanks for the eyes. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support along with a few impertinent comments:

  • I understand why this is emphasised but the "sources" section seemed to me to over-egg the pudding slightly. It's a lot to wade thru' before we get to the main course, if I may mangle my menu.
  • Scotland South of The Forth map legend is misleading. Unless you open it up it appears to contradict the text because the provinces referred to are not obviously visible. Suggest "Linguistic regions and provinces..."
  • My associates and I are regional bumpkins who are probably richt Doon the Toon when it comes to modern references to these matters, but I have never heard of "Galwegians or Gallovidians". When discussing these fine people over a skalk we call them "Gall-Gaels" - but perhaps we are not speaking "modern English".
  • "culturally Scandinavian"? I'm curious to know more about the details (although I'm not suggesting they are needed in the article).
  • I think I have grumbled before about this peculiar square brackets business e.g. [Oram]. No doubt MOS has some justification or other but it looks odd to me.
  • Why is the picture of Threave Castle not in the section in which it is mentioned?
  • Is "Historian Richard Oram" a title of some kind? Having mentioned it once can we not just call him "Oram"? Likewise Woolf.
  • James A Morris - missing a period or apostrophe after "A"?
  • At the end of the Ruler of Carrick we discuss the "minority of Donnchadh's granddaughter", but assuming this is "the lass" we later seem to think she was his great grand-daughter. I realise it's better to have the link lower down - not sure what to suggest.
  • By showing off (Sumarliði) we may have lost the opportunity to link to Somerled. Ben MacDui 12:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ben, cheers for the comments. I'll respond individually below:
I understand why this is emphasised but the "sources" section seemed to me to over-egg the pudding slightly. It's a lot to wade thru' before we get to the main course, if I may mangle my menu.
I suppose those with smaller stomachs can skip this course. Was this just a comment, or do you propose that some of the #Sources section be removed?
Nah, I just snoozed off and dreamt I was reading The Complete Guide to Early Historic Scottish Sources by Rev. I. M. Jolly. A disturbing experience, but I wouldn't want to spoil the fun for others.
Scotland South of The Forth map legend is misleading. Unless you open it up it appears to contradict the text because the provinces referred to are not obviously visible. Suggest "Linguistic regions and provinces..."
Altered the legend.
My associates and I are regional bumpkins who are probably richt Doon the Toon when it comes to modern references to these matters, but I have never heard of "Galwegians or Gallovidians". When discussing these fine people over a skalk we call them "Gall-Gaels" - but perhaps we are not speaking "modern English".
I'd actually assumed "Galwegian" was more common.Gbooks But, in fairness to yourself, associates and everyone else, none of these words are really used that much in modern English. The obnoxious thing is that historians use the word "Galwegian" when translating or utilizing "English" sources, but "Gall-Gaedhil" (or variant) when "translating" or utilizing "Irish" sources. This is partly because of the limited horizons of the historians in these respective areas, and it's only rather recently (owing much to a popular article by Daphne Brooke) that it's become clear to historians of the former inclination that they are the same people.
I think we can all agree on the event horizon problem. There must be a wonderful piece of mathematical research to be written about the mass of verbiage on any given subject, the proximity and duration of a given academic to it and the likelihood of their never returning to the known universe after prolonged exposure. You read it here first. I think you must mean "historian's jargon" rather than "modern English" but I am happy to let you decide.
"culturally Scandinavian"? I'm curious to know more about the details (although I'm not suggesting they are needed in the article).
Yeah, no worries. Scandinavians settled in large numbers in Ireland, a densely populated (its population is, in pre-modern times, closer to England's than Scotland's), relatively wealthy but politically fragmented land. They started speaking Irish within a generation or so, and many of the Irish who lived around them started acting like them ... building long-boats, going on raids, carrying Norse weapons, and so on. Historians who work in Irish Sea history believe that settlers from this area overwhelmed much of the British coast in the later 9th and 10th century.
I do remember reading something before about, what are they called - the Vikings? - but seriously folks, it's the detail. Going on raids was hardly unknown in the 6th century and given the paucity of Viking archaeological remains in the Hebrides I'm curious to know if you are aware of anything more specific about the "culture". The Italians now wear football shirts and wander about Europe in large bands. That doesn't make them Rangers fans.
I had a big laugh at this point :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We aim to please :-) Ben MacDui 23:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have grumbled before about this peculiar square brackets business e.g. [Oram]. No doubt MOS has some justification or other but it looks odd to me.
Me too. I didn't put that in, and I don't see it as necessary when there is only one citation in the following note ... never actually come across this before. If you wanna remove it, go ahead. :)
Really dahling, how boring.
Why is the picture of Threave Castle not in the section in which it is mentioned?
Space, i.e. the same section has the family material and thus the genealogy is there. This part of the article was originally bigger btw. I moved it up to the above section so that part of it was included.
Is "Historian Richard Oram" a title of some kind? Having mentioned it once can we not just call him "Oram"? Likewise Woolf.
A number of FA regs insist that authorities are introduced in such a manner. Can't say I'm a fan myself.
Lets' start cabal to overturn this egregious nonsense. Do you really mean they have to be so described every time they are mentioned?
  • I'm sure it only needs to be done the first time, not every time. For lay readers, that initial bit of context is helpful. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
James A Morris - missing a period or apostrophe after "A"?
Cheers. Added the period.
At the end of the Ruler of Carrick we discuss the "minority of Donnchadh's granddaughter", but assuming this is "the lass" we later seem to think she was his great grand-daughter. I realise it's better to have the link lower down - not sure what to suggest.
Thanks. I replaced this with "during the minority of Donnchadh's descendant Countess Marjory of Carrick", and delinked further down.
By showing off (Sumarliði) we may have lost the opportunity to link to Somerled.
This is there because someone in a previous review wanted the Norse names. I've added Somerled, with a link.
Let me know if you have any further points. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done, feel free to archive or whatever your chosen method of destruction is. Ben MacDui 08:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lets' start cabal to overturn this egregious nonsense. Do you really mean they have to be so described every time they are mentioned?
I think (and hope) it's only when they are first introduced. There are a few FAC idiosyncrasies like this. But if we're gonna start a cabal, it should be for ridding this place of multiple footnotes in the same location.
All done, feel free to archive or whatever your chosen method of destruction is.
Cheers. I wouldn't dream of touching your text, but User:Ealdgyth just cut/pasted hers onto the talk. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support Did Deacon disappear? I Support with the understanding than my comments and Ben MacDui's will be addressed. • Ling.Nut 12:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, no, still here. Was away from the computer for a while. Have responded now. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, except for the maps.

  • It's probably a personal style thing, but I'd audit for unnecessary commas. I caught the one after "magnate", "decade", "Courcy" and "territory". Don't you agree it would flow better without? BTW, in deciding whether to use an optional comma, I'd account for sentence length and the presence of other commas in the vicinity, inter alia.
  • "Although denied succession to the full lordship of the Gall-Gaidhil, or even most of its lands, he was granted lordship over Carrick in the west." I'm unsure, but is this correct? "Although denied succession to the lordship of the whole of Gall-Gaidhil, or even most of its lands, he was granted lordship over Carrick in the west." I was a little confused over full vs most. But maybe it's OK.
  • "first mormaer (earl) of Carrick"—watch those ambiguous equative ors.
  • Fussy: "He fought Irish battles in alliance"? (Avoid in in?)
  • "ruled for more than six decades" just a little nicer, I think.

(Personal pref only)

  • Consider semicolons after "Cumberland" and "king", since there are internal commas in that list.
  • The first map tells me nothing, because the text requires a strong magnifying glass to decipher. Please boost the text size and the image size—significantly.
  • Why is the Island of Dee image so small? The caption is skyscraper-tall, too. Try 240px; or 250.
  • Second map; I've boosted the size to see whether the text is viable—it is, but why are some of the place-names all caps? They make it very hard to read (crowded). Unspaced en dash for the key, but if you didn't create the image, don't worry. Tony (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these comments, Tony. As above, I'll respond point by point:
It's probably a personal style thing, but I'd audit for unnecessary commas. I caught the one after "magnate", "decade", "Courcy" and "territory". Don't you agree it would flow better without? BTW, in deciding whether to use an optional comma, I'd account for sentence length and the presence of other commas in the vicinity, inter alia.
Fair enough ... I went over it trying to prune a few not totally necessary commas.
"Although denied succession to the full lordship of the Gall-Gaidhil, or even most of its lands, he was granted lordship over Carrick in the west." I'm unsure, but is this correct? "Although denied succession to the lordship of the whole of Gall-Gaidhil, or even most of its lands, he was granted lordship over Carrick in the west."
I altered this sentence now. I got rid of "most", since it's a tad confusing and is redundant anyway.
"first mormaer (earl) of Carrick"—watch those ambiguous equative ors.
Fixed
Fussy: "He fought Irish battles in alliance"? (Avoid in in?)
Changed to "Allied to John de Courcy, Donnchadh fought battles in Ireland "
"ruled for more than six decades" just a little nicer, I think.
Changed accordingly. My one concern over this wording is that it might imply a number of decades more than six rather than a period of time longer than six decades, but probably no-one will read it like that.
Consider semicolons after "Cumberland" and "king", since there are internal commas in that list.
Done.
The first map tells me nothing, because the text requires a strong magnifying glass to decipher. Please boost the text size and the image size—significantly.
I won't be able to increase the text size, but I'll drop the maker (User:Notuncurious) a note, and maybe he can do something. I increased the in-wiki size to 350 for the maps (same as for the genealogy), but I should say that all these images already appeared fine on my screen. I'll take it my screen isn't representative. The images still look fine, but since my screen is so weird maybe they're gigantic on the screens of others?
Second map; I've boosted the size to see whether the text is viable—it is, but why are some of the place-names all caps? They make it very hard to read (crowded). Unspaced en dash for the key, but if you didn't create the image, don't worry.
The CAPS text are names of parish churches, as distinguished from other important locations that aren't parish churches. The image was created by Notuncurious, but based on a crapper one done by me. It is very tough to get so many locations on such a small area when all the available base-maps are so poor. I'll leave him a note about your comments, and maybe something will get better. Thanks again for the comments. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just got a note from Deacon ... sorry, I wasn't watching what was going on. I'll adjust the map accordingly, to address present and future concerns. For File:Carrick.13th.to.14th.century.jpg:
(a) I'll add a locator submap;
(b) agreed re "crowding" ... options seem to be
(b1) make image large in article (not too large), but make text smaller (ps - all-caps is arbitrary to distinguish towns from churches; it should be whatever you think is most preferable). This also means title box can be smaller but still readable, producing room for the locator submap.
(b2) if a smaller image in the article is desired, perhaps the least-bad way to go is to make text of the towns very small, leaving text of the churches readable without expanding the image. To see an example: the fort names in File:Roman.Scotland.north.84.jpg, with the reader experience shown here.
(c) if I've missed something, or if someone has a suggested improvement, please mention them.
Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon, can you please follow-up with NuclearWarfare to see what needs to be done to resolve the image concer for the File:Carrick.13th.to.1th.century.jpg? NW may not be watching the FAC. Thanks. Karanacs (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted him. I dunno if he's gonna respond, but if someone can clarify what he meant by "image of the underlying source" that would be helpful. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NW was active but unresponsive. After a discussion, the problem has been addressed (assuming Angus was correct about what NW meant). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that; I forgot to watchlist this page. The images are all good. NW (Talk) 12:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh both maps are SOOO much better. Thank you. You might have tried, say, a small Christian cross icon after each church name instead of caps (if there is one—there must be). But what has been done is fine. If the second map is too large in anyone's opinion it could even be a tad small in pixel width and still be OK. PS suggestion for next time: a slightly less garish blue colour for the sea? Well done, Notuncurious. Tony (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:33, 19 December 2009 [29].

Hurricane Bret (1999)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets all the FA criteria. With help from Cool3 (talk · contribs), I was able to get many newspaper articles that were published at the time of the storm and fill in gaps that on-line sources left for Mexico. All images already have alt-text and should check out as public domain as they're all from NOAA or the US Navy. All thoughts and comments are welcome, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical stuff

  • External link 3 is dead. All others check out.
  • There are dab links; both are Mexican place names.
  • The infobox has good alt text, but it's not showing up in the Altviewer or in the page's resulting HTML source. Someone should check the box template or its parameters to make it show. Otherwise, the alts look fine.
  • Dates throughout are consistent Month Day, Year.

--an odd name 22:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Date? Even though the date is stated in the title of the article, it needs to be restated in the first sentence. You have a day but haven't followed it up with the year. This is essential and absolutely basic to the description of an historical event. Amandajm (talk) 10:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - Images check out. Awadewit (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Am wondering if these sources might have some additional information that could be used Sasata (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Title: Structural and Intensity Changes of Hurricane Bret (1999). Part I: Environmental Influences. Author(s): Lowag, A; Black, ML; Eastin, MD. Source: MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW Volume: 136 Issue: 11 Pages: 4320-4333. Published: 2008
Title: A numerical simulation of Hurricane Bret on 22-23 August 1999 initialized with airborne Doppler radar and dropsonde data. Author(s): Nuissier, O; Rogers, RF; Roux, F. Source: QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY. Volume: 131 Issue: 605 Pages: 155-194 Part: A Published: JAN 2005
  • Both of those articles contain minor bits of information that do not add any useful information (or necessary) to the article Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Nice work. I've been doing some copyediting, but a few areas confuse me a bit. Some comments:
  • Not clear on why you cite one sentence of the lead but not the rest. Consistency is needed.
  • The lead should summarize the entire article's contents, and it currently does not. I think we need three paragraphs—one to cover the storm history, one to summarize preps, and one for a more detailed overview of the impact.
  • Texas State Highway 361 was shut down following the announcement of the Port Aransas closure. - Huh?
  • About 1,000 sailors working in anti-mine programs evacuated to the USS Inchon prior to the storm. - Again, huh?
  • Removed anti mine program since it's more or less excess info not related to the storm. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...to prevent anyone from re-entering them before the all-clear was given. - Find a more formal term for "the all-clear" perhaps?

More later. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SupportReview by Jason Rees MH

"Convective activity developed around the low, and by August 18 the system was over the Yucatán Peninsula." - Why not just convection?.
The first and second paragraphs are so short that i would seriously consider combining them.
Initially, the depression did not strengthen due to moderate wind shear to moderate levels of vertical wind shear.
Sorted on IRC Jason Rees (talk) 00:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preps

Hours later, the watch was upgraded to a warning as the - How many hours later?
By August 22, - By to On
  • Don't want to be repetitive (it would be the same as the first sentence of the preceding paragraph) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Corpus Christi International Airport closed midday on August 22. - UTC EDT AST FST? Which one
  • All times in articles are assumed to be in local time unless otherwise stated Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Three schools, two universities and one college were closed on August 23 and remained closed for several days - Six educational instutuions were closed
were in was deemed unsafe during hurricane conditions - were in was deemed to be unsafe during hurricane conditions

Impact and Aftermath

Seem fine to meJason Rees (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review Jason Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Seems good content- and prose- wise. I'd suggest going through to ensure compliance with the MoS, but it seems like a valuable resource worthy of being assigned FA status. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by karanacs. Ugh, I remember this storm - my family ended up sleeping on the floor of my apartment for a few days. Not fun. Putting aside the bad memories, the article is in decent shape, with a few exceptions.

  • The impact sections are a mix of high-level information and excessive detail. Is it important to know that 7 families were evacuated in one Mexican town (surely this also occurred in other areas)? Do we need to know about the RV and barn destroyed in ARansas County (compared to the $500k of damage in Corpus Christi)? This mix of detail and summary info may also be why the sections read more like proseline.
  • It's better. I still wonder if we care about traffic lights down in Nogales. It also still reads very much like proseline - is there any way to reword so we aren't bogged down in details?
  • Removed the traffic lights and merged that sentence with the preceeding one. Also, I'm not sure how to word it in the way you're requesting, it's not my style of writing. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I recommend wiki-linking to the Texas counties. Many people are likely unfamiliar with where these counties are located in relation to the rest of Texas, and that would give them a way to go check.
  • The aftermath section reads a little like proseline too. Can anything be done to make that flow a little better?
  • The historian/crazy nationalist in me loves this sentence Numerous homes in both nations were damaged or destroyed ..., but considering that the previous sentences were speaking of "Texas" and "Mexico" I don't think "nation" is the most appropriate word.

Karanacs (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One additional comment: The aftermatch section is focused entirely on what happened in the US. Were there any significant steps taken in Mexico? Karanacs (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's no known actions taken after the storm from my research and that of Cool3 (talk · contribs). None of the newspapers published following the storm in Mexico noted relief efforts. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll strike this comment, but could you make it more clear in the first sentence that we are speaking of the United States actions? Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 27.88 inHg - I assume inches of mercury is an accepted unit, at least in the US?
  • Yes, it's used very often in public weather forecasts. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • car accidents caused by slick roads. - reads oddly to a Brit, can "slippery" replace "slick"?
  • Initially, the depression did not strengthen due to moderate wind shear as it moved slowly and erratically due to weak steering currents over the system. - The two "due to's" left me confused
  • Reworded Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tens of thousands of residents were urged to evacuate coastal areas and seek refuge in local shelters - the phrasing in the lead section makes it sound as if the evacuation was spontaneous, this implies that was not the case
  • I don't get the same interpretation from that, maybe another editor can comment on this to give their opinion too Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Mexican government emphasized on the safety of residents in the city - I know what you mean but...
  • Well, in BE at least, I'm not sure you can emphasise on something. I would write emphasised the safety... or put an emphasis on the safety Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • destroyed a Recreational vehicle - if you keep this major incident in the article, change the capitalisation
  • any mosquitoes and other insects laid eggs in areas of built up waters, causing insect outbreaks. - what other insects? Apart from the mossies, it's unclear why the outbreaks of other insects actually matters if we don't know what they are. The source only mentions fire ants, which don't lay eggs in water, and are being displaced, rather than an outbreak.
  • Removed other insects since it's minor info and changed that part of the sentence to enforce the increase of mosquitoes. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • areas of built up waters, - odd phrasing, what about "standing water" or "stagnant water" (or stagnant standing water?)? "Or still water"
  • "Bret brings mosquitoes, other Pests" - in ref, why is "Pests" capped? Speaking of which, it's difficult to see what your practice is for capitalisation of refs, seems to vary from one to the next
  • It depends on what the title of the actual article is, I go by the way they have it written. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think there are still some significant prose problems in this article. A few examples:
  • "... Bret established a north-northwest track under influences of a mid-level ridge."
  • "Initially, the depression did not strengthen due to moderate wind shear ...". This is ambiguous. "It didn't strengthen, because of moderate wind shear", and "it didn't strengthen because of moderate wind wind shear", are quite different in meaning.
  • "By the evening of August 20, Bret was designated a hurricane in accordance with reports of 75 mph (120 km/h) winds by a dropsonde ...". Leaving aside the rather ungainly "in accordance", it wasn't the dropsonde (whatever that is) that made the report.
  • "... which was anticipated to bore the brunt of the hurricane".
  • "... leading to traffic jams and high winds downed power lines".
  • "About 10 hectares of cropland were destroyed by the storm." No conversion, and everywhere else in the article imperial measurements have been favoured.
  • "Damages to homes and businesses in Corpus Christi were estimated up to $500,000 (1999 USD)". Try "Damage to homes and businesses ... was estimated ...".

--Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have Malleus's issues been fixed? The prose looks passable. I've fixed the en dash for the Mexico border and a few overlinkings (esp. city, state—just the more specific item, piped, please). Tony (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some of that, but I'll leave the nominator to fix the conversion and the ambiguous sentence –Juliancolton | Talk 15:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help JC. I've converted hectares to acres and put acres first. As for the ambiguous sentence, I've reworded it a bit so hopefully it now reads better. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article is engaging, well written and the images are appropriate and nicely formatted. I would prefer "before" instead of "prior to" (but there are only about 4 occurrences and this is a personal preference). I made one tiny edit to the Lead where I think "official" should be plural. Please check it. Lets hope we can get this FAC off the bottom of the list soon. Graham Colm Talk 13:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Lean towards support - article is informative and appears to be comprehensive. Thanks for your efficient responses. My review has been fairly cursory and I'm no expert on the subject, but the article looks to be in pretty good shape generally and the prose concerns that jumped out from a quick read have now been addressed. The prose is a little rough in places. A few examples:

  • "In Nogales, heavy rains caused water to accumulate on streets, leading to traffic jams and high winds that downed power lines." - water on the streets led to high winds?
  • The word "damages" is used several times throughout the article but as Malleus illustrates above, "damage" appears to have been the intent.
  • As requested, an example: "the storm caused $[...] in damages." - this raises questions of both grammar and semantics, since storms generally cause damage while claimants may be awarded damages. The same questions arise wherever "damages" appears in the article. PL290 (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later that day, the storm weakened [...] and made landfall [...]. Shortly thereafter, the storm quickly weakened," - perhaps weakened further?
  • "seven people were killed by the storm, four in Texas and three in Mexico. Most of the deaths were due to car accidents caused by slippery roads." - given the second sentence, is "killed by the storm" accurate?
  • "Heavy rains were also associated with Bret," - presents rainfall as if introducing a new theme, two sentences after slippery roads caused car accidents.
  • "At around 7:00 pm CDT (0000 UTC; August 23), Hurricane Bret passed over Padre Island, Texas, with winds of 115 mph (185 km/h) and a barometric pressure of 951 mbar (hPa; 28.08 inHg), marking the storm's landfall." - it passed over the island, marking its landfall?
*I can't see a fix. PL290 (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it will help if I elucidate what's troubling me about the sentence. This may be a meteorological misconception on my part, but I take it the passing over the island and the landfall are one and the same event? (If not, greater clarity is needed regarding how one "marked" the other.) Assuming they are one and the same thing, is it not a tautology akin to "Bush brought the car into the garage, marking its parking"? PL290 (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Landfall is only declared when the storm's center (or eye) strikes the coast. The eye itself is a very small portion of the overall hurricane, so while a storm may have passed over an area, its eye may have stayed offshore slightly. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clarifying, Julian (we don't get hurricanes round here!). Point taken from Graham also; the head of a pin or the eye of a needle or hurricane... :) PL290 (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Three schools, two universities and one college were closed on August 23 " - perhaps "a college" is more natural?
  • "Bret produced a storm surge up to 8.8 ft (2.7 m)", whereas there was "Heavy precipitation, reaching 13.18 in (335 mm)" in central Kenedy County - I've not seen decimal feet before and I think consistent use of feet and inches might be correct, but perhaps this is standard meteorological terminology.
  • They're generally left in feet for storm surge and inches for rainfall. All official NHC documents have that style Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other:

  • The animaged gif is impressive, but distracting when trying to read. Would there be a way to enable it to be hidden by the reader when not required?

PL290 (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the gif is OK, the one at the top of FA DNA moves faster. I quite like them. Graham Colm Talk 18:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to get rid of it and use preview just to review the section! Movement on web pages is not liked by all. I believe it's an accessibility issue too. PL290 (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but I don't think the onus should be on the nominator or a condition of this candidate's being promoted that a way of turning the animation off should be found. This discussion should be followed-up elsewhere. Graham Colm Talk 19:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. I'll leave the comment open anyway in case there are other comments or suggestions. PL290 (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 20:14, 16 December 2009 [30].

Pseudoryzomys[edit]

Nominator(s): Ucucha 21:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This is another South American rodent, related to Lundomys, which has just become an FA. It has had a complex history and is interesting morphologically, but its natural history is very poorly known. It is a current GA; thanks go to Casliber for a GA review that markedly improved the article. Unfortunately, there seem to be no free images other than the old picture of the skull that is now in the article. Ucucha 21:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Is it hard to get a (decent) photo of the rodent given that its status is of 'least concern'? - DSachan (talk) 21:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That really doesn't say much about photo availability, I believe. Besides, it's apparently rare, or at least hard to find. Ucucha 22:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 2c: Fifelfoo (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works are misdated. (Percequillo etal 2008/2009)
Citations lack page / paragraph references. (Percequillo, Pardiñas, others)
Dates within citations are consistent.
Citations style is consistent (I think ugly, but some fields don't like quotes or italics) Fifelfoo (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the 2008/2009 thing. Percequillo et al., 2008, is an online source which doesn't have page numbers. I sometimes omit references to page numbers where the reference is to the whole paper; for example, Pardiñas et al., 2004, is all about the distribution in Argentina. That said, there may be a few where specific page number can be inserted; I'll have a look at that. Ucucha 22:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted specific page numbers for all but a few now. Ucucha 20:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical checks No dabs, images have alt text , but can't get mammals of Northern Columbia link to work Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check Images OK, sources fully described and appropriately licensed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your checks! The link (Hershkovitz 1960) is working for me now; perhaps the site was down for a while? Ucucha 12:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Needs work:
    • Taxonomy section is too detailed and too much focused on past classifications rather than current ones. Probably not so long that it should be a separate article, but suggest reorganizing to more clearly highlight what is currently believed/known about relationships.
    • Likewise, the morphology material is kind of monotonous.
    • Ideally, there would be much more on ecology. The paragraphs we have are good, and if this is all that is known, perhaps that is all that can be done.
In terms of the criteria, I'm mostly talking about 1a (especially whether the prose is engaging) and 1b (placing subject in context). We also need a few more images (criterion 3). If we can't find images of the animal, we should be able to find images of the habitat and predators, or images which illustrate some of the anatomical points in related species. Kingdon (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, I'd even go for a photo of one of the scientists who worked on it... Kingdon (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree, even if there are plenty of images available, as with some of the bird FAs I've done, adding habitat, predators, image of original description etc adds variety and interest to the page, and is relatively effortless Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. The "taxonomy" section places the subject in context by providing a historic overview of how our current understanding of the creature's taxonomy has developed. Two of the four paragraphs (the last two) are largely about the current classification, and I added a few sentences explaining its placement in the subfamily Sigmodontinae and family Cricetidae.
The description is comprehensive, and I attempted to lighten it up by interspersing notes about the significance of particular characters. Note that criterion 1a says that the prose should be engaging, not the content; I don't believe that there is a problem with the prose of the "description" section.
Well, here's an attempt to tweak the taxonomy section a bit. I reverted myself because (a) without reading the source, and/or spending more time, I wasn't sure I had preserved accuracy (particularly about the Holochilus/Lundomys/Pseudoryzomys clade versus clade D), and (b) I was unsatisfied with the amount of repetition between the lead of the article and the text I was putting at the start of the Taxonomy section. Perhaps some of what I wrote is worth bringing back, or gets the creative juices flowing for someone. Kingdon (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite like that, because the information you provided largely duplicates the lead (and a little more so now, since I expanded the lead by mentioning Sigmodontinae and Cricetidae). I now introduced subsections per Sasata's suggestions below; what do you think of that? Ucucha 19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is really surprisingly little known about ecology. I don't think there are any more relevant things to say than what is already there.
I added photographs of a superficially similar species (the Marsh Rice Rat), its Gran Chaco habitat, and a predator (the Barn Owl). I believe all are adequately sourced, but could someone do a check on that? Ucucha 20:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice photos and captions. I would alternate left and right (with the taxobox counting as a "right") and move them all down the page a bit (to put them closer to the text they go with, and avoid a big dead space with no images). Kingdon (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are alternating now. The rice rat is next to the paragraph about external morphology, which is where it should be, because it is supposed to be similar to Pseudoryzomys in appearance. The owl and the chaco should ideally both go to the "Distribution..." section, but there is not enough space for them there, so I kept the chaco where it is, providing some visual relief in the long description. I moved the owl up a bit to prevent it from extending it to the footnotes section, which doesn't look good. Ucucha 19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for taking the time to check that. Ucucha 20:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, questions and suggestions: Sasata (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments. You caught a lot of things I should have found myself, producing some real improvement in readability. Ucucha 19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 50 g needs a conversion to imperial. There should also be a non-breaking space between the number and the unit (which will be placed automatically if you use a convert template). Also, shorthand g in used in the lead, but spelled out in full in the description section.
    • Done.
  • Similarly, there should be a non-breaking space between all occurrences of the shorthand genus and species name (P. simplex); this prevents unsightly line wraps in the middle.
    • Done.
  • "...with a gray–brown fur, ..." remove the "a"?
    • Yes, that's better. Done.
  • "It is the only species in the genus Pseudoryzomys, which among living species is most closely related to the large rats Holochilus and Lundomys, which are semiaquatic, spending much of their time in the water." Reword to remove repetitive "which"
    • I had noticed that too, but couldn't think of a better wording. I rephrased it now.
  • suggest wlinking genus in the lead (since the article is about a genus)
    • Done.
  • "...and by a reduction in the complexity of the dentition..." Since it's the lead, I'd suggest rephrasing to use the more common "teeth" in there somewhere
    • Done. I used "molars", as the incisors don't have much to with it. Ucucha 19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • millimetres in British English vs. "color"
    • That's {{convert}} doing nasty things. I fixed it to US spelling and abbreviated "mm" and "g" on subsequent occurrences.

Taxonomy

  • "It was first described in 1887 by Danish zoologist Herluf Winge," how about adding a citation to the original publication?
    • Sure, done
  • "Like most other species Winge proposed, H. simplex was mostly ignored in the systematic literature for a long time," sounds like there's an interesting story behind this... is it relevant enough to elaborate here?
  • phyllotine is linked in consecutive paragraphs
    • Fixed.
  • wlink specific name
    • Done.
  • deermice leads to a redlink... is it the same as deer mice (Peromyscus)?
    • Created a redirect, and bypassed it.
  • wlink molecular phylogenetic, morphology
    • Done.
  • "Together, the three genera form part of a large group of oryzomyines ("clade D")..." I can't see how mentioning the arbitrary clade name will help the reader's understanding here...
    • I see your point, but I intend to someday introduce discussions of these clades into the Oryzomyini article, and I think it's helpful to have them mentioned in the genus articles.
  • "Together, the three genera form part of a large group of oryzomyines ("clade D"), which contains tens of other species, including several that, like Pseudoryzomys and its relatives, display some adaptations to life in the water, being partially aquatic." This sentence has lots of parts connected by commas and doesn't seem to flow well.
    • Rephrased.
  • In general, this section is long and tough reading, I suggest splitting into a subsection or two to help give the reader a mental break.
    • Done. I also added cladograms to clarify the relationships found by Weksler (and had to tweak the template to make the layout work). Ucucha 19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • wlink buff
    • Done.
  • lots of talk about toes, but no mention of how many toes there are (do rat feet have 5 toes? I really don't know)
    • They do. I added it to the page.
  • suggest abbreviating convert template output to mm, then you don't have to also specify Brit/Am spelling; also, should adjust the output so that there's an equal number of sig figs in the numbers before and after conversion
    • Did the first part, except for the first occurrence, and tweaked one output. The one for head-body length now technically has one significant figure too much for the minimum figure, but I think that is preferable here.
  • "The female has four pairs of teats, including one on the chest," where are the other pairs?
    • Added.
  • "Pseudoryzomys has 19 or 20 thoraic (chest)" should be thoracic?
    • Yes.
  • The last three subsections of the description section are a tough read. You've done a pretty good job of explaining unfamiliar terms, but there's a few missing (e.g., entepicondylar foramen, hernal arches). Ideally, all of those redlinks would have nice descriptions.... I'll come back for a reread later when I'm more awake :)
    • I added something about the foramen. I think the hemal arches are already adequately explained as small bones between the second and third vertebrae. The ones I see that may require some explanation are "centromere" and "cartilaginous", but these should be known to someone with at least a rudimentary background in biology and are also bluelinked.

Distribution

  • wlink pelage
    • Changed to "fur" instead.
  • "A fragmentary subfossil lower jaw" what is a subfossil? (i.e., how does it differ from regular fossil?)
    • See subfossil. I just deleted the word as it didn't add much to the sentence.

Comments... continued: Sasata (talk) 05:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for making the above fixes so quickly, consider them all stricken.
  • Several of the journal article sources should have DOI's
    • Should they? They are not in the similar, recently promoted FA Lundomys and in my view add superfluous text; we'll be able to deal with linkrot.
      • I think they're added for the same reason ISBNs are added to books, to make it easier for interested readers to find the source. I've usually been asked to supply them when possible at GAN and FAC. Maybe someone who's more sure than me could comment? Sasata (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do think it's different, though. I give the ISBN for the books, but no other way to find it. For the journal articles, there either is an online version, in which case I link to it directly, or there is not, in which case there is no DOI either. So I don't see what the DOI really adds to that. Ucucha 19:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay you've convinced me on 1b and 1c. I'm leaning towards support, but still think the description section needs some tweaking to make it more reader-friendly. I'll come back later after others have had a chance to comment. Sasata (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I read the article again and feel it has improved considerably since the first version I read. One last suggestion, wlink process (anatomy) on its first occurrence. Looking forward to seeing more rodent taxon articles at FAC. Sasata (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for taking the time to read it. I added the link you suggested. I certainly have plans for some more rodent FAs; Noronhomys is next in line (though it'll get some improvement before I'll put it up here). Ucucha 04:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

Very interesting article, but I have reservations about the quality of the writing.

Overall
  • Excessive use of commas.
  • Overly lengthy sentences. Many are much too long. Shorter sentences would improve readability.
    • I went over the article to look for both points, and made some changes. Please let me know what specific sentences remain that you think problematic.
Lead
  • Paragraph 1, sentence 1: The opening sentence says that P. simplex is a species of rodent, from South America, in the Cricetidae. This amounts to the form "a species of A, in B, from C", which associates B (South America) with C (the Cricetidae). It should be in the form "a species of A, in B, from C" - for example, "a species of rodent in the family Cricetidae from south-central South America".
    • Done.
  • Sentence 2: Is it redundant to say that it is found in "palm savanna and thorn scrub habitats characterized by seasonal rainfall"? Aren't all palm savannas and thorn scrubs in South America characterised by seasonal rainfall? (Minor, but kinda bothers me.)
    • The Red List does say this. I took the "seasonal rainfall" part out of the lead, though, as it's really too much detail.
  • Sentence 3: is "hindfeet" a single word?
    • In zoology, yes. In other contexts, I don't know.
  • Para 2, sentence 1: "it is most closely related among living species to the large rats Holochilus and Lundomys" - wordy; it would be better phrased as something like "its closest living relatives are the large rats Holochilus and Lundomys..."
    • That quite improves the sentence. Done.
  • Sentence 1: "which are semiaquatic, spending much of their time in the water" - it seems a bit repetitive to say that a semiaquatic species spends much of its time in the water. If it's important to point out that these species spend much of their time in the water (as opposed to "little"), then I would suggest something along the lines of "semiaquatic species which spend much of their time in the water". Without that it seems like the article is explaining what "semiaquatic" means, which seems out of place in the lead, given that the term is Wikilinked.
    • It is repetitive, but because "semiaquatic" is a term many readers are unlikely to know, I am explaining it here. It is blue-linked, true, but I think the article should (as much as possible) be understandable without forcing people to look at another article.
  • Sentence 2: I would recommend splitting this into two sentences. In addition, there appears to be a stray "]" after "molar"
    • I rephrased it, but kept it in one sentence. What do you think of the sentence as it is now? I don't see the stray ].
  • Sentence 5: "Pseudoryzomys simplex was independently described in 1887...and in 1921". Wasn't it described in 1887 and then independently described in 1921?
    • I don't see much of a difference. Two people described it, independently from each other. "Independently" refers to both 1887 and 1921. It might be better to move "independently" to 1921, though.
Taxonomy
  • Para 1, sentence 4: "H. simplex was mostly ignored in the systematic literature for a long time, but from 1952 it was used" - no need to say "it was ignored for a long time" and "it was ignored until 1952". Either statement conveys the information - the latter one conveys more information, since it avoids the nebulous "long time".
    • That is not completely accurate, as it was ignored again after Hershkovitz noted that the Oecomys ID was incorrect in 1960. I moved a few words around in these sentences.
  • Para 3, sentence 1: Is "restudy" a word? "Re-study", perhaps, but I think "reexamination" would be more normal.
    • Rephrased the sentence.
  • Sentence 2: "Since this study,..." - in this context, "since this study" is more likely to be read to mean "given that this study..." rather than the intended "since the time of this study". "Since then" is simpler and far more clear.
    • I'm not sure I agree on your first point, but it's true that "since then" is better. Changed it.
  • Para 4, sentence 1: The parenthetical portion is a separate sentence, and needs to be written as such.
    • Done.
  • Sentence 2: This sentence is far too long and convoluted. It has too much detail (the independent loss of the mesoloph(id)s would be better as a footnote) and too vague ("other characteristics" which unite the oryzomyines are mentioned, but not named).
    • The independent loss is relevant because some of Pseudoryzomys and its friends were previously regarded as relatives of those species because of similarities in molar structure. I split and rewrote the sentence.
  • Para 5, sentence 1: The sentence should be split at the semi-colon. It doesn't even kinda do the job of uniting the two segments.
    • Rewrote it.
  • Sentence 2, and many places in the article: "oryzomyines" or "the oryzomyines"?
    • Changed it to "Oryzomyini" here and at a few other places.
  • Sentence 4: "clade D"? What is the significance of this name? What's the context for its inclusion? It isn't used elsewhere in the article, and it appears to be just an arbitrary term for the clade. If so, then is shouldn't be in the article.
    • To the other reviewer who noted this, I said: "I see your point, but I intend to someday introduce discussions of these clades into the Oryzomyini article, and I think it's helpful to have them mentioned in the genus articles." I will try to move "someday" up to "in a few days" and link this to the appropriate section in the Oryzomyini article.
  • Figure: Figure captions should be interpretable without reference to the text. IRBP needs either to be explained in the caption, or wikilinked.
    • I linked it.
Description
  • Para 1, Sentence 5: it needs to be made clear that you're talking about the tail here. While it's obvious to anyone who knows anything about rats that the scales are on the tail, not everyone knows much about rats.
    • Done.
  • Sentence 8: This needs to be split into two sentences. You can't talk about webbing, compare it to other genera, and then come back to the tufts of hair. Anything after the "but" has to be part of the comparison. If it's not, then it needs to be a separate sentence.
    • What about the current phrasing?
  • Para 2: The lengths are given to the nearest mm, but to the nearest hundredth of an inch, or about 0.25 mm. Unless there's some reason to assume that the measurements are taken to the nearest 0.25 mm, converting to the nearest 0.01 inch amounts to the introduction of spurious accuracy.
    • Fair enough. Done.
  • Para 3: It seems odd to lumps anatomy (teats, gall bladder, penile bones) with chromosome counts. I think these should be separate paras.
    • It's intended as a bit of a miscellaneous paragraph, but you are right that the karyo is out of place there. I split the paragraph.
  • Skull, Molars and Post-Cranial Skeleton are all level-3 headers. Aren't the molars part of the skull?
    • Technically, yes. As you can see in the article, keeping the two separate makes the article more balanced, though. Weksler (2006) also keeps the two separate (substituting "dentition" for "molars", but we don't have anything interesting to say about the incisors here).
Molars
  • Para 1, sentence 4: Mesolophs? After an extensive discussion of the systematic significance of the lack of mesolophs in Pseudoryzomys, we now have mesolophs, but no anterolophs. Huh?
    • It has small mesoloph(id)s, which don't extend to the edge of the molar as they do in other oryzos. I was careful to say that it lacks complete mesoloph(id)s previously, but I did lose that care in some passages of the taxonomy section.
  • Figure: Only mention of Gran Chaco; should be wikilinked. In addition, Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil do not appear to be wikilinked.
    • I instead changed it to "Chaco", as in the distribution section. It seems like the only reason "Gran Chaco" is the title of our article is that "Chaco" is also the names of provinces in Argentina and Paraguay. I deliberately did not link the countries as it could be considered overlinking.
Distribution, ecology, and variation
  • Para 1, sentence 2: needs to be split.
    • Kept it in one sentence, but rephrased it. What do you think of it? Or did you mean sentence 1?
  • Sentence 3: Full colon, not semi-colon
    • I believe I addressed this.
  • Sentence 4: what's the significance of a 1.4% difference in cytochrome b?
    • Not much (though some GSC proponents have argued that a 2% cyt b difference may be enough to recognize different species). It's relevant as the only genetic evidence of geographic variation, though. The sentence previously stated that no genetic study of geographic variation had been carried out, before I found this paper, and I added something similar to the current sentence, which serves to place it in a little bit of context.
  • Para 3, sentence 2: cerrado and caatinga are not proper nouns, and should not be capitalised.
    • Both are commonly capitalized in the specialized literature. Cerrado and Caatinga are understood as both a habitat and a region, I think, which confuses the spelling. They are similar to "Chaco", which you didn't note as being miscapitalized (or was that not deliberate?).

Guettarda (talk) 04:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a thorough review. It's clear that you read the article closely, and it's produced quite some improvements. Ucucha 19:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Thanks. Really a nice job, on all of these small mammal-related articles. Guettarda (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for noting. I fixed the one dab link. Ucucha 23:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on refs. All look OK, although I'm curious as to how "table 5" (noted twice) can span four pages. • Ling.Nut 03:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the dataset for his phylogenetic analysis, 99 characters for about 60 species. P. 20 has character 1-50 and p. 21 has characters 51-99. I think I've actually seen tables spanning more than two pages in other papers. Check the link if you don't believe me (and have fun: table 4 is also two pages). Thanks for checking! Ucucha 03:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support • Ling.Nut 12:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Karanacs (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 20:14, 16 December 2009 [31].

York Park[edit]

Nominator(s): Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 05:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because it now meets the criteria. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 05:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per last time, and Brianboulton has given it another copyedit, 1a being the main complaint the last time YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 05:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - with a one comment. I cannot find any piece of information, of significance, that is missing. The article is readable and, for me, flows well. Images are good, correctly licensed and seem to have appropriate alt text. (though the map could do with a scale measurement). The text meets my idea of 1a - Peripitus (Talk) 07:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Highly readable despite featuring a strange Oz game. Was there any motive to the arson attack, or just the usual mindless vandalism? (no need to respond to that, just wondered Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, just a random attack. In a funny way it was perhaps a good thing as Hawthorn has attempted to get rid of the stand for a while. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 19:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Aaroncrick has done a fine job and Brianboulton's copy edit should seal the deal. I went through just to see if I could jump in the action, but I can't find any flaws. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Brian did a fine job copy-editing the prose. Found a couple of little fixes that I made myself, because this is now a great article and I didn't want to wait before offering my support. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments 2c review at talk: Fifelfoo (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not there? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 07:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I made the link first: A couple of missing author names and wire bylines. ABC needs consistency in presentation / use of subdivision names. Two cites are missing work names (rather important in newspaper articles). [In box, upper left] would make a decent dummy name for those shout out non-article boxes if required for the front pages. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please ensure that all quotations have a citation immediately after the sentence in which they appear. This may mean that a citation is duplicated at the ends of subsequent sentences. There is some ambiguity in the article currently, where there is a quote in a sentence, but no citation, and the next sentence has 2 citations. Which one is the quote from? Karanacs (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Also, shouldn't The Age and The Australian be italicized as they are newspapers/magazines? Karanacs (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They should be. I've manually done them all. Just removed the manual italics and it's now in italics :S Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 19:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Karanacs (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 19:38, 16 December 2009 [32].

Ode on a Grecian Urn[edit]

Nominator(s):user:Ottava Rima (talk) Mrathel (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it both meets the FAC criteria and has received a significant amount of attention from several editors who had added great content. I am willing to make the necessary changes to help the article pass and would love any comments on how it can be changed or made better. Mrathel (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restart. Old nom. Sources, dabs, images have all been cleared (see talk). Karanacs (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
  • In article but not refs: Bloom 1995.
  • Perhaps the Beauty/Truth debate section might include excerpts from Keats' letter here. • Ling.Nut 02:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how Bloom got changed to 95 instead of 93, and I worry about adding parts from the letter because very few of the critics bother to refer to it in their opinions. Many of them are New Critics that look down on authorial intention. Also, there is also no proof that the truth and beauty statement connect to the letter. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I was gonna suggest 1) making sure that's the whole darn letter. Find the whole thing — salutations, date etc and all. 2) Copying it into Wikisource, if it isn't already there, and 3) adding a link to Wikisource in a note. Now, there would be two ways to do the link, though you might fear WP:OR for the first: First approach would be to say something like "Keats discussed beauty and truth in a letter blah blah" and link it. The virtue of this is that it could be done at the beginning of the article's section, giving it (in my opinion) the appropriate degree of prominence. However, you might have WP:OR fears... I wouldn't fear WP:OR, but it is possible to see it that way. The second approach would be to link it to the statement that mentions Adam and Eve. This refers to the letter. In fact, I saw a quote somewhere that specifically stated that the critics were referring to that letter (I think Vendler stated that the other critic was referring to the letter...). Anyhow, your thoughts are solicited...• Ling.Nut 04:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lets say we include the letter - what will it tell us? It is two passing lines on an Urn and doesn't reveal why he chose the urn, what the images of the urn represent, etc. It just says that he had a view point using the same words in a letter. He had multiple letters each mentioning both the terms "truth" and "beauty", each with different versions of what he meant. Furthermore, many of his poems bring up similar uses. Your source even shows that there is no ground breaking claim to say "this is what Urn means". I searched for the term "urn" and the closest I could find it was 10 pages away. The letter you mentioned was from 1817, 2 years before. People develop and change -a lot- in two years, especially Keats who changed dramatically following Hyperion. The claim of "Annus Mirabilis" for 1819 was used to denote that Keats was radically different in 1819 than in his previous years. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support' Comment (leaning support). Ucucha 21:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC) I reviewed the article before this was restarted and gave it another look now, as it has seen some revisions. I am inclined to support, but have a few comments that need to be cleared first:[reply]

  • "The urn's description as a bride invokes a possibility of consummation is connected to its inability to exist on her own but must operate with an audience." - this sentence doesn't make sense, and I'm not sure what sense to make of it.
  • The article uses spaced en dashes and unspaced em dashes at different places in the article, which I don't believe in agreement with the current MOS (although Ottava argued at WT:MOS that this should be changed in the MOS).
  • Why do we need both an external link to the text and a link to Wikisource for the text?

Ucucha 21:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the duplicate link. I also reworked the sentence. The only em dashes that are unspaced are found in the quotes, and there are many, many different uses in those quotes (some being antiquated with two examples in some of the first quote by critics). Sometimes they represent a type of quotation, sometimes a colon, etc. There are only two uses of dashes outside of quoted text or pagination, and they are the same type of dash. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and thanks for the changes; I am switching to support now. The "External links" section is a bit pointless now; what about putting the two boxes under "Bibliography"? Ucucha 21:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People tend to get a little strange when that happens. I don't know where the current MoS debate has settled on the matter at the moment. I am sure Sandy would know. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I supported this before the restart, after a fairly long negotiation involving numerous points which were all resolved. Since then other reviewers have raised other issues, the article has changed to accommodate them, new typos have crept in... No doubt further issues can and will be raised by editors, ad infinitum, but I believe that, subject to the odd clarification, the article fulfils the FA criteria. There is nothing to prevent discussion continuing over its content; promotion doen't equate to set in stone. Brianboulton (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support But Brian should fix those typos he spotted. ;-) • Ling.Nut 11:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. My point, however, was a more general one: articles that are a long time on FAC get changed again and again, and as a result typos tend to creep in, even when sections have been thoroughly copyedited. The only queryable instance I can find now is a reference to 'Cold Pastrol' in the "Later responses" section, but it's within a quote – maybe H.W. Garrod was a lousy speller? This should either be corrected, or a {sic} added if it's what he wrote. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, no he wasn't. I fixed the line. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*(reluctantly) Oppose. I continue to find the prose somewhat opaque. Here are some examples. Ottava i think dealt with my concerns with the lead, "background" and "structure". I won't revisit those sections. Here are some concerns regarding "Themes":

  • First para: what is "natural music"? The sounds of nature? Inherent musicality of text? And does one "depict" sounds (other than in a musical score), or should one "describe" them?
  • First para: "The poet also used the image of an urn in "Ode on Indolence", depicting one with the figures Love, Ambition and Poesy. Of these three, Love and Poesy are discussed again within a focus on representational art,..." Does the "again" here mean "in "Ode on a Grecian Urn"? i think that should be spelt out.
  • Same sentence: i don't think the expression "discussed again within a focus" is right. "Discussed in the context of", or even perhaps more radical surgery to something like "Of these three, Love and Poesy are, in "Ode on a Grecian Urn", portrayed as artistic representations painted upon an Urn"? (Or something like that)
  • First para "how the urn, as a human artistic construct, is capable of relating to the idea of "Truth". " An urn is a piece of fired clay. It cannot "relate" to anything.
  • First para: "a human observer that draws out these images" - should not "that" be "who", if it is a human?
  • Second para "This allows the urn to participate with humanity" - I cannot fathom the expression "participate with humanity". Participate in what with humanity?
  • Second para "the symbol of the urn enables the narrator to ask questions, and the silence of the urn reinforces the imagination's ability to operate". Two things. First, I don't see why the urn as a symbol "enables" the narrator to ask questions. Second, the expression "reinforces the imagination's ability to operate" feels very clumsy - not the sparkling prose one might look for, though i confess to being sufficiently unsure of the intention here that i cannot offer a constructive alternative, sorry.
  • Second para: "meditates on the possibility that the role of art is not to describe specifics but universal characters, which falls under the term "Truth"" - I don't see the connection between the first part of this sentence and the expression "which falls under the term "Truth"". I am neither certain what it is that "falls under" this term, nor do I think that "term" is the right word here. There seems to be an excessive shorthand that has become too cryptic for the reader.
  • Second para: "Since the urn would depict an idealised scene in which the three figures are immortalised, the narrator is implying that art represents the feelings of the audience." This reads as a complete non-sequitur to me. Why on earth does an immortalised / idealised scene "imply that art represents the feelings of the audience"??
  • Second para: "Similarly, the response in the second section is not compatible with the response to the first". Whose response to what section of what? This begins to be answered in the next para, so things seem a little out of order here.
  • Third para (skipping some stuff): "The relationship of the audience to the world is not to learn facts or to benefit itself..." This does not make sense. Some options that would make sense (but i don't know what was being attempted to be expressed here) are "The purpose of the audience is not to learn facts or to benefit itself..." or "The purpose of the audience's relationship with the world is not to assist them to learn facts or to benefit itself..." Whatever: a relationship does not "learn facts" or "benefit itself".
  • Third para: "The narrator contemplates in the scene where the boundaries of art lie and..." Does this mean "The narrator contemplates where in the scene the boundaries of art lie and..."?
  • Third para: "Furthermore, the narrator is drawn into the scene in a manner that allows him to visualise more than what actually exists as he enters into a cooperative state with art". Again clumsy in several respects. I suggest "Furthermore the narrator, as he enters into a cooperative state with art, is drawn into the scene in a manner that allows him to visualise more than is actually portrayed". (though i don't like the expression "cooperative state with art" either)
  • Third para: "Ancient Grecians". Are you sure?? Not Ancient Greeks?
  • Third para: "Another paradox arises when the narrator finds that immortality on the side of an urn meant to carry the ashes of the dead". Unless I am mis-reading this, the word "that" should be omitted, and perhaps "portrayed" added after "immortality".
  • Fourth para: is pretty good.

I dunno - maybe some of the other editors here are English majors to whom all this makes perfect sense, but I continue to struggle with Ottava and others' valiant attempts to render comprehensible the critics' discussion of this important poem. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC):1a. "what is "natural music"? The sounds of nature?" - There is no other possibility beyond music that is natural. "Natural" does mean of nature, and it is an adjective. No instruments. No artifice. It appears in many forms - Aeolian harps, the sound of the wind, birds, or the rest. "To Autumn" describes all of nature as music.[reply]

1b. "And does one "depict" sounds" Poetry is a depiction. [33] - Verb "to represent or characterize in words; describe."
2 and 3. I don't agree with your suggestions. Reworked in a different manner
4. "An urn is a piece of fired clay. It cannot "relate" to anything." - Ignoring that the urn is able to speak at the end - No, unconscious entities can relate to another. [34] Verb - "to have reference (often fol. by to)." or " to have some relation (often fol. by to)."
5. "should not "that" be "who", if it is a human?" [35] "That is used to refer to animate and inanimate nouns and thus can substitute in most uses for who(m) and which:"
6. "Participate in what with humanity?" Changed to "interact"
7. "First, I don't see why the urn as a symbol "enables" the narrator to ask questions." Changed to - "the images on the urn provokes the narrator to ask questions"
7a. "not the sparkling prose one might look for" - "imagination's ability" is a standard phrase [36].
8. "I don't see the connection between the first part of this sentence and the expression "which falls under the term "Truth""." - "but universal characters" is part of "truth". That is how it grammatically reads. I don't think anyone could seriously doubt universality not being connected to truth. "I am neither certain what it is that "falls under" this term, nor do I think that "term" is the right word here." [37] Term - noun "a word or group of words designating something, esp. in a particular field". "Term" is the only acceptable word to designate a "word" like that.
9. "Why on earth does an immortalised / idealised scene "imply that art represents the feelings of the audience"??" - I reworked the sentence
10. "Whose response to what section of what?" The section labeled poem explains it but I reworded to make it clear.
11. "a relationship does not "learn facts" or "benefit itself"." I rewrote it to make that absolutely clear.
12. "The narrator contemplates where in the" I reworked it in a very different manner to remove any confusion on what is implied.
13. I reworked it in a different manner.
14. Changed it to figures, because they aren't Greeks but images.
15. Changed to "the narrator describes immortals on the side of an urn"
- Ottava Rima (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ottava. I still think "The second section of the poem, describing the piper and the lovers, meditates on the possibility that the role of art is not to describe specifics but universal characters, which falls under the term "Truth"" is not a model of clarity. I'm striking my oppose. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is better than last time. Ottava, there's a real problem with additive connectors: it comes down to the way you conceive the flow of the sentences. I've weeded out most of the "alsos", but had to add one to get rid of the worse "Additionally". Please note this issue in future article writing. Is it written in AmEng? Looks like it. Why? Ageing, not aging, for example. Tony (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a note, Ottava Rima has retired from editing, so he will not be answering anything directed at him; I will be working to address any further concerns on my own. Mrathel (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Karanacs (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 19:38, 16 December 2009 [38].

Ketogenic diet[edit]

Nominator(s): Colin°Talk 21:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This medical dietary therapy was inspired by a detox regime that involved, em, not eating, which worked... for a while. It is used to treat epilepsy when the drugs don't work. Lots of cream but no sweeties. The article has passed a Good Article review, undergone a peer review, copyediting, and received a review by a world expert, which have all been immensely helpful. I believe it is ready for FA. What do you think? Colin°Talk 21:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support— I have watched Colin develop this article for a very long time. Colin is a paradigm of patience, over the years, he has invited comments from many respected editors—the peer review was exceptionally valuable—and Colin has even managed to get a world-renowned expert to comment and provide a review. I have absolutely no doubts what so ever on the reliability of the sources and the free use of the images. To many, this might be regarded as an esoteric subject, but to parents of a child who suffers from epilepsy, this article is essential reading. It's great to know that Wikipedia has the best article on this subject on the internet; and one that will soon be one the Main Page—I am sure. In the spirit of openness, I have to say that Colin and I occasionally correspond by email and that Colin has provided very valuable criticisms of my contributions, and I was told that the expert review was forthcoming. Graham Colm Talk 22:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham. The only patience required would have been with anyone watching the glacial speed of my article development. Colin°Talk 19:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I reviewed this article earlier, and thought it was FA quality then. It's even better now. My goodness. Thanks, Colin! Eubulides (talk) 09:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eubulides for your support and careful re-reading of the article today. That stray apostrophe eluded everyone else for nearly 18 months. Colin°Talk 19:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Note: I was a peer reviewer for this article.) This is an impeccably sourced, wonderfully comprehensive and brilliantly written article - it manages that delicate balancing act of being both scientifically precise and understandable by the lay reader. Like Graham, I should note that Colin and I occasionally correspond by email - we chat about life, the universe, and everything. Oh, and I think I sent him some sources. :) Awadewit (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is so important to me that Wikipedia's medical articles are accessible to all, so I'm very pleased to have your support on that point. Thank you. Colin°Talk 20:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support A fantastic piece of work. Congratulations also on obtaining an external peer review (something more medical editors should pursue). The prose is of a standard I would consider brilliant; the images are free and informative; this article has been thoroughly researched, and it shows. A few minor quibbles, as always:

Collapsed as they are general comments
  • What do you think of the following changes for the "Epilepsy" section?

:Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders after stroke,[2] and affects at least 50 million people worldwide.[3] It is diagnosed in a person having recurrent unprovoked seizures. These occur when cortical neurons fire excessively, hypersynchronously, or both, leading to temporary disruption of normal brain function. This might affect, for example, the muscles, the senses, consciousness, or a combination. A seizure can be focal (confined to one part of the brain) or generalised (spread widely throughout the brain and leading to a loss of consciousness). Epilepsy can occur for a variety of reasons; some forms have been classified into epileptic syndromes, most of which begin in childhood. Epilepsy is considered refractory to treatment when two or three anticonvulsant drugs have failed to control it. About 60% of patients will achieve control of their epilepsy with the first drug they use, whereas about 30% do not achieve control with drugs. Some of these may be candidates for epilepsy surgery,[2] and some, for the ketogenic diet.

You should also probably link or explain "hypersynchronously". (Does any article even explain hypersynchronous activity?)
  • In "History": Although popular for a while, it was discarded by most academic centres in the 1940s when anticonvulsant drugs became available. Effective anticonvulsant drugs? Bromides and barbs where already around, weren't they?
  • Kudos for not explicitly or unequivocally attributing authorship of On the Sacred Disease and Epidemics to Hippocrates.
  • Any more context on Rollin Woodyatt? Something such as "Chicago physician Rollin Woodyatt..." We really should have an article on him. Could be a challenge, hint hint... Same with Merritt, Putnam and Huttenlocher, but this is a personal preference of mine (providing context for researcher names) and is in no way necessary.
  • In "Discontinuation": ...it has been suggested that children with tuberous sclerosis who achieve seizure freedom could remain on the ketogenic diet indefinitely. Could or should?
  • Anything on the efficacy of LGIT?
  • Maybe you could add something on the availability of the different formulas. Can you get them in the UK, for example? I see Ketonia is from South Korea—is it commercially available elsewhere?

That's it from me. Very impressive; I may even translate it into Portuguese if time permits and my patience with pt.wikipedia magically increases. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I too like to find out about historical medical figures, write about them, and use their full name when I mention them. I created Stanley Cobb and William Gordon Lennox, who feature in the ketogenic diet story. Yes, perhaps we should create some more biographies (hint hint). I'd like to respond to your "minor quibbles" and suggestions in detail but since many of these points don't concern WIAFA, if you don't mind, I I'd like to copy most of your comment to the article talk page and respond there. We can update this page later if necessary. Colin°Talk 21:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. These indeed do not concern WIAFA (which the article meets by far). Feel free to collapse the section here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this article's promotion to FA; having participated in the peer review, copyedited it, and generally nitpicked it to death, I can't find a thing left to improve. However, there is a lot to be said for fresh eyes, and I sincerely hope that this FAC will generate a couple of new reviews to ensure we've not overlooked anything! Maralia (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Your peer review comments were particularly helpful for pointing out sections that didn't flow or were confusing. Colin°Talk 17:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review performed at peer review and all images checked out. Awadewit (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing this important task. Colin°Talk 17:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (and recuse). Disclaimer: my comments on and MOS-y cleanup of the article a year and a half ago cause me to be listed as the fourth editor by edit count on the article, and I consider Colin a Wikifriend and one of our finest medical editors. This article is beautiful; digestible, fully compliant with MOS and MEDMOS, well sourced, easy to read, and I've watched for almost two years as Colin patiently worked on it and waited for sources to become available and an external review. Well done, Colin! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sandy. Your support means a lot. Colin°Talk 17:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Add me to the pile-on support. Very interesting, and easy to read. I do have a few minor suggestions. Sasata (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although popular for a while, it was discarded by most academic centres" To me the word discarded should be used with physical objects, I would suggest "discontinued" here
  • "In the 1960s, it was discovered that medium-chain triglycerides (MCTs) are much more ketogenic than normal dietary fats (which are mostly long-chain triglycerides). This is because MCTs are absorbed rapidly and contain many calories." I think it needs to be made a bit clearer that the main difference between MCTs and LCTs is in the rate of absorption; both are high in calories.
  • "Gastrointestinal side effects were a problem" link to stomachache?
  • "the results were presented to the American Epilepsy Society in 1996 and were published in 1998." How about a citation to whatever this was published in?
  • "On the ketogenic diet, their body would consume its own protein stores for fuel, leading to acidosis," acidosis is linked several times later in the article, but not here on the first mention
  • "Supplements are necessary to counter the dietary deficiency of many micronutrients.[4]" I'd be interested to know what micronutrients are typically lacking in a carbohydrate-restricted diet.
  • "... crystals that act as a nidus for calcium stone formation" gloss or wikt link nidus?
  • "Even "sugar-free" food can contain carbohydrates such as maltodextrin, sorbitol, starch and fructose" I think these carbs are worthy of links
  • I think the "Discontinuation" section should have the acronyms EEG and MRI linked
  • In the "Seizure pathology" section, I suggest wlinking refractory; probably inhibitory postsynaptic potential and excitatory postsynaptic potential could be piped somewhere in that section as well
  • reference format needs a little tweaking: compare these page ranges: 500-6, 589-96, 113-120. Also, current ref #27 has p. when it should be pp.
Thank you for these comments and for your support. I'll work on them and respond later tonight. Colin°Talk 18:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re discarded vs discontinued. My source uses the imagery "fell by the wayside". I see your point about physical objects. The problem with "discontinued" is that it isn't a continuous thing like a car production line but a lots of individual treatments. I'm thinking about it. Anyone got any other suggestions?
  • Re MCT. I've removed they "contain many calories". That gave the wrong impression and it appears they actually have a slightly lower kcal/g than LCTs (8.3 compared to 9.0). I've replaced the sentence with info from another source.
  • Re gastrointestinal side effects. The effects were vomiting, diarrhoea, abdominal cramps and nausea. Stomach-ache only really fits one of those.
That's all for tonight. Colin°Talk 23:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd use "gastrointestinal upset" for this particular combination. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting replacing "Gastrointestinal side effects were a problem" with "Gastrointestinal upsets were a problem"? Sasata was suggesting a wikilink but I'm not sure we have one that covers all the side effects. Colin°Talk 15:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "Gastrointestinal upset was a problem"? I don't think a wikilink is feasible unless you spell out each side effect. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Colin°Talk 19:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re "published in 1998" I've added a footnote link after the word "published". Does that work? Colin°Talk 15:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re "micronutrients" I've now expanded this in the "Classic diet" section. Rather difficult to get your 5 A Day on this diet! Colin°Talk 16:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re "nidus". Added Wiktionary link.
  • Re "maltodextrin, sorbitol, starch and fructose". Added wikilinks.
  • Re "EEG and MRI". Added wikilinks.
  • Re "Seizure pathology". Wikilinked "refractory period". I haven't wikilinked the other two. I'm afraid reworking this section to incorporate those phrases is beyond my abilities.
  • Re "page ranges". I've fixed "113–120" to "113–20". Were there any others that were wrong? I think the single "p." for a page range is OK according to this. Fvasconcellos is the expert.
Thanks for those suggestions. They've been really helpful. Colin°Talk 19:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support meets FA criteria, well done. Dincher (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the article, Dincher, and for your support. Colin°Talk 23:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed as the issue has been resolved for now -- Colin°Talk 18:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note An IP has added some material about using the ketogenic diet for weight loss and for diabetes. The text isn't bad and is mostly cited so I can't just chuck it out. But it needs some work. The weight loss material probably belongs in the low-carbohydrate diet article with some mention here. The diabetes researchers have agreed to call their proposed diet therapy the Very low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet (LCKD) to avoid confusion with the well-established diet for epilepsy controll. Perhaps it is time for that article to be created. Neither "indications" have achieved clinical acceptance AFAIK although the diabetes one looks promising. It is interesting that most of the early researchers who invented the ketogenic diet for epilepsy were also researching diabetes. Colin°Talk 10:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • PMID 19793510 may review this. I'll need to get hold of it. I see diabetic diet covers this topic too. Colin°Talk 14:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC) BTW there's a discussion of this aspect with Eubulides at the peer review. Perhaps Eubulides can help me out here (hint hint) Colin°Talk 14:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I lack easy access to Wylie-Rossett & Davis 2009 (PMID 19793510), though it appears quite relevant. I'm no expert in this area, but my impression also is that the KD doesn't have at all the same clinical acceptance in other areas. I'm not sure it's wise at this stage to hive off Low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet into a separate article for diabetes, as the phrase "low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet", often with a comma before (or parentheses around) "ketogenic", is used in obesity and other areas besides diabetes. See, for example, PMID 18471903 (neurological disorders), PMID 16844447 (prostate cancer), PMID 16256000 (diet in general), PMID 15651909 and PMID 14525681 (obesity); these are all reviews. More than one source makes a point that the same or similar effect seen in epilepsy might also explain the (very preliminary) results in other neurological disorders. For example the following review, which now that I've seen the abstract may need to be cited in Ketogenic diet regardless of what's decided about subarticles.
Maalouf M, Rho JM, Mattson MP (2009). "The neuroprotective properties of calorie restriction, the ketogenic diet, and ketone bodies". Brain Res Rev. 59 (2): 293–315. doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.09.002. PMC 2649682. PMID 18845187. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Google Scholar says Maalouf et al. is cited by Kossoff et al. 2009 (PMID 19535814) and by Kossoff & Rho 2009 (PMID 19332337), which are already listed as sources, and maybe these more-recent sources are good enough. Eubulides (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this Eubulides. After considering the subject, the added material, and the sources used by the added text (self-published book and primary research paper), I am confident enough to just revert the addition. I'll work on a small addition using better sources. I also need to read Maalouf et al., though I think my head is going to hurt with the effort. Colin°Talk 18:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you for checking out the sources, Ealdgyth. Here's my response:
While these web-resources might not be a first choice per WP:MEDRS, I believe they are more than sufficiently reliable for the facts being drawn from them. I have deliberately chosen not to use these lesser sources to make claims about clinical matters such as efficacy, side effects, indications, etc.
Epilepsy.com's 2008 Annual Report says it is a "leading online resource for trusted information on epilepsy". It contains over 3,700 pages written by epilepsy professionals. The editorial board is impressive. The two articles used form part of a series called "Keto News", written by Eric Kossoff who is also the author of many papers cited by this Wikipedia article. The series has a topic editor.
  • Do ketogenic diets work for adults with epilepsy? Yes! is used to support the statement "Although the adult results are similar to modern studies of children, they did not compare as well to contemporary studies. Barborka concluded that adults were least likely to benefit from the diet". The rest of the paragraph is sourced to a scholarly book. I've read Barborka's paper.
  • The Ketogenic Diet…in a bottle? is used to support the fact that Ketonia is another formula product and "Alternatively, a liquid ketogenic diet may be produced by combining Ross Carbohydrate Free soy formula with Microlipid and Polycose." This latter fact could be sourced to an academic journal article if required.
According to their website, CenterWatch is "a Boston-based publishing and information services company focusing on the clinical research industry, is a business of Jobson Medical Information, LLC." It's writers and editors look professional to me. Their article on Axona is used for FDA approval information.
Drugs.com aims to be "the Internet’s most trusted resource for drug and related health information". They have an editorial staff of pharmacists and their content is drawn (licenced) from reputable drug information supplies. I have used this source for the proposed mechanism of action of Axona and the ingredients.
Colin°Talk 22:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happier with information from third-party sources that showed their reliability, not information for the sites themselves. You can also approach it differently, if the various articles are attributed to specific authors, by showing (with third-party sources again) that the authors of the pages are noted in their field. I'm not going to say "utterly unreliable" here, but they are a drag on the otherwise fine sourcing of this article as it stands. (I do so enjoy all those PMIDs, they make my life SOOO easy...) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to go about finding a third-party to show their reliability without then querying that third-party's reliability/independence. I suspect lots of folk just repeat the press-release "About Us" paragraph. I've dropped the CenterWatch and Drugs.com sources and am now using the manufacturer's Prescribing Information leaflet. I'd prefer to get this direct from the FDA, and the FDA website does have a good database to search for such things. Unfortunately, it isn't in the database. Perhaps it is too new. If the manufacturer 's PI leaflet isn't considered reliable enough then I'm quite happy to drop caprylidene from the article until better sources can be found at a future date. Wrt the two epilepsy.com articles, here's the detail on the author and topic editors:
Both Epilepsy.com articles are written by Eric Kossoff MD.
  • His profile at Johns Hopkins Hospital[39] says he is Assistant Professor of Neurology and Pediatrics, though that profile looks a little out of date. He's written 77 papers indexed by MedLine (can't get the hyperlink for PubMed to work cause it has [] in it), many on the ketogenic diet.
The "Do ketogenic diets work for adults..." article had topic editor Steven C. Schachter MD
  • His profile at Harvard's Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center[40] says he's Professor of Neurology and has written eight books on epilepsy and is founding editor and editor-in-chief of the journal Epilepsy & Behaviour. He's also president of the American Epilepsy Society[41].
The "The Ketogenic Diet…in a bottle?" article had topic editor Robert S. Fisher MD.
  • His profile at Stanford's Comprehensive Epilepsy Center (dated 2006)[42] says he is Professor of Neurology, former president of the American Epilepsy society, the board of the International League Against Epilepsy and Editor-in-Chief of the journal Epilepsia.
Are these guy's employers (Johns Hopkins, Harvard and Stanford) trusted enough or do I need something more third party. If so, it is going to be really hard to tell if the third party hasn't just ripped off these official bios. I don't think those two articles "drag" the sources down as they are written and edited by the same folk who would write and edit an equivalent journal article. The information drawn from them is at the less-important end of the spectrum. Colin°Talk 00:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, all that looks good. University sites won't utterly make things up, if they look like they know what they are doing to you folks in the med project, I think we can consider this dealt with. The leaflet's fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You'll never find the caprylidene PI in Drugs@FDA, Colin, as it is a medical food (an entirely different beast for regulatory purposes). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, still waiting on centerwatch. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped the CenterWatch and Drugs.com sources. I think they are both reliable sources but don't know how to prove it. Is my alternative (the manufacturer's Prescribing Information leaflet) acceptable? Colin°Talk 22:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was, I'd already stuck the drugs.com one, and the other is now struck so you're good! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The ordering of this article does not seem to be the best. Epilepsy should be discussed under things the diet is used to treat rather than starting off as the first section as it is also used to treat obesity [43]. History is also not of primary importance and should be near the end rather than right at the start.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article and your comments. As far as I know, a deliberately ketogenic diet is not used as a long-term treatment for any medical condition other than epilepsy (and the rare metabolic conditions mentioned). Low-carbohydrate diets have been studied for several (including the study you mention) but I'm not aware that any professional body or health authority recommends long-term use of a low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet for obesity or diabetes, for example. The key aspect of these diets tends to be the very low carbs (and relatively high protein) rather than deliberately being ketogenic. Since their ketogenic nature is typically a secondary characteristic, one that is perhaps only true for an initial phase of the diet, and of unproven significance, I think that low-carbohydrate diet is a more appropriate article to discuss these in any detail.
Wrt history being first: this is the order suggested by WP:MEDMOS (though I'm all for not sticking with MEDMOS suggestions if there's a good reason). All my comprehensive review papers and both my books begin with sections and chapters on the history. It is a gentle introduction to the topic and unlike modern drugs developed by faceless corporations, the 100 year history of dietary treatment for epilepsy is, IMO, interesting. Is there any consensus to move sections? What do others think? Colin°Talk 20:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the History section where it is. For me, this is sort of part of the the introduction to the article. It gives a good background and, as Colin has said, many review articles in the medical literature are structured like this. I don't like to see history sections "relegated" and I hate to see them tagged on at the end. A good history section early on makes for an engaging read IMHO, and this is one of the FA criteria. Graham Colm Talk 21:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Support. A few comments on an otherwise stellar article. Most are simply intended to clarify the information based on my own questions. Particular kudos on the "mechanism of action" which I found very informative and yet very readable.

  • I am inclined to agree with Doc James' suggestion that the history section should be moved down a bit. In addition to his reasoning, I felt I was able to better understand the history section after reading the rest of the article.
  • In the Fasting section were the "Twenty patients, of all ages..." all epileptic? I assume so but this should be clearly stated.
  • In the Outcomes section "The children who received delayed treatment acted as a control, which is particularly important for medical conditions where patients may get better or worse regardless of treatment." Is epilepsy this type of medical condition?
  • In Maintenance there was a bit of a disconnect. Are the "Urinary ketone levels are checked daily" using the ketone test strips mentioned int the next sentence?
  • Also in Maintenance, this sentence confused me a bit: "A short-lived increase in seizure frequency may occur during illness or if ketone levels fluctuate." Is the seizure increase during illness also related to fluctuation of ketone levels? Or more simply do ketone levels fluctuate during illness? If not then why else might seizures increase during illness?
  • Finally in Worldwide the sentence reading "In Israel, religious rules prevent mixing meat and milk in one dish". The assertion here that kosher = Israel is too narrow and might lead to the interpretation that there are civil "kosher laws" in Israel that everyone must follow. A better way to say this might be along the lines of: "For example, Jewish dietary laws prevent mixing meat and milk in one dish".--DO11.10 (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you on the compliment, DO11.10. I'm out of time tonight but will look through your comments tomorrow. Cheers, Colin°Talk 22:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified text wrt the fasting patients comment, the medical conditions comment, the keto test strips comment, and the Israel/Jewish comment. Thanks for those.
An illness or fever is one of several factors that can increase seizure frequency in epilepsy (others include stress, sleep deprivation, menstruation and fatigue). I'm not sure of the reason why. The reason for the fluctuation in ketone levels more usually a compliance one: the child has consumed some sweets. I can see the two could be linked if for example the child was off their food then the wouldn't be consuming enough to produce strong levels of ketones. But essentially the two reasons aren't linked. Do you think the text needs to be changed?
I think the problem is the "if" here, which, in my mind at least, suggested that there might be link. Maybe "A short-lived increase in seizure frequency may occur during illness or when ketone levels fluctuate" more explicitly separates the two? --DO11.10 (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't yet moved this history section. At the moment there seems to be a mix of views and I'm sure there isn't just one correct way to order an article. However, assuming it stays at the front, were there any specific things in the history that you didn't understand until after you had read the rest of the article. Or was it just a vague fitting-together feeling? Colin°Talk 17:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my comment was based a vague fitting-together feeling. On my first read through I was probably more interested in finding out with the diet was rather than its history. Having reread the article again today I guess the order doesn't really matter... --DO11.10 (talk) 22:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. Yes the "when" separates them but I'm now worrying if perhaps "fluctuate" is a poor choice. I also don't want to make the association between those things and increased seizures sound inevitable. I'll review my sources wrt reasons for temporary loss of seizure control to see if I can phrase this better. Cheers, Colin°Talk 22:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. An excellent example of the high-quality content that Wikipedia can produce when an experienced and knowledgeable editor like Colin gets to work. Excellent use of MEDRS (almost exclusively high-quality reviews) and very good porting of a highly technical scientific subject to lay terminology. Marvellous! JFW | T@lk 13:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support JFW. Colin°Talk 18:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Karanacs (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 19:38, 16 December 2009 [44].

Boletus edulis[edit]

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC) and Sasata [reply]


We are nominating this for featured article because we feel this is as comprehensive as can possibly be without getting into absolute minutiae (though the spores are pretty tiny..), lots of folks have looked at it and offered suggestions on how to improve it, it conforms to guidelines and we can't think of how else to improve it (and thus any suggestions offered here we feel we can deal with promptly. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC) (and Sasata) 05:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support on 1b

  • No dab links or dead external links.
  • Alt text looks great, but see my comment at the Lactarius indigo FAC about {{fungiportal}}.
  • Ref dates are all ISO style (full) or Month Year (partial).

I think it easily passes 1b. There's lots to learn about its name, ecology, nutritional value, and such—very informative. --an odd name (help honey) 06:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dab now fixed. Sasata (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have gathered these mushrooms with friends in north Russia, where they are also treasured and are oddly called "Белый гриб" (White mushroom). Some of them are huge and they are delicious, but you do have to watch out for those maggots. This is a very-well written and engaging contribution, which I found fascinating from beginning to end. I have four comments:

This in the Lead, ".. by enveloping sheaths of fungal tissue around their underground roots" is much clearer in the Body where it is written, "The fungal hyphae form a sheath of tissue around.."
The body now says: "The fungus forms a sheath of tissue around terminal, nutrient-absorbing rootlets of the host, forming so-called "ectomycorrhizae"; the fungal hyphae emanate throughout the soil, effectively increasing the surface area for nutrient absorption, and the fungus penetrates between cells of the cortex to facilitate nutrient exchange." Sasata (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we be consistent with "fruit body"? I would prefer "fruiting body", which is used in the sub-heading under Ecology. No big deal mind.
Both terms are used interchangeably in the mycological literature. I deliberated on this usage a while ago and decided to use fruit body, as it is the term used in the "fungus bible" (Dictionary of the Fungi). I have made usage consistent in the article. Sasata (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why isn't the protein content mentioned in the Lead?
Oversight. It's there now. Sasata (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here, early in the Description, it says, "it is convex in shape". I think the "in shape" is redundant.
Fair enough, removed. Sasata (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources look solid (yes I do look at them) although 118 is a bit dated now. I think it is most unlikely that any major issues will be raised and so I am happy to add my full support to this candidate. Graham Colm Talk 15:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it, thanks for the support. Sasata (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with CoI I did the GA review, so a conflict of interest there, but I've not edited the article prior to that, nor am I a mushroom project contributor. I thought this was pretty good at GA, and an amazing amount of work has been done in the interim Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jim. Sasata (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto/thanks Graham and Jim, been busy with RL issues unexpectedly. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 4 (Smith, AH) needs a page number (it's 428 pages according to World Cat)
  • Current ref 36 (Volkt...) needs a publisher)
  • Current refs 40 and 41 (MykoWeb) ... decide whether it's going to italicised or not and be consistent.
  • I just want to point out that I'm a little scared that I'm becoming an expert on the reliablity of fungus websites. I don't even LIKE mushrooms!!!
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made. Don't be scared of the fungi... they are gentle. Sasata (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments

Overall, looks very good. Few specific comments

Lead
  • Para 2, sentence 1: "The fungus grows in...plantations" - it might be worth specifying planation forests/forest plantations, since "plantation" alone tends to be associated with things like sugar plantations. (I tried "tree plantations" as "forest plantations" was duplicative (?))
  • Sentence 6: Shouldn't start a sentence with an abbreviation "B. edulis is..." (ok. unabbreviated)
  • Sentence 7: Should "organic" be specified? Aren't all biologically active compounds organic? (good point. I am trying to think if there are any exceptions to this...)
Taxonomy
  • Para 3, sentence 1: Was Sowerby's name just an alternative name, or did he think his was a different species? Did Gray transfer it to a new genus, or did he just decide he liked "Leccinum" better than "Boletes"? Any idea? (not yet - I have not seen discussion of the synonyms, only mention. Will look to see if anything sourceable)
  • I added a little bit of detail about this, let me know if it's sufficient or if you'd like more. Boletus edulis has an extensive taxonomical history and an extensive synonomy, which I've deliberately left short in this article, as I think only the most hardcore taxonomists would find it interesting. Sasata (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being me, I'd love a full discussion of synonymy (I actually think that a full list of synonyms is something that should be included in species articles, but I wouldn't argue that it should be an FA requirement). By adding that discussion of Leccinum I think you cleared up the only real problem. And no, I'm not a taxonomist, I'm just a fan of taxonomic histories. 16:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Sentence 2: Duplication of info already present in para 2, sentence 1. (changed emphasis and reduced repetition)
Common names
  • Para 1, sentence 2: "Southern Italian dialect words" or Southern Italian names?/names in southern Italian dialects? (Also, do you really want to take a stand that Southern Italian is a dialect of Italian, and not a language.) (good point. safer to sit on the fence)
  • After covering Western European names in quite some detail, there's a jump to Thailand, with no mention of intervening names. Can you fill any of this gap? Also the common name "California king bolete" is mentioned in the lead, but not in this section (still looking for sourced material)
Habitat and distribution
  • Para 2 begins with an abbreviation. (unabbreviated)
Mycorrhizal associations
  • Para 1, sentence 1: apparently stray "and" after "("hosts")" (removed stray word)

Guettarda (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maralia I made some minor copyedit tweaks. The article is in great shape with the exception of the Culinary uses section (and its subsections):

  • The Martial quote should be accompanied by a translation.
  • "Porcini can be readily used in risotto, and is a traditional Italian autumn dish. They are a feature of many cuisines..." - What is the traditional dish referred to here? Unclear if it is porcini alone, or porcini+risotto, and this leaves the subsequent sentence with an unclear referent.
  • "Frozen porcini should be used within four months of freezing, as the product's colour, aroma, and taste deteriorate noticeably if frozen for periods longer than that." - This veers into howto; "The colour, aroma and taste of frozen porcini deteriorate..."
  • "Alternatively they can be cleaned, but they should not be washed, and then placed in a wicker basket or bamboo steamer on top of a boiler or hot water tank." - What?
  • "The addition of a few pieces of dried porcini can significantly add to flavour, and are a major ingredient of the pasta sauce known as carrettiere (carter's sauce)." - Singular/plural confusion here.
  • " The true amount consumed far exceeds this as collecting and informal sales are not included." - 'collecting' isn't quite grammatical here.
  • Spot the unintentional LOL: "The relatively high ergosterol content (see next section) of the fruit bodies can make the mushroom nutritionally pragmatic for individuals with a limited intake of ergocalciferol from foods of animal origin, like vegetarians and vegans."

In general, Culinary uses could use a review for conversions, minor overlinking (butter, carbohydrates repeatedly), and subject-verb agreement to catch the types of prose issues I pointed out above. Maralia (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kindly for your copyedits and suggestions above. I hope that these edits have fixed the problems. Sasata (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I usually stick imperial measurements all over the place, but am not sure about dietary fractions in this case. Maralia, I have stared at these two sections alot as well and am knackered. It has been tricky at times as one of the alternate names (porcini) is a plural, but I think we've skirted it okay. How do you feel now? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{FAC}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Karanacs (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:04, 12 December 2009 [45].

Mellitus[edit]

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth, Malleus Fatuorum


I am nominating this for featured article because while he's not a bad boy bishop like some we've seen, he's arguably one of the more important linchpins in the Gregorian mission. Saintly, the most impressive thing you can say about him is that he supposedly performed a miracle by stopping a fire from spreading. He had his human side too, as he suffered from gout. I present you with hopefully the next to last Gregorian missionary (you're going to see Justus later) at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This needs a lot more work. I only read the lead, but the first sentence isn't a sentence, and the rest contains basic grammatical and typographical errors. I'd suggest taking this for a strong copyedit before bringing this here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I had Malleus copyedit it .. three times. And LingNut looked it over also. And I don't see where you're not seeing a full sentence in the first sentence "Mellitus (died 24 April 624) was the first Bishop of London and the third Archbishop of Canterbury..." has a verb right there, unless "was" has suddenly become not a verb? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is fixed now but your "and" was in the wrong place - I and others have fixed some errors in the first two paragraphs, but there's more remaining. Also, if you mention the works of people like Bede, you really need to cite the primary source (should not be difficult) rather than a generic citation of the DNB.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally try to avoid citing primary sources, as then folks think the article is researched from primary, rather than secondary works. The only time I cite primary sources is when I'm quoting directly. It's a philosophical difference, but perfectly acceptable doing either way. Deacon and Angus cite primaries much more than I do, I will admit. I'm just uncomfortable with it, and as I trained as a historian I'd rather not give myself the temptation of interpreting primaries myself. I'll have Malleus look it over again, he's really the copyeditors and polisher, I just assemble the information and do the research. In fact, I had meant to co-nom Malleus on this, can Sandy or Karan do so for me? (I never get that right...) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to be using the phrase "basic grammatical and typographical errors" in a sense that I don't understand Scott. Your "corrections" were at best stylistic, and at worst introduced an element of awkwardness ("patron kings"). --Malleus Fatuorum 20:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I missed the sense of that. It had "The death of his patrons Kings Æthelberht of Kent and Sæberht of Essex around 616...", which confused me. Your placing of a comma "his patrons, Kings" makes it sensible now. nevertheless there was an error or two in the original there. I fixed some other typos and I'd guess there's more. As for primary sourcing, I generally think secondary is fine, except when a well-known primary source like Bede is mentioned in the text, when that's the case, the reader would expect a reference. It isn't so much from a verification point of view, so much as from a pointer of where to look. I strongly suspect that the DNB will give the reference from Bede, in which case it should be put in the footnote for the reader's benefit. Footnotes are not all about showing what sources you used, they are also about pointing the reader and defining what the text says. If we are speaking of chapter of Bede, let's say which one.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been added, but I've also kept the DNB citation, so that I don't get other reviewers (and there is at least one at FAC who regularly reviews) who will think if I just source it to Bede, I've done OR. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review The only image is appropriate, fully sourced and correctly licensed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • technical review No dabs, links work and sub-only is labelled as such. Alt text is present Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments At least no horse featured with this bish. The usual thoughtful work, but some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deaths of his patrons, Kings Æthelberht of Kent and Sæberht of Essex in around 616, forced Mellitus to leave London and take refuge in Gaul. - surely the first mention of a reversion to paganism should be here, otherwise it's not obvious why he did a runner?
  • I've added the reversion to paganism, as you suggest. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • urging the King to act like the Roman Emperor .... The King was also urged - too many urges?
  • Perhaps. I've changed the second to "encouraged". --Malleus Fatuorum 16:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theuderic's grandmother and regent. - do we know her name?
  • Yeah, it was right before the phrase you just quoted. I suspect the qualifying got removed in a copyedit in the interests of conciseness. I've clarified to "along with Brunhild, who was Theudebert and Theuderic's grandmother and regent." which should clear up confusion. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • some were forged in the 1060s and 1070s at Canterbury. - not important, but do we know why?
  • Part of the Canterbury-York dispute, if you want the gory details, read there. Main reason I mention them here is so that it's clear that there aren't many contemporary references to Mellitus, and that some that in the past were thought to be valid, aren't. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Note 1 Another Gospel should gospel be capitalised here?
  • Hm.. I would think yes, but I tend to be a bit old-fashioned that way. We are referring to a type of proper work, just like the Bible. Usually it's capitalized by medievalists. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some citations with multiple pages have p., some have pp., need consistency
That's all for now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support my concerns above have been satisfactorily addressed, and I'm sure that you will be able to resolve Awadewit's points, so I'm happy to go for promotion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support A bishop I finally know something about! Wow! :)

  • My lord, how'd you know about this guy before? (If it's because of all my bishop articles, obviously, I've been doing a bit too much on the Gregorian mission...) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My boyfriend is taking this class about the Christianization of Europe. While reviewing for his midterm, we got to the term "Gregorian mission" and I was like, wait, I know tons about that. I reviewed an FAC about it. :) Awadewit (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is a little unbalanced, with that little second paragraph. I also think it can be expanded a bit. For example, I would mention the famous "Epistola ad Mellitium" and more from the "Bishop of London" section.
  • I've rearranged and added a bit about the Epistola (yet another article I get to write.. whee!) and about Mellitus going to Italy in 610. That look better? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you say what is so special about the letter in the lead? Awadewit (talk) 01:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL... I don't know yet, I've barely started assembling the sources to write the article. It's obviously important because lots of folks talk about it, but I wouldn't begin to venture a guess at this point without more research. This is NOT my field of specialty, where I can wing it without research. So for now, all I can say is... everything I read about Mellitus mentioned the letter, but I'm sure I'm going to have to dig deeper into literature topics and theological topics before I can write the article on it. I promise I'll update the lead here when I write the article on it, how about that? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does hint at what I thought was so important about it: "While on his journey to England, Mellitus received a letter from Gregory allowing Augustine to convert pagan temples to Christian churches, and to convert pagan animal sacrifices into Christian feasts, to ease the transition to Christianity.[4] Gregory's letter marked a sea change in the missionary strategy,[16] and was later included in Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum." - Perhaps something along these lines could be included in the lead? Awadewit (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, good. I wasn't sure what you were getting at there. I thought you wanted the grand "historiographical view" on the long term importance of the letter and what bearing it had through out English history and literature, which I'm not ready for. I've added "... which suggested ways to help the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons." which sounds like it'd get what you wanted in? Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In letters, Pope Gregory I called him an abbot, but whether this was a rank bestowed on Mellitus to ease his journey to England, or whether he had previously been abbot of a Roman monastery, is unclear. - Could you explain why the rank of abbot would ease his journey?
  • I've clarified to "...but whether Mellitus had previously been abbot of a Roman monastery, or this was a rank bestowed on him to ease his journey to England by making him the leader of the expedition, is unclear." Brooks' just gives that, basically.Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The episcopal church built in London was probably founded by Æthelberht, rather than Sæberht, but a charter that claims to be a grant of lands from Æthelberht to Mellitus is a later forgery - I would separate the forgery bit into a new sentence - it was a bit difficult to understand all of this in one easy read.
  • It's all those Anglo-Saxon names, with the ligatures, I know... aren't they fun to read? I've reworked this a bit to "The episcopal church built in London was probably founded by Æthelberht, rather than Sæberht. Although Bede records that Æthelberht gave lands to support the new episcopate, a charter that claims to be a grant of lands from Æthelberht to Mellitus is a later forgery." to make it a bit clearer to the non-medievalist.

The lead issue is the only one keeping me from fully supporting. Awadewit (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to full support. Awadewit (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support now. The copyediting has been attended to, and the content was always good.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments 2c checked here mostly great, some fixits or questions. 1c looks good.
  • Support..and I thought this was going to be an article related to diabetes mellitus...but seriously, looks fine. There are possibly a few too many 'Mellitus' in the flow of text but only a couple jumped out as able to be easily replaced with pronouns. Good work and good read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support • Ling.Nut 03:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:04, 12 December 2009 [46].

Battle of Morotai[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article on a small but strategically significant battle of World War II was peer reviewed in February and passed a Military History project A class review in March. It has since been further improved by myself and a number of other editors (including, but not limited to, User:Cla68 and User:Ian Rose) and I think that it now meets the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments

--an odd name 01:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for those comments. I've re-written the alt text for the maps to describe what they depict as you suggest - does this now look OK? Nick-D (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The alts are all good now. --an odd name 01:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Very nice article, I believe that it meets FA criteria too. I have some minor comments, though:
    • In the opposing forces section, words are used for numbers greater than ten (in discussing the number of ships), yet in most other places numbers are used...
    • could a convert be added to the distance given in the second paragraph of the Allied landings section ("2,000 yards inland")?

Anyway, well done and thanks for your contribution. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for your comments. I've fixed the second one, and that wording was the result of feedback in either the peer review or A class review which suggested that prose containing a mix of numbers and words looked odd (eg, "one LSD, 24 LCIs, 25 LSTs, 20 LCTs and eleven LCIs" was a bit awkward). Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Definitely meets FA criteria. Looked at it a few times and couldn't think of any improvements. The article is especially impressive in that there are no major sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why is there no casualties and losses section in the infobox? - DSachan (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In short, because there is no source which provides anything approaching a comprehensive number of casualties during the fighting between September 1944 and August 1945 (the period covered by the article). I've mentioned the casualty numbers for the periods where these are available in the article's text. I removed the casualties section from the infobox in July (leaving a note at Talk:Battle of Morotai) and no-one has either complained or provided a sourced figure. Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentFifelfoo (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2c:
Please supply original publication date: 31st Infantry Division (1993 (reprint)).
Done
Please supply publication location for all presses (eg Infantry Journal Press. )
Done
For non standard document identifiers please name the identification system (eg 6429367X.; ASIN B000ID3YRK.)
Converted to ISBNs
Chapter in book? Book in series? Help us out, make it more explicit (and generally, chuck [Series] behind series names which don't contain the word series]): Long, Gavin (1963). The Final Campaigns. Australia in the War of 1939–1945. Series 1 – Army. Canberra: Australian War Memorial.
I've included the series name in the 'series' section of the appropriate citation templates. Chapters are displayed quite differently, so there shouldn't be any confusion.
1c:
Seriously concerned that Willoughby is a primary source (as its MacArthur's reports) and being used to substantiate facts (Willoughby, Charles A. (editor in chief) (1966). Japanese Operations in the Southwest Pacific Area Volume II – Part I. Reports of General MacArthur. )
The book was actually written by ex-Japanese Army officers and is pretty much the only source of information on the Japanese experiences in this battle (the 1994 introduction to the book states, correctly, that it's a "unique Japanese version of their operations in the Southwest Pacific that remains one of the few English-language descriptions of Imperial Army campaigns during World War II"). It's been used in other FAs such as Landing at Nadzab and Take Ichi convoy as well as A class articles including Admiralty Islands campaign, Battle of Kaiapit, Battle of Wau, Landing at Saidor and Landing at Nadzab. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never considered these to be primary documents. They were created from the monographs, a set of 200 odd accounts written by ex-Japanese Army officers. These are hard to find but there are microfilm copies in the National Library, War Memorial, and ADFA. Some were written from memory but others were compiled from orders and diaries and therefore are more like secondary documents. There are very few sources from the Japanese side, as so much documentation was destroyed during retreats and by Allied action, and there were few survivors of many important actions. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there is nothing wrong with using primary sources in the Wikipedia to substantiate facts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how you've exhausted sources, especially contemporary ones and recent scholarship? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Hawkeye7 notes, there is no single history which covers this battle from its inception in September 1944 until the end of the war; most sources cover either the first few weeks of the battle, the development of the Allied base or the fighting in early 1945. As a result, I've pieced the story together by consulting dozens of works (some useful, some not) in two major university libraries, including one which claims to have the best military history collection in the southern hemisphere and a focus on the Pacific War, and the National Library of Australia. There isn't really any 'recent scholarship' on this topic; Stephen R. Taafe's 1998 book was the most recent I could find that had a chapter or more on the topic (and he only covered the landing). I'm confident that I've consulted every significant work concerning on the battle and believe that the diverse references I've used in the article speak for themselves in this regards. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Great read, well-written and meets all FA standards. Just found a couple of picky comments, which I'll quickly mention:

  • Japanese response: Hyphen needed for "south west", perhaps? (look toward end of section)
  • Air attacks and Allied mopping up: "though a attack was conducted on the night of March 22." "a" → "an". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments, I've just made those changes. Nick-D (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that is right. The hyphenated form is British; the article is in American English, so it should be "southwest" throughout. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Images good. File:Landing craft 017615.jpg, File:US troops landing into deep water Morotai 017591.jpg, File:Wama airstrip April 1945 OG1934.jpg, and File:Japanese surrender party Morotai.jpg are all in the public domain if their country of origin is Australia; since the AWM seems to think that they're in the public domain, I can accept that they are indeed of Australian origin. However, the tagging should be improved: rather than simply stating that they're in the public domain because the AWM says so, it should state that they're in the public domain in Australia because they are photographs taken before January 1, 1955, and that they are in the public domain in the United States because they were in the public domain in the country of origin on January 1, 1996. Everything else looks good. Steve Smith (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've replaced the tags with {{PD-Australia}} Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That tag is actually problematic, since it claims that the image was created in Australia (which these obviously were not), but the problems with the tag are probably beyond the scope of this FAC, so I'm marking image concerns as resolved. As an FYI, I've raised issues with the template here. Steve Smith (talk) 07:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, mainly minor prose issues. I haven't had time yet to look at the final couple of sections but will do so. Can I say that in general I concur with the positive comments in this FAC review - this is clearly a comprehensive and well-researched article.

  • Lead: I have issues with the first sentence. I don't think that a military action that extends over eleven months can be describes as "taking place" between the given dates. "Taking place" is OK for a specific event (e.g. "The assassination of JFK took place on 22 November 1963") but not for what appears to be a prolonged and generally intermittent campaign. I recommend that the opening sentence is reworded to something like: "The Battle of Morotai, part of the Pacific War, began on September 15, 1944 and continued intermittently until the end of World War II."
  • Done.
  • Background
    • "Morotai emerged as an area of importance to the Japanese military in early 1944 when it began to develop the neighbouring larger island of Halmahera..." Ambiguous as worded. I believe that "it" refers to the Japanese military, though this is not clear. Suggest reword: "In early 1944 Morotai emerged as an area of importance to the Japanese military, which began to develop the neighbouring larger island of Halmahera..."
    • Done
    • Personal opinion, ignore if you like: "passed on this information" reads more smoothly as "passed this information on..."
    • Done
    • Third para, final sentence, the word "simultaneously" is not really necessary (and definitely not worth splitting an infinitive for).
    • I don't agree - the date for the landing on Morotai was set so the Pacific Fleet could simultaneously protect both operations. I've tweaked the wording so it's clear that the timetable allowed the fleet's main body to, in effect, do two things at the same time.
  • Opposing forces
    • "The Allied force assigned responsibility for Morotai..." Slight confusion here, which could be resolved by saying "The Allied force assigned to Morotai..."
    • Done
    • "The Tradewind Task Force came under the overall command of the United States Sixth Army and its main combat elements were the XI Corps headquarters..." etc. This long sentence would be better divided by a semicolon after "Sixth Army" rather than an "and"
    • Done
    • Last paragraph: numbers greater than 10 are normally given numerically.
    • Yeah, but the combination of written and numeric numbers in prose looks rather odd, and writing the numbers seems to be the least-worst solution in this instance.
  • Preliminary attacks: "Landing rehearsals were conducted at Aitape and Wakde Island in early September and the invasion convoy gathered at Maffin Bay on September 11 and set out for Morotai the next day." Two "ands" makes an unwieldly sentence, suggest slight rephrase. (Note: There may be other sentences with multiple ands which I have not noted)
  • Done
  • Allied landings
    • I'm a bit surprised that the sinking of the Seawolf by its own forces is not highlighted more in the article, as this seems to be a major incident of "friendly fire" (not to mention a comprehensive foulup).
    • It's not really very relevant to this battle (as it involved a submarine which happened to be transiting the area being attacked by anti-submarine aircraft operating from carriers which departed the area the next day) so I didn't want to spend too much time on it.
    • "After securing Morotai,..." A date should be provided.
    • Tweaked to avoid this.
    • "These were the first offensive operations overseen by the Eighth United States Army, and the naval commander for both operations was Captain Lord Ashbourne of the British Royal Navy on board HMS Ariadne." Unrelated clauses connected by "and". Also, "Royal Navy" not "British Royal Navy". This sentence is the first indication of a combined operation using British forces; perhaps some prior explanation due?
    • Tweaked. HMS Ariadne had no role in the landing at Morotai (which was conducted by the US and Australian forces as described by the article).
      • Understood, but if the occupation of the Asia Islands is seen as part of the Battle of Morotai, then some explanation of the British presence should be given. Brianboulton (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Base development
    • Use double quotes in, for example "crash strip" and "Wama Drome" (but why is Wama Drome in quotes at all?)

I will try to complete my prose review soon. Brianboulton (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few final comments

  • Base development
    • Third para, third sentence is another "double and". Slight rewording advised. Also the latter part of the sentence would be tidier if rephrased "continued to be expanded until November, when capacity for 129,000 barrels of fuel was available."
      • Done
    • "...with the first being completed on October 8." Does "the first" refer to docks or liberty ships?
      • The docks, I've tweaked the wording a bit.
    • Suggestion: "Due to" is a rather inelegant way to begin a paragraph. I'd change this to "A revision to Allied plans meant that Morotai..."
      • Done; that sentence had been bugging me
  • Japanese response
    • "Attempts to run the blockade were detected by Allied codebreakers..." I imagine the codebreakers detected the plans, rather than the attempts.
      • Not necessarily; the turn around time for code breaking was often very short by this stage of the war. I've tweaked this a bit.
    • "The American regiment moved into Japanese-held territory on December 26 and advanced on the Japanese position from the south-west and north after landing on the island's west coast." Sentence seems constructed the wrong way round. Shouldn't it be "After landing on the island's west coast the American regiment moved into Japanese-held territory on December 26 and advanced on the Japanese position from the south-west and north."?
      • Yep, done
  • Air attacks ans allied mopping up
    • Triple and-ing in the sentence beginning "While 54 of the raids..."
      • Fixed
    • The phrase "conducted on the night of..." is repeated in close proximity. The second could be rephrased. Likewise in the next sentence "only"
      • Done
    • "The 31st Division remained at Morotai until April 12, 1945 when it was replaced by the 93rd Infantry Division and departed to participate in the liberation of Mindanao." I think a better construction would be "The 31st Division remained at Morotai until April 12, 1945 when it departed to participate in the liberation of Mindanao, and was replaced by the 93rd Infantry Division."
      • Done
  • Aftermath: no particular comments.

Most of these are pretty minor matters. I have also done a few small tweaks myself. Competent work (yours, not mine!) Brianboulton (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks a lot for your excellent comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The issues I have raised have all been dealt with satisfactorily. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent article. My contribution to the article was small. In fact, I'm not sure I remember what I contributed. Anyway, as someone pointed out above, there are few, if any sources that cover this event to any great extent, so this article appears to have been put together by combing through a long list of possible references. I'm sure it must have been a lot of work, but the results speak for themselves. Again, fine job. Cla68 (talk) 12:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:04, 12 December 2009 [47].

Edwin P. Morrow[edit]

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This article recently passed a GA review with only a few minor comments. It is well-sourced, and I believe it meets the FA requirements. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I will be out of town from December 3 through December 6. Please be patient, and I will attempt to respond to comments when I return. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments by an odd name

  • No dab links, but the second External link is dead.
  • Fixed.
  • Only Morrow's signature lacks alt text. I'm not sure how signature alts should be dealt with; the guideline says nothing about them, but clearly says "Every visible image should have alt text, unless the image is purely decorative, that is, it has no function and is used only for visual formatting or decoration."
  • Fixed.
  • Article dates are all Month Day, Year. Ref dates are all ISO style.
  • Hm. I thought the cite templates required ISO for some reason. Fixed.
    • Oh sorry, I didn't mean the dates were a problem. See MOS:DATE#Full date formatting. You can use ISO if you like for the ref dates, as long as it is for all ref dates, and then use Month Day, Year for the text dates, as long as it is for all text dates. Of course, if you want to use the same format for every single date or if you don't want ISO style, that's cool too. Consistency and standing consensus are usually more important. --an odd name 22:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--an odd name 19:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 22:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support 2c (See Talk: 2c checked 20:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oops. I didn't upload that one and need to check on it. Since it's a photograph of Bradley, and since he died in 1914, it should be PD, but I don't know the details.
    • The other two images, ought to be categorized as well.
  • Is it bad that I've never categorized an image? Don't know the category structure or anything.
  • This should be easy to fix, so could you give me a note on my talk page when you do? Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll ping you when I get a chance to address these. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 16:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All issues resolved. Thanks for your good work! NW (Talk) 21:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on prose and overall quality. I'm not certain if it's comprehensive, but it's written very well. Nice work. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article should explain that he was not able to run again. Overall, the article is well-written, but I didn't feel that it provided enough historical context. How is this man considered, generally? We get a long list of accomplishments but no idea of whether they were or are considered significant or successful; we don't have a summary of how he is considered by history. Overall I don't feel this is quite ready for FA status. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the fact that he couldn't run again. Regarding his legacy, he's a fairly minor politician, despite making some national waves with the Lockett affair and having his name batted about for VP. The most complete summary of his gubernatorial legacy is on page 275 of Portraits in Paradox. Here, Klotter summarizes by saying "In short, Morrow left behind a solid, and rather typical, record for a Kentucky governor." It isn't surprising to me, then, that there isn't a lot more historical analysis of his record. Unfortunately, the only true biography of Morrow is the Jillson work, which was published in 1921, the second year of his governorship. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's not mentioned in the article. If the general assessment of history is that he was a minor figure who had a pretty average track record as governor, that should be evident from the article. For instance, the article describes him as passing much of his agenda in his first term, but Klotter seems to take the position that his first term was disappointing and didn't represent a particularly significant change from the previous Democratic administrations. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've incorporated some of Klotter's assessment in the article. Does this address your concerns? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) CommentsSupport - Strong as always. Specifics:
  • "...a large mob waited outside the jail to take him by force." What is meant by this? I think the normal meaning of "to take by force" is to capture against physical resistance, but I gather by this point he had already been captured. Was the alleged mob expected to kill him?
  • Yes. I've changed "large" to "lynch". Does that clarify?
  • Yeah, though I think you could lose "take him by force" all together now. We know what lynch mobs are about, and I still find the wording "take him by force" to be a little confusing. Your call.
  • See how it reads now.
  • Looks great.
  • I think the NGA is the only source that mentions his attendance at these conventions, and it does not say who he supported. The exception is the 1920 convention, where Kentucky's Governors says he supported Frank O. Lowden for president. This is mentioned in the latter part of the Governor of Kentucky section of the article.
  • Is there more that could be said about Morrow's relationship with Stanley? It seems like it could be an interesting side plot.
  • There are a few passing anecdotes about them often staying in the same inns, sharing drinks after their speeches, etc. but unfortunately, I've found no back story on how they came to be such close friends or what the effects their campaign might have had on their friendship.
  • "Black's refusal to remove the members of the board following this revelation probably sealed his defeat." This seems POV. Could you attribute this point of view, rather than adopting it as the article's own?
  • Sure; done.
  • "...were only a two-vote minority in the state Senate." I assume this means that they were in the minority by two votes and not that they were a minority of two votes, but this should probably be clarified.
  • Quite so. Fixed, I hope.
  • "Morrow convinced C. W. Burton, a legislator from Grant County, to defect and support Republican proposals." Context suggests that he was a Democratic senator, but if that's the case why not say so (instead of just "legislator")? Also, did he join the Republicans are remain as a Democrat but often support Republican legislation?
  • Nothing in the sources suggests he changed party affiliation, but yes, he was a Democrat. I've tried to clarify per your comments.
  • It still doesn't clarify that he was a senator, which I assume that he was (or it would be much less relevant that he voted with the Republicans).
  • Sorry I was a little thick on that one. I didn't notice that I hadn't mentioned he was a senator or that you were trying to point that out to me. :) Fixed now.
  • "Morrow was rigid in his call for strict law enforcement. He urged enforcement of state laws..." "Law" and "enforcement" are both repeated in close proximity. No reword seemed immediately apparent to me, but I'm wondering if losing the first sentence entirely might be the best approach.
  • Done.
  • "Morrow dispatched the National Guard again in 1922 to quell a violent mill strike in Newport." Is this related to the rest of the paragraph in which it's found?
  • Only inasmuch as it represents another instance where Morrow employed force against violent uprisings in the state. There are no details in the sources that would allow me to expand this sentence into its own paragraph, but I thought it was important to show his consistent track record of quelling violence, which had been a major issue in the state for decades.
  • Um, the rest of that paragraph doesn't deal with the use of force against a violent uprising, though. Might it make more sense up with the Lockett stuff?
  • Another instance where I didn't read closely enough. I was trying to preserve chronology, and I thought the quelling of violence by force and the removal of local officials who refused to do the same were closely related enough to do so. However, I think I can treat them as separate issues without jarring the reader with an event from 1922 being followed by one from 1921. I've reworded to give a little context to that effect. Let me know what you think.
  • After re-reading the sources, the term most used is "officially notified". Maybe this is some sort of political formality. I've changed the wording to match the sources.
  • Have historians assessed his legacy at all? The article ends rather abruptly with no attempt to establish Morrow's historical significance.
  • See my comment to Christopher Parham above.
  • Looking at the paragraph in which the "solid, and rather typical" sentence appears, it looks to me that there is some additional evaluation that could be worked into a short paragraph at the end of the article. If nothing else, it would make it end a little less abruptly. I'm not sure where Christopher's getting the bit about the first session being a disappointment (I've only scanned the relevant chapter, so it could be in there without my having found it), but if he's right about that I think it should be addressed to.
  • See my follow up to Christopher above.

Generally excellent, though, and I fully expect to support as usual. Steve Smith (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another great review. Always happy to address your concerns. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some questions and thoughts:
  • Do the sources really say Wilson "removed" him from his position as US Attorney? Since they're political appointees, current practice is that they just leave at the end of their President's Administration. While you're checking that, was he called a "US District Attorney" in those sources? I presume this was before they switched names.
  • I've already returned the Powell source to the library, but I'm almost sure it did say "removed", as does Jillson (p. 35). Your observations about it being a political appointment are correct, however. Taft (his appointer) being a fellow Republican and Wilson (who removed him) being a Democrat. A quick glance back over the sources show they all say "U.S. district attorney"; I'm not familiar with the history of that office, so I'm not sure what it might have been called before.
  • Regarding Moseby's confession, "coerced" seems like a better adjective than "extorted". Was "extorted" in the sources.
  • Hay does use the word "extorted" (p. 152).
  • The family paragraph in the "Legal Career" section seems odd. Could we move that up to "Early Life" and perhaps retitle that?
  • This sometimes presents a challenge for me. I want to preserve the chronology of his life, but I want the section titles to be accurate as well. I guess I could drop the "Legal career" title altogether, making the "Early life" section quite a bit longer and moving the last paragraph (regarding his service as city attorney, etc. to "Political career". Would that remedy the issue?
  • Yes, but let's give other folks here a few days to chime in.--Chaser (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With no further input, I've made this change.
  • "His decision was aided by the fact that a challenge..." Aided is an odd word here. "Encouraged"? If the sources support it, "influenced"?
  • I think the sources would support "influenced". I've changed it.
  • The "Governor" section dragged for me when I got to Jack Eaton, but the only solution I see (sub-subsections) may be too radical at this stage of the FAC.
  • I tried to break it up with a picture, but yeah, I don't know about adding sub-subsections at this point, although I'm open to suggestions.

Excellent job.--Chaser (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I've done my best to address these issues. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support on 1a. Badly overlinked; I've fixed most of it. Please note what I've unlinked.

  • g or G for governor? See infobox vs. opening sentence.
If it were used as a proper title (i.e. "Governor Morrow") I think it is capitalized, but as it appears in the opening sentence, I think it is lower case. I capitalized it in the infobox as a section heading.
  • "He championed the typical Republican causes of his day, namely equal rights for African-Americans"—are you sure this is correct? And women's rights? Yet he campaigned for the use of force to quell violence ... seems contradictory nowadays. Ah, do you mean violence by whites against blacks? It needs to be made clear on first mention in the lead. Second mention implies this, but we shouldn't be left hanging with jaws dropped.
Yeah, I think this is correct. Kentucky's first Republican governor (and Morrow's uncle), William O. Bradley, had a stellar reputation among African-Americans. His Republican successor, William S. Taylor, not as much, but he did appoint some African-Americans to his cabinet and reluctantly opposed the Separate Coach Bill. Augustus E. Willson was the only other Republican elected governor before Morrow, but most of his term was taken up with the Black Patch Tobacco Wars. In fact, there weren't many Republican governors of Kentucky because they were generally supportive of equal rights for African-Americans. (My native state doesn't exactly have a sparkling past in the area of civil rights.) Remember, Republicans are the party of Abraham Lincoln, and those ideals were still shaping the party at this time, only about half-a-century later.
Regarding violence, I really mean violence in general. Taylor called out the militia to protect him from violent protesters during the William Goebel assassination fiasco. Willson, as already mentioned, called them out to put down violence linked to the Black Patch War. Also, there were numerous violent feuds and labor strikes in the eastern part of the state for much of the late 19th and early 20th century. Democrats made a campaign issue out of Republican use of force during Willson's campaign and that of the next Republican nominee, Edward C. O'Rear. So yes, the use of force to quell violence in general, not just racial violence, was a typical Republican issue at the time. It just so happens that Morrow mainly used it against racial violence, although there is mention of him putting down a violent labor strike in 1922.
  • Overlinking: English-speakers are meant to know what a heart attack is (and it's linked for a second time, just in case we missed it the first time ... no thanks). Extortion and perjory likewise (it's not a dictionary, and there are plenty of high-value links we don't want to dilute). "Black", "murder", etc—please unlink. "acclamation". etc.<Town, state> items are better piped to just the town—save the blue for what matters. I've fixed the large number of them with a script. "Reading law"—odd link, and odd expression out of mid-20th-century UK. "studied law" nowadays. Tony (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I may have a problem overlinking things in general, but I don't generally try to make that call. There are folks much better at making that distinction than I; that's the beauty of a wiki. I do like the link to "reading law", since that is the term my sources use and many folks (myself included) are not all that familiar with it. I like it better than "studied law" because I tend to think of "studying law" as more formal, but I won't quibble about it here. Thanks for your review. Let me know if any of this is not satisfactory. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:04, 12 December 2009 [48].

Premiership of John Brownlee[edit]

Nominator(s): Steve Smith (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


FAC has read about the John Brownlee sex scandal, now read about the premiership that it ended. This has been through GAN and PR; my thanks to User:Arsenikk and User:S Marshall at those venues.

I'd like to say a word about criterion 1c, since I expect it to come up: this article relies far more heavily on a single source than I would like it to, and far more heavily than any article I have previously brought to FAC. Given the subject, this is unavoidable: Foster is the only writer to publish extensive secondary material on Brownlee's life and career. Brownlee's premiership has been dealt with incidentally in some other works (see my use of Wardhaugh, for example), and two elements of his premiership (the sex scandal and the sterilization act) have been the subject of academic study in their own right. I've referenced the best of the works on the sex scandal (Brode), but reading the papers about the Sterilization Act did not reveal any new information suitable for an article of this generality. Finally, there are a number of books dealing with more general subjects that contain information on Brownlee's premiership, but while these books are generally secondary sources the portions of them dealing with Brownlee are almost always tertiary sources, sourced almost entirely to Foster's work. I could have sourced information found in Foster's book to some of these other sources that duplicated it, thus giving the illusion of source diversity, but I've opted instead to identify the source where I first found it.

The featured article criteria require that an FA be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic". I submit that, reliance on a single source notwithstanding, this is. That said, I look forward to addressing reviewers' concerns on 1c or any other criterion. Steve Smith (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foster (1981) appears to be SELF. Can you supply academic peer review of Foster (1981)? Reviews in Journals of Canadian History? This is essential as Foster (1981) is published by Foster Learning Inc., which appears to be edited by Foster. The fact that on his biopage he appears to have been badly photoshopped into an image is not an indication of veracity. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look for reviews of that book in particular. Here's an academic review that deals with Foster (2004), which is in most respects a condensed version of Foster (1981). Here's an academic paper that cites Foster (1981) reasonably heavily. Note also that Foster (1981) is an edited version of Foster's doctoral thesis, for which he was awarded a PhD from Queen's University, so this is not exactly typical self-published terrirory. I'll look for something more definitive, though. Steve Smith (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A brief review appears to have been published in the following: "John E. Brownlee, a biography." Alberta History 45.1 (1996): 27. Text is not available online, so I'll have a look in the library in the next few days. A longer article from the same journal ("An Alberta political revolution and Calgary's Lougheed Building." Alberta History 51.4 (Autumn 2003): p51(3).) cites it and comments favourable on it in passing ("Franklin Foster tells what followed in his well-written biography..."). It's also been written up in such non-scholarly publications as the Globe and Mail, Alberta Report, and The Beaver. Steve Smith (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me know when you've checked Alberta History 45.1 (1996): 27. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I checked it last week. There's not much to report: the review ran little over a hundred words, and praised the book as filling a gap in scholarship, but said little else. Steve Smith (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No dab links or external links (dead or otherwise), and alt text looks good. --an odd name 01:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first page reads like a biographical article and left me wondering why you hadn't put the man's dates in. But the article is the Premiership. It would be better reworded:
John Brownlee was Premier of Alberta, Canada, from 1925 to 1934 as ......
You don't need to say that he was a politician. It interrupts the flow between his name and the word premier. Amandajm (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change made. Steve Smith (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, except for the bold text. --an odd name 18:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support All concerns addressed. - Wasn't the first name of the girl he was accused of seducing Vivian, not Florence? Connormah (talk) 23:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a hell of a mistake for me to let make it to FAC. Thanks! Steve Smith (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I find the sentence, On no issue was Brownlee's relationship with the King government more critical than it was for the control of natural resources. worded a bit strange. Something just doesn't sound right about that sentence. Actually, the more I think about it, I think it;s fine. Great work on another fine article. Connormah (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see the problem. Can you specify, or make suggestions to help it read better? Steve Smith (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on 1c and 2c. I am reassured that Foster (1981) has received adequate review and acceptance from the Scholarly community. The fact that Foster is a practising Historian with a relevant Doctorate from a reputable University; that Foster's work has been reviewed and cited by Canadian historians; and, that it is the expansion of a Doctoral Dissertation which was reviewed, means in this case that we can accept the fact that it is Reliable; thus clearing the 1c issues. 2c is fine. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments As usual, just some minor, minor things:
    • "After he was re-elected in the 1930 election, things began to get worse for Brownlee." Statement seems out of place in the lead, as the immediate paragraph before focuses on his successes. For things to "get worse" implies to me that they were bad to begin with, which does not seem to be the case.
    • It strikes me as odd that Brownlee seems to magically become Premier. It might help to have a quick paragraph at the start explaining why Greenfield resigned and how Brownlee came to be voted UFA leader, and therefore, Premier. Resolute 21:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your comments. I've taken a stab at both of those, though I'm not thrilled with my new wording with regards to the first point. See what you think. Steve Smith (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I tried another wording that might be a little better? Either way, my concerns are addressed, so

Support. Resolute 02:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support—but the images were tiny; I have enlarged all of the non-portrait ones. Tony (talk)
    • Thanks for your support and image work; I am absolutely without aesthetic sense, so anything anybody does to make my articles more visually pleasing or useful is appreciated. Steve Smith (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article draws a truly huge amount of info from one source— about 117 refs from Foster, which is about 90% of the total. • Ling.Nut 10:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep. Have you read my explanation above? Steve Smith (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I've read it. Mark me down as WP:IDONTLIKEIT and call me a cranky b*stard if you like, but to my mind, (except in rare instances) anything drawn from one source does not represent our best work. But I guess I can't oppose. So ignore me. Nothing to see here folks. Move along. Speaking as Nirvana (band) channeling Emily Litella: Never mind. • Ling.Nut 02:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't like it either, actually, and I'd understand an oppose. My question wasn't to discount your point, but just to make sure you'd read my explanation. Steve Smith (talk) 03:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:04, 12 December 2009 [49].

1930 FIFA World Cup[edit]

Nominator(s): Oldelpaso (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the 2010 World Cup just around the corner, this is my attempt to give the very first edition of the most prestigious tournament in football (or soccer if you prefer) the article it deserves. While today the World Cup is a media extravaganza rivalled only by the Olympics, its origins were far more humble. Ignored completely by much of Europe, crowds were a mere few hundred at the start of the tournament. By the final, they had grown to 93,000, and the rest is history. The boring part: the article is a current GA, and has had two peer reviews. The images are free, and since I've taken it as far as I can, its time for the FAC microscope. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit image clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Interesting article. Could the single "See also" link be incorporated somewhere in the prose? It also seems a little confused - if Uruguay were chosen as hosts partly because they offered to refund the expenses of the participants, why did European countries consider the trip too expensive? And then why did things change after the Uruguayan government agreed to pay travel expenses? (Or was the first offer to cover non-travel expenses, and then later it was extended to travel for European countries?) Trebor (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I had been writing an essay or blog post, I'd have expanded on this more, but I'm wary of synthesis. Professionalism was in its infancy - the first professional league outside Britain was not formed until 1924 (in Vienna), and in 1930 professionalism in continental Europe was mainly limited to Central Europe and Spain. So in many cases the players were amateurs. Since this was the time of the Great Depression, taking a lengthy period off work would no doubt represent a big risk for players. The colonial attitudes of Old Europe played a part too. I'll try to add a little, but I shall have to be careful not to advance beyond what is explicitly stated in the sources. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments

  • Ref 38 is broken, both in availability and formatting. Use {{cite web}} with the format parameter instead, and don't worry about the size. Otherwise, external links all work, and no dab links.
  • The infobox needs alt text and may need changes to its template for that purpose.

--an odd name 18:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have fixed {{Infobox International Football Competition}} to support alt text; please use its new |alt= parameter to describe that (very cool) lead image. Also, the alt text for File:Red card.svg currently says "Sent off in the 54th minute", which isn't right: the visual appearance is merely that of a red card, so the alt text should say just "Red card". The rest of the alt text looks very good; thanks! Eubulides (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref fixed and alt text added for the lead image. I'm struggling to work out how to do so for the red card as a template is involved. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that red card template. The alt text all looks very good now; thanks. Eubulides (talk) 08:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Decide if you're going to refer to the FIFA site as "FIFA official website" "FIFA" or "FIFA.com" Also whether it's going to be italicised or not. All references to that need to be consistent.
  • Current ref 13 (Lara...) is in Spanish? Needs to note that in the reference.
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return. I noted RSSSF particularly.
  • : Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all done, assuming I've interpreted your comment about abbreviations correctly. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – A pleasing read overall, but I am a little concerned about the third comment below. I'll probably check some more for this before any offer of support

  • Origins: I see nothing in the source given (reference 2) about soccer's lack of popularity in the U.S. Also, baseball was the number one sport in the country at the time, not American football. In fact, the National Football League had a very limited fan base in 1932, though the college game was popular at the time.
  • The "Not only...but" sentence structure is long and awkward in most cases, and it appears to be here. See if this can be re-worded.
  • Major problem in Summary: "The USA were seeded on account of the professional soccer league in the USA at the time" is pretty much identical to what is in the source. I hope this isn't a trend elsewhere.
  • Is the anecdote at the end of Group 2 covered in the following reference (26)?
  • Group 3: "when Placido Galindo of Peru was dismissed against Romania. Romania...". Notice the repetition at the end? That's something to fix.
  • Final: "and Uruguay thus added the title World Cup winners to their mantle of Olympic Champions." Should Champions be capitalized like this?
  • Commas before and after Buenos Aires? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mention of football's popularity or otherwise in the US removed. I've also removed the plagiarised sentence, which didn't add much anyway. I've tracked it down to this edit, which using the edit count tool appears to be that user's only edit to the article.
I'm sure the colours anecdote is in one of my books but I can't find it at the moment. I've commented it out pending a cite. All other points addressed. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Few more comments after looking at a few of the FIFA sources:
  • Reference 1 doesn't cover either of the facts it's supposed to be citing. The information is on different pages, which should be cited instead.
  • One of those pages (this one) sheds new light on why the European teams didn't participate; according to the source the Europeans' "clubs would have to renounce their best players for two months." That certainly seems useful for the appropriate section.
  • Reference 33 says that Bert Patenaude had the first hat-trick, but has none of the article's details on the reattributed goal. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've only added the briefest mention of the lengthy absences for European players; though they were away for two months, those months fell in the off-season. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WFCforLife

  • I'm generally in favour of images and icons that add to articles. But are the Olympic style medals in the infobox accurate? I.e. did the winners receive gold medals, the runners up silver, third place bronze and fourth place nothing? If that is the case, fair enough, but if not they should probably be removed.
  • There's no need to create any of the redlinked articles. Indeed I would discourage you from doing so, unless you are motivated to take them beyond stubs. Seeing a redlink on a prominent wikipedia page was what encouraged me to join in the first place, and that article is now quite good. I digress. I'm just wondering whether Almeida Rego and Juan Scasso should be linked at all? I've got no idea what the criteria are for architects, and I can't tell whether the European referees have articles because of systemic bias, or because their involvement in the final/other competitions makes them notable. If Rego is notable, he should also be redlinked in the matches he refereed, as the other referees are bluelinked.
  • Might be worth expanding upon tournament attendance, maybe in the venues section? The attendance statistics in the infobox may be technically accurate, but it's not a true reflection of the situation.

Hope those help for the time being, WFCforLife (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The medal colours in the infobox are an artifact of the infobox itself. I agree that it isn't really appropriate, and have boldly amended the infobox template to remove them.
  • Searching Scasso's name on Spanish Wikipedia comes up with a number of major buildings in Montevideo, so I'd say he's notable enough to be linked. For the referees, it could probably go either way. Judging by the number of articles about for referees, and that this tournament is the highest level, redlinks may be appropriate, but I would have thought that sources are few for some of them.
  • I would be interested in doing so, but unfortunately the only matches for which sources tend to go into any depth about attendances are the exceptionally low ones, and the final. In each case this is already mentioned elsewhere. Other than to say that Uruguay drew more spectators as they were the home team, which is hardly the biggest insight, I'm not sure what else I could add. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I found this to be an interesting read, I hadn't appreciated how different the World Cup was that far back. It's comprehensive without too much extraneous detail, and I couldn't see any glaring prose or technical errors Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose at the moment. I've left some notes on the talk page of the article, hopefully some of them are useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support thanks for taking the care and attention to address my specific concerns. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally addressed with one exception, specific responses on article talk. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it was a nice read. I have added an image of Rimet since he is probably the most important figure for starting the WC (feel free to rewrite the caption). Personally I would strongly prefer having an image of the trophy also (since it was designed for this event initially) and some image of the final/winning squad. Also, I would merge the four group articles into one "WC1930 - group stage" and I would trim down some stuff from the results section with formats used in more recent events such as in 2008–09_UEFA_Champions_League. Nergaal (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the Rimet image due to Fasach Nua's concerns below. I have, however, added an image of (the surviving replica of) the trophy – I'd completely forgotten about the picture I took of it, which was taken during the same museum trip as the ball images. I know of no free image of that Uruguay team. On result formats, I agree that for longer tournaments the format you linked to is better, but by modern standards this was a short tournament, so my personal preference is for the detailed format, the length of which is not problematic when used here. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Rimet image removed, see response to Nergaal above.
  • Are thumbs of detailed images not acceptable? I can't find anything about it in the MOS. Since we're not supposed to force image size, I don't see how any world map can avoid needing a clickthrough in this way.
  • I only have the information in the image page itself (which was kindly translated from Russian by User:Conscious). Would any of the other images in commons:Category:Estadio Centenario be more appropriate?
  • In the Manual of Style, the restriction against forced image sizes was lifted earlier this year. If you want to make the image larger for improved readability on the page, that is a situation the change covers. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right. Image and key enlarged. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Template:PD-Uruguay would be appropriate, assuming the existing tag is correct, ideally images should be free in the country of origin Fasach Nua (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • dates - The use of dates should be consistent, either use dd-mmm-yy format or dd-mmm format, the two should not be mixed
1930s removed where the narrative makes it obvious. Should now be full date on first reference in a section, with the year omitted on subsequent dates in the same year.
  • FIFA was not the world governing body it is now, it may be useful to show a map with the members on, there were notable non-members, such as the home nations who did not attend for reasons other than the journey Fasach Nua (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of the major footballing nations of the period, the Home Nations were the only FIFA holdouts. I get the feeling that this would be rather veering off-topic if covered in too much detail. I have edited the sentence about the FA to mention the Home Nations as none-FIFA members. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – My comments were resolved a while ago. As I said above, I enjoyed reading this, and I think the criteria are all met. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 15:55, 8 December 2009 [50].

Rise of Neville Chamberlain[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. This is a large part of the GA Neville Chamberlain. At the peer review, while the article was generally liked, it was thought to be too long. I did not think that it could be shortened by editing without losing a lot of information, so it was split, and this is part I. While the FAC is going, I'll be working on summarizing the portion of the main article covering 1869-1937 (I could not call this "Early Life of Neville Chamberlain", the customary dodge, for obvious reasons). This article covers much of the career of a man who had a lot more to him than an umbrella and a forlorn piece of paper.Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elcobbola image clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trend of recoloring historical images does need review, for the reasons mentioned by Abecedare. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've switched it for the black and white one. Odd how Joe Chamberlain's clothing could probably pass on the street, while either of his sons looks hopelessly old-fashioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the last source in References say 2010? I assuming this is a typo (also note that the Harvard references need to be fixed). Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a typo. I bought the book on September 15, too. That's what it says on the copyright page! It won't matter in a month and a half. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relying on the Copyright date is the most common way to assign a date to a text. If the publisher wants to lie, we still work off the lie on the bibliographic information page of the work. Other ways to date books exist, but shouldn't be of large concern to FAC reviewers of 2c unless the work lacks a copyright date, or date of publication on the bibliographic page. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why they do what they do is not clear to me. I should not that if I switched it to 2009 (publication date at least in the UK where I bought it), five years from now people will wonder why it doesn't bear the copyright date. Copyright date seems to be the best way to go. I'm open to ideas here.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning to support:(See support statement at end) Chamberlain is a discredited figure in UK political history and it is rare to find a dispassionate account of his career, which was by no means all failure despite its inglorious end. This narrative looks distinctly promising, with a generally uninvolved perspective; however, there are numerous fairly minor prose issues that need attention. I'm not through yet, but here is my first list:-

  • Lead
    • "long been seen" and "was seen" in same sentence - repetitious; suggest "long been regarded"
    • "chartered accountants" should have a link
    • Likewise "backbenches"
    • Likewise "National Government"
    • The chronology of Chamberlain's early ministerial career would be easier to follow if you said "briefly becoming Chancellor..." and "later spent five years as Minister of Health".
    • "guiding Britain through the Depression" sounds like a judgement. In some analyses, Chamberlain's financial policies during the Depression were divisive, with a particularly harsh impact on northern working-class areas. Rather than "guiding", I'd say something neutral like: "directing Britain's fiscal policy through the Depression years."
    • Last sentence: the parenthetical note needs to specify "who had replaced MacDonald as Prime Minister in 1935"

Response Did all these, though I modified the phrasing.

  • Early life
    • "...who later became Lord Mayor of Birmingham and a Cabinet minister." As there is no connection between these offices, the phrasing would read better as "who became Lord Mayor of Birmingham and later a Cabinet minister."
    • Another rephrasing suggested: "Joseph Chamberlain's first marriage had produced two children, Beatrice and Austen." This avoids the ugly "had had".
      • Your choice to retain "had had". I still think it's ugly, though. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "a sister"? Presumably "his" sister?
    • "whilst at Rugby". I don't know if the old ukase against "whilst" is still in force. Either way I think the phrase is redundant.
    • Does the source use the term "apprenticed" in relation to his accountancy training? In the UK the traditional term for on-the-job training in a profession, as distinct from a trade, was "articled".
      • Stay with your source, even though in this instance I think he's used the wrong word. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response Done. On the last, Self, page 21 says "As a result, he was apprenticed in 1889 to a leading firm of Birmingham chartered accountants where he demonstrated rather greater application and within six months he was promoted to become a salaried employee." I am pretty sure Self is British, and he surely knows his stuff, he released this bio after editing and publishing Chamberlain's papers in multiple volumes. Maybe things are different in Birmingham? After this and your illustrious forebear, I've come to the conclusion it's a rather strange city.

  • Business career
    • The section should have a broader title, since only the first two paragraphs cover Chamberlain's business career. Alternatively it could be split.
      • I'm not sure that "Businessman" is much broader, but I can't think of anything better. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close repetition of "venture"; second mention could be "enterprise", or "project", or "operation" etc
    • Is there a rule about converting acres (to hectares, km² etc)?
    • After the second paragraph the chronology of this section becomes a bit confusing. In succession we have a comment he made in 1931, reference to a journey in 1904-05, undated civic activities and hospital involvement, likewise undated involvement in establishing the University of B'ham (which must predate 1914 since Joseph died that year). Then we go to the Boer War and the 1900 election, and finally to some private life details. I think the section needs a bit of tidying, even if the splitting option is rejected.
It struck me that it would be more jumbled had I tried for strict chronological order (for face it, Chamberlain led a fairly humdrum life during that time) so it was best to have paragraphs that cover topics, not times. Business career, outdoor activities, civic activities, politics, personal life (I combined the last two into one paragraph to be more compact). Open to ideas, but I think this is a decent way to go.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not something I feel strongly about. It looks tidier as a single paragraph. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm working through my strikes, bear with me. Brianboulton (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Birmingham politician
    • First para, final sentence, looks in need of a citation. Also, the final phrase "a name by which it is still formally known" is probably unnecessary.
    • "With the outbreak of World War I in August 1914, Chamberlain became deeply involved in the war effort." There is no evidence of this in the rest of the section. His hard work and his activities, important though they were, don't really chime with the phrase "war effort".
    • Also, the sentence about him prospering personally from the war seems oddly placed here. Should it be put as a note somewhere in the Business career section?
      • I'm going to strike that sentence. Self makes mention of the Chamberlains having financial problems in the early 1920s. MPs got paid almost nothing then, you had to be a minister to earn a decent amount of money.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "established ... established" in close proximity. Synonyms: inaugurated, instituted, set up, etc.
      • The sentence in question is "The concerts established Birmingham as a cultural centre, and in 1919, the Orchestra was formally established." The next setence begins: "Chamberlain established..." That's rather too much use of the one word, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • All these are now done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Director of National Service
    • The phrase "to various extents" is too vague to be useful. Suggest drop it, and rephrase "which would have resulted in mandatory service..."
    • Did Austen really say "...for together if they were together..."?
      • Yes he did, see here--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmmm. No wonder his career flopped if he went around saying things like that. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • These issues are taken care of. I've just said "for mandatory service". Chamberlain tried several different ways; Lloyd George and the War Cabinet basically blew him off.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Candidate and backbencher
    • "Through the rest of his career, Neville Chamberlain laboured to further the ideals of his cousin, and wrote a biography of his cousin—the only book he ever wrote." The sentence seems laboured itself. Perhaps: "Through the rest of his career, Neville Chamberlain laboured to further the ideals of his cousin, and wrote his biography — the only book he ever wrote." (note spaces around ndash).
    • "...tried to recruit him to serve on another committee..." - ambiguous. I think you mean "an additional committee"
    • "...five of the six Unionist leaders, including Austen Chamberlain, resigned from their government and party offices." It won't be immediately clear to those without knowledge of British political history why Austen and other leading Unionists resigned their government and party offices. It should be made clear that they opposed their party's decision to go it alone, and wanted Lloyd George's coalition to remain in place. Hence their refusal to serve under Bonar Law. (They all crept back later, though).
      • Still not completely clear to the unaware, I fear. How about inserting thus: "five of the six Unionist leaders including Austen Chamberlain, who wished the coalition to continue, resigned..." etc Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will work on this today. Was going to work on the main article, but first things first. I tend to throw in a whilst or two when writing British English as a way of showing it is British English. Always happy to defer to a competent authority, though!--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All these comments have been addressed, except as commented, although I may have used other phrasing than suggested.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing comments (second half of article)

  • Bonar Law government
    • The main thrust of this section is Chamberlain's early ministerial career. His short stint as Chancellor is covered in one sentence - there's much more about his activities in other posts. So I'd change the heading to "Bonar Law government; early ministerial appointments" or some such.
    • "Bonar Law appointed Chamberlain as Postmaster General, outside the Cabinet." For clarity, I suggest "Bonar Law initially appointed Chamberlain as Postmaster General, a ministerial post below Cabinet level." ("Initially" emphasises that this was merely NC's first appointment)
    • I think "King's Speech" should be explained rather than just linked, e.g. "the King's Speech opening the new parliamentary session"
      • Probably, "setting forth the Government's programme", with the link in place, is enough without the "in opening parliament" bit. On this same point, did Chamberlain "oppose" or "refuse" the request to broadcast the speech? Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • He opposed it, which is logical enough. That is a fairly momentous decision, and I doubt the Postmaster General would be left to make it. No doubt Downing Street made it in consultation with the Palace.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarify "offered the position" = "offered the Health ministry"
    • "Housing Act" looks too broad a term to be the subject of a single Wikipedia article (there have been many such Acts in the UK), so I'd drop the redlink
    • "whilst" he sought ???
        • Actually, when my mom and I went to the UK in 2004, we had the giggles each time we saw the word.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Mosley was no gentleman" No doubt true, but also rank POV. Suggest "Mosley, who was described by Baldwin as "a cad and a wrong 'un", refused to retract the allegation."
        • That's how Macklin describes him ... but I'll rephrase. Darn. You're taking all the fun out of it. That must have been a really great campaign to witness ... Mosely vs Chamberlain. I'd pay money to see that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • In about 1978 when I was a student, I was walking in St James's Park when I saw Mosley, sitting all alone on a park bench. He looked very old and defeated. No one paid the slightest attention, but it was definitely him. I did not pay my respects. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minister of Health
    • It might be worth mentioning that ten shillings corresponds to about £20 in today's values. (per MeasuringWorth.com)
    • Rambling sentence: "Chamberlain continued to work with Churchill, though the two had policy differences, and the Chancellor let Chamberlain read a manuscript volume of his heavily-autobiographical The World Crisis, confiding to Chamberlain that he would have wished for two more years to revise the manuscript." Try "Despite policy differences Chamberlain continued to work with Churchill, who showed him the manuscript of his heavily-autobiographical The World Crisis. Churchill confided that he would have wished for two more years to revise the manuscript; Chamberlain wrote to his sisters that he could have done the job in two hours—with a pair of scissors."[85]
    • "Labour MPs, however, gave as good as they got." Again, the personal voice intrudes. Suggest "Labour MPs retaliated; one referred..." etc
    • "His poor relations with the Labour Party would play a major part in his downfall as Prime Minister." Needs an "eventually" or "in due course" to maintain chrnological sense.
    • "...by seizing on provisions..." - what does this actually mean? Sounds like banditry as stated. Perhaps "commandeering"?
    • I suggest the following sentence is deleted - it tends to confuse an already fairly complex situation: "The Poor Law boards had responsibility for both the unemployed, and for the disabled and elderly; responsibility for the unemployed was given to its own set of commissions."
  • Return to opposition
    • I am a bit bothered by paragraphs 2 and 3 of this section, which seem to be overdetailed in regard to the Empire Trade issue, which impacted against Baldwin rather than Chamberlain. I have prepared a condensed, single version of the incident, here, which you might consider. Note that I have used "campaign" rather than effort, and have extended Baldwin's remark on power without responsibility to the full quote he borrowed from Cousin Kipling.
      • I did my own shortening, see what you think.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your revised shorter version is fine. Should Kipling be acknowledged, in a foonote perhaps? I would still prefer "campaign ... for" rather the "effort ... for", though. Brianboulton (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not accepted idiom to say that a party "swept a number of seats. They "won" them , or "captured" them, but they didn't "sweep" them.
  • Chancellor and Conservative heir apparent
    • Suggest link Liberal National
    • Suggest delete "his brother" before Duke of York. It reads confusingly, otherwise.
    • "At the end of the speech, Sir Austen Chamberlain walked down and shook his brother's hand." At the beginning of the speech they were side by side...so what happened?
        • Sir Austen was behind him. That's clear in the article. He was a backbencher. Taylor indicates that one reason Austen was given no role in the National Government was that his faculties were starting to fail. His letter to his sister that I linked above seems pretty cogent to me. I'm still trying to verify a claim that Neville used his father's despatch box for the address, but I haven't been able to confirm it so it isn't in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're right about "behind". I read it as "beside" - sorry Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "With the Prime Minister in decline..." Best to name him.
    • Final paragraph should have a brief introduction, rather than leading in with an unexplained "new king".
    • "...dying two months earlier" → "having died two months earlier."
  • Legacy and reputation
    • Much of this section seems to refer to his whole career, rather than to the part that is the subject of this article. That makes confusing reading for someone unfamiliar with the details of Chamberlain's premiership and appeasement policy; since this article is about Neville's rise, the assessment section should be confined to that. Would it not be more pertinent to retitle this section "Appraisal" or some other neutral noun ("Legacy and reputation" are post-career terms), and to use the space for an evaluation of his tenures in the main offices (Chancellor and Health Minister) which he occupied up to 1937? The other stuff should be reserved for the second article.

That is my review. I don't think there is any serious issue among the points that I've raised – they are mainly matters of minor prose and presentation. My biggest concern at the moment is the last section, for the reasons explained. If pressed I could indicate some areas where I think the level of detail is excessive—I have made one suggestion in this respect. But on the whole, the big achievement has been to make Neville Chamberlain almost interesting. What next – the love life of Sir Alec Douglas-Home? Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look it over. I think some mention has to be made of the appeasement issue. I think that the "slum clearance" comment can be lost, I put that in in an effort to bend over backwards on NPOV. Note that the Legacy section in this article is entirely different than in the main article, and some of the comments (for example, both of Macmillan's) really cover both Chamberlain's tenure as Chancellor and his peacetime premiership. Macklin seems to be right, it is hard to filter out the "authentic Chamberlain". I disagree with one thing, though: no one is going to read this article who does not know that Chamberlain is known for appeasement and Munich. As for Home: Did Home have a love life? He must have, he had kids. I'm giving some thought to Attlee, though, though I haven't started accumulating references. Baldwin is starting to seem more interesting to me. How can a man be at the top rank of British politics for fifteen years and spend most of his time, apparently, dreaming about retirement?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Appraisal section is now excellent. Spoilsport note: "Iron Lady" is not a neutral term in relation to Margaret Thatcher. Initially intended as pejorative, it was adopted by her as a badge of honour. People who thus describe her are generally thought to be in admiration of her. If it was in quotes, or qualified as "the so-called Iron Lady", this would be more neutral. But (in my view) best avoided. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that it is difficult to separate appeasement from rearmament, and Chamberlain's record on rearmament is certainly fair game in this article. That's why I have the two quotes from Attlee and Greenwood in there, not to mention the sniping from Churchill. While those matters came to fruition during Chamberlain's premiership, they had their roots when he was Chancellor. Anyway, I don't have much time to work on the details right now but I'll get to them within a day or two.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahead of schedule as usual. All done, except as noted. I cleaned up the legacy section, but you have some mention of appeasement for the reasons as stated.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, I've addressed the remaining concerns in the part of the article you've double-checked on.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's taken me a while, but I've re-reviewed everything. Only a couple of points are still unstruck - could you look quickly at those (including the "established ... established ... established" phrasing) and briefly respond. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've caught your second pass comments and unresolved first pass issues now. I did some disestablishing, so I think you'll find that is OK. I didn't know Kipling was Baldwin's cousin. Well, live and learn.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: My long list of issues has been worked through patiently, and I think the article is better for it. I believe the sources are top quality and have been used effectively. I'd get the Kipling citation in, though. This highly informative article is an important contribution to 20th century British political history and has taught me lots I didn't know. Brianboulton (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Kipling cite is footnote 101, more as an explanatory note. Thanks for the support!--Wehwalt (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I peer reviewed this in its previous form as part of a single article on Chamberlain. My reservations then were neither grave nor numerous, and have been dealt with. Some tiny points on the present article - all too minor to affect my support but possibly worth a look:
    • "Prime Minister" (23 times, by my count) or "prime minister" (5 times) - both are used in the article, with no evident distinction beween capitalised and lower case versions. I'd recommend lower case throughout, but either way, unless there is a reason for the distinction I advise consistency.
    • Unless I have missed them, there are no blue links to Labour or Liberal at their first mentions in the article.
    • Piping for the "Sir" for knights is inconsistent. As far as I can discover there doesn't appear to be a Wikipedia party line on this, but I think, to quote two examples from the present article, Sir John Anderson is easier on the reader's eye than Sir Thomas Beecham. The latter somehow rather breaks the flow of the line.
    • Bonar Law Government; early ministerial office
      • "second eleven" – blue link to junior varsity: I see why you've put this link in, but as the precise term applies to cricket or association football the junior varsity connection is tenuous. I wonder if an explanatory footnote might be preferable.
      • blue link to Chancellor of the Exchequer appears at its third mention in the section, rather than its first. Deliberate? Not an obvious reason for this.
      • "Baldwin decided that a general election was needed" – to refresh his mandate? to legitimise the tariff reform programme? A brief word about why Baldwin came to this view would be helpful
    • Return to opposition
      • "Colonial Secretary, where Joseph Chamberlain": strange choice of preposition. Either "Colonial Secretary, in which post…" or "the Colonial Office, where…" perhaps.
    • Chancellor and Conservative heir apparent
      • "Sir Austen Chamberlain wrote his brother": British usage requires "wrote to his brother"
      • "civil servant salaries" - reads oddly: civil servants' salaries or civil service salaries, possibly?
      • I see a "whilst" has remained unslain. I second Brianboulton's recommendation, above, to expunge this unnecessary and pompous word.

And that really is the lot from me this time. A most comprehensive and instructive article, fully worthy to grace the front page. - Tim riley (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, and I hope it will one day, though I am shooting to have the main Chamberlain article pass FAC next and be main page on 10 May, the 70th anniversary of the end of his premiership. But I'm sure this will make it one day. I made all the changes you've proposed. If you get a chance, could you look over the note for second eleven to ensure it is correct? I'm afraid I went to a New Jersey high school where we didn't use such terms.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - spot on, I'd say. - Tim riley (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another term we didn't use. Thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This well-researched article is very clearly written - I could easily follow Neville's rise. Just a few points below:

  • His childhood and early adulthood were marked by uncertain career direction. - Whose childhood is marked by a certain career direction?
  • Neville's mother, the former Florence Kenrick, also died in childbirth in 1875 - Sounds awkward
  • As a Lord Mayor in wartime, Chamberlain had a huge burden of work - I think we can do better than "huge".
  • While some historians relate Norman's death to a hatred of war on his cousin's part which led to appeasement, according to biographer Nick Smart the death did not cause Chamberlain to hate World War I, and any influence on his later positions is far from certain. - Awkward syntax
  • With Baldwin on holiday in France, Chamberlain negotiated for the Conservatives, telling MacDonald that the Conservatives would only join a coalition if the full recommended cuts in unemployment compensation were made - A little bit hard to follow
  • ir Austen did not live to see his brother's final climb to the top of the greasy pole, having died two months earlier. - Do we need "greasy pole"?
  • Please add publication locations to the references.

Are you going to write the Fall of Neville Chamberlain? Awadewit (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take care of the comments later in the day. I don't think it is necessary to write the Fall article, the main article (which I will nominate as soon as this clears the page) is fairly comprehensive on that, and we also have Norway debate. Basically, it was necessary to split the main article due to length.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "Fall" thing was a joke - a reference to all those rise and fall narratives. I just need to stop making jokes. No one gets them. :( Awadewit (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, please continue. My fault I missed it!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the changes, excepting the greasy pole. That's a fairly famous quote from Disraeli, see here. And given that Chamberlain was alluding to Disraeli with "peace for our time", it is very appropriate. I'd rather leave it in, unless it makes you really unhappy. Three supports, one of which is independent of the peer review, no opposes, technical and image checks done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we indicate "greasy pole" is a quote, then? Awadewit (talk) 05:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've quotified and put in a note explaining it. I think that should be fine, I can always switch it to "his brother's ascension to the premiership" but I think putting little things like the greasy pole in there helps an article make the 1(a) criterion.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looking forward to the "List of Neville Chamberlain Articles" article!  ;-) -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nope, these two are it! I may milk the books for the last drop and write about Munich, but not soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:38, 3 December 2009 [51].

Gunpowder Plot[edit]

Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum, Parrot of Doom 17:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because the Gunpowder Plot is an important part of English religious and political history. Every child knows the name of Guy Fawkes, not so many know that he was only a part of the story. Religious persecution, political backstabbing, conspiracy, murder, torture, gruesome executions, explosions—what more could you ask for? Parrot of Doom 17:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are citation needed tags in the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gone - one is probably not citable, the other will be sorted in due course (I've hidden it for the moment) Parrot of Doom 17:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments

--an odd name 20:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images check out. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC) My CoI prohibits me from working on content related to the article, but I will check the images. There were 4 concerns. Feel free to strike through the concerns or leave a note after when they are addressed. Images: File:GunpowderPlot.jpg - check. File:Darnley stage 3.jpg - check and a FP, so, definitely has it all verified. File:James I, VI by John de Critz, c.1606..png - you could put it into a fancy box but all of the info is there. **File:Gunpow1.jpg - might want to add year (circa 1605) to the info and checks out. File:Eliz bohemia 2.jpg - info checks out. File:John rocque house of lords gunpowder plot cropped.jpg - info checks out. File:Capon map of parliament.jpg - info checks out. File:House of lords and princes chamber.jpg - info checks out. File:Gunpowder plot parliament cellar.jpg - info checks out. File:Monteagle letter.jpeg - info checks out. **File:Fawkes arrest2.jpg - needs year. File:A Torture Rack.jpg - info checks out. File:Robert Cecil, 1st Earl of Salisbury by John De Critz the Elder (2).jpg - info checks out. File:Guy Fawkes confession.png - info checks out. ** File:Hindlip hall.jpg - needs year (find the original publication, link provided next). 1901 edition to verify that it is PD. File:Edward coke.jpg - iffy, has a year, but no real verifiable source of the year. NPG may have a copy of info on it? **File:Henry Garnet (1555-1606).jpg - needs year and possible author information. File:The execution of Guy Fawkes' (Guy Fawkes) by Claes (Nicolaes) Jansz Visscher.jpg - info checks out. File:Bonfire4.jpg - info checks out. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Mostly there, but some prose needs work, which I see Malleus is on. "The new King received an envoy from the Catholic Albert VII of the Southern Netherlands.[13] This country, which had for the previous 30 years been a battleground between English-supported Protestant rebels and Catholics" needs rewriting - he was the Habsburg Viceroy of 1/2 a country. Link Dutch Revolt or Eighty Years War. Since there is so much background, the wider context of religious assassinations of political leaders should be mentioned: in France Gaspard de Coligny, (1572), Henri III, (1589), and later Henri IV, (1610); in the Netherlands William I of Orange, (1584), and in Scotland the Regent James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray (1570) Not to mention the more obscure Michael the Brave (1601) in Romania, on behalf of the Habsburgs. I'm not saying these Catholic assassinations, and some other attempts and successes, were connected, though many people did, but the wave of assassinations led to a great reduction in public appearances by, and access to rulers, including James, that had profound effects. Johnbod (talk) 00:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll admit my knowledge of 16th-17th-century politics is very sparse. I'd appreciate any help you have to offer on such a thing, I can only really work with the sources I have. There is already more than 60kb of prose, so care needs to be taken here. Parrot of Doom 01:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done Albert & the Netherlands, perhaps clumsily. I'd forgotten he had eventually been made "co-sovereign" of the Netherlands with his wife, but no kingly title. Numbering Habsburg archdukes is a silly nob-squad affectation, imo. I'll look for refs on the trend for assassinations & its effects; that may not happen this week. Johnbod (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've not found anything to add here so far, & wouldn't withold support on this, but I do think the wider context needs mention pp 227-9 here are the sort of thing. Juan de Mariana should be mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that such detail would be more suited to inclusion in this article Parrot of Doom 23:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to see why "detail" on the issue of assassination belongs in the more general article. Actually it's not detail, of which the article is already full, but context, missing from the current background sections. Johnbod (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its context that isn't really mentioned in either of the two sources I've used in the article, and it isn't mentioned in the ODNB's entry on the story and its participants. If they don't see fit to writing much (if anything) about it, I'm not inclined to think that it belongs here, in a much shorter version of the story. The context in which the Gunpowder Plot was set was basically Catholics not happy that their new ruler wasn't about to reverse the severe restrictions that Elizabeth I had imposed - and that's given a prominent position, as is the European position on the replacement of James I. Those other assassinations may be relevant to Catholics and European History, but they're not really worth mentioning here unless there is an explicit connection. Parrot of Doom 10:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a connection in the Jesuit justification for assassination, which may go a little way to explaining the government's determination to implicate Henry Garnet, even though he likely knew very little about the plot and certainly wasn't involved in its planning or execution. I'll add a sentence or two; I think that's all it needs. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a short paragraph to the early reign of James I section, explaining James's understandable nervousness about the possibility of a Catholic assassination attempt on his life. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, thanks. The phrasing of the subsequently introduced Oath of Aliegance, by which Catholics had to swear that the doctrine that the Pope could (as it were) issue fatwah's for assassination was a heresy could also be tacked on there, but there's enouugh as it stands. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My comments above dealt with. Johnbod (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support. I was thinking about elaborating a little bit on the Oath of Allegiance anyway, so I'll do that. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... done. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are "assassination" and "Catholics" linked at the stop? Possibly a more explicit pipe to the "Dutch revolt" target—"against the Dutch"? Then we know it's not one of those country links (i.e., to "the Netherlands").
  • "Between 1533–1540"—Please see the first point here: User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style#En_dashes.2A Tony (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both fixed, except that I think the link to "Catholics" is possibly worth keeping? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline 1c: Original research. Use of Time Series data for the value of money calculated; rather than referenced from an appropriate secondary source. Resolved 2c at talk. 2c fixits. All 2c resolved. 1c Original Research, inappropriately grounded speculation, a few non HQ sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1c:
This is Original Research. Value of money over time is an inordinately complex historical topic. Wikipedia is not a qualified economic historian. Find it in a secondary source. "4,000 marks (about £430,000 as of 2009)" ^ UK CPI inflation numbers based on data available from Measuring Worth: UK CPI.
I'm not sure I agree. The source (Haynes p47) says that 4,000 marks was about £3,000 Parrot of Doom 01:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haynes as a secondary has the right to equate Marks to Pounds. Or if he chose 16xx Pounds to 20XX Pounds. We don't. Time series for money value is incredibly contested by economic historians. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bit of a misunderstanding here. The conversion isn't from marks, but from Northcote Parkinson's figure of £3,000. No original reaearch involved, or reliance on wikipedia, as the CPI conversion comes from data supplied by a reliable source. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No misunderstanding. It isn't a HQRS. Time series data is extremely dubious. Running it through a conversion website is simply not acceptable as I've repeatedly explained, this is an intensely debated area of economic history and your website is not a publication of the highest quality by an economic historian. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then we will have to agree to disagree, as I ain't changing it. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the website used to create this data you'll see that far from being a simple 'conversion website' its a service which claims a range of contributors, in fact it makes a specific point about the thoroughness of its data and calculation methods. I feel that demonstrates reliability well enough. The figures used in the article exist to give the reader some idea of the size of the fines, else the figures are almost meaningless. Parrot of Doom 09:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with the nominators that the site is fine for a very rough idea of the value of money, we are not a academic publication here, we're only trying to give a general idea of the value, so it does not require an ironclad source. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to resolve this quibble by expanding the footnote to better explain the approximation and its limitations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of notes explaining the basis of the calculations, one using relative purchasing power and the other average earnings as appropriate. I strongly believe thaough that challenging the reliability and quality of MeasuringWorth is ridiculous. The site was set up and is run by a Professor of Economics at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and has a distinguished board of academic advisers.[52] --Malleus Fatuorum 17:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...MeasuringWorth in no way represents a consensus in the field, [Worth Measures] within their site displays a fundamentally naïve understanding of value, and applying any of their measures to the 17th century displays an arrogance not substantiated by their argument. Purchasing power parity and relative earning capacities break down in the transformation of the nature of goods, its a problem about the density of cash economy and commodity form, and its what broke the efforts of Past & Present to produce a similar time series for Britain. (See for example MeasuringWorth's discussion of the use of RPI, "Just one reason why the retail price index may not be the most appropriate measure is that prices of goods and services purchased by households or consumers alone are incorporated; neglected are the purchases of business firms and governments. Second, it is in the nature of statistical data that perhaps no "true" series of the retail price index is obtainable. An official series is acceptable beginning with the year 1948. For earlier years, privately constructed series are utilized, and they are probably further away from the ideal than even the official series." I am about to read Officer's study, "What Were the U.K. Earnings Rate and Retail Price Index Then? A Data Study." and am not expecting to be impressed, the failure to account for changes in the nature of value itself and the primitive approach to price do not indicate that they're revolutionised the time-series data problems.) So I can't budge on this. The closer should obviously take into account your arguments contra, and Ealdyth's opinion. Your notes could be slightly longer regarding the methodology of MeasuringWorth in terms of producing these estimates (which if adequate at expressing the tenuousness of the source or the highly contested nature of the field, would be adequate in my mind, and I'd revoke). Also, you've got a typo in "Officer, Lawrence H. (2009), Purchasing Power of British Pounds from 1264 to Presen" by the way. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments: I've just finished studying this event for AS-level, and this would have been very useful. However, coming from the understanding I do have now, I have to make some comments on the content. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:
"fled from London as they learned of the plot's discovery", and also attempted to gather support as they moved northwards. This should be briefly mentioned even if it is the lead.
Thanks, it is mentioned in the article but a mention in the lead is ok with me. Done Parrot of Doom 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Background > Religion in England:
  • "several hundred years of religious turmoil in England" this is a highly sensational assessment. The situation was not comparable to France at this time, which was in turmoil (Wars of Religion), and you should provide several references in order to validate this if you think it's worth keeping. IMO, something more moderate would be better.
I'm no expert on the religious and political happenings of this time, my leanings are more towards sheer enjoyment of reading about generally how different things were back then. We'll happily take any advice you might wish to give. I don't think its a particularly sensational statement, what wording would you suggest to moderate the phrase? Parrot of Doom 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd stop saying how much you're not an expert! "Several decades" would be better, as there was very little before the end of the 1520s. But tension had replaced turmoil during Elizabeth's reign anyway. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's much better. Apologies if I sounded patronising or sensational myself, my writing style leans towards both! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
How about this? Parrot of Doom 18:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some things need to be mentioned in this section which are crucial towards understanding why the plot happened: recusancy fines introduced by Elizabeth (which ruined many Catholic families), and the hope held by many Catholics that James would be more tolerant (because of his Catholic wife).
I'm concerned about focus and article size, so would the expansion of "The penalties for refusal were severe." to something like "The penalties for refusal were severe, with fines for recusants, and execution for repeat offenders" (would use better grammar obviously) be ok? Parrot of Doom 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
Done Parrot of Doom 11:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he was no supporter of the Church of Rome" in fact James believed that the Roman Catholic Church was a part of the true Church, of which Protestantism was also a part.
Haynes p20 - "This did not touch James, whose real attitude towards Catholicism derived from the same roots as his roots on Puritanism - a hostility that was much more political than religious.1 C.McIlwain, The political works of james i, introduction (1918)" I take that to mean, generally, that he wasn't particularly fond of the Catholic Church. Do you have a source for your statement, as its addition might help the reader make more sense of James's apparent change of mind (WRT Catholics) Parrot of Doom 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it's in Pauline Croft's biography of James I, simply "James I". Not sure of the page number, but I'll check whether google books has a limited preview of it. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly try to find one; it was mentioned as one of the main points of the topic. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
  • An important quote to put in would be from James I which is: "I shall not persecute any that shall be quiet" which obviously targetted Catholics.
I'd need a source for that. Parrot of Doom 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plot:
  • This section goes into too greater detail about Robert Catesby; to my thinking this section should begin with "Intial planning". Perhaps it could provide a brief account of the conspirators, but it should not be entirely focused on Catesby. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've tried to balance the amount of information given on each member of the conspiracy, with their importance to the plot. Catesby was undoubtedly the prime mover and its therefore only correct that he is explained in greater detail than, for instance, Christopher Wright (who only gets a few sentences). I agree about the structure though, it could probably stand a little fettling, let me have a think about it. Parrot of Doom 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand it must be difficult to balance things perfectly; I have an incredible amount of respect for you both and others who've contributed to making the article as good as it is now. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
  • I've somewhat reworked that section, and eliminated some information particularly about Catesby that perhaps isn't so relevant to his role in the plot. Better? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Remember, remember the fifth of November... Excellent work with the article, prose is clear, sources cited correctly, images check out, all around meets FAC criteria. The Flash {talk} 01:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 146 (Marshall Peter...) who is the publisher?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image placement of Queen Elizabeth - should it not be on the left, as she's facing to the right? The same goes for Princess Elizabeth. Majorly talk 17:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've moved Queen Elizabeth to the left, as her body is slightly angled to her left, but I think Princess Elizabeth is fine as she is, as she's standing almost straight on to the viewer. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's with the different spelling of Raleigh (without an i)? Majorly talk 17:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although "Raleigh" is probably more common nowadays, "Ralegh" was what the man called himself. Spelling wasn't yet standardised, and many are referred to by different spellings of their names, such as "Winter/Wintour", "Rookwood/Rokewood", etc. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would surely be better to use the most common spelling. Majorly talk 18:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That might then create a problem with consistency - The Wintours are most often known as Winter, but they called themselves Wintour. I felt it was therefore best to assume the same stance with Ralegh. I did consider calling Robert Catesby 'Robin' as that seems to have been his favoured name, but I think it was more a nickname than anything else. Parrot of Doom 18:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I got 'told off' for fixing the piping through a redirect in the Cosmo Lang article, and was pointed to WP:R2D. According to the guidance there should Walter Ralegh be a straight link rather than piped? Quantpole (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sounds sensible to me, I've removed them. Parrot of Doom 20:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume the Duck and Drake is a pub? Could it be linked, or clarified in some way? Majorly talk 18:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be amazed if it still exists. Like a lot of inns of that era, it was probably not much more than a large timber-framed house with plenty of rooms. Parrot of Doom 18:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added the word "inn" after Duck and Drake. There's certainly no pub with that name anywhere near the Strand today, so there's nothing to link it to. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An interesting article, no more concerns. Majorly talk 19:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • In the lead Fawkes is not listed as one of the plotters, and it is not clear that he was involved from near the start of the plot but could imply he was just a sort of explosives expert. I realise that the intention is probably to avoid repeating his name too often, but I found that a bit confusing.
    • I found the sentence: Nonetheless, James's easy succession[nb 3] was generally celebrated, then followed up a few lines later with: Despite several competing claims to the English throne, the transition of power went smoothly following Elizabeth's death.[nb 4] to be slightly confusing. I think it would make more sense to remove the word 'easy' and [nb 3] from the first sentence and combine it with the second sentence. I would prefer the [nb 4] to be moved to after the word throne. I presume reference 6 (Haynes p18) would be a source for the transition of power going smoothly.
      • Re-reading this I'm not sure I made myself very clear. I propose that the first sentence quoted above becomes: Nonetheless, James's succession was generally celebrated (removing the note), and the second sentence becomes: Despite several competing claims to the English throne,[nb 4] the transition of power went smoothly following Elizabeth's death.[6]
    • Whilst in the same section as above, I was unsure what Mary being regarded as a Catholic martyr had to do with James being an astute politician. I think the implication is that James used his mother's reputation to be more 'Catholic friendly', but that is simply my interpretation. Could the meaning o this be tightened up at all?
      • Ok its too long and boring a story to recite here but it took me a while to check this out, I think I've clarified things. Parrot of Doom 23:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above really are minor things, overall I think the article is more than good enough to meet FA criteria. Quantpole (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your observations, I'll take a look at these hopefully tomorrow night and re-read the sources, to see if I can clarify things. Parrot of Doom 01:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems sound and comprehensive enough. Himalayan 22:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The shortness of this comment might make it seem like I've only done a half-assed review, but the truth is that after reading the article twice this week (on and off) I can't really find much wrong with it. It's nicely written, doesn't seem to omit major facts, etc. I guess if I'm going to quibble: 1) the last paragraph of "Religion in England" is, technically, missing a cite (in the article body at least); I assume it's supposed to be "Willson 1963, p. 154", but was accidentally missed out when some of the text was rolled into the annotation? 2) There's an uncited paragraph in "Bonfire Night", but this stuff is common knowledge, so it doesn't bother me much—it might others. 3) I'm a little surprised at the emphasis given to the Hammond-fronted reconstruction; has this really been the only serious attempt to figure out the likely efficacy of the plot? Are there any views that deviate from the programme's conclusions? 4) In "Trials", shouldn't "Minute ista pueris" be "Minare ista pueris"? 5) Aaaand finally, in "Aftermath", there is a seeming contradiction. The opening paragraph says that the discovery of the plot forced Parliament to implement more severe anti-Catholic legislation. However, the following "Accusations of state conspiracy" section states that "the legislative backlash had nothing to do with the plot". Other than that, nice work; I haven't read about the plot in any detail since school (15+ years ago, for the record) and it was nice to revisit the topic. Steve T • C 11:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replies

Thanks for looking the article over, and of course for your support.

  • I've dealt with the contradiction you pointed out between Aftermath and Accusations of state conspiracy.

--Malleus Fatuorum 12:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Minute ista pueris" is exactly what the source says. Parrot of Doom 15:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. Then that's a problem, as "Minute" doesn't translate to "threat" or anything like it. Whereas "Minare"—"to drive" (by threats)—does. To further complicate matters (or maybe clarify), there's a scan of A true account of the Gunpowder Plot (1851) available here, which quotes "Minare" (page 26). Steve T • C 16:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think its a big problem. I know nothing about Latin but if its a simple mistake or misprint, we can just change it to the correct spelling. Is there an area of Wikipedia speakers of Latin frequent? Parrot of Doom 16:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Actually there are an abundance of sources including Caraman etc (mostly old, but at least they knew their Latin) for "Minare ista pueris" & anything else would seem to be a typo. Johnbod (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change it accordingly, but will add a note to the effect that Haynes may have misspelt the word (just in case). Parrot of Doom 19:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Parrot of Doom 19:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:48, 3 December 2009 [53].

Tender Mercies[edit]

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Here's hoping the third time is a charm. During my first FAC nomination for this entry, there were frankly a lot of issues that needed addressing, including the removal of unnecessary detail and problems with images. During my second nomination, I got a lot of very positive feedback, but the article was said to be lacking a comprehensive "Themes" section and analysis from scholarship journals. I believe the article now has that missing element. (Actually, I would have renominated it months ago, but it took me a surprisingly long amount of time to get my hands on one particular journal article.) I think it's finally ready, but I am more than willing to make any further necessary changes. Thanks all! — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is well researched, well structured, well focused, and comprehensive. It is in need of a rigorous copyedit, which I'm beginning to undertake. Here are two problems in the "Writing" section I'm unable to resolve.

  • "Foote was initially in writing a film based on the nephew and his young colleagues trying to form a band of their own, an experience from which Foote drew a parallel to his own attempts to find work as an actor in his youth." Clearly a word or two is missing from this ungrammatical sentence, but it's not self-evident how to correct it.
    • Should have been "initially interested in", not "initially in". Also broke it into two sentences to be clearer. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the script also conveyed a strong spiritual message with religious undertones, Foote felt it was important to temper those religious tenets with practical, human application.'" Is that an inadvertent quote at the end of the sentence, or is there a missing open quote that needs to be included somewhere along?
    • The quotation mark is just an error. I erased it. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's also a problem I raised some months ago on the article's Talk page that remains unresolved. Here's the issue I raised (this is in the "Distribution" section):

  • The following is problematic: "Universal had released Scarface, a far more expensive and anticipated film, that same year and the studio was spending most of its advertising revenue on that film, which left little remaining to publicize Tender Mercies". First, the past tense is simply incorrect--Scarface wasn't released until December 1983, nine months after Tender Mercies. Second, that's a long time in industry terms--and, I believe, a brand-new fiscal year. It's rather difficult to believe that Scarface had much to do with the scrimping on the Tender Mercies publicity budget. Then we check the source: it's Tess Harper. I can't say that an actor who was making their film debut at the time is a great source for accurate reportage of studio financial machinations. If corroboration for this claim can't be found, I'd cut it, or relegate it entirely to a footnote, clearly identifying its source.

I'll state more firmly now that an actor's comments in a "making of" documentary simply do not qualify as a reliable source for flatly reporting a studio's publicity budget decisions. (I note also that the documentary was made 19 years after Tender Mercies came out. That makes it all the more likely and understandable that Harper would misremember and misreport things with which she wasn't directly involved.) Hunter, you said in Talk that you found "it hard to believe that they would have included it in the film if it flat-out weren't true", but it's clear they didn't fact-check her statement--they included her assertion that Scarface "had" been released, when in fact it was not released for another nine months. In addition, in the very lead of the article, you provide much more plausible explanations for Universal's weak promotional effort: "poor test screening results" and "the studio's lack of understanding of country music."

Scarface is a well documented film. If its release had a negative affect on Universal's publicity campaigns for its other films as far as nine months ahead of time, it should be possible to verify that. If Harper's claim can not be corroborated by a published source it should, again, be cut, or at least relegated to a footnote and explicitly attributed. DocKino (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are probably right about the Scarface reference. Let me ask, would it address the problem to add Tess Harper to the prose text? Like "Tess Harper felt the studio spent most of its advertising revenue on Scarface and little to publicize Tender Mercies." Or something like that? Then the reader could judge the source and the statement for themselves? Let me know what you think. If you feel this isn't sufficient, I'll cut it out altogether. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the claim was uncorroborated but plausible, I think that would be exactly the way to handle it. But it's not like Tender Mercies came out within a few months of Scarface. It came out nine months before, rendering her claim implausible. In the absence of any corroboration for it--and faced with completely plausible explanations for the weak publicity effort--I believe it shouldn't appear in the primary text. DocKino (talk) 07:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First sentence, second paragraph, state that Texas is in the United States and link it. Amandajm (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Texas is named and linked in the first paragraph. As the first sentence of the article states that Tender Mercies is an American film, there is no need to clarify--even for those few English speakers who have never heard of Texas--that it is set in America. DocKino (talk) 10:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are writing an encyclopedia here, not a magazine article, and not exclusively for Americans from the US. Regardless of whether you think it is too obvious, or quite redundant, or that the whole world knows that Texas is in America and that America means the United States (unless otherwidse stated), there is simply no escape from the fact that locating subject matter accurately in time and place is a basic necessity. Can't you think of a tidy way of doing it?
Mmm. How about mentioning, in the first paragraph, that it's an American film set in Texas and linking Texas for the benefit of those few English-speaking encyclopedia readers who have both (a) never heard of Texas and (b) are incapable of deducing that it's in America? You know, I think that might work. DocKino (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - Images check out. Awadewit (talk) 19:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. Steve T • C This is a strong article, an improvement over the version from the last nomination, which I felt was a little light on content in some areas; I'm glad to see that Hunter even waited a few months just so he had one last journal article from which to draw. A few prose bumps aside, there's little I can find fault with:
    • After recent expansions, especially to the "Themes and interpretations" section, the lead no longer summarises the body. Given the length of the article, I think an extra 100 words—give or take—wouldn't be uncalled for, but any length is OK as long as it covers the major sections and points.
      • I've expanded the lead a bit, particularly with info on the "Themes and interpretations" section, but also a bit about the challenges in securing the financing and finding a director. Let me know if there's anything missing or if the wording needs some tweaks. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is better; it still feels a little slim, though there isn't anything major unsummarised from what I can see. I'll take another look, and if I've got a suggestion I'll let you know. Otherwise, consider this concern resolved. Steve T • C 11:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Duvall ... provided his own vocals"—ha, I rather hope he didn't expect to be dubbed in post-production by Glenn Close. Obviously you're referring to the singing, but the way it reads makes one think of general dialogue too.
      • lool, Whoops. I changed it to "who sang his own songs". — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's usual to include the full release date in the lead text, but your mileage may vary.
    • Given that the actors are already linked in the lead section immediately above, and in the infobox, I'm not sure it's necessary to link them all again in the plot section, or use anything other than their surnames.
      • I agree, and in fact, they hadn't been linked before in the plot summary, but [an anonymous reader readded the wikilinks a few days ago]. I've removed them again... — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any harm in reinserting Harper's claim about the marketing as long as it's not in the primary text (i.e. it's in a footnote), and is unambiguously attributed to her.
      • Well, given that this has been an issue not only in this FAC but beforehand as well, and after having come so far in trying to bring this up to FA standards, I'm sort of hesitant to bring it back in if it's going to lead to objections here. That being said, I'm also not sure exactly what you mean by having it as a footnote rather than the primary text. Could you explain it a bit or, if it's not too much trouble, maybe make your suggested change in the article and then we could discuss it from there? — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, this is the sort of thing I meant. I've reverted for now. Whether it's included or not, I can't see anyone using it as an oppose concern, so it's entirely up to you. Steve T • C 22:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've always felt that putting it in a footnote was a fine way to handle it. Steve's proposed solution works great. DocKino (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok then, I've restored Steve's addition just as it originally was! Thanks for your help with that one! — Hunter Kahn (c) 00:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't the time to look at every one, but a random check of half a dozen of the sources reveals no issues with too-close paraphrasing or original research.
    • Have you had a look to see if there any free pictures of Waxahachie or Palmer available that might get across to the reader the "barren" look of the unnamed town in the film? Alternatively (or in addition to), free, time period-appropriate images of Duvall, Harper or Hubbard could be useful too. As it stands, the article is composed of several large chunks of text, unbroken by visual decoration. If there are definitely no images available, is there anything you discarded that could fit into a quote box?
      • Unfortunately, I've not found any of those pictures; a few months ago I even asked over at Wikiproject Texas whether anyone could snap shots for me, but to no avail. I added this geographic photo just to illustrate exactly where Waxahachie is in Texas; let me know what you think. (And for Harper, Duvall and Hubbard, doesn't the photo in casting serve that purpose?) As far as quote boxes, I'll take a look through my sources to see if I can find some... — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gah. I read that section a couple of times and didn't even notice the pic. Weird blind spot. Anyway, it's a pity about the lack of free location photos, but there's definite merit in DocKino's suggestion below. Steve T • C 22:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, I've now added two new quote boxes, in addition to the location image at DocKino's suggestion. What do you think? — Hunter Kahn (c) 00:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Much better; the use of the map is one I'll have to remember for other film articles where images are at a premium. Steve T • C 11:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I say, other than a few prose bumps (which I'll tackle separately) I can't see anything else to pick at. Nice work, Steve T • C 15:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how to correct this: "Although the script also conveyed a strong spiritual message with religious undertones, Foote felt it was important to temper those religious tenets with practical, human application." First off, "tenets" are principles or doctrines--that is, rather explicit things, certainly more explicit than "undertones". Which term better describes this aspect of the film? Second, do you mean that he felt it was important that the religious beliefs expressed in the film be seen to be practically applied, for better or worse? Or that he felt it was important to balance the religious message of the film with a focus on the purely practical challenges of everyday life? DocKino (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latter. I've changed the wording to reflect that a bit better (and borrowed some of your own wording in doing so, if that's OK. ;) ). I also replaced tenets with the more simple "elements", but let me know if that's insufficient... — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've changed it to 92 minutes, and also added the "end credits" to the time field along with the specific portion of time. — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Good work but it has some minor errors. I think this article still needs a "Cast" (not "Casting") section with short introductions for each of main characters. The "references" section should be divided in "Notes" for citation and "Bibliography" for books that you used in this article. Could you find more illustrations for article like images of actors or location which appeared in film? Because with only one (fair-use) image, this article looks somewhat monotonous for reading. And in my opinion, the intro section of this article is a little bit short (and a little bit fragmentary too) in comparison with the rest. Hope you don't find me too "prissy" :). Grenouille vert (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all! :) The lead has been expanded as per some of the above comments, so let me know if that works for you. As for images, I added this one and would love your thoughts on it. As indicated above, the selection of photos for this article are pretty limited, but I am in the process of looking through my sources for quote boxes to help illustrate the entry a bit. As far as the lack of a "Cast" section, this was done in response to feedback during the first FAC review; the feedback was that when there was a "Cast" section, the cast was mentioned in the infobox, in the lead, in the plot synopsis, in the cast list, and in the casting section, and that it was "overkill". The solution was to drop the "Cast" section, and identify the actors in parentheses after their characters are named in the "Plot" section; this approach is identified in WP:MOSFILM, which itself specifically cites the use of the approach in the FA Tenebrae (film). I truly feel this compromise was best approach, and that readding a "Cast" section would only be redundant because it would rehash character and cast info that is already included elsewhere in the article. What do you think? — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lead looks fine now. The fact that I'm too familiar with featured/GA articles about films with a distinct cast section so Tender Mercies makes me feel a little bit confused. I've read your argument for removing it but Tenebrae (film) is not a good example, it was promoted a long time ago, you can consult Tropic Thunder, which has been just reviewed this month. And how about my idea of dividing "references" in "notes" and "bibliography"? It will make the article look clearer and easier to consult (because you used many books as reference). About the "reviews" section (will "reception" be a better name?), it is well-written now but I think you could still add Rotten Tomatoes's score or even IMDb's score (not recommended by Wiki but I still think it's a good channel for audience's opinion), and Roger Ebert has just added this film to his list of Great movies which is a very high appreciation from the respected critic, that information may be useful for this article. That's all I can comment now. Grenouille vert (talk) 09:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I didn't see notice your suggestion about Notes/Bibliography. I've tried adding it, but I also still need citation tags for all my book references, so please let me know if this is what you had in mind. Thanks also for the Ebert citation, I had no idea about that! I've run out of time now, so I will add that one tonight, and take a look at IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes. (I also changed "Reviews" to "Reception" as per your suggestion.) As far as the cast thing, I'm still reluctant to add something that was specifically objected to in a previous FAC review. (For the record, I only used Tenebrae (film) as an example because WP:MOSFILM uses it when addressing this type of cast approach.) Is this such a major point that it would hold up your support of the entry? Also, I'd encourage you to look back on various points (here and here) and I'd suggest they don't add anything that aren't already in the current entry at some point... — Hunter Kahn (c) 17:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's only one weak oppose (mine) about the "cast" section so you can take it easy, if you don't want to change structure of the article now, then so be it :). I helped you a little bit with the reference by using {{Harvnb}}, overall I think the article's good, hope it will be promoted soon. Grenouille vert (talk) 19:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • On the use of IMDb—by long-standing consensus user ratings from the IMDb are considered unreliable, as they are subject to vote-stacking and demographic skew (I can dig out the multiple discussions we've had on this over the years if you want me to, but it would have to wait until tomorrow). Polls of the public should only be included if they're carried out in accredited manner, as those from CinemaScore are (unfortunately not around when Tender Mercies was released). On Rotten Tomatoes—it's usually fine to include the score; however, for films released before the site became active it's not a good idea as the site is often wrong about film's reception at the time it was released (due to a bunch of factors too boring to go into here—again, this is something that has been thrashed out in the past). For example, reading the site, one might think that Fight Club achieved immediate critical acclaim, when in fact it pretty much polarised critics. (Oh, and as a side note: examples of recent film articles that have passed FA without a cast list include: Changeling and Fight Club.) Steve T • C 22:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thank you, great answer! No need to cite me the discussion about IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes because I knew their disadvantages too, I just want to add IMDb rating because it still has value about viewer's opinion, but per consensus first, of course. Grenouille vert (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've added the Roger Ebert quote (thanks again for that!), and I see the IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes questions have been addressed. Considering the Changeling and Fight Club examples above, do you think you'd be willing to support this entry now with the cast section as is? — Hunter Kahn (c) 16:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how to correct this: Beresford "contacted EMI Films and asked for permission to visit Texas for one month to familiarize himself with the state before committing to direct the film, to which the company agreed." Obviously, Beresford didn't need "permission" to travel to Texas. I assume you mean that he asked EMI for time--to not pick another director for a month. Did he also ask them for money--to pay for the research trip? DocKino (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct, that's what I meant, and I changed the sentence a bit. But as far as whether he asked for his expenses to be paid, that's not clear in the source. — Hunter Kahn (c) 16:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope you can still access the restricted NYT article that sources this passage: "Beresford, who is known for carefully planning each angle and shot in his films, created drawings of how he envisioned the sets and camerawork, and shared them with Oppewall and Boyd as soon as filming began." The common term for "drawings of how he envisioned the ... camerawork" is storyboards. Is there any reason not to use that term here? You might say "Beresford...drew his own storyboards as well as detailed drawings of how he envisioned the sets"--if that's supported by the source, of course. Also, the cinematographer and especially the art director would customarily look at pertinent material of this sort in preproduction, before filming begins. Are you sure the existing sentence accurately paraphrases what the source says? DocKino (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made the suggested storyboards change. I can access the NYT article, but I had to wait until I get to work on Monday and get access to the Lexis Nexis account there. However, I'm pretty sure that the paraphrasing is correct; I also Beresford talking about his detailed storyboards and drawings in the Miracles & Mercies documentary. I'll get back to you though. — Hunter Kahn (c) 16:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the attention paid to the choice of the motel, the art direction devoted to its look for the film, the significance of the rural setting, and the importance of capturing it authentically, I think there's a strong fair use case for a judiciously chosen still from the film showing the motel and its barren surroundings. Here's five possibilities: garden and landscape (third image after the poster); gas station and landscape (a high-angle shot); motel and sign; Mac's trailer between the two buildings; two buildings and landscape It's my sense that the last image might be the most informative, but you know the movie best, and I think the inclusion of any of these five would significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the film and its setting. DocKino (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I've given this a shot with the latter of the images you suggested (I agree with you, it's the best choice) and I've added it to the article, next to the part that discusses Jeannine Oppewall and her art direction. Please check over my non-free use rationale (which you'll see borrows a lot of your own wording) and let me know if you think it's sufficient... — Hunter Kahn (c) 17:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related point, this sentence needs to be recast: "The only specification for the location of Rosa Lee's flatland motel was that no other buildings or physical structures could be visible from it." In fact, of course, there is another building visible from it--the free-standing gas station building on the same property. The existing sentence leads the reader (led this reader) to mistakenly believe that the gas station and motel are all one structure. I assume the building used as the gas station was already there when Oppewall found the abandoned building chosen as the motel. Is that right? Or was it, like the motel sign, built for the film? And how does this relate to the new construction implied in the following sentence: "Oppewall purposely deviated from conventions of 1940s and 1950s motel design in order to give the building a more singular shape"? I'm looking at the stills of the motel and struggling to figure out what is particularly "singular" about its "shape". I think a revisit of the sources for this entire passage is in order. DocKino (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I've consulted that source again and I think I paraphrased it accurately, so I'm not sure how to address this problem. I was hoping you could take a look yourself and give me your suggestions. This can be read on Google Books. The "singular shape" source can be read here, and the "no other physical structures visible" source can be read here... — Hunter Kahn (c) 16:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You did fine (though your paraphrase was a bit too close to the original). It's Anker who may have bungled it. Here's his description of the Mariposa's "singular shape": "its central building [is] perpendicular to the road, with two arms or wings extending diagonally toward the road". Let's break this down, slowly so we're sure we have it right: I've been able to access photos of two structures on the property, but I gather there are actually three. Is that correct? My impression is that the central building serves as the gas station and perhaps the motel office. Is that correct? I gather that the building to its right, from the perspective of someone standing in the road, is the primary motel building. Is that correct? I assume that the building to the left (which I have not found an image of--except perhaps its rear in the first image I linked above), would be Rosa Lee's home and is not part of the motel at all. Is that correct? Or is the building on the left also a primary motel building, and Rosa Lee and Sonny live in the back of the gas station structure? DocKino (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • On a closely related point, could you please check the restricted NYT article cited at the end of this passage: "Oppewall chose for the setting an old building that had been sitting abandoned by a Waxahachie highway. Mary Ann Hobel said the owner immediately handed over the key to the house when approached about using it in the film: 'We said, "Don't you want a contract, something in writing?" And he said, "We don't do things that way here."'" Now, obviously, in the film there is more than one "old" building on this property. Is the description of a single building actually true to the source? If it is, do we have any way of conclusively determining if the source just ignored the other, existing structures on the property or whether those other structures were built for the film? DocKino (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here is the exact text from the source: "Once in a while, during the course of production, the Hobels were blessed with beginner's luck. They were driving around outside Dallas searching for the right location, when they saw a perfect old house set in the middle of a prairie. 'We found the owner,' says Mr. Hobel, 'and we said, 'We want to shoot a movie here.' And he put his hand in his pocket, took out the key and gave it to us.' Mrs. Hobel nods. 'We said, 'Don't you want a contract, something in writing?' And he said, 'We don't do things that way here.'" Also, your impression is correct about the central building. (I wanted to double check that Rosa Lee's home is not part of the motel, but you're right; it isn't.) It seems like in both of these cases, the author of the source texts is equating the motel/gas-station/house as one structure, rather than three connected structures. Could the solution be as simple as changing the phrasing of "The only specification for the location of Rosa Lee's flatland motel was that no other buildings or physical structures could be visible from it." Maybe instead of "flatland motel", it could be something like "Rosa Lee's motel and home" or something like that? — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, Hunter. I've edited the paragraph so we violate neither the published sources nor the facts onscreen. I've eliminated the business about "conventions of 1940s and 1950s motel design" and the building with a "singular shape". It is evident that the motel building is perfectly ordinary. As I suspected, Amker simply misremembered what constituted the motel and didn't rewatch the movie to check. This happens way more often in film criticism than one might think. DocKino (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both the lead and the "Themes" section describe Mac's conversion to Christianity; the "Themes" section also discusses his and Sonny's baptisms--but these significant events are mentioned nowhere in the plot summary. DocKino (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments Everything fine. Just change the location fields of the references to where the publication in question is published rather than where the news reported took place. RB88 (T) 23:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Very engaging article that introduced me to an aspect of Beresford's work of which I had not even heard. Nicely crafted and has obviously benefitted from careful copyediting and attention from various editors. I fixed a couple of things that were the only issues I came across. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I will be gone for the next four or so days for the holidays. I will be able to check in off and on, and can probably address a concern or two if they are raised, but if there are any major outstanding issues I'll take care of them upon my return. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the "Plot", "On the Wings of a Dove" is identified as an "old hymn". Later in the article, we learn that it was actually written by Bob Ferguson. Is it actually identified as an "old hymn" in the film? If so, we can address the contradiction in a phrase in the "Music" section. If not, the phrase in "Plot" should be changed to "hymn-like" or something of the sort. DocKino (talk) 02:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "old hymn" part was just poor choice of words. I changed it. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you happen to have the DVD or soundtrack CD and the necessary software, it would be very informative to have a clip of Duvall/Sledge singing for the "Music" section. DocKino (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have this kind of software, although if there's any freeware you can point me to (that's Mac-compatable) I can try to rip it from the DVD some time early next week. Unless you or someone else can try this? — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, there's Mac-compatible freeware for this. Check it out. DocKino (talk) 05:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added an audio clip. That's something I've never done before, so please make sure my free use rationale is alright. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The audio clip is very informative (if he sounds like any country star in particular, it turns out to be Johnny Paycheck). And the rationale is excellent. However, I'm afraid the clip is almost certainly too long. Generally, keeping it to no more than 30 seconds is a good idea. DocKino (talk) 08:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've shortened it and it's now just under 30 seconds. — Hunter Kahn (c) 14:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Note: I've also added a new 30-second clip from Betty Buckley. — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Semi-conditional Support. Steve T • C Although I criticised the article at its last nomination, it was still a strong effort, only light in a couple of areas. I'm pleased to see those issues have been resolved, including the ones I outline above, and that it's had a copyedit or two to iron out the bumps (I hope you don't mind, but I've made a few tweaks myself instead of wasting time by listing them here—see the intermediate edit summaries for the rationales for each). The article is well-cited, well-written and seemingly comprehensive. Two things: I agree that the audio clip could do with being a little shorter, and I'm not wild about the use of the Internet Movie Database to cite which songs are used in the film. Traditionally, the IMDb isn't accepted as a reliable source, especially at FAC. It doesn’t bother me too much in this case as it's just providing a convenience link for something that's verifiable through the primary source—the film itself. Ideally, though, it should be cited to somewhere more obviously reliable (perhaps the BFI can help?). Otherwise, nice work. Steve T • C 12:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Steve! I've shortened the audio clip to just under 30 seconds. As for the music bit, your BFI link seemed to include the songs. However, since it didn't include the artists, I added it as a citation but kept the IMDb one intact, so that the statement is now cited by both sources (as well as the primary source of the film, as you pointed out). In the meantime, I'll take a look for any other sources I can find with the soundtrack info that also includes the artists names, so that maybe I can remove the IMDb one altogether. Thanks for your support! — Hunter Kahn (c) 14:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good; I'm not going to quibble over that. Steve T • C 16:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Love and family" subsection:
  • In her song "The Best Bedroom in Town", those lyrics include, "(the) best part of all ... the room at the end of the hall, where everything's made all right. ... (We can) celebrate the heaven that we've found (in) best bedroom in town".
  • First, editorial interpolations to improve a quote's clarity or flow should be in square brackets, not parentheses. Second, these interpolations seem strange: (1) The actual lyric is not "the best part of all"? There's really no "the" there? (2) The actual lyric is not "We can celebrate the heaven..."? What is it actually--and are we sure the actual lyric doesn't work here? (3) The last interpolation should be "in the", rather than just "in", right? But then, is the actual lyric not "in the best bedroom in town"? What could it possibly be? DocKino (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, interestingly, I've gone to the DVD rather than the source and the exact words as they are sung in the song are: "But the best part of all / The room at the end of the hall / That's where you and me make everything alright / We can't afford good wine or pink champagne / We ain't got no open fireplace flame / But we celebrate the happiness we've found / Every night in the best bedroom in town / Every night in the best bedroom in town." So obviously, they misquoted the songs in some spots, and I'm not sure at all why the source broke up the quote the way they did. In my opinion, it would be best to simply say "...those lyrics include, 'The best part of all / the room at the end of the hall / That's where you and me make everything alright ... We celebrate the happiness we've found / Every night in the best bedroom in town." However, even though that's the correct quote, that isn't how the source quoted it, so can I still use it? — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You better, you better, you bet. (Wait a sec, how the hell did The Who get in here?) Sorry. Yes. The film is a perfectly good source for quotes for the film. And this allows me to bring up something I've been thinking of taking to the Films WikiProject for some time. As a best practice, we should feel free to cite directly to the movie with the precise timing (analogous to page numbers for books), which DVDs allow us to do. Please see, for instance, what I did with the Sex Pistols FA, in notes 85, 148, 154, 169, 207, 211, 215, 219, 225, 226, and 230. You've cited to the film Miracles & Mercies repeatedly (hint--this method is also applicable there [by no means insisting on it, but nice opportunity for double-checking quotes and paraphrases]), so why would you hesitate to cite to the topic film itself? (Hint 2--this method would also allow for the replacement of that last niggling IMDb cite.) DocKino (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I've replaced the quote and added a citation for the film and the specific section that it takes place. I've replaced the pesky IMDb citation with the same thing. I used the Cite video template, so take a look and make sure those work. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • See, now you've schooled me--I didn't even know there was a "Cite video" template. Works great for the lyrics quote; of course, we'd prefer "Credits appear" to "Event occurs" for the song credits cite, but I figure anyone who's interested will get the idea, right? DocKino (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I certainly hope so! :) — Hunter Kahn (c) 06:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • You could just change the time= field to say "end credits", as I did over at American Beauty recently (before I found a secondary source). The output of "Event occurs at end credits" is probably clearer for those wanting to verify the statement. Anyway, it's up to you. :-) Steve T • C 08:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Great idea. I'd actually do both, for maximum clarity and verifiability; so the time= field input would be "end credits (1:30:51–1:31:12)". This raises another question: According to the timing you provide, the song credits, which are usually among the very last of the credits, end around the 91-minute mark, yet the infobox gives the running time of the film as 100 minutes. Really? DocKino (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Good idea on the time= field. Just to make the running time issue even murkier, the BBFC lists the theatrical cut at 92 minutes, the original VHS release at 87 minutes, and the DVD release at 88 minutes! Add to that the fact that due to PAL–NTSC frame/refresh rate differences, UK releases will be 4% shorter than US versions, and we're left with a bit of a pickle about what to actually put in there! I'd go for either a range, perhaps linked to a footnote explaining the above, or go simple with the running time of the original US theatrical release. Steve T • C 13:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I'd go with the latter, just the running time of the original theatrical release. (I'd say that should be the standard, except where there are official alternative cuts.) DocKino (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Death and resurrection" subsection: "'But he does trust the tender mercies that mysteriously particularly him from death to life.'" Please correct this misquotation.
    • Yeah, I'm not sure how that one happened. lol. Fixed. — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same subsection: "having woken up in a drunken stupor in a huge, empty setting". Too vague--could be a ballroom or a raft on the ocean. Please recast for specificity while maintaining the point about a vast emptiness.
    • I tried some new wording. Is that better? — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep. Tweaked slightly after I tried to imagine an indoor flatland and came up with the Hoosier Dome. DocKino (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same subsection (box): "Foote imitates that all relationships cannot be mended". Please correct this misquotation ("intimates", perhaps?). DocKino (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yup, it's "intimates". I fixed it. — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've never heard of this movie, and the article did an excellent job of explaining it to me (now I need to go rent it). I thought the prose flowed well, and I had no outstanding questions when I finished reading. Great job! Karanacs (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In "Distribution", Beresford's quote: "if you flicked a piece of paper on the floor, you could hear it in fall." Just want to verify that's correct, and not simply "you could hear it fall." "In fall" is possible--and really, really quiet.
    • I went back to see just in case, and that's a typo. It should have been "it fall", not "it in fall", and that's fixed now. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Box office", the phrase "executive engagements". I'm familiar with "exclusive", but not "executive" engagements. Is that the term actually used by the source? DocKino (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, just another stupid typo on my part. It's "exclusive", and I've fixed it. — Hunter Kahn (c) 22:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Vincent Canby quotes in both "Distribution" and "Reception" need inline cites.
    • Done, but I suppose I should note that Canby is quoted in the Slawson book, so it's sort of an indirect quote. Is that a problem? If it is, I'm not opposed to dropping the Canby quotes, but I'm also fine with keeping them. — Hunter Kahn (c) 04:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's perfectly fine. No reason to drop them. DocKino (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Awards", Duvall's refusal to participate in any Oscar campaigning: Was that an established practice of his, known from previous nominations, or did it reflect issues he had specific to this film? DocKino (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source doesn't say, it only says that he refused to participate. :( — Hunter Kahn (c) 22:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've added a fair use image of Horton Foote to the awards section. — Hunter Kahn (c) 05:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note All measurements need conversions; see sample edit. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've looked through and I think all the measurements have had the conversions added now. — Hunter Kahn (c) 05:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nominator has ably responded to each and every query, and in general did everything possible to facilitate a rigorous copyedit. This is a superb article, one that meets a Wikipedia ideal: I believe nowhere is there a superior informational resource on the article's topic. DocKino (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks DocKino for a truly excellent copy edit! The article is far better off for it! — Hunter Kahn (c) 05:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:48, 3 December 2009 [54].

Castle[edit]

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Castles are one of the best known symbols of the medieval period and are there's no doubting their popularity, so it's about time the article was knocked into shape. It covers the development of this medieval institution and has sections on the different aspects of its use. The main points are covered, but due to the sheer size of the subject, not everything can be included in one article without digressing from the main subject; hopefully the article is still comprehensive and interesting. Any and all comments are welcome, so please do review. Thank you in advance anyone who takes the time to read the article. Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

Images not yet cleared, but discussion moved to talk for length. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images have now been cleared Awadewit (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: A vital article to be made FA, well-done on your work so far. I would argue that many more terms in the lead: moat, gunpowder, cannon, flanking fire, all need wikilinking.
"lay of the land" it's accurate, but not articulated.
Are two pictures at the lead necessary? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more links to the lead per your suggestion, and substituted "lay of the land". [55]
The lead images are tricky. It is a subject that has lead to some prickly discussions on the talk page stretching back years (usually an editor popping along and asking why a castle in their country isn't the lead image). The use of two evolved over time (probably to ease the concerns about representation), but I can't say I'm particularly attached to the idea, and one would work well for me. Nev1 (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response I chose the two pics, and I think two is justified, given 1. that there is plenty of room for them; 2. that they serve a purpose. They were selected to represent two very typical types of castles that are found all over Europe: those which make defensive use of a rugged position, and those that do not, and rely on massive walls and often a moat. The two images also depict two qualities associated with castles: the "romantic" image and the "forbidding" image. No single picture of a castle (that I can find) sums up what we mean by "castle" as well as the combination of the two.

Provisional Support At long last a real encyclopedia article! Let me go out on a limb and offer provisional support on the basis of Criterion 0(a) ("Notability"). I will, of course, go through the details later and my support could be withdrawn, but this is a good start. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before I start reading the article, I wanted to make sure that you are not saying that private fortified residences did not exist in other parts of the world. In India, for example, they are simply called "forts," and most are/were residential. (Here's Britannica's lead: "Castle (architecture): medieval European stronghold, generally the residence of the king or lord of the territory in which it stands. Strongholds designed with the same functionality have been built throughout the world, including in Japan, India, and other countries." (I am assuming, though, that you're not saying this.)
  • It seems to me that the lead is being a little coy about mentioning the 800-pound gorilla (named "Europe") in the room. (I see words like "symbolic," "Middle Ages," but no "Europe.") From what I have quickly gathered (from other sources), "castle" is the medieval European version of the private fortified residence of royalty and nobility. Strongholds with the same functionality (to use Britannica's language) were not only built outside Europe but also before the medieval period. The lead will need to acknowledge that up front.

I'll write my detailed comments on the talk page of the article in a compressed box. Hopefully soon! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very particular thing about castles is that they are lordly fortified residences. Not only a defence, they are centres of administration and display. I would say that, in this instance, Britannica is not a reliable source; I think more useful is Darvill’s Dictionary of Archaeology which makes a specific link between castles and Europe, and does not include places such as India (although tertiary sources such as Britannica and dictionaries should always be treated with caution). There are of course fortified private residences that do not belong to lords or kings etc, but these are not castles; for example some farmhouses were fortified such as bastle houses but are not considered castles. It’s not enough for “someone” to be living there, there’s got to be that feudal link, either a lord or his representative. It’s also important who they were built by (ie: the same type of people who lived in them as opposed to built by the state).
I’m slightly confused by your assertion that “Strongholds with the same functionality … [were built] before the medieval period”. The article does state that castles were a departure from previous fortifications (not just in Europe) which had generally been much larger and communal whereas castles were smaller and private. That’s what the source said anyway. As for extending beyond Europe, yes they did; castles were introduced to the Holy Land by the Crusaders. But the literature does not indicate that the permeated further east.
Hopefully this edit makes the lead a little more blunt (although the implication was that they originated in Europe). Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your detailed reply! I'm a little strapped for time right now, but I'll mull it over and then continue on the article's talk page. All I am saying really is that you need to say something explicit along the lines of: "A castle is a private fortified residence associated with the nobility of Medieval Europe; private fortified residences were built by the nobility in other parts of the world as well, but these are generally not referred to as 'castles.'" (In other words I would use "Medieval Europe" (redirected to "Middle Ages") rather than the "Middle Ages," to help out the uninitiated. And state the scope of the article up front.) Many of the forts in the template Template:Forts in India are in fact the private fortified residences of "rajahs" or (little kings); some are bigger and belong to maharajahs (the big kings), and a few even mini-townships (of the Emperors). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: You present castles of Western Christian Europe as the only castles. That's a bit narrow. Either you define your topic better or you include castles from all over the world. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect Wandalstouring, I fail to see how you can come to that conclusion if you actually read the article. It devotes a large amount to castles in the Holy Land and the influence of the Saracens, and touches on the handful of late castles in the Americas. Perhaps you have some suggestions of how the article could be improved? What exactly do you think is missing? Nev1 (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't mention large parts of Eastern Europe, Spain and Asia and Africa. I don't think a rewrite is feasible during this review. Make a better definition of your scope and explain to the reader how castles in other regions of the world were different. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not happy with the caption to the Bodiam Castle pic: Bodiam Castle in Sussex, England, was described as "an old soldier's dream house" in the 1960s, although its defences are now considered more ornamental than practical.[1] The bit about how it was described in the 60s, comes across as rather sentimental. It's OK for the article specifically on Bodiam, which might present a range of quotations, but it's out of place in this general article. Secondly, the bit about its defences being considered more ornamental than practical needs discussion and clarification. Once again, I think it's not relevant to the generic page. Amandajm (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point so I've stripped back the caption. Nev1 (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I reviewed the sourcing and commented on some aspects of the article in an informal Peer Review held before the article was nominated. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Doornenburg Castle in Denmark" - Doornenburg Castle is definitely not in Denmark.... See Doornenburg Castle. Are there other such basic factual errors!? Also to expand on Wandalstouring. Why aren't there anything about castles in for example China, Japan and Korea? I would imagine they are quite different from the typical European castle.--Harthacnut (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You’re quite right, I went back to the sources and it seems that first time around I misread Dutch as Danish. A silly mistake, but shit happens. As to your second point, it is addressed below. Nev1 (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While this is an excellent article, I share Wandalstouring's concern about it not including castles in Asia. There are good reasons to have separate articles on the various different traditions of castle-building and use, so it may be best to split this article's content into a separate article (or articles). At present it's not a comprehensive account of castles around the world and so doesn't meet FA criteria 1(b). Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied below so it is highly visible as several people are concerned about this issue. Nev1 (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding criterion 1b I can speak only from the books I have read relating to the subject of castles. Not one has mentioned any of the countries that have been suggested by the above editors. I have to wonder why. While compiling the article I read beyond those included in the bibliography section; the reason they were not all used is that many repeated the same points, and usually one particular book covered the subject better than the others. Although some were focused on Britain, many took a wide view of castles. For them to ignore what several editors have suggested above is peculiar if they are correct in their assertions. And so I come to the conclusion that they are sadly wrong.

The fact of the matter is, I have taken this article as far as the literature allows it; to brand that as incomplete is not a judgment on the article, but on the scholarship of the subject. That is not the purpose of WP:FAC. The castle is a primary European development, so it’s hardly surprising that the article concentrates on Europe - although I have already noted that Saracen and even American castles are included. That’s why chivalry is linked with castles in literature, and why Gothic Revivalism was sparked in Europe. The entry for “castle” in Darvill’s Oxford concise dictionary of Archaeology declares that it is a European concept. Should you doubt that Darvill takes a wide ranging view of things, his dictionary includes terms such as the Cashibocana Phase (a South American cultural grouping), Quynh-van (a Neolithic site in Vietnam), and Babylon. If you disagree with his definition (as well that used by the likes of those included in the bibliography section, heavyweights of castle studies), I put it to you that you are going against the policy of WP:RS. There may very well be a gap in scholarship that should link castles with other things such as Tibetan fortifications, but that is not Wikipedia’s place as it would be original research. Twenty years ago it would have been impossible to have the landscape section as there simply wasn’t the literature about it. As more research is done into the subject of castles - an already heavily studied area - the scope of the article can increase, but until then it should work with the sources and not be synthesis.

I cannot say myself that there are definitively no castles in China, or Vietnam, or Indonesia, but common sense tells me that writers did not feel it necessary to spell it out in the same way they did not feel it necessary to state that there are no castles on the moon. If you still believe the article is incomplete, please give me some examples of what should be included with an explanation and some good sources. If that is not possible, then I shall stick with reliable sources and the article’s scope will remain as it is. I applaud those who say we should include as many things as possible as castles for their egalitarian attitude, but sadly in this case it is not compatible with Wikipedia’s policy that there must be no original research. I understand how it may seen that this article has gaps, but I hope I have demonstrated that that is not the case. My apologies for not replying sooner, I should have foreseen this.. Nev1 (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a quick search I find for example Japanese castles 1540-1640 and Castles of the Samurai: Power and Beauty. I can't speak for the quality of the books, but considering there are books like these, I find it hard to believe that it is not a subject that should be explored in the article. --Harthacnut (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese castle (Shiro in Japanese) is in see also here. They are certainly a case of parallel development, apparently beginning just as the European castles were ceasing to be of military significance, but a different phenomenon. I've argued at the talk page that they are worth a few sentences in this respect, but they certainly don't belong in the main sections. See page 5 of the first book you link to, for example. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The case with literature might be a result of authors being unable to read papers in other languages. Concerning the crusades it's quite common that European historians don't have a clue about medieval Arabian, Syriac and Hebrew and for this reason leave out a lot of sources or only quote English translations of a few works. Same is often true for the modern languages in which works on these subjects are published. Same could be applied for castles, however the term castle is used in English for Chinese, Japanese, Muslim and ... structures. I stand by my suggestion to make a clear definition that you talk about castles of Western Christianity. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That writers may not be able to read reports etc in other languages has crossed my mind, and it does hinder the spread of information. But what can Wikipedia do about it? It means that we're reflecting the literature, criterion 1c: "[a] representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic". But no, the article is demonstrably not restricted to the castles of Western Christianity, so please stop insisting it is. Again, I’ll go back to Darvill's summary that emphasises Europe, as do many, many other sources. If you disagree with that, you are going against the sources. There are many things called castles, not all actually fit the definition. It may, however, be worthwhile including a brief section on Japanese castles due to their similarities, despite that they had "a completely different developmental history, were built in a completely different way and were designed to withstand attacks of a completely different nature". Nev1 (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Castle comes from the Roman castelum, simply meaning fortress. If you feel there's any other definition to it, please make it clear and say why other structures called castles aren't considered castles by your authors. That someone has written a book about castles doesn't mean it completely covers the topic. Books are written for selling and you sell to people what interests them. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The definition in English is clear, and given and cited in the article. Despite some stately country houses, usually on the sites of former castles, having "castle" in their name, the English term is much clearer than the French or German one (though I think the Italian "castello" is also more restricted). What exactly are you suggesting? A disambiguation page for "castle", going to Western castle, Japanese castle and, er, what else? There is clearly no point in merging the long Japanese article here. Most other cultures, for example China, have concentrated on fortified cities. The Tibetan/Bhutanese fortified monasteries, dzongs, are the next nearest thing I'm aware of, but these are not referred to as castles. Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have this definition of castles in the article and the different use in other works where castle is refered to structures in different parts of the world like some ribats in Spain. The problem is that the definition of feudal isn't clear, does it exclusively refer to the Western Christian organization of society or is it the general structure of a society like we also find it in Muslim countries and in Japan. Another problem arises with semi-non-feudal societies in Europe that hold control over "castles" like the Swiss. Does a castle become a fortress with the change of ownership and why is it still called a castle in literature? I know that sounds pretty much like hairsplitting, but we have to make a very clear point because of actual differing common use in English as opposed to a few scientists's definition. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The definition in the article doesn't bring in feudalism at all, or any particular form of social organization. Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The definition given in the lead seems to be "a fortified structure that also served as a private residence (in medieval Europe)" and this is repeated under "Definition". Even if we for the sake of the consistency of the argument decide to entirely ignore the fact that Japanese daimyo appear to have lived in their own "Japanese" castles, does that mean that "medieval Europe" ends somewhere west of the Vistula (except where Western Christians like the Teutonic Order set up shop)? At least that's what the actual content of the article seems to imply.
I agree that there's probably a good reason to limit this article to Christian European structures, maybe even just Western European ones, but I think it requires a better summary of the definition among historians. The current one is either too vague to be this narrow or hasn't been reported clearly enough.
Peter Isotalo 23:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another title that seems to discuss castles on a worldwide scale.[56] The table of contents appears to imply that non-European fortifications aren't quite defined as castles, but it most certainly includes Eastern Europe. Peter Isotalo 11:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you think Eastern European castles are excluded from the article as it is, though i agree they are not much mentioned, but then nor are many other areas. The literature I've seen suggests that France, England and the Crusader States mostly led technical developments, but then I've never read a Polish book on the subject. Perhaps a vmention should be added when brick is being discussed. The book above gives 16 i think pages to Eastern Europe, half what it gives to Spain & not much more than Ireland gets. The WP article is not a geographical survey in this way. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no information at all about Eastern Europe except for the picture of the Teutonic Order castle in Malbork and a mention of "the Baltic". If I've simply missed it, you're welcome to highlight it for me.
Again, an overall focus on Western Europe isn't unreasonable, but in this case there doesn't seem to be any other information to speak of at all. I agree that the availibility of literature should to one degree or another decide the article focus, but in this case it just seems quite obvious that we're dealing with a systemic bias. That Ireland and Eastern Europe are given equal treatment seems like an obvious indication of this. We could afford to at least describe Eastern Europe just a smidgen more than we are right now. And we should probably also include something about Japan as long as the verifiable definitions fail to explicitly excude them, especially now that we have a source available through Google Books. 1b does not automatically overrule all requests for neutrality just through sheer quantity of references. Peter Isotalo 13:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are relatively few indications of place in the article at all, other than the examples given, which are indeed mostly from France, England and the Crusader States. What should be said about Eastern European castles, other than that they exist? The book on Google on Japan arguably excludes them itself by saying they had "a completely different developmental history, were built in a completely different way and were designed to withstand attacks of a completely different nature". In other words, they need their own article here, which they have. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You call them castles. They may derive from a different source, but it's common English usage to call them castles. This pretty much cristalizes the issue around the definition. We have few scientists arguing against the common English use. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically wrong. You're suggesting that the article be expanded to include hill forts such as Maiden Castle because they're colloquially and wrongly called castles. People in the medieval period called walled cities castles, but the article uses the academic definition as it obviously should. Nev1 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wandalstouring and other commenters here that this is a fine article, but that it is geographically biased. There is one photo of a Central European castle built by Germans and none from Eastern Europe. This reflects the text well. It is very interesting to learn that brick castles are common in Scandinavia and why, but there is no mention of comparable trends in the Balkans, for instance. There are also some phrases such as "the 13th-century ruler of the Saracens," which could be clarified. In this instance, it is worth noting that there never was one unified Muslim state in the Near East. The works cited for this article are slightly unsatisfactory, but that does not get in the way of FA status, in my opinion. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References have been found which explicitly call the structures in Japan 'castles'. I visited Japan last year and they were called 'castles' there on all the English-language signage I saw. There is no reason to exclude them from this article and I'm surprised that they haven't been included. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is a reason. They may be analogous, but they are not the same. I'll give you an example, recently I came across the description on Wikipedia of the Hellots of ancient Greece as serfs, a medieval concept. Academic sources are split on whether to describe them as such because it's anachronistic and there are many differences, but the term serves as a convenient short-hand so many do use it. Some academics attempt to apply modern models of economy and society, such as Marxism, on ancient societies despite evident differences, incompatibilities, and anachronism; it's not necessarily wrong, it's used as a short-hand to aid people to understand something they are unfamiliar with by associating it with something familiar. What we have in the case of "Japanese castles" is something that was used because it was an easy term despite their obvious differences. They should be recognised as a separate, though similar, phenomenon which is why Japanese castle is an independent article. Nev1 (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the 'Castle' article, not the Castles in Europe and the Middle East article. As such, it needs to cover 'castles' worldwide. I'd suggest that you either expand this article to include Japanese castles or, perhaps better still, create a new article which covers the European and Middle East tradition of castle-building. Nick-D (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) The argument that something is too different to merit inclusion requires some kind of backing from references, or it's just a subjective editorial choice. And if you're saying that academic sources are split on this issue, then there's even more reason to include the Japanese castles (and others) on grounds of neutrality. Peter Isotalo 09:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finding a solution for 1b. We have scientists of the Middle Ages defining "castle" because castle is a term that's not always used according to this definition. That's why it's necessary to provide this definition in the introduction. We are writing for wikipedia, thus we have to reflect the opinions in science and use the most common English name. If an object is classified differently in science than in common use we have to point out this difference. So the whole issue boils down that you point out that the term castle is commonly used for different structures than what scientists of the Middle Ages define as castles. It would be good if you give as many example of different "castles" that aren't considered castles in the science of the Middle Ages to give the reader an idea where to look them up. Is this an agreeable solution? Wandalstouring (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does this clear things up: [57] [58]? Nev1 (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a step forward, but it doesn't solve the issue. Not every structure called castle in Europe is a castle after your definition and there are structures called castles in more parts of the world than Japan. Just search castle and a random country. Thus you have to point out the common use for walled structures (that leads to fortification). Wandalstouring (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How this? Nev1 (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That hillforts have been called castles is new to me. Do you have it sourced? Are historians the only ones saying these are castles or is this definition also used by archaeologists? Otherwise it looks OK. Perhaps you should say castles according to the definition are found in Europe and the Middle East. Wandalstouring (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just some hill forts that have been called castles rather than all (such as Maiden Castle in Dorset and its namesake in Cheshire), and it’s a common term rather than an accurate one; neither historians nor archaeologists consider hill forts as castles. The point is referenced (in the article rather than the lead) to Allen Brown. Nev1 (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The notion that the "other European words for castle derive from castellum" appears to only hold true if if you limit yourself to English and Romance languages. I don't know if other words were used in Germanic, Slavic, Finno-Ugric and other languages during the Middle Ages, but the modern terms are certainly not derived from the Latin term. -Peter Isotalo
It's verifiable: the source states that other European words for castle derive from castellum, but that's not to say all of them do. The section is about the derivation of the word "castle" so it's relevant to mention other similarly derived words. Nev1 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest rephrasing the section for clarity, then, because currently "other European words" implies what I said above. Peter Isotalo 08:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I've made the phrasing less ambiguous. Nev1 (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In German, castle is Schloss; don't know it's origin is though. Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The German article is at Burg in fact. Schloss has as its lead pic the highly unfortified rococo Sanssouci, and even more than chateau means a grand country house or "stately home", regardless of architectural style. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm surprised the article doesn't mention the trace italienne or link to the article (other than in the template at the bottom, which is insufficient). Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are to some extent the successor of the castle, & could be mentioned as such, but are essentially different: "the star fortress was a very flat structure composed of many triangular bastions, specifically designed to cover each other, and a ditch". Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the point; the article talks about the obsolescence of castles with the advent of gunpowder artillery, and should really mention the trace italienne, which succeeded the castle in the role of area defense. Yes, the walls were shorter and thicker, but the point was the same: to project power over a local area. Parsecboy (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth mentioning them in the sense that they were major fortifications with their roots in castles (with the Henrican artillery forts as a notable predecessor of star forts, but only in a one liner. To state simply that their purpose was the same is to take an old fashioned view of castles and focus solely on their military role at the expense of other important facets. Country houses are already mentioned as their successors in social terms, a mention of castles' immediate military successors would not be amiss. Nev1 (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Nev1 (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards support Let me say what an achievement this article is. To write about a topic as diverse as the castle is extraordinarily difficult and the editors are to be commended for their success. On the point raised above about comprehensiveness, I do not feel that adding information about other areas of the world is necessary to fulfill 1b and 1c. In fact, if extensive information on Japan and China were added, I think it might distort the summary of the academic literature. I looked at the "castle" entry in a few reference works today, all of them tertiary like Wikipedia aims to be; all of them focused on the castle in medieval Europe and the Middle East. If they mentioned any other place, it was Japan and for only a phrase or a sentence. I might also add that our article is in many ways better than those I looked at because it goes into so much detail. However, before I fully support, I do have a few issues that I would like to raise:
  • Above, Nev1 wrote in his explanation of the castle, "It’s not enough for “someone” to be living there, there’s got to be that feudal link, either a lord or his representative." - I'm wondering if the article could do with a bit more explanation of what feudalism was and what the relationship between the lord and his tenants was. I'm thinking here of a very basic explanation - just a reminder for the reader of what feudalism was. This could be added to the "Defining characteristics" section or the "Social centre" section.
  • The material on courtly love seems like a tangent in the "Social centre" section. I would suggest removing it or explaining what about courtly love was related precisely to castles.
I rather agree about the text as it is, but there is a lot of literature on courtly love as largely a product of the enforced intimacy of castle life, and also the role of the lord's wife in running the show when he was campaigning. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little of servant life inside the castle is described. Would it be possible to add something on this?
There wasn't the Upstairs, Downstairs waterline in the Middle Ages, so the term is rather anachronistic, but over the course of the period the lord's family did succeed in carving out private space for themselves. Early castles were pretty crowded, but archaelogy is not very useful in working out who slept where. At the end of the period an architect's plan did mark the head washerwoman's bedroom, but presumably her staff laid their matresses down next to the tubs, just like live-in staff did in shops, workshops and the like. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source is a children's book and thus does not meet the requirement of "high quality" source. There is only one fact sourced to it, however ("Brick castles were predominant in Scandinavia and the Baltic"), so replacing it with a good source should be easy.
  • At times, some of the sentences ran a little long and a few were a bit awkward. I plan to put a list of these sentences on the article's talk page in the coming days. These are very small issues and will not keep me from supporting.

I hope these comments were helpful. Awadewit (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave a note on my talk page when these issues have been addressed or if you have any questions about the issues I've listed. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added an explanation of feudalism. Courtly love was included as it's associated with castles because that's where the aristocracy lived, I've made this more explicit in the article. The children's book has been replaced and I'm working on copy editing the article per your comments on the talk page (I'll do more today and hope to get it more or less finished tomorrow). As far as servants go, they get only a fleeting mention in the article pretty much because of what Johnbod says. It's difficult to read much into the archaeological record regarding social layouts of casltes, and the historical record focusses much more on those at the top. I'll look for sources tomorrow as I'm focussing on ironing out the prose at the moment, but I doubt there'll be much I can add. Nev1 (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a little on servants, but it was very litte. Nev1 (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy to fully support this article. Awadewit (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I always find it very exciting when broad articles like this are brought to FAC. Although I usually review science articles, I think my critical eye may be beneficial to a popular article such as this one. I have initiated a line-by-line prose review here. Please respond to individual concerns there. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Like Awadewit, I'm leaning towards support, but there are some serious prose issues that need to be addressed. For instance: "Walkways along the tops of the curtain walls allowed defenders to rain missiles on enemies from above." When did it become become possible for rain to defy gravity and target flying enemies? Having said that, I don't see anything that can't be dealt with pretty quickly. I'll add my efforts to those of Awadewit's and Cryptic C62 to address the prose issues. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. (must have crept in there through all that editing) Dabomb87 (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In the lead up to the nomination I have added a few sentences, mostly on the castle as a residence. The scope should probably be defined still more tightly in the lead, to satisfy the "globalists" above, but I'm satisfied that the castles of medieval Christendom, and their revivals, are the proper subject for an article called "castle". That settled, I agree with Awadewit above that this covers the huge subject pretty well, and subject to detailed issues raised by others being settled, meets the FA criteria. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Conditional oppose Regarding issues of systemic bias, please include all relevant links to non-European castles to the extant disambiguation page and See Also sections. This will go a long way towards convincing me that Edo Castle is not, in fact, a castle :) Dhatfield (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A link to Japanese castles is already in the article, so I removed it from the see also section as per WP:ALSO (links in the main body of the article are generally not repeated in the see also section, but in this case I think it may be worthwhile so have re-added it. Nev1 (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have considered this at some length. I have great respect for the work you have done on this article: I love the topic and the content, but it continues to grate me that your arbitrary definition of castle does not match the article title in the context of the multinational Wikipedia. On a scale of 1 to castle, what is the Kremlin? Mention of Japanese castles as analogous structures appears in the last sentence of the eight paragraph after you have drawn contrasts between your definition of castles and
  1. Fortresses (a weak, generic catchall)
  2. Country homes (at least thrice)
  3. Hill forts
  4. Anything outside of Europe and the Middle East (Is this not supremely arbitrary? Europe, the Middle East and the Dominican Republic?)
  5. A chateau
  6. Walled cities
  7. Non-medieval period (with reference to Western history)
  8. Walled settlements and forts named by the Franks (Western slant)
  9. Iron Age fortifications such as Maiden Castle (Western, arguably British slant)
  10. Combined "bastion and prison"
Then finally: "there were analogous structures in Japan ... that evolved independently from European influence" but we have already been told that "A European innovation, castles originated in the 9th and 10th centuries...", and they are outside Europe (phew) so your arbitrary definition is safe. These are some of the most important historical structures in Japan and they are so blatantly down-played that I find it disrespectful.
As you yourself note, the concept of private residence clashes rather badly with administrative centre so the internal consistency of your definition is even in question.
I believe that in laying claim to the article title Castle you are in flagrant breach of 1c and arguably 1d and deserve to be in breach of 1e. As I said, I have great esteem for your work, but it does not fit under this title.
Image count, by country: England 8, France 3, Other 6. I think you see where this is going.
I would propose that you take out the dismissive references to analogous structures, et al. and accept a FA-worthy article under the name Castles (Western Europe). The beauty of this solution is that you would not need to take up so many bytes and pixels defending an arbitrary definition that you share with authors with similar bias.
Sorry about the oppose, as I've said, not a comment on the quality of the work at all and consider it stricken on change of article title. Dhatfield (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that this definition of castle is not "arbitrary" nor is it the editor's. It matches with all of the other reference works I've consulted. We may not like that situation, but there it is. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am very flattered that you hold my work on the article in great esteem, but you do seem to read into it motives that are not there. Let's start with the definition of castles: It's not my definition. It is widely accepted among academic works, including the bit relating to Europe. Regarding images, as someone wisely said on the article talk page, "This is an encyclopedic page not Miss World!" The images have been chosen to represent particular features (eg: a gateway with flanking towers, or an elaborate donjon) rather than because they depict a castle from a particular country (well, except for the Crusader castle); if one country is over-represented it is because those images are the best at illustrating a particular feature, not because I'm trying to push an agenda. Could you point out how "the concept of private residence clashes rather badly with administrative centre"? By the way, kremlins are pretty low down on the scale as they are citadels, not castles (hence their exclusion from the article). Nev1 (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We had a similar discussion at Computer Graphics. For obvious reasons, the scholarly works defined computer graphics in terms of Computer graphics (computer science). Owing to it's broad use as a term, we made Computer graphics itself an overview and spun off the scholarly article. The author of the original article defended his 'ownership' of the term vehemently on academic grounds. Is there a WP policy on whether we stick to the referenced definition or the one in use in common parlance - I am tempted to say the one that makes sense in the context of the tree structure of an online encyclopedia? High quality images of Tanks in the public domain are dominated by US Army ones, so I understand that problem. Just pointing out that it could be perceived as part of a pattern. None the less, point taken, I will bow out of this debate since the community appears to have come to a consensus. I apologise for implying bias where none existed, if that is indeed the case. Dhatfield (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Featured articles are difficult to write, and those which cover basic, sprawling topics even more so. The purpose of the FA process is to recognize articles that represent Wikipedia's best collective efforts, not necessarily to denote which pages are "perfect", so to speak. I acknowledge that some editors feel the article is lacking in certain areas, but to be honest I don't think it affects the quality of the article. It is already a large, well-referenced article, and it explains all you'd ever want to know about the concept of castles in its broadest sense. It doesn't need to be entirely comprehensive to the point where one can't find a single missing aspect; it just needs to explain the topic to a level where a casual reader would find it useful, and as one such reader I think it's a great resource which is easily one of the best descriptions of castles on the internet. If a reader doesn't find what they're looking for in the main article, there is an endless array of sub-articles and citations to external links, which is why I feel that comprehensiveness isn't an issue here. The article is illustrated with informative and visually appealing images, and is structured in an organized manner that generally adheres to the Manual of Style. Overall I believe this is deserving of FA-class. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:48, 3 December 2009 [59].

Fourth Test, 1948 Ashes series[edit]

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 05:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


In this match, the Invincibles set the world record for the highest successful runchase in Test history. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 05:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acoounted for YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 00:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Rewrote alt description inline with recent discussions on that subject. Please be more careful to look and describe accurately. Only a real jerk would have had his hair parted in the middle in the 1940s. Bradman didn't.Amandajm (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The edits you made to the alt text introduced Bradman's name. Since alt text started being required at FAC, I've been under the impression that proper names should not be used. Has this changed recently? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - Image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I've been making a few cleanup edits when I deem necessary, but this bit from the second-day recap stopped me cold: "The England team frequently towards the sky". There's a word missing, but I'm not sure which one it is. If I had to guess I'd say "looked", but didn't want to take the chance of being incorrect. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 01:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finished going through the article today and was on the verge of supported, but realized that something might be missing. Unlike Fifth Test, 1948 Ashes series, there is no Aftermath section in this article. To me, this would be a valuable addition, for multiple reasons. The article has good flow throughout, but I find the ending abrupt at the moment. Maybe such a section would also provide more context; I'd be particularly interested to see if there was strong press reaction to the Australian comeback/English collapse. Of course, this all depends on what your books contain. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 18:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, the selection policy was criticised. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 23:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — Fine read. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 03:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Very well-done. I especially liked the very well-organized Scorecard subsection, and the presentation of the structural style of the chronological order of the Days. It is also a very good idea to have such a Background subsection, which grounds the reader for the more detailed information presented further on - that was quite helpful for me. Cirt (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Missing refs: lemmon, perry 2002, Cashman, Wisden Cricketers' Almanack.
  • Are these errors? 'pattingd,strokpplay, fastscoring , "At the time, Morris on 32 and Australia at 55/0."' Ling.Nut (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I presume you meant the 2007 wisden? YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 13:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, assuming Ling.nut's concerns are readily fixed. I didn't think I would read a cricket article, let alone remain conscious, but this was very good, and I have no concerns. I assume that 63/1 is a standard notation for "63 for one"? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think its a bowler's total for an innings. 63 runs were made against their bowling, they took 1 wicket. Actually no its batting that's a problem, isn't it 1/63? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a convention at WP:CRIC to use English not Australian conventions for matches in Australia. For the batting team, runs/wickets, and for the bowlers, wickets/runs. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 00:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its a little confusing because of the phrase immediately before hand, "as England then collapsed and lost 8/73 to be all out for 496 late in the day" which assigns 8/73 as progress to England rather than success for the bowling team. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok, when people talk of losing wickets, they still talk of it from the bowling POV even though it is being incurred against the batsmen being discussed, which can be offputting YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 00:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. 1b, 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c (with fixits), 4. Fixits: COI declaration: I am currently helping building the GA status of the general tour article by reviewing it for GA. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    fn36: needs the work title (Wisden blah blah) "^ a b "Wisden 1954 — Neil Harvey". Wisden. 1954. Retrieved 2007-06-06." Check generally for Wisdens. You could also choose to shorttitle the Wisden book as Wisden as its so well known.
    "Cashman, pp. 299–300." needs et.al. or and others, or the full list of authors. Same with Harte short cites.
    Press locations please?
    A penguin book published by Andre Deutsch? "Harte, Chris; Whimpress, Bernard (2003). The Penguin History of Australian Cricket. Andre Deutsch. ISBN 0-670-04133-5.'
Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 20:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (ongoing)
  • runchase, run chase, or run-chase? I see all three. But I don't see it on List of cricket terms..
  • "setting England a target" means what?
  • holing out means what? Ling.Nut (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done and linked YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 20:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Introduced it in the previous fixup :( YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 06:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Adsabs was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Stafstrom2004 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference deBoer2008 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=334763134

Leave a Reply