Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2012

March 2012

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 13:33, 31 March 2012 [1].

---

Carmen

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Carmen wasn't a great success when it first appeared. Like most things Bizet attempted, it went off kind of half-cock. And he died during the opening Paris run, never to know the acclaim with which the wider world would greet his masterpiece. Most people know bits of the opera, if only the toreador's song (which Bizet considered a load of merde), included here with other slightly creaky recorded excerpts. The article has been very thoroughly peer-reviewed, and I am as ever grateful to all who have helped in this way. Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources and media but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Check alphabetization of sources
• Missing bibliographic info for Neef, Lacombe
• No citations to Batta, Dibbern, Tanner

• These books removed (Batta is the same as Neef)

• Check for minor glitches like doubled periods
• FN 62: maybe specify the keyword needed? "Carmen" brings up 1400+ results
• FN 74: formatting
• Where is Teddington?

• The book has gone

• FN 88 vs 91
• Is there no better source than IMDb available for the adaptation?

• I think IMDb is fine to confirm the existence of a work without critical commentary. I'm not aware of anything better: Amazon? This?

• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books.
• File:Henri-Lucien_Doucet_-_Carmen.jpg needs US PD tag, same with File:Carmen_1875_Act1_lithograph_Lamy_NGO1p736.jpg, File:Toreador_song.ogg

• Do works of art require the US-PD licence as well as PD-art? I have never done this in the past. The soundfile has the PD-US tag already.

• File:Toreador_song.ogg: first source link appears broken. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have removed the broken link.

Thanks for pointing these out. I have fixed except as noted above. Brianboulton (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments. So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at Carmen#Early revivals. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: the "These are my edits" tool hasn't been working the past few days. - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fine - I hope you enjoy reading on. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Continuing. "In the event": Garner's warns that the phrase (which means "in the end" or "as it turned out" outside the US) is likely to be misunderstood by Americans, SOED says the phrase means "in the event of" in AmEng, and American dictionaries (such as M-W) agree that the "as it turned out" meaning is "chiefly British". Cross my heart, most Americans will read "In the event, [he] decided to use parts ..." to mean "In the performance, he decided to use those parts ..."

• OK, I have rephrased. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• "St. Petersburg": I know that "St." is usually "St" in BritEng, but this might be fine, I don't know.

• The Brit practice is not to use the full stop when the last letter of the abbreviation is the same as the last letter of the complete word. Thus we say "Mr" not "Mr.", "Mrs" not "Mrs." etc. So it should be "St" not "St." Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, "what was now becoming regarded" doesn't sound right to me. - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Tweaked. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 03:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your reading and support. Brianboulton (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Support, assuming source and image concerns are addressed. I weighed in at the PR, and my concerns were addressed. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and this support, much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Support - from Noleander

• Lede - Probably should mention that two of the tunes, esp the bullfighter piece, are very, very famous in the Western world, and the Toreador is known to many because it is used in cartoons, ads, etc.

• I have added a little to the text and lead highlighting the popularity of the toreador's song. I will leave it to the Votre toast article to mention the popular culture aspects of the song, which have nothing to do with the opera. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Lede - " opéra comique " - I wonder if using that phrase so prominently (in the lead, and highlighted blue) may confuse some readers into thinking the opera is humorous? Maybe move that phrase down into the article body (but keep the thought behind it in the lede).

• I think the phrase needs to be in the lead as well. I have added a footnote to the main text explaining the distinction from "comic opera" (which will also be evident to users of the link in the lead). Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Lede - " written in the genre of opéra comique with musical numbers separated by dialogue ... including the introduction of recitative in place of the original dialogue ". Could that be reworded to indicate that almost all modern performances outside France are "genuine" fully-sung operas with recitatives. Someone glancing at that 2nd paragraph may come away thinking that even today it is still performed with spoken dialog. Maybe a simple change to " ... originally written in the genre .."

• It is not true that "almost all modern performances outside France are "genuine" fully-sung operas with recitatives". As the text indicates, although mid-20th century attempts to re-introduce the dialogue version outside France were unsuccessful, "late in the 20th century ... dialogue versions [became] common in opera houses outside France..." Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• "notices" - Is that UK? "reviews" would be more recognizable to US readers (? I wonder if I made this identical comment in the review of Les pêcheurs de perles :-)

• You did indeed; I altered it then and have done so again. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• "laureate" - that word won't be known to many readers. Consider "prize winner" or similar?

• I think most readers won't be puzzled by "laureate" – and "Prix de Rome prize winner" clunks horribly. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm a non-native English reader/speaker and I had no trouble whatsoever with the word. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 19:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Bizet found that some of the barriers against him had been lifted;" - Which barriers? The conservative repertoires mentioned in the preceding sentence? Or was there some personal animosity somewhere? Its a bit confusing because prior it says "Bizet's professional relationship with Léon Carvalho, .." indicating he had few barriers.

• Rephrased. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• " At that point, according to Bizet's biographer Winton Dean, "some hitch at the Opéra-Comique intervened", " - Not sure why a quote is needed there. The delay is a fact. Only the suppositions as to the cause of the delay would need attribution inline. No big deal.

• I left this alone. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• " "Well, they asked for ordure, and they've got it", he is said to have remarked about the toreador's song" - Is it possible to state who is reporting that quote? It's a pretty wild thing to say, so if it not a certain quote, maybe its provenance should be mentioned in the text.

• Just about every source refers to Bizet's comment, but none provide any precise ascription. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• " in an underprepared and toned-down production. " - Can "toned down" be clarified in this context.? Scaled down? Smaller orchestra? Excerpted? Modest production budget?

• Reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The New York Times welcomed Bizet's "pretty and effective work", but compared Zelia Trebelli's interpretation of the title role unfavourably with that of Minnie Hauk. Nevertheless..." - The word "nevertheless" doesnt seem right. The NYTimes called it "pretty and effective", only one role was criticized. Omit the word?

• Agreed. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• " Francesco Rosi's film of 1984, with .." - Perhaps that sentence should be placed above the prior sentence, so the works are listed chronologically.

• Yes, makes good sense. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• Overall, the prose is very, very fine.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for these helpful comments and for your support. I have generally followed your suggestions except where indicated. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Support with a few comments, including two about currency of sources.

• "De Leuven reluctantly agreed, but his continuing hostility toward the project led to his resignation from the theatre early in 1874"?
• "but, as Dean comments, 'the triteness lies in the character, not in the music." A closing mark is missing here. I'd add it but I'm unsure if the period is part of the quotation.
• "it shared the theatre for a while with the much more popular Verdi's Requiem." This seems awkward to me; consider "it shared the theatre for a while with Verdi's much more popular Requiem."

• I have fixed these three, per your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Since then the work has been a permanent feature of the Opéra-Comique's repertory." Uncomfortable citing a source from 1965 for this statement.

• Yes, you're right. I have taken the statement out, as there could be arguments about what "permanent feature" means. It certainly hasn't been performed at the Opéra-Comique every year - there have been several gaps. The sentence didn't add much anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm somewhat concerned that you wrap up discussion of the current availability of a "universally recognised full score" with a source published 30+ years ago. What is your level of confidence that no progress has been made on this front?

• Well, I'm completely confident in the statement but, again, it needs a bit of updating both with text and source. This I have done, using a 2000 source which refers to a couple of new editions but still no final, critical edition. The position hasn't changed since then. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This was a pleasure to read. --Laser brain (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments, your support and kind words. Brianboulton (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Nitpick – Why is the word "act" spelled "Act" in the narration? MOS:CAPS says no such thing; Wikipedia:WikiProject Opera/Article guidelines uses "act". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• My practice is to use "act" when using the word in a general sense ("an opera in four acts"), and to capitalise act titles (Act 1, Act 2 etc). This seems to be general among the sources, not just the older ones (Dean, Curtiss), but also more recent writers (McClary, Wright, Neef etc). I see nothing in MOS or the opera project guideline that prevents this, though consistency is necessary and I have addressed a few inconsistencies in this respect. Brianboulton (talk) 10:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Support – I took part in the peer review, where such minor quibbles as I had were dealt with to my satisfaction. I agree with Laser brain's remark, above, that this article is a pleasure to read. It meets all FA criteria, in my opinion. Tim riley (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Tim, for your help with the peer review and for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 10:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Support - I took part in the peer review and find that this fully meets the FA criteria. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Media Review - all of the images and sound files are free, mostly because they were published long enough ago to have entered the public domain or for the last two sound files because they were created under a free license. (Note that I added PD-US tags to the files noted by Nikkimaria above, and thank her for catching that). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for performing the tedious but essential task of licence-checking and for making the necessary adjustments. Your support is greatly appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 16:09, 28 March 2012 [2].

---

Blakeney Chapel

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not in Blakeney, not a chapel, real purpose unknown, dates highly uncertain — a perfect topic for a short FAC. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment - SkarmCA (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• The History section has a map in it labeled '1586', but the caption for the image in the article states 1858. I assume the former is correct, but I am unsure.

• thanks, it never ceases to astonish me that one can read something dozens of times and still miss obvious errors Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Kommentare
• Missing/wrong links: Chapel of ease, "Roman or earlier pottery and three Henry III pennies", flint, Pantile (roof material), Roman - we can do better than Roman Empire surely, Saxon - NO!!!! Anglo-Saxon!!! Never "Saxon" in England, unless analysing among earliest settlers. I thought galleting was covered somewhere, but it seems not.

• Linked as suggested, changed links to Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxon as suggested, pantile already linked

• The geolocation coordinates & map links are useful but the text should explain the location better at the start - there is more right at the end. It seems to be not much more than 100m from the start of the sea beach, but on the inland side of the river, which is at this point running roughly parallel to the coastline.

• Expanded as suggested, although it is now on the north side of the river following the river realignment

• Presumably some more information may be gained as the site disappears, if it doesn't all go in a rush.

• I wouldn't hold my breath. The major excavation was clearly intended to fully record the site, difficult to see why anyone would fund another dig, and even accidental finds are not likely with no public access and now effectively cut off between the old and new channels

Johnbod (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• thanks for reviewing, very helpful as always. my corrective editsJimfbleak - talk to me? 13:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I had in mind Ancient Roman pottery, then Roman Britain, plus Penny (British pre-decimal coin). Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, I'm old enough that it didn't even occur to me to link "penny"... or "Roman"... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I might do a stub for galleting when I get time, I'd expected a link too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support As Jim says, short but sweet. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for review and support, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Is Hinde 1996 or 1998? Is Birks 2003 or 2005?
• Pethick & Cottie or just Pethick?
• Check author formatting for Blair. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• All done. Thanks again for your careful checks, greatly appreciated Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Images are good --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • File:Bas fourneau.png: Source missing. Span by self/from a book/from a site?
  • Other images are good. Checked Geograph images. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for review. I've added a source to the file, no idea if it's the one the original uploader used since there are dozens of copies of this famous image out there. Obviously no problem with copyright anyway, given that it's several centuries old. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• That source is invalid as it is a wikipedia mirror of Steel. We do not know if the image really shows iron smelting or is original research. I suggest replacement by [3]. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oops, I particularly wanted that image since it's the closest to what appears to be the situation at Blakeney (I've seen unfree photos of the remains of the hearth, which I have failed to get permission to use). I've uploaded a different version File:Bloomeried de re Metallica Agricola.jpg. This has the caption, which makes it clear that it's a smelter, and I've linked to the descriptive text in this translation of De Re Metallica Hope that's OK now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support The article is well-organized, easy to follow and seems comprehensive, considering the state and scale of the building and limited investigation. References not checked. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for support and help sorting out the smelter image

Support: A really nice article, very readable and interesting. Just a few minor points, none of which affect my support for the article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of "History" seems to be suggesting that it may have been a religious building, but this paragraph seems rather disconnected from the rest of the section as nothing is made explicit and the "chapel" is not mentioned.
• "The magnetometry failed to detect the subterranean features of the chapel, but did show an unexpected linear anomaly, resulting from buried ironwork from wartime defences.": Very minor, but "from…from" is a little cumbersome.
• "resistivity survey": Fairly obvious what this is, I think, but is there anything that could be linked to it?
• "showed the larger room well": I would suggest a slight rephrase as I originally read this to mean that there was a well in the larger room! But that may just be me…
• "The building had "substantial time and money spent on it".": Says who? And I think as a quote, it needs a reference immediately after it.
• In the threats section, a couple of things are not clear to me. The article says that the altering of the course of the river would endanger the chapel ruins, but this does not seem to be stated in the "threats" section. I cannot make the connection between the new course and the threat, as it seems to be saying that the sea was getting closer anyway. Possibly I am being dim, and if so I apologise!
• As a minor point, the history section is not really a history section as it does not include any archaeological information, so it may be better to rename this as something like "Written history".
• I can imagine the answer is no, but are there any images of the exposed wall? Or any other parts of the ruins?
• Similarly (i.e. possibly nothing can be done), the plan of the site lacks some information, for example where this exposed wall is. Some of the other features of the plan did not make complete sense until I had read the article fully; could some of the information, such as the double fireplace or the different walls, be added to the caption or something similar? If not, no problem and this does not affect my support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for your review and support. I think these edits fix most of the ambiguities and lack of clarity. It's true that the site, like much of this coast, would eventually be lost anyway, but sites south of the river are protected by its removal of the advancing shingle, so the most recent realignment accelerates the process considerably. I have been unable to find any images of the previously exposed wall (remember that there is no public access). The HELM website (ref 5) has two small images of the site during excavation, but I have received no reply to a request for release. Lee (ref 13) has many images taken during excavation, but the company has been liquidated, and I think Richard Lee is working in the Middle East, so I haven't even been able to ascertain whether he owns the copyright. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment: Warren is a dablink. J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oops, thanks for that, linked to warren (domestic) now. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. A strong article well written, referenced and researched. An interesting topic, too. A few thoughts-

• "Faden shows the "chapel ruins"" Who or what is Faden? They are/it is not introduced
• "simply notes that a local hermit has been given permission to seek" Was given?
• "no known evidence" Can there be unknown evidence?
• "means the 'chapel' ruins" How about just "ruins"? That also lets you avoid the MoS-awkward inverted commas
• There seem to be some unwarranted italics in the references, no doubt caused by that awkward "work=" parameter. For instance, there's no reason why "Titchwell Marsh" should be italicised.

• Thanks for review and support. I've followed all your suggestions in these edits, including a bit more on Faden, and losing the two most peculiar italicisations. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 16:09, 28 March 2012 [4].

---

John de Gray

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... this is an article about a fascinating bishop who was one of King John of England's main advisors and was called an "evil councillor" at one point in his career. Modern historians are more forgiving. John's attempt to secure the archbishopric of Canterbury for de Gray led to the long conflict between John and the papacy, which resulted in many of the English bishops in voluntary exile and church services suspended in England for years. De Gray also served John in Ireland, as governor there. This is what the article looked like when I started editing it back in 2007, but the major expansion occured this year starting in January. It's had a couple of copyedits by Malleus, a thorough GA review as well as a peer review, and I believe it's as ready as I can make it. This WILL be a wikicup nomination for me. I present to you... John de Gray - one of John's "Evil Councillors", Bishop of Norwich, Governor of Ireland, and one of the major causes of the Interdict on England from 1208 to 1213. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Ealdgyth. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Is the Lyon book "Constitution" or "Constitutional" history?
• Does Otway-Ruthven use "Mediaeval" or "Medieval"?
• No citations to Poole
• Single image is unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Constitutional - fixed. Medieval - fixed. Removed Poole. All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• tentative support Comments am finding less to fiddle with prose-wise than previous ones, which is a good sign! Queries to come....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd link justiciar as it's not a common word, consider wiktionary if nothing on WP suits

• All in all, has come together really well. I'm not familiar with the person so can't really comment on comprehensiveness. Also have not spotchecked sources. Happy with prose. This support is pending other folks' satisfaction with the article :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

  Should I take my bow now, or wait for the dénouement? Malleus Fatuorum 22:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

  I guess we wait till the fat lady singeth. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  I hope neither one of you is implying that *I* am the fat lady? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  Certainly not, you're the foxy lady. Malleus Fatuorum 01:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  No no no, I meant to add in the adjective "proverbial" but was rushed/distracted/substitute some other pithy explanation....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Support: Another well-researched and well-written article. Seems accessible for the general reader but remains comprehensive. Two minor points, which do not affect my support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The elder de Gray was instrumental in securing the selection of his nephew as Lord Chancellor,[2] as the elder de Gray was a surety for the younger de Gray's payment of a fine of 5000 marks to secure the chancellorship.": In this case, would it be better to say "John" and "William" rather than "older" and "younger", as the current wording is slightly cumbersome? Also, it is possible for an uncle to be younger than a nephew!

  Yes, it is possible for an uncle to be younger than his nephew, and not that uncommon. Consider for instance the hypothetical case where your sister had a baby when she was 16, but you weren't born until she was 17. Malleus Fatuorum 14:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

  Malleus fixed that, but I have to say given that John helped Walter secure his first major appointment, it's almost assured that Walter was the younger here.. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• "After Hubert Walter's death in July 1205, the selection of a successor was hindered by doubts about what the proper procedure should be.": This implies that something was different about the circumstances; why had these events never happened before? (I hope I'm making sense...) --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

  I've clarified that this was a common event - elections to Canterbury were often contentious and there was no hard-and-fast procedure to follow. Thank you for your review! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• The elder de Gray was instrumental in securing...as the elder de Gray was...to secure" - can we avoid that repetition?
• Does "postulated" have a different meaning than usual in this context?
• "which presented Innocent with two candidates for the office" - who was the other?
• "de Braose" or just "Braose"? And how did the situation with him resolve?
• What are "secular clergy"?
• "De Gray remained close to John for the rest of the bishop's life" - hasn't he just died? Do you mean "most" of his life?
• Should either be in both the Durham and Canterbury categories, or neither, as was bishop-elect of both. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

  Changed the second "secure" to "acquire". I've added a quick explanation about postulated (although it's somewhat of a simplification). The other one was Reginald, who's mentioned in the previous paragraph. de Braose lost his lands, was driven into exile, and his wife and eldest son were starved to death on John's orders - but de Gray had nothing to do with any of this, which is why I've not included this in the article. Secular clergy are clergy that are NOT monks or nuns or canons - I've linked. Fixed that last one. Thank you for your review and for all the hard work you do at FAC! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 16:09, 28 March 2012 [5].

---

William McKinley

Co-nominators: Coemgenus and Wehwalt 23:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Wehwalt and I have done a complete rewrite of this article, along with some assistance from Rjensen and Cmguy777. After a thorough and helpful peer review, we think it's ready for featured status. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Coemgenus. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Since it's a co-nomination, I'm not sure I can submit it for WikiCup, even if I wanted to. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I will not be submitting this to Wikicup. --Coemgenus (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Support: (subject to image and sources verifications). I carried out a detailed peer review of this truly impressive article. It is long but not, I believe, unreasonably so, after some 2000 words were pruned during the run-up to this FAC. In terms of the FA criteria it meets all requirementa: deeply researched, elegantly written, fully comprehensive and professionally presented. If you do nothing else, listen to the soundfile and hear McKinley – the real McKinley – speaking in 1896. And you might also be thankful that Supreme Court judges are nowadays appointed on the basis of slightly sounder legal credentials (assuming of course that they are). Brianboulton (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Will try to do a full review, the first few sections look ok, just a couple missing commas. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Alright, looks very well written so far, just a couple questions and a comment for now.
• You mention that he voted for Lincoln and then ran for County Attorney as a republican, do we know why he was a Republican at that time?

It mentions earlier that his family was abolitionist, and that McKinley served in the Union Army -- both strongly correlated with being a Republican in those days. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that does make sense. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The case raised McKinley's standing among laborers, a crucial part of the Stark County electorate" Did labor typically vote Democrat at that time?

Not terribly. Voting blocs were more ethnic than occupation based prior to 1896.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, didn't realize that. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly the rich and well-off professionals favored the Republicans. However, in the working classes, ethnicity was a major factor. I would talk to Rjensen if you are interested, he knows more about it than me.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• "the McKinley Tariff of 1890, which though heavily amended in the Senate, imposed a number of protective tariffs" It may just be me, but the "which though" part sounds a bit odd. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll play with it. The point was, McKinley's careful tariff schedules were altered through the influence of special interests in the Senate.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Revised version looks good. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Mos quibble: in the Gerrymandering and defeat for re-election section Gerrymandering is linked within a quote.
• "Among the possible candidates spoken of were McKinley, Reed, and the aging." I think a name might be left out here.
• "Hanna established an unofficial McKinley headquarters near the convention hall, though no active effort was made to covert delegates to McKinley's cause." Is "covert" being used correctly here? Mark Arsten (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Should be convert. Slipped through all this way!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Prose quibble: in the third paragraph of the Governor of Ohio section you start consecutive sentences with "Although...".
• Perhaps consider blocking the quote by Stanley Jones in the Obtaining the nomination section.
• "Thousands of partisans came from Canton and surrounding towns that evening to hear McKinley speak from his front porch." Wow, must have had a large front yard!

He did, but he gave several speeches. I'm sure they blocked off North Market Street to carriages. Hopefully none of his neighbors were Democrats! They would have had a hard summer.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The issue bitterly divided the Democratic Party; President Cleveland firmly supported the gold standard; but an increasing number of rural Democrats wanted silver, especially in the South and West." Just checking, but the double semi is ok, right?
• "I have to think when I speak" Again, just checking, but do we usually note that the italics are in the original?

Might be worth putting in a hidden comment. I'll correct the other things.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• "On November 3, 1896, the voters had their say in most of the nation." Did some states vote on different days then?

Yes, Maine, Vermont, and Florida. Maine and Vermont are mentioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, silly me. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• I added some more commas, hopefully not too many. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your work so far. I think we're caught up.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, back again--this is a long article.
• "The wealthy Vice President leased a residence close to the White House" Was there a Vice President's residence at that time?

No, not until 1974. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The outbreak of war also led to change of McKinley's cabinet..." Sounds a bit awkward to me.
• "with some members favoring annexation" Might want to rephrase here.
• "and the cause gained momentum as the United States embroiled in war with Spain." Is there a word left out here?

I fixed these three, I think. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• MOS quibble: quote in wikilink at end of "Peace and territorial gain" section.

I'm not sure what you mean here. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

lol, I mixed that up. I mean that manifest destiny is linked inside a quotation near the end of the section, the MOS recommends against it. It's frequently done though. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I never knew that was a problem. I can take it out, I guess, but it's a useful link to non-U.S. readers who might not have heard the term. Not a big deal, though, I'll de-link if you think it's important. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Along with his Supreme Court appointment, McKinley appointed six judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, and 28 judges to the United States district courts." Were any of them particularly notable/controversial?

As far as his biographers have written, no, I don't think so -- unless Wehwalt noticed anything in his research. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Coemgenus, it might be worth mentioning Day's appointment as a circuit court judge after leaving the post of Secy of State.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• "McKinley appointmented several black postmasters" typo? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. I read that half a dozen times and never saw it! --Coemgenus (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, easy to overlook things like that. I really respect you guys for working on such a long article. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Bryan's campaigning failed to excite the voters as it had in 1896, and McKinley never doubted that he would be re-elected." Pardon my ignorance, but was there public opinion polling back then? Or was popularity gauged by crowd size, etc.?

There was some sort of polling. I recall a mention of Hanna measuring public opinion in Iowa in August 1896 and being afraid McKinley might lose the election, and doing it again in October and being reassured. McKinley always, even as president, kept his ear close to the ground and I think it was more his calculations as a politician than any sampling. Certainly, polling wasn't done outside an actual campaign.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Although McKinley enjoyed meeting the public, Cortelyou was concerned with his security" Do we know why Cortelyou was concerned?

Basically the anarchist threat.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• "These officials included Cortelyou, who served in three Cabinet positions under Roosevelt, Dawes, who became vice president under Coolidge, William Howard Taft, who succeeded Roosevelt as president, and Day, who was elevated to the Supreme Court by Roosevelt and remained there almost twenty years." Not a vital issue, but I'd suggest replacing commas 2, 4, and 6 with semicolons.
• "The decision in 1898–1899 to annex these lands also involved issues of race, with many Democrats and some Republicans reluctant to see more non-whites incorporated into the United States; this has affected studies of McKinley's decision ever since." I might just be unusually dense today, but I don't really follow what this sentence is saying.
• Is the endash in the last picture caption intentional?
• Alright, that's all I see, sorry for taking so long to finish the review. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I've addressed the things you've asked for, one way or another. Thanks for undertaking such a long review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• Alright, all the fixes look good to me, I'm more than willing to Support this outstanding article. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• No direct citations to Croly 1912, though there is an in-text attribution to him

Correct. I've removed the citation. Croly is quoted in Horner; it was in the reference section because at one time we had some material dealing with Hanna's actions after McKinley was shot, but that was removed in cutting the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated or not
• Publisher for Jensen?
• Be consistent in when state names are included
• Location for McKinley publication?
• Retrieval dates aren't required for Google Books links, but if you're going to include them you should do so consistently
• Kent State University Press or The Kent State University Press?
• Check page notation for Semonche
• be consistent in whether you provide publishers and locations for journals
• Why the "+" in Klinghard page notation?
• Can we avoid the repetition of "seen" in the Blaine cartoon caption?

I have fixed all from here up; Coemgenus will do the files.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• File:William_McKinley_campaign_speech_1896.ogg: source link returns 404 error

I've updated the link.

• File:William_McKinley_1897_inauguration.ogg needs US PD tag, as does File:General_Hayes.jpg and File:Standard_of_the_Governor_of_Ohio.svg/File:Seal_of_Ohio.svg/File:Seal_of_Ohio.png

Where is the Seal of Ohio? I couldn't find it. The rest are now marked PD-US.

Maybe she is talking about the flag of Ohio in one of the navboxes at the foot of the article? As it was adopted shortly after McKinley's death, it's PD-US on the grounds of pre-1923 display. I can source that to McElroy if there's a need.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• File:The_Administration's_Promises_Have_Been_Kept.jpg: any more specific source info available?

I've found an independent source, establishing pre-1923 publication and added it to the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• File:McKinley_Grave.JPG: if monument was from 1907, what does 1938 date refer to?

That was my fault. I was working on the licensing of several of the images, and that got carried over from the stamp. Carelessness. It's been corrected.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• File:Official_White_House_portrait_of_William_McKinley.jpg: source? Is this a photo of the portrait, taken from a book or website?

Don't know, but I sourced it to the White House Historical Assn. website.

I don't know where the photo came from, but the painting was in a book as early as 1901, and sources concerning the painter, August Benziger, who unaccountably lacks a Wikipedia article, say he painted it as part of a two-painting commission given by Vice President Hobart in 1897. So it's PD by virtue of pre-1923 display and publication, and I've adjusted the matter accordingly.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems the official portraits used to be on the White House website, but they recently changed their layout. Now they're at the WHHHA website, but the files on Wiki still link to the old site. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• File:Philippines_flag_original.png is sourced to itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, the .png is sourced to the .svg, which is an original creation of User:Seav, which he released into the public domain. I've adjusted the tags to make this more clear. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

✄ ✄ ✄ — Alarbus (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Small comment Could the lead sentence "McKinley's presidency began a period of over a third of a century dominated by the Republican Party, but ended with his assassination in September 1901." be reworded? I know what it is intended to mean, but on first glance (to me) it reads like this is saying the 1/3 century period of Republican control ended with his assassination. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I've juggled the sentence a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Support - The most interesting 1hr 47 minutes of my day. A well written peice and one to be proud of. -- Cassianto (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and for reviewing and supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Support from Noleander. A fine article. I found a few things which I was preparing to note here, but I realized that they were all just wording preferences which could go either way, and would not necessarily improve the article. One that does bear mentioning:

• "although McKinley's work was altered through the influence of special interests in the Senate, imposed a number of protective tariffs on foreign goods ..." - I cannot parse that. It looks like a word is missing before "imposed". Even if it is what the editor intended, it should probably be re-worded so other readers do not suffer the same misapprehension.

Otherwise, great work! --Noleander (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

My carelessness in making a previous change a reviewer requested. Fixed. Thanks for reviewing both this and the assassination article!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Support – I have tried my hardest to find fault with this article, but have failed. I can usually manage at least a few typos, but no! This article seems to me to pass all FA criteria with flying colours. And I learned a lot, too, and enjoyed a well written and interesting article. Bravo! Tim riley (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's comments - I think we should let this nomination run for a few more days. But I won't be insisting on any spotchecks on this occasion. My apologies to the nominators, I know what it is like to be kept waiting. Graham Colm (talk) 22:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments. Some of these are explained at WP:Checklist. - Dank (push to talk)

• "March 4, 1897 until": I fixed this one, but see WP:Checklist#second comma.
• "McKinley's term ended with his assassination": McKinley's second term ...
• "brevet major": brevet major
• "Republican party's": The lowercase "p" says that the party was not called the "Republican Party" except informally; is that right?
• "leading expert": expert
• "together with gerrymandering it led to his defeat ...": Just a suggestion : "After his congressional district was redrawn to his disadvantage, or gerrymandered, he was defeated ..."
• "He defeated his Democratic rival, William Jennings Bryan; McKinley ran a front porch campaign ...": He defeated his Democratic rival, William Jennings Bryan, after a low-key front-porch campaign ...

I don't agree that it was low-key. McKinley was making headlines with his speeches, and his candidacy (and the opposition of Bryan who was far-left for his time), greatly excited the base.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Front porch campaign begins: "A front porch campaign is a low-key electoral campaign ...". So by linking there, you're saying the campaign was low-key (and these days, a lot of readers won't understand what this means without following the link.). I think it's important not to penalize nominators for mistakes in other articles (otherwise we'd never promote!) ... so if you believe Front porch campaign is wrong, then it's fine to leave out "low-key". In that case, I recommend "He defeated his Democratic rival, William Jennings Bryan, after a front-porch campaign ..." (and I made the edit on this one ... if I'm misunderstanding, revert it.) - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If we call McKinley's 1896 campaign low key, what do we call 1900, where the only speech he gave was the acceptance of nomination speech in July in Canton? I would tend to disagree with the FPC article; a front-porch campaign is merely the manner in which the candidate chooses to present himself. He's still seeing the same people and giving the same speeches. He's just using a different campaign ritual. And as I said, it tremendously fired the base, who bought uniforms (in some cases) and traveled to Canton to be a part of this hundred-day-long production number. I wish I could find more guaranteed-PD pictures of Canton in 1896, but I was only able find the one in the article and the one in the Hanna article, just to demonstrate this. The audio clip does help, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• "McKinley hoped to persuade Spain to grant independence to rebellious Cuba without conflict, but when negotiation failed, led ...": ... he led
• "McKinley was re-elected in the 1900 presidential election following another intense campaign against Bryan, which focused on ...": McKinley was re-elected over Bryan in the 1900 presidential election following another intense campaign focusing on ... [or, McKinley beat Bryan again in ... ]
• "William, and Nancy (Allison) McKinley": William and Nancy (Allison) McKinley
• "Scotch-Irish descent": Per that article, the term is "almost unknown" in Great Britain and Ireland, so some there will think you're making the faux-pas of calling the Scots "Scotch". "Ulster Scots descent" would probably work.
  • That would make it incomprehensible to a US audience. If the link is not sufficient we can put in a footnote. I'm open to other ideas, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
    • A Google ngram shows Scots-Irish catching up on Scotch-Irish, with Ulster Scots way out front, so maybe "Scots-Irish (or Ulster Scots)"? I don't really have a preference. - Dank (push to talk) 22:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Scots-Irish, then it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• "soon brought the men again": again brought the men
• "where he carried out clerical duties as well as working to supply the regiment.": nonparallel
• "as it was advanced": as it advanced - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Except as noted, those are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, no objections. I still think the Scotch-Irish question is interesting. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I certainly see your point, but this article's written in American English, and that's the customary term.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• "hotly-disputed": WP:HYPHEN and Chicago disapprove of this hyphen.
• "January 25, 1871": needs a second comma
• "National Convention, to which [they] were ...": at which [they] were (or, to which they went)

No, I think that's proper. You are a delegate to a convention from a locale.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• "the election of a Republican successor as governor, Asa Bushnell in November 1895, ...": a comma is needed after the appositive "Asa Bushnell" since there's a comma before it, but to save a comma, let's move things around: "the election in November 1895 of a Republican successor as governor, Asa Bushnell,"
• "From its earliest days, McKinley's preparations ...": Neither "its" nor "their" sounds quite right, so reword, for instance: "From the beginning, McKinley's preparations ..."
• "what is certainly true that in 1888 ...": missing word somewhere
• "in the race, he decided ...": comma splice
• "Dawes felt he was too young.": Dawes considered himself too young
• I got down about two-thirds of the way, to William McKinley#War with Spain. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to William McKinley#War with Spain. - Dank (push to talk) 22:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 16:09, 28 March 2012 [6].

---

George Went Hensley

Nominator(s): Mark Arsten & • Astynax ^talk

George Went Hensley was a fascinating, but little known, figure in American Christianity who pioneered the practice of snake handling. This article had an unsuccessful nomination last month. It was archived after three weeks with no supports and no opposes but we got a lot of valuable feedback and are trying again, having tried to implement said feedback. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Crisco comments

Addressed comments by Crisco 1492 moved to talk

• Support - My comments have been addressed to my satisfaction. Good read. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments and support! Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support with Comments

• "In the 1890s, his family lived in Big Stone Gap, Virginia. In Big Stone Gap, he witnessed an elderly woman..."

I would lose the second "Big Stone Gap" and say something like "Whilst living there, he witnessed an elderly women..."

• Ooltewah could do with a blue link.
• Could the first of ref. 36 be moved down a few words to the period?

Nothing else from me. This is a very interesting read. -- Cassianto (talk) 10:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for reading through and commenting on the article. Edits have been made to address your comments. • Astynax ^talk 17:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Yes, thanks for the support and comments! I had actually noticed the repetition of "Big Stone Gap" the other day, but didn't get around to fixing it for some reason. Note though that "Whilst" is typically avoided in contemporary American English. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Images: Ok, but not perfect. The free image is great, the non-free one appropriate. I'm assuming there isn't much choice for non-free images, but do we know the author/copyright holder of the current image? If not, then that's OK, as I do feel that there is enough sourcing information present. Is it perhaps from a newspaper? If so, it's not ideal. J Milburn (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for checking that out. I just poked around a little, and it was taken by a newspaper reporter in 1945 during his research on snake handling[7][8]. There are at least two other potential fair use pictures we could use, but none that capture Hensley as this one does. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Newspaper images are usually best to avoid, unless you're talking about the image, rather than what is depicted; this is because of NFCC#2. Where are the other images from? J Milburn (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Didn't know that, too bad. There are two other images that I know of, one is from the same news reporter, but one was given to the author of his biography from a family member, I take it we should use that one? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• The archive which holds the photograph is at East Tennessee State University (see here which restricts commercial use of the images and gives a brief bio). The picture was evidently published at the time, and The Roots of Appalachian Christianity describes it as "famous" (Sparks, Elder John. 2005. University Press of Kentucky, p. 288) and as an iconic image. Hensley is known to have distributed press release photos, but I don't know if he had Collins take such photos for his own publicity. • Astynax ^talk 17:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, I've swapped the picture taken by a reporter for a picture provided by Hensley's family to a biographer. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• After a discussion on my talk page, the one of him preaching was restored. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, I've come to the conclusion that there are no suitable fair use images of Hensley for this article and have removed them. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • And re-added the headshot with J Milburn's blessing. Not that it's a very good picture though. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Great article about a fascinating figure. I have only one comment so far:

• In "Resignation and return to ministry", you use "pastor" as a verb. It might be legit, but it sounds odd. Maybe "preaching"?
• That's all I could find. I'll give it another read, but it looks like an FA to me. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support. Funny about "pastoring"--my spell check picks it up, but I've always used "pastor" as a verb. Oh well, I've changed it to "ministry" in the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Comments looks ok - is there any information about which species these snakes actually were? I haven't seen any deal-breakers prose-wise on first read-through. Looks comprehensive otherwise apart from my query. NB: Sources not spot checked. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, good to hear that we finally got the prose straightened out. I've added the species' names in. Funny that I didn't think to put those in before, snakes are snakes to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's comments - Looking good, but I think we should let this nomination run for a few more days. I won't be insisting on any spotchecks on this occasion, but I can't speak on behalf of the other delegates. Graham Colm (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 16:09, 28 March 2012 [9].

---

Thomas Blamey

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The only Australian-born field marshal remains a controversial figure. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Well written and well sourced article. Ruslik_Zero 18:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries; WP:Checklist will explain some of them. - Dank (push to talk)

• "Lake Albert, New South Wales, near Wagga Wagga, New South Wales": I don't remember any previous instance where it was necessary to repeat the state; is it necessary here?
  • Probably the work of a disambiguation bot. Does Wagga Wagga need "New South Wales"? All Australians know where it is. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• "the Superior School": I don't get the "the"
  • Unfortunately, the articles on education suck, so no link is possible, but between 1881 until 1931 a superior public achool was a public school that provided both primary and post-primary education. Changed to "Wagga Wagga Superior Public School". Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• "while his family returned home to Australia": It's possible that this "while" could be interpreted as either "whereas" or "at the same time as"; if so, replace "while". - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
  • How typical of the way I write: using a polyseme so the sentence has two meanings, both correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
    • "while" sounds good to my ear if they happened at the same time ... just doing my job here, passing along the recommendation of Chicago and Garner's to avoid "while" here, with the obvious disclaimer that this isn't AmEng. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
• "he was evacuated sick with vomiting and coughing. He was evacuated ...": repetition
  • Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• "at Battle of Hamel": at the Battle of Hamel
  • Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Monash rated him as a factor": I'd go with "Monash acknowledged his role"
  • Good idea. Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• "The Major General General Staff": is that right?
  • Yes. That is the formal title. You'll also see the abbreviation MGGS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• "without a tribute to the work and personality Brigadier General T. A. Blamey", "a infinite capacity", and possibly "the instrument to give effect my policies": do those need a [sic]? If so, they kind of take the shine off of this tribute.
  • Ah, Monash in his own voice. He used to talk like that all the time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I added [to], [of], and [an]. When a quote is folksy or informal, we leave it, but when it has elements that look like mistakes, either we insert bracketed corrections or add {{sic}}. - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Blamey's loyalty to Monash would continue after the latter's death in 1931, and would have important consequences.": Great foreshadowing in a literary work ... not so great in WP, because people aren't expecting cleverness, they'll wonder if you left a sentence out. Also, it raises a question it doesn't answer.
  • Yes it does. Keep reading. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• "a joint Army-Navy board": If that was in the name of the board, I'm fine with it, but most connoisseurs of MOS are not, they'll want an en-dash.
  • And they shall have it! Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• "an separate air force": a separate
  • Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Seeing no immediate prospects for advancement.": ?
  • Typo. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• So far so good; it flows nicely. I got down to Thomas Blamey#Chief Commissioner of the Victoria Police. I've promised Nick and MisterBee that I would get to their FACs tonight ... please have a whack at these, and you might want to re-check the rest of it as well. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • No rush on this one. It was only nominated the other day, so it will still be here for the next two months or so. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• The only thing left from above is that "and would have important consequences." needs to be "and would have important consequences for ...", whatever it had consequences for. Questions raised need to be answered somewhere in the general vicinity of where they're raised. - Dank (push to talk) 22:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Continuing. "James McCay": I believe you wrote it "James M'Cay" above.
  • Jim M'Cay? Yes, I wrote that article. Took it all the way to featured. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• I made the changes in the next subsection. I'm now happy down to Thomas Blamey#Second World War, which gets me to the halfway point, and that's all the time I have so I won't be able to offer a support. Hopefully someone else will finish up and support. - Dank (push to talk) 23:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Changed my mind, I'm going to finish this one, then go on a break from copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• The blockquote following "During a speech" needs to be attributed to someone in the text, and the orthography in it needs to follow MOS.
  • Attributed to official historian Dudley McCarthy via a red link. Not sure about the problem is with the orthography... Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Looking quickly, I see a space before a semicolon, spaces around an em-dash, and a comma before a quote mark that may not have been in the original. - Dank (push to talk) 21:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Fixed that. Still don't understand the need in text attribution; the source is in the footnote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Quotes need attribution. Sorry I'm out of time ... I know The_Ed17 can give you some cites on that. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Found them ... see WP:MOS#Attribution, WP:CITE#In-text attribution and Chicago Ch. 13. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
• "when American troops were checked at in the Battle of Buna-Gona": I don't follow
  • Presume you mean that the military meaning of "check" (a form of defeat in which you are forced to stop operations) is too esoteric. Replaced with "serious reverses". Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I meant "checked at in" doesn't make sense to me. - Dank (push to talk) 21:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
      • That disappeared along the way. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• See "and would have important consequences" above.
  • Removed phrase. It's all explained below but to do so here would disrupt the chronology. It would effect the dogma of the right wing in Australia, the country's entry into World War II, and ultimately Australia's role in the creation of the state of Israel. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Otherwise, I finished up and I'm ready to support. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• File:General_Sir_Thomas_Blamey.jpg should use creation/publication rather than upload date - also applies to a number of other images
  • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• File:Australian_Army_Emblem.JPG: on what source was this image based?
  • It says "own work". What is your concern? I can render a legal opinion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Presumably the uploader created this image based on the actual design of an Australian Army Emblem? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes, that would be correct. There is no copyright issue, but there are legal restrictions on its use in Australia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Could File:Blamey_E05006.jpg be cropped a bit at the bottom?
  • Yes, but then he would not be properly in the centre of the photograph. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• File:Thomas_Blamey_statue_Melbourne.jpg: second author link gives error message, other two external links redirect to city homepage
  • Removed dead links. Added the good one used in the article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• What is the copyright status of the UK/Commonwealth ribbons? US are generally PD - is there a similar rule? Also, some of them are missing sources, to verify accuracy
  • Simple designs cannot be copyrighted in Australia. The medal itself can be, but you can always make a two dimensional copy of a three-dimensional artwork. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• File:NLD_Order_of_Orange-Nassau_-_Knight_Grand_Cross_BAR.png: source? What is the copyright status of the original design?
• FN 54, 95, 152: formatting
  • What is the problem? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    • 54 has a stray underline, 95 a doubled period, 152 a hyphen where there should be a dashed and incorrect formatting of quotes within title. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• FN 103, 152, 153, 156: publisher?
  • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• FN 157: why italicize the quote?
  • No idea. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• FN 158, 159: don't italicize location
  • Not sure what you want here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    • The "(Australia)" part isn't actually part of the paper's title, and so shouldn't be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Hmmm. The National Library adds them. Will need to ask them to be more canny. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Check wikilinking in bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Support: I reviewed this late last year at A-class. It was a quality article then and appears to have gotten better since then. I made a couple of tweaks (please check that you are happy with them). Overall, I believe that this article meets the Featured Article criteria, but I have a couple of observations:

• the caption for "File:Australian 1st Division headquarters Anzac 1915.jpg" mentions a "Major Gellibrand". Gellibrand doesn't appear to be mentioned elsewhere in the article, so I'm unsure of why his wounding is significant enough to mention in the caption. Additionally, is this Gellibrand, John Gellibrand? If so, a wikilink might be in order;
• the duplicate link checker identifies a number of terms that might be considered "overlinked". Some might be necessary, others might not:

• in the Chief Commissioner of the Victoria Police section: "Toorak, Victoria";
• in the Middle East section: "Lieutenant General (Australia)", "Iven Mackay", and "John Lavarack";
• in the Papuan campaign section: "Australian Military Forces";
• in the New Guinea campaign section: "Frank Forde";
• in the Final campaigns section: "Gavin Long";
• in the After the war section: "War Office", "Governor General"; "William McKell", "William Bridgeford", "Edmund Herring", "Iven Mackay", "Leslie Morshead", "Sydney Rowell", "Stanley Savige";
• in the Bibliography: "Official History of Australia in the War of 1914–1918"; "Australia in the War of 1939–1945". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• All done. Which duplicate link checker do you use? I've tried a few without success, but you may have a better one, or one may have improved since I last test drove it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• G'day, I've been using User:Ucucha/duplinks reinforced by the Mk I Eyeball. Neither are fully reliable, unfortunately. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 16:09, 28 March 2012 [10].

---

Roy Dowling

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Another Royal Australian Navy officer to follow on from Hector Waller, but one who survived World War II and made his major contributions afterwards, becoming Chief of Naval Staff and subsequently advancing to Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee (COSC) -- sort of a poor man's Chief of Defence Force. He also seems to have been a pronounced anglophile (in contrast to his successor as Chairman COSC, Air Marshal Fred Scherger) who only reluctantly began to sever the RAN's traditional ties to Britain in favour of a more modern US-centric position. Anyway, hope you enjoy it...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Tiny point and possibly of no consequence but, in File:An014908Dowling&Son1952.jpg, "Commodore" Dowling appears to be wearing the sleeve insignia of a Rear-Admiral (unless RAN insignia differ from RN?). Brianboulton (talk) 10:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Tks Brian, it threw me at first too but then according to the caption he was Commodore 1st Class, who (at least in days gone by) could wear the sleeve insignia of a RADM... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    • That's fine. I had two uncles who were naval officers (neither of them admirals), and I think I was prompted by their shades. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Don't bracket ellipses unless there are ellipses in the source
  • I recall you mentioned this during the article's A-Class Review... My response then was that the source itself used ellipses after "as you know, and" so I left them exactly as they were. Then I left a sentence or two out myself, so I bracketed the ellipses to distinguish that. As before, I've no prob altering if there's another commonly accepted style...
• Is there a comma in the Gill titles? Bibliography has one, citations don't
  • God you're a picky so-and-so -- but we wouldn't have it any other way... ;-)
• Might add a border to File:Naval_Ensign_of_Australia.svg in the navbox. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You learn a new parameter every day -- tks for that suggestion, Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks:

• fn 3, 4, 7, 8, 28, 34, 41 - all okay; no close paraphrase.
  • First sentence of World War II section is not supported by source 3; use source 1 instead.
• Comments:
  • Venturous points to V and W class destroyer rather than to HMS Venturous, a red link.
  • ADB says he participated in the Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922), but this is not in the text or infobox
  • Six days later, having been promoted to vice admiral He was promoted to vice admiral on 7 June 1955, two days before getting his gong; the text seems to imply that it was afterwards. (could just be my befuddled brain though)

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Support - my concerns addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Tks Hawkeye! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries; WP:Checklist will explain some of them. - Dank (push to talk)

• This is just a copyeditor's take on the problem mentioned above with "[...]". The blockquote begins:

In the past we have depended entirely on the United Kingdom as you know, and ... would prefer to keep it that way. [...] We now find ourselves at the crossroads because we very much doubt whether the United Kingdom can provide us with what we want in the future. We have no wish to become Americans

• You're implying that readers will know that "[...]" must mean "ellipses mine" and "..." must mean "ellipses in original". But WP isn't full of punctuation expressing fine, carefully drawn distinctions, so I don't know why the readers would assume that here. One option would be simply to delete the first sentence, since it is more or less implied by the follow sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 20:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree about readers, Dank, the way I've done it was actually my interpretation of what MOS says (I could've interpreted it wrongly). I also agree one way of getting round it is simply to drop the first sentence; another is to say damn the torpedoes and put in the part I took out, since I think it was just a sentence or two. I'll re-read and think about it...
    • Looking at it again, I know why I dropped the interleaving sentences -- they weren't that interesting compared to the rest of the quote...! I agree, the first bit isn't really necessary either as we've established that point well enough beforehand. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I don't agree with this all. The first sentence is actually the really the important one. Deleting it changes the whol;e meaning and makes him sound like an Australianist instead of a loyalist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
        • My comment was mainly about the punctuation; I don't have a preference on the wording. - Dank (push to talk) 04:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
        • (ec) Really? With a line like "For that we are not less loyal members of the Empire" as a closer...? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• "were its relegation—since 1950–51—to third place": I understand you want to be accurate, but it raises some questions it doesn't answer ... would it be totally misleading to just say 1950 or 1951?
  • Well, since we're talking budget allocation, I'm guessing the 1950–51 construction was deliberate, meaning Financial Year 1950–51 (FY 1950–51 would begin on 1 July 1950) so I'm not really sure which single year it would be best to choose, though admittedly FYs are sometimes abbreviated in Australia to the second of the two years involved, so "1951" might be perfectly valid. Another option is just saying "since the start of the decade" or some such, WDYT?
    • Either of those would be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 23:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Plumped for the latter, more or less. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments: Nicely written with solid military background. As a UK reader with a little (not much) knowledge of naval procedure and history, it made interesting reading. I have a number of relatively minor quibbles, and a few requests for further clarification:-

• Lead: the executive officer link would be improved by making it executive officer. However, I am not at all sure that the term "executive officer" would have been used in the Royal Navy to denote the second-in-command of a battle cruiser as long ago as the Second World War. Probably "the Commander" (which could confuse our US readers)
  • Well it is the term employed by the admiral who authored the source, so I think I'd better stick with it -- but certainly happy to finetune the link as suggested. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Early career: "The youth entered the Royal Australian Naval College (RANC) at Jervis Bay, in what was then the Federal Capital Territory, in 1915." This is hard for non-Australians to understand, even with the links, and very complicated to explain. I would be inclined to delete "in what was then the Federal Capital Territory", as there is no specific relevance in this information.
  • Took out "in what was then" to cut wording. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• "By January 1923 he was back in Australia, aboard the cruiser HMAS Adelaide." Clarify whether this means he was serving on Adelaide; "aboard" is inspecific
  • Agreed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Awkward "ing...ing" arises with "posting, studying..." Perhaps "appointment" rather than posting? And surely "training" would be a better word than "studying" which sounds far too academic
  • One isn't usually "appointed" to undergo training but since we've mentioned in the same breath that he held the position of gunnery officer, I've gone with it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Jessie accompanied him" a touch informal?
  • Thought it was fair enough since I'd just mentioned her, and better than "his wife" -- no? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Is the section really about his "early career"? By the end of it he is 38 and holding senior rank, so it may be worth splitting the section.
  • Fair enough, prefer renaming it "Pre-war career" to splitting if that works for you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Second World War: Can you specify where and in what form Dowling wrote the lines you quote?
  • The source presents it in exactly that form, with the byline Captain R.R Dowling, DCNS, October 1943. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Dowling took her out on her shakedown cruise..." Maybe drop the word "out"
  • Agreed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Postwar career: "Dowling was given the chance to take command of Australia's first aircraft carrier, HMAS Sydney" Unnecessarily wordy; surely he was given the command, not "given the chance to take command"?
  • Agree that "take command of" was a bit much and dropped "take" and "of" but the source did emphasise the "great opportunity" this presented him -- happy to consider other ways to put it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Dowling embarked Sydney for Australia" This wording reads strangely; is a word missing ("embarked on")?
  • I believe it's valid terminology, meaning he commanded the embarking, whereas "embarked on" could imply merely a passenger. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• We don't say "the Earl Mountbatten", just "Earl Mountbatten" (if he had been the Earl of Mountbatten, then we'd use "the")
  • I think the source used "the", but then it was probably another Australian writer who didn't know any better... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• In what form was Dowling's explanation to Mountbatten (as quoted) given, and when?
  • The source says "told" but gives it in a block quote similar to the way I present it, so I assume it was written correspondence; I used "explained" to hedge my bets... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• "separation from families, lack of houses, over employment..." What does "over employment" mean in this sentence?
  • I've always understood the term to mean more job vacancies than people to fill them. I agree it sounds like another planet, but that's what he said... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
    • The meaning is certainly far from clear; "over employment" could mean "about employment" (e.g. concerns over the employment situation) or "over-employment" (the opposite of under-employment), or perhaps something else, who knows? When something is unclear, it's best to avoid the direct quotation and use paraphrase, thus avoiding the issue. Brianboulton (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I think "over-employment" is reasonably clear given the context and phrasing, but will double-check the ref when I can to make sure I haven't added a space or left out a hyphen where I shouldn't have, as I agree "overemployment" or "over-employment" would be more obvious. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• "no intervention eventuated" - a mouthful. I'd reword.
  • Agreed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Later life: "Succeeded as Chairman of COSC by Air Marshal Sir Frederick Scherger, Dowling retired from the military on 27 May 1961." Sentence seems the wrong way round; surely he retired first and was then succeeded?
  • Fair enough -- checking the precise dates, the events did in fact occur the other way round and not the same day as I'd assumed. BTW, now that Scherger is the mentioned last in the first sentence of the para, pls just check if you think we should explicitly mention Dowling's name in the following sentence, e.g. "Though Dowling was keen to secure..."). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• "an Australian planner": Inadequate description. Suggest follow the source and say "Australian tour planner".
  • Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
• Final sentence: "Survived by his wife and five children, he was cremated" is a little close in format to the source, which reads: "Survived by his wife, two sons and three daughters, he died of a coronary occlusion on 15 April 1969 in Canberra Hospital and was cremated." It's an odd way of putting it, since his wife's and childen's survival has nothing to do with his being cremated. Also, are there no further details to be had, e.g. of a funeral date/place, a memorial service etc (check newspaper files)? He seems too distinguished to be dismissed from this earth so summarily.
  • Great minds... I always thought the article came to a bit of a sudden stop myself but, oddly enough, no online newspaper articles reported the funeral as having happened, only his obits mentioned where it was to take place -- so I've just taken as read that it did occur as planned. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

These points should not be too difficult to fix. Brianboulton (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Many tks Brian -- you've picked up a lot of little things here and there that were niggling me as well, so it was good to get another opinion. Will progressively address the above over the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I have one outstanding prose issue as indicated above; I don't consider it vital, but perhaps you'll consider. I'm also a bit surprised that no published obituary could be located that might enable us to round off the article a little more satisfactorily. Quibbles apart, this is an informative MilHist biography on an obviously worthy character of my grandfather's generation, and will make a creditable FA. Brianboulton (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Tks Brian, appreciate the review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 23:04, 24 March 2012 [11].

---

Xerochrysum bracteatum

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I planted some of these in my garden and they looked great, so I did some reading...and buffed the article. am nominating this for featured article because I don't think I can better it. It got a thorough .going-over by Choess (talk · contribs).....have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• What kind of source is FN 1?

• a book, now formatted and linked to original 206 year old description Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Should identify language for foreign-language sources

• done Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Fn 16: formatting

• Dang, it's the template. Will try and tweak it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books, and if so when you include state/country names

• book publisher/locations added Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• FN 30: punctuation

• got it Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Is Melbourne the same as Port Melbourne? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• It's a suburb of Melbourne. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice article. A few comments

Lead

• Opening sentence: the "'native to Australia" bit seems like it should have a verb in it.

• I think the comma throws it out - have removed offending comma Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Second sentence: "up to a metre high", or tall?

• I have used them interchangeably, but agree tall is less ambiguous. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Fifth sentence: "larvae of leopidoptera" or lepidopterans? Seems like since the adjectival form is in common(ish) use, it probably should be used here.

• adjectival form used. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Second para, third sentence: sold in seed packs "in many countries" - unless there's some sense of what countries (e.g., "many countries in Europe") the statement conveys very little information. In addition, the density of "many" is two high (twice in that sentence, once near the start of the next). I woiul just say "Many of these are still sold in seed packs" and leave it at that

• yeah, removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Fourth sentence: "and have become popular garden plants" or "which have"? There's a subtle difference in meaning, and I suspect you're going for the latter.

• Yes, it is the perennials that are more popular here - "and" reads alright to me but agree "which" is less ambiguous. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• Ventenat "first described" or "described"? Yes, it was the first description of the species, but it sounds like it was Ventenat's first description, which he later followed up with his second and third.

• yeah, took it out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Is "bract" a common enough word that it will be understood with just a link? I think a picture showing the bracts would be useful - if one isn't readily available, what about trimming a detail out of the image in the infobox? There are a couple dry heads in there with visible bracts. A nice little explanation in the image caption would solve the problem without having to engage in a long discussion in the text. Given that the species is named for its bracts, it seems like the kind of thing a reader might be curious about. Quite frankly, I know what bracs are, and I found myself looking for an image here that shows the bracts, rather than the flowers.

• I've switched images and will crop the closep and draw some lines on it tonight to illustrate features Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Andrews reclassified it as Helichrysum bracteatum" - APNI cites "Andrews, H.C. (1805), The Botanist's Repository for New, and Rare Plants 6: sub. t. 428" which I believe to be this in which he justifies the placement of Elychrisum staehelina in Elychrysum (as he spelt it), and later says "X. bracteatum (Plate 375), now Elychrisum bracteatum". Back there, he justifies moving the species out of Xeranthemum based on the fact that "the structure of the receptable...being of great consequence in the formation and distribution of genera". So is this a reclassification? To me, "reclassification" suggests a much greater change in placement. He moves it from one genus to another, he does appear to leave it in the same class and order. There's something about "reclassify" that feels just a tad too major for this transfer...but this is just a very minor nit to pick (and I may be wrong). You might want to consider saying that Andrews transferred it to the genus Helichrysum based on the morphology of its receptable. If not, that's fine - don't consider this an outstanding objection.

• yeah, I like that. I have a more inclusive notion of "reclassified" to include minor rejigs of binomials but I think "transferred" is more exacting here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Henckel and Persoon's descriptions - these are based on different types, presumably. Is that worth mentioning, or would that be obvious to the average reader?

• I can't read what Persoon's type is, but was musing that maybe as they are names coined and forgotten over 200 years ago, might not be worth dwelling on (??). Henckel reports something about the very bold Baudin fetching that specimen, which is sorta cool.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 5: "Anderberg and Haegi placed the members that are known as strawflowers of the large genus Helichrysum" - sentence structure seems odd...perhaps "the members of the large genus Helichrysum" that are known as strawflowers"?

• The gist is that within the large genus Helichrysum (which was a wastebasket taxon), there were several species known as strawflowers which were moved to a new genus Bracteantha (not that the members were all known as strawflowers....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, I got that. It just seemed like putting "that are known as strawflowers" before "of the large genus Helichrysum" made the sentence awkward. Hadn't thought that my suggestion changes the meaning. Guettarda (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• What about something like "...when A&H split the large genus Helichrysum, and placed {the species commonly known as strawflowers/placed the strawflowers} into a new genus Bracteantha". And, btw, if you're interested in shaving a few words off a long sentence, "given the name" could be replaced by "renamed" or simply "named". Guettarda (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'll have a think - they didn't split the genus in 2001 but more hived off some species. Many others remained in hte genus pending further review - Coronidium elatum was not transferred until 2008. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 8: "Bracteantha appearing in literature and horticulture" - "in horticulture" or "in the horticultural trade"?

• I'll pay that - done Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 9: "A 2002 molecular study of the tribe Gnaphalieae" - no prior mention that the species has been placed in that tribe. It probably shouldn't be something the reader has to infer.

• Yeah, have rejigged it so there is an introductory statement and explanation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Para 2: "The species itself is very variable and may represent several undescribed species" - can you rephrase that so it doesn't start and end with "species"?

• done Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Para 3: "in garden situations" or "in cultivation"?

• done Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Description

• Sentence 1: "have a prostrate habit" - is that language too botanical?

• now linked to Prostrate shrub Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 2: "when compared with" or "in comparision with" rather than "compared to"

• to --> with Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 3: "The leaves are lanceolate, elliptic or oblanceolate" - might want to link to leaf shape here.

• Have linked to the adjectives on wiktionary, and also slotted in a link to leaf shape. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 5: " are occasionally multiple on the one stem" - phrasing seems a little awkward

• rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Paras 2 & 3: I'm a little confused here - are you saying that the colours "petals" are actually the bracts, and not ray florets? If not, the description isn't clear enough. If so, this seems noteworthy enough to mention. And since you have some good pix of the heads, it might be nice to include a picture of an individual head here, with a caption pointing out these various features.

• Aah, the petals refers to other plants in general, not this species - that was from the source. Reworded. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm looking at some images for anatomy. All mine lasted two summers and have burnt out now :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

• "occurs in all mainland states and territories" - mighe be worth mentioning "Australia" somewhere in there, for those readers who have long since forgotten that single mention in the lead. Might it be worth mentioning that it is an endemic?

• done Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ecology

• So I suppose that's a "yes", these are bracts, not ray florets. Interesting. Not that I'm a composite expert by any stretch...

• "Grasshoppers also visit" - just to be clear (since I can't access that page in Google books), grasshoppers visit the flowers? As pollinators? Or to munch on some petals...I mean bracts?

• I can't tweak it more than this, as the source doesn't say why or what floral parts are visited Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The plant pathogen Bremia lactucae" - isn't "plant pathogen" a tad vague? Oomycete or water mold would probably be more informative. The abstract of the source also mentions B. lactucae infecting the species in the UK and Egypt. Is there some reason to only mention Italy and California?

• clarified Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Para 3, last sentence: "The root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita) attacks the roots, forming galls on the roots" - too many roots in one sentence.

• done Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Cultivation

• Sentence 3: "which spread over Europe in the 1850s" - spread in or across Europe maybe? "Spread over Europe" makes it sound like it covered the continent, choking out all life ;)

• I will reserve "spread over Europe" for poaceae articles... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Para 1, Last sentence - I've alwasy been told that you shouldn't abbreviate a genus name at the start of a sentence.

• unabbreviated Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Para 1 in general - the sentences are a bit long and complex. Simplification would improve readability.

• Para 2, sentence 1: "newer" probably isn't required given that the sentence is talking about the latter 20th century.

• yep. removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 4: "Many lose popularity" is vague; I think the latter part of the sentence, about the 3-year commercial lifespan, is the main point here, and you should lead with that.

• done Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 5: "known as Sundaze" should follow "of compact plants", not split it from "range"

• done Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 7: " ""Florabella Gold" is a member of the Florabella series, and won..." - unless you want to say what the "Florabella series" is, it would be better to ditch the "is" and the "and".

• done Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Sentence 8: "Other ranges include..." - what's a range?

• added the adjective "commercial" - could change "range" here to "line" I suppose.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Para 3, sentence 3: "Dead-heading flowers" - "deadheading" probably needs explaining - I had no idea what that was (other than the linked meaning) for the longest while.

• done Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Cultivars

• Better to spell out ACRA the first time it's used

• unabbreviated Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• There's a lot of white space (on my monitor, anyway) at the end of this section - might it be usedul to move the 'Strawberry Yellow' pic up a bit?

• moved a bit Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Guettarda (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Guettarda (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments from Jim

• I made a few minor edits, please check Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• they look fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think we link countries any more (also inconsistent, Australia, not Germany

• delinked Australia Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• link subalpine, cultivars, alpine?

• done Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• These bracts are unusual... made up of dead cells, which are unusual... — change one "unusual"?

• rem first "unusual" as (upon reading) the "unlike..." clause covers their unusualnessCasliber (talk · contribs) 17:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Color or colour? — can't have both

• oops, missed that. fixed now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Australian Daisy Study Group — year?

• got it Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

No other queries, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support from Cryptic C62. I have two main concerns. The first is that the lead does not adequately summarize all of the main sections of the article. In particular, it should mention when the plant was first described (Taxonomy), and something from Ecology. My second concern is the preponderance of one- and two-sentence paragraphs. I would prefer to see these merged, expanded, or deleted. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• rejigged the sentences and added something from taxonomy in lead. The last sentence from para 1 in lead is from ecology. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, missed that sentence. Thanks for the good work! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• much appreciated (audible sigh of relief...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Images seem unproblematic, although it might be helpful to have a more informative response to "other versions" than "yes". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. All suggestions below have been satisfactorily handled, and I think the article meets FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Comments by Sasata (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• please review my copyedits and linking

• lookin' good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• no first name & link for Henckel? First names for Persoon, Anderberg, Haegi? (to be consistent with presentation of others)

• first names added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• "… of the 0.3 cm long (0.1 in) fruit." this unit is used adjectivally and thus needs a hyphen, but I'm not sure if this is true if the abbreviated form of the unit is used, and I didn't want to change to full spelling, as it would look out of place with the other abbreviated units. Will let you decide to do something about it, or not care

• I realised it should be "0.3 cm (0.1 in) long", which makes a hyphen even trickier to slot in. I did muse on making the measurements a subordinate clause but I think that makes the English clumsier. I think as is is the path of most reader0harmoniousness..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• refs 6 , 7, 9 need accessdates

• "Retrieved 21 March 2012." x 3 added..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ventenat, who described the species in 1803, was French; was his original material from Europe or Australia? Any chance of citing the protolog?

• Doing some digging, it seems that Joséphine de Beauharnais (Napoleon's first wife) commissioned Ventenat to write the 1803 Jardin de Malmaison to document rare plants that were growing in the Château de Malmaison. JSTOR 4119317 quotes the original, saying the type was "Sous-Arbrisseau originaire de la Nouvelle Holland." or 'Sub-shrub from New Holland (=Australia)' I can't find Jardin de Malmaison online unfortunately (it probably would have had a nice coloured plate), but I think the previous is an interesting part of the plants history that should be mentioned in the taxonomy section. Sasata (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• agreed. fascinating story. will keep an eye out for the book. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• lit review. A lit search of Web of Knowledge and JSTOR turned up little that wasn't already used. I found a few tidbits from a Google Books search that might be useable:
• this source mentions "wallaby" cultivars; of these, 'orange blaze' and 'pink glow' aren't mentioned in the article. This same source also mentions some specific uses of this species (e.g. short-term plants in new plantings; use in large containers and window boxes; designing mosaics with differently coloured cultivars, etc.)

• aha, I was looking for something like this one. I've used them like this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• this source says that the species (as one of the early synonyms, H. bracteatum) is from South Africa? Can you clarify?

• there has been discussion that some early genetic material used in Germany in early breeding in the 19th century came from South African daisies. The other possible explanation is that the authors' main expertise is on northern hemisphere cooking herbs and hence somewhat removed from knowing the plants as well as others. I suspect aspects of the book might be considered a tertiary source too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• this source calls it the 'bracted strawflower'

• wow! the main tidbit of that source is it being naturalised in New England (!) - the name is tricky. No other book uses it so I have no idea how widespread the name is. It is used alot on the web. Need to think about how to phrase it.Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• what do the seeds look like; how big are they? (see this)

• dang, forgot to add - added now (daisy study grp book is national not just Sydney region, so used that as source) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• what are the dimensions of the involucre? (see this) Mentioned in this source, is the cypsela a seed? (if so, you could source seed size and shape with this). Sasata (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• aargh - now the involucre has a different diameter to the flowerhead :P .....so isn't clear whether the Sydney ref is restricting the meaning to bracts on the underside (i.e. not the ones at the edges, or the "wide" is (somehow) the radius...or what). I think this is pretty specialised and unless I can clarify it it murks things up a bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Cypsela is a fruit. Though any normal person would look at it and call it a seed, especially if it lacks a pappus. Like a sunflower "seed", before you remove the shell. Guettarda (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's comment - I don't see any strikes, which is not a problem, but could the nominator confirm that all issues have been addressed? Graham Colm (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• as far as I know, everything is in order. All commenters have supported and I have either fixed queries or explained otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 22:22, 24 March 2012 [12].

---

James G. Blaine

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 18:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because after a GA review and a peer review, it's ready for a shot at the bronze star. Coemgenus (talk) 18:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Coemgenus. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support - I made a few minor changes. I can't see anything wrong with it. Looks like it passes FAC to me.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether explanatory notes have their citations inline or as footnotes
• No citations to Bastert
• Be consistent in whether you provide full page ranges for articles in Sources
• Why provide states for entries in Sources but not for those in Bibliography? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• • I think I've fixed all of these. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comments A good effort, only a few concerns:

Comments by Wehwalt

Lede

• "advocate of black suffrage" As there was at least some black suffrage, perhaps "supporter" instead of "advocate"?

• Changed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I may be overly picky, but my reaction to reading about the coercive measures under Grant was to say "What about the ones under Johnson"?

• I took out the Grant bit. Don't remember why that was in there in the first place. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Maine politics

• "Even in the party's early days," maybe "From the party's early days"?

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• In the second paragraph, consider changing a couple of "Blaine"s to "him".

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Reconstruction

• I would mention which view of what states must ratify the 14th amendment prevailed

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Some appropriate use of links and pipes regarding the Johnson impeachment would be a good thing.

• Done? --Coemgenus (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Monetary policy

• "were ordered to be redeemed in gold" I would say "were made redeemable in gold". Once the act passed, people found they didn't mind carrying them around instead of heavy lumpy gold coins.

• Good point -- almost none were actually redeemed once people knew it was guaranteed. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaker of the House

• "large house on Fifteenth Street in the city.[43] At the same time, the Blaine family moved to a larger house" some variation in the "large house" sequence would be good. In fact, I would suggest changing both, this section talks a lot already about Houses.

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• " fraudulent railroad construction contracts in which the government was overcharged by millions of dollars." Cannot this be shortened?

• Done. That should be less unwieldy. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• " allowed for the fraud" maybe "made the fraud possible"?

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Plumed Knight

• "also resigned as Treasury Secretary three days later" Three days later than what? The close of the convention, I assume. I would clarify.

• Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Secretary of State 1881

• " presiding over the cabinet " Well, he didn't, did he? Wasn't that Garfield's job?

• I'm not sure what you mean here. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• While, especially then, SecState was considered the lead Cabinet post, he doesn't actually preside in Cabinet meetings, the President does. It's purely honorary.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Secretary of State redux

• I would toss a mention of Pearl Harbor (the place) into the first paragraph of the Pacific Diplomacy section.

Good point; it might interest people that Pearl was important to the U.S. even back then. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Carter agreed" This is a strong term. Did he sign a treaty or something?

He agreed enough to take the idea back to Hawaii and propose it to the king and his cabinet. The sources don't say whether Carter put his name to a treaty -- I would guess he did not, but it's vague. I changed the language. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• " Blaine next appointed " Harrison did, actually. Maybe "procured the appointment of "?

Good point. Done. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Can perhaps a paragraph or so be written in conclusion about, if not legacy, at least the effect Blaine had on the nation and the Republican party?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Legacy is tough -- he is nearly forgotten today -- but he certainly had an impact in his day. Give me a couple days to fiddle with some language -- Ealdgyth suggested something similar at GA review and I never got to it, but the Rolde book gets into the subject a bit. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• I added a legacy paragraph at the end. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. Thank you for this well-written, comprehensive article about a very interesting figure in U.S. history. When I first began reading it, I didn't realize he was the one responsible for codifying the separation of church and state in relation to public schools (but should have known, as an education major!). - Lemurbaby (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! --Coemgenus (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. My reservations have been addressed, this seems a fine article on a figure unjustly obscure.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Support - I was the GA reviewer and the article meets all my expectations. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's comment - I would like to see a routine spotcheck of the sources and an image review. Graham Colm (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• File:James_G._Blaine_-_Brady-Handy.jpg needs a US PD tag

I added it.

• Is File:Appletons'_Blaine_James_Gillespie_signature.jpg {{PD-signature}}?

Yes, as far as I can tell. I updated the tag.

• File:AssasinationPresGarfield.JPG: any further info on source? Newspaper name, exact date?

"Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper" (July 11, 1881). I added it to the file on commons.

• File:Bernard_Gilliam_-_Phryne_before_the_Chicago_Tribunal.jpg should identify the copyright status of the original work as well as the restoration

I noted that the original, published in 1884, is PD-US.

• File:Seal_of_the_Speaker_of_the_US_House_of_Representatives.png is tagged as lacking author info

It says its author is User:Ipankonin.

• File:Bharrison.gif: the Executive Office didn't technically exist until 1939, and the image doesn't appear in the link cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they changed the pictures at that site. It is available at the White house Historical Association, so I changed that in the file and changed the permission to PD-US.

I will look into these issues over the next few days. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

That should be all for the image issues. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Closing comment - I took the liberty earlier today of spotchecking the sources, where possible, using Google Books. I found no issues. I think the comments on the images have been resolved.Graham Colm (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 21:48, 24 March 2012 [13].

---

Pilgrim at Tinker Creek

Nominator(s): María (yllosubmarine) 17:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

These gold lights veer and retrack, shatter and glide in a series of dazzling splashes, shrinking, leaking, exploding. The ridge's bosses and hummocks sprout bulging from its side; the whole mountain looms miles closer; the light warms and reddens; the bare forest folds and pleats itself like living protoplasm before my eyes, like a running chart, a wildly scrawling oscillograph on the present moment. The air cools; the puppy's skin is hot. I am more alive than all the world.

Annie Dillard published Pilgrim at Tinker Creek in 1974, when she was only 28-years-old. One year later, she won a Pulitzer Prize. The book is one of my personal favorites: it's poetic, yet strangely detached. Scientific, yet entirely personal. While petting puppies and stalking muskrats, Dillard presents an entirely unique voice -- yes, although the book is compared to Walden, it is unique. So here I present the article, which has been through both GAC and PR. I created the stub way back in 2007, but didn't begin development until last fall. Since then it's been fleshed out and tinkered with, so I now believe it's ready for its star. :) María (yllosubmarine) 17:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources review

• Note 22 (The New York Times): it should be noted that this is a login/subscription site.
  • Added. María (yllosubmarine) 15:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Note 46: Can you give a date (rather than a year) for the Saturday Evening Post article?
  • Date added: November 1, 1974. María (yllosubmarine) 15:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• In the References list there are inconsistencies in how page ranges are presented ("pp." or not "pp.")
  • Added "pp." to all. María (yllosubmarine) 15:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Dillard's official website should not be listed as a cited source and as an External link
  • Hm, I'm not sure about this. The official website's homepage[14] is used as an EL, but the sub-page dedicated to her books[15] is what is used as a source. Does that still count as redundant? María (yllosubmarine) 15:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise the sources look excellent – a wide range of scholarly material, much of it recent. I have not been able to spotcheck as I don't have these sources. The only online sources are the NYT (sub required) and a couple of reference lists. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Support: I peer reviewed this recently. All my comments were in my view properly addressed. Dillard is not too well known on this side of the Atlantic, and I found the article very engaging; it left me wanting to know more about the book and the writer. I have no hesitation in supporting its promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Brian! I have just one question for clarification above. María (yllosubmarine) 15:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's such a small point that I'd leave it alone, unless someone else insists. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Images are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Crisco 1492 comments (leaning support):
  

(Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk)

• Support Fantastic read and it makes me want to read the book Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Crisco! Totally read the book. :) María (yllosubmarine) 14:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Shame shipping costs to my place of residence are sky-high! Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Gerda Arendt

I was impressed already when I reviewed it for DYK, more so now. Minor comments:

• In the lede: "The author has described it as a "book of theology", although she rejects the label of nature writer." - Is that a contradiction?

• Note really, no. Changed "although" to "and". María (yllosubmarine) 15:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Picture of river: what do you think of placing it next to Summary?

• Sure, moved. María (yllosubmarine) 15:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Picture of author: date please

• No date was given, I'm afraid. I asked for permission from her publicist, and was given the photographer's name, but that's it. María (yllosubmarine) 15:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• General: "..." should only follow a word without space if that word is abbreviated, no?

• I believe I've fixed these per WP:ELLIPSES. María (yllosubmarine) 15:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"imagination can meet memory in the dark" - inspiring! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite! Thanks for your comments. :) María (yllosubmarine) 15:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Kommentare
• That the book was her second, published very soon after her first, a slim volume of poetry, should be made clear either in the lead or the 1st section, or both - at the moment it is right at the end.

• Sure, I've added a small mention of the poetry volume to the lead. María (yllosubmarine) 15:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• It should be made clearer what she was doing with herself while the book was being written, which as far as I can tell was being a campus wife

• She was writing full time; no stereotypical subservient wife was she! I added a minor note to this effect in the first section. María (yllosubmarine) 15:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, though I'm not sure subservience is the stereotype. Johnbod (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. ;) María (yllosubmarine) 21:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• When were the last printed editions? Any foreign editions or translations? Available on Kindle etc?

• The 1999 Harper Perennial Modern Classics edition is mentioned in the summary, but Dillard's official website lists bibliographical info about later editions.[16] I'm not a fan of separate sections that simply list reprintings/translations; I think it looks crufty. Any suggestions on how to best present this material? María (yllosubmarine) 15:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well Amazon, even in the UK, makes it clear the book is still in print - 2011 last edition maybe, & that should be said. This "Look inside" copyright notice suggests portions were first published in various magazines, which should be mentioned if correct. The website suggests UK editions, audio books, and several translations, which should be briefly summarized, otherwise it looks US-centric. It's also useful to record some of the foreign language titles in the notes. Johnbod (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. I'll add some info to the last section regarding several notable editions, as well as translations -- I'll comment here again once I've done so. María (yllosubmarine) 21:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Added info to both the first and last section. Thanks for the great suggestion, I think it really helps. María (yllosubmarine) 16:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those cover it. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• The "Summary" section is a bit light on references, in particular for: "One of the most famous passages comes from the beginning of the book...."

• I agree that that particular note could use a reference (added), but plot summaries largely do not require sources because the source is understood to be the work itself. Let me know if anything else jumps out at you. María (yllosubmarine) 15:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• "the difference between waling with and without a camera." - typo for "walking"? And what are "shiners" just after?

• "Walking", not "waling" -- doh! Thanks for the catch. "Shiners" is the actual quote, and I believe it's referring to Shiner (fish) -- added the wl. María (yllosubmarine) 15:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• It's pity we seem to have no photos of the actual creek, but maybe one or two more of Virginia creek life would be good.

• I know, I tried Flickr and other Creative Commons outlets for a free picture of Tinker Creek, but I couldn't find anything. Even the tourist websites for Roanoke have terrible coverage for what is supposed to be a very scenic creek. I'm not familiar with the area, so I did as best I could with a nearby creek. If I come across anything else I'll definitely add it. María (yllosubmarine) 21:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the great comments, Johnbod! I've addressed most of your comments, but I have a question or two above if you don't mind. María (yllosubmarine) 15:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support, Nice article, and all my points adressed. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Support - with a few nitpicks. Congratulations on another nicely written article; I don't think everyone is aware how difficult it is to write about literature in such a clear manner (I least I think it is ...)

• "which she had wrote and published when she was an undergraduate." > maybe "which she had written and published..." or "which she wrote and had published" or something like that

• Sure, changed to the former. María (yllosubmarine) 14:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• "as evidenced by her references to events from previous chapters as the narrative progresses" > I understand what's being said here, but it tripped me up and I had to think about it for a moment - maybe flip so "as the narrative progresses" comes before the "references to events ... "?

• I agree, that wording was awkward. I've removed "as the narrative progresses" entirely, but let me know if something more is needed there. María (yllosubmarine) 14:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Consider linking Walden (either the pond or the work) in the text for people who don't know about it - I think only because it's important as are the transcendentalists

• Definitely. Another reviewer suggested removing the redundant links to Thoreau and Walden, but I've added one back to the first section. María (yllosubmarine) 14:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Seeing and awareness" section > first para ends with "in the book" followed immediately again by "In the book" at the beginning of the second para

• Fixed. María (yllosubmarine) 14:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not bothered too much about this, but I tend to remove the Modern library list from book articles. Just thought I'd mention.

• I was torn about this, but it's something that's been in the article for years now, and I suppose I'm rather used to seeing it. María (yllosubmarine) 14:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think these are odd, but not really bothered. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That's all I could find. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and comments, TK! This was my first non-fiction article -- writing it felt like pulling teeth. I'm glad you think it's clearly written and worthy of its star. :) María (yllosubmarine) 14:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

A lot of them feel like pulling teeth and Dillard, in my mind, isn't totally accessible. You've done a very nice job. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks. :) María (yllosubmarine) 13:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I promoted this to GA, and it got better since then. Well done, Maria. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, Drmies! :) María (yllosubmarine) 02:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

So, that's 6 supports after more than three weeks, with no outstanding issues. Anything else? María (yllosubmarine) 02:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Closing comment – I have taken the liberty, where possible, of spotchecking the sources using Google Books, for example: Nancy C. Parrish (1 September 1999). Lee Smith, Annie Dillard, and the Hollins Group: a genesis of writers. LSU Press. p. 146. ISBN 978-0-8071-2434-5. Retrieved 24 March 2012. (I know this is not the exact edition used). It is healthy for the FAC process in general, for this to done even for established contributors. I found no issues. Graham Colm (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 18:56, 24 March 2012 [17].

---

Jesse L. Brown

Nominator(s): —Ed!^(talk) 23:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article. It's a Good Article and has passed a MILHIST A-class review. I'd hoped to get it up for Black History Month but got delayed. —Ed!^(talk) 23:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks, PD attribution template present. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when "midshipman" is capitalized - differs between caption and article text
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• As File:Naval_Aviator_Badge.jpg is a photo of a 3D object, need to provide licensing info for both the photo and the object itself
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• File:United_Nations_Service_Medal_for_Korea_ribbon.png: do UN service ribbons fall under a similar PD ruling as US ones? On what source was this image based?
  • I believe in a previous FAC it was established that they do fall under a similar PD. Either way, the US government created a PD version of the work. —Ed!^(talk) 00:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• FN 1: entry name shouldn't be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed, I think. —Ed!^(talk) 00:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 comments:

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 and discussion related to them moved to talk page

• Support -- Striking Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries; WP:Checklist will explain some of them. - Dank (push to talk)

• "further to the north": if the source says "outside the South" or similar, then I think that's the best way to put it.
  • Done, while linking to Southern United States for clarity. —Ed!^(talk) 00:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• "There, his enlistment ended 15 April and Brown reverted to the rank of midshipman, becoming the only African American in the program.": I'm not following.
  • Brown's enlistment ended and he ceased to be an active US Navy member and became a full-time midshipman (a pseudo-rank similar to cadet) and as such, he was the only midshipman at that training school. —Ed!^(talk) 00:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• "At this point, he could reveal his marriage to his superiors.": This would work better combined with the last sentence of the paragraph.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Brown crashed into a bowl-shaped valley at approximately 40°36′N 127°06′E": I don't think it's the best use of everyone's time to have an argument about icons and pictographs in running text every time they come up. I'll raise the subject at WT:MIL and see if we can get some answers.
  • Yeah, I had no idea to do with that or how to form it into a sentence or footnote. I wasn't sure if it would be OR to say it was near some landmark or something. —Ed!^(talk) 00:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't think that would be OR, and Dschwen has removed the icon (although it still shows up on just this page for me for some reason!) As long as the icon's gone, I'd say "near (nearest town) (at 40°36′N 127°06′E)". But I can support the way you have it, too. - Dank (push to talk) 02:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer, contingent on addressing my and Crisco's few remaining points. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Let me know if there are any more fixes. Thanks for your review and your copy edits! —Ed!^(talk) 00:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• What's this missing, a source spotcheck? Nikki did source formatting and images, and two editors have weighed in on prose. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I think typically they just look for a third support. I'm not sure what to do to reel one in without canvassing. —Ed!^(talk) 00:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I have the same problem. Hmm... Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'll try to review this today or tomorrow. No guarantees that I'll support though :) Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• I might make some small copyedits as I got through, I won't be offended if you revert.
  • By all means! It can always use refinement. —Ed!^(talk) 03:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Just checking, but Lura was his brother and Johnny was his sister?
  • Yeah, I rechecked that with the sources several times. —Ed!^(talk) 03:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• No article on Lux, Mississippi? How odd.
  • Agreed, but I could find no community directly going by that name. —Ed!^(talk) 03:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• "In fall 1944..." I think this might fall afoul of WP:SEASON.
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• "he found the other cadets were generally friendly and welcoming of him.[15] However, he found many of the black cooks and janitors hostile to him" Very interesting, do any of the sources explain why?
  • Clarified in text. —Ed!^(talk) 00:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• "After he completed this training, he was moved to Jacksonville, Florida, for his final training." Is there a good way to avoid the repetition of "training" here?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Should "east coast" be capitalized? (Honestly not sure.)
  • Yes, it should. Fixed it. —Ed!^(talk) 00:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Minor issue, but in the last paragraph of Military career you start consecutive sentences with "Brown..." (The first three sentences of that paragraph are also kinda short, maybe try to combine a couple.)
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Did you intend to use the serial comma? I see "installations around Wonsan, Chongpu, Songjim and Senanju" and then "squadron executive officer Lieutenant Commander Dick Cevoli, Lieutenant George Hudson, Lieutenant Junior Grade Bill Koenig, Ensign Ralph McQueen, and Lieutenant Junior Grade Thomas J. Hudner, Jr."
  • Fixed so there are no serial commas. —Ed!^(talk) 00:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• "was forced to leave at nightfall with Hudner, leaving Brown behind." Is there a good way to avoid the "leave... leaving" here? *Maybe not the name of Taylor's book in the text?
  • Fixed. —Ed!^(talk) 00:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Alright, that's all I could spot, very well written, fascinating article. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• • I've fixed everything. Thanks for your review! —Ed!^(talk) 00:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, all the issues that I could spot have been resolved, so I am happy to Support this article's promotion to featured status. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 00:27, 24 March 2012 [18].

---

Toothcomb

Nominator(s): – Maky ^« talk » 23:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm back! (This is Visionholder, or VH... but under a new name.)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FAC criteria. In researching the toothcomb, I feel I have found all of the materia available, not only for lemuriforms, but also for other types of mammals. Therefore the article should be comprehensive, although strongly weighted towards the discussion of the lemuriform toothcomb, which dominates the academic literature (mainly due to its importance in primate evolution). – Maky ^« talk » 23:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Reads well. Quibbles:

While licking the fur clean, the animal will run the tooth through the fur to comb it. - This sentence raises a slight question: isn't it suggested in the previous paragraph (and later, under anatomical structure) that the toothcomb is several teeth?

Good catch. Originally it was supposed to be either "toothcomb" or "teeth", and it somehow came out as a mixture of the two. It's been fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 03:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The French anatomist Henri Marie Ducrotay de Blainville first identified the two lateral teeth of the lemuriform toothcomb as canines in 1840,[18] despite that the first lower premolars following the toothcomb are usually shaped like typical canine teeth (caniniform)[4][19] and assumes their function. - It might be useful to explain function of canines, though it's your call I guess. Also, it should be assume.

Typo fixed. I need a few minutes to think about how to address the other issue. – Maky ^« talk » 03:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The sublingua can extend below the end of the tongue and is tipped with keratinized, serrated points that rake between the front teeth.[21][22][23] - Out of curiosity, this means that it's tipped with pure protein structures? I realize it's hard to avoid jargon sometimes without giving distracting background information.

This is what the sources say. Although I have never personally seen a sublingua (although I had the chance, had I known to look), the photos and videos I've seen of it show it to be pale or white. Apparently it's quite firm, especially at the tip. Beyond that I can't say. All I know is that it is a very poorly known structure, and when I wrote the article, I apparently turned up a bunch of long-forgotten information about it that surprised the leading experts (who had been using the wrong name for it by mistake). – Maky ^« talk » 03:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This would conflict with the molecular clock estimates by evolutionary anthropologist Anne Yoder and others, which predict lemur/loris divergence dating between 61 and 90.8 mya.[61] - Could you replace the slash with a dash? I think it would fit better.

Done, thanks! – Maky ^« talk » 03:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. ceranthor 23:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
• Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, thanks. – Maky ^« talk » 19:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Support - Having followed the article through GA, I'm happy with the content, sourcing, and readability of this article. Jack (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Really interesting to see an article like this at FAC. I'd love to give it a read through as an interested non-biologist if I get the chance. Anyway-
Image check: Was File:Toothcomb - Jones 1918.jpg first published in the US? I note the author is British. If it was not first published in the US, or you are not sure, please use Template:PD-US-1923-abroad. If it was, consider tagging it to move to Commons. Others check out (and I've confirmed the OTRS permission.) J Milburn (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I honestly can't tell where it was published. The journal has offices in both the US and the UK. And who knows if the publication location has change between now and 1918. Before I uploaded them, I deferred the decision to some admins on a Commons IRC chat channel, and what you see is what they suggested. Also, I originally intended those uploads to be temporarily, but I'm not sure if I can find anyone to create new color illustrations, both for this article and for my next FAC, Sublingua. Anyway, if you want I can try writing to the publisher... but I've found that permissions departments tend to be quite unresponsive (from all the major publishers). – Maky ^« talk » 01:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the journal was published in the UK, at least in the 1910s. Ucucha (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've added this information to the image page. Images all check out copyright-wise for the English Wikipedia's purposes; nice work getting hold of them! J Milburn (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have duplicated your edits for 2 other images taken from the same publication. – Maky ^« talk » 17:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• "If feeding ecology could have such profound effects on shape the anterior dentition". Is a word missing after "shape"?

Fixed. Nice catch. – Maky ^« talk » 06:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Refs 35, 43, 49, and 64 should have pp. in the cites, not p., since they are for page ranges and not single pages. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Another good catch. Thanks! – Maky ^« talk » 06:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim A scholarly piece of work which I look forward to supporting. But first a few nitpicks to show that I've read it (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• You use both "antelope" and "antelopes" as the plural of the animal. I much prefer the normal plural, since six antelope, three lion etc. is big-game hunter jargon, but you need to be consistent. Also seems odd having (plural) "antelope", but all the lemurids are given normal plurals.

Done. – Maky ^« talk » 14:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• lemuriform primates (which includes lemurs and lorisoids).' — I don't like the unfamiliar word preceding its definition. I'd prefer lemurs and lorisoids (the lemuriform primates) — I'm really scraping the barrel here, so feel free to ignore.

You have almost got me convinced to make the change. The only reason I haven't is that I was trying to be consistent by putting words I plan to use again in the front, followed by their definitions. If you think it would read better and that such consistency is not important, I'll make the change. Also, what do you think about either moving or duplicating the footnote the explains the choice of wording ("lemuriforms") to the lead? – Maky ^« talk » 14:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• confused for canines — confused with..

Done. – Maky ^« talk » 14:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• but between the lack of striations on the teeth — I'm not sure that "between" is really the right word in this sentence.

Changed to "due to". – Maky ^« talk » 14:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• pheromones — is this the right word here? I think of pheremones as insect secretions that force stereotypical responses, presumably in primates there is a degree of conscious control over the chemical messengers? Not a big deal, just wondering.

The long snout and wet noise of mammals houses a vomeronasal organ (VNO) in the roof of the mouth. The VNO is connected to the wet nose, and although the exact mechanics of how pheromones are transferred is unknown, I think that it's universally accepted that the VNO is used to detect pheromones. We don't know much about the reactions, but they are likely to be automatic and immediate. Humans are also suspected of communicating with pheromones, even though we lack a VNO. From personal experience, even our responses are stereotypical and very hard to control consciously. Anyway, one of these days I hope to collaborate with someone and re-write the articles Rhinarium and Vomeronasal organ. When I bring them to FAC, you can learn all about them.  ;-) – Maky ^« talk » 14:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Miocene — needs link

Done. – Maky ^« talk » 14:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• 90.8 mya — how is it possible to date this to within 100,000 years?

Can't speak from personal experience, but my guess is that it's calculated mathematically and that the decimal point has something to do with significant figures. Anyway, that's what the source says. – Maky ^« talk » 14:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• I note that all your images are of lemuroids, have you checked whether there is anything suitable to illustrate antelopes?

There is one illustration of a colugo toothcomb (which is a close relative of primates). But otherwise there is hardly more than a paragraph of unique information published about the antelope "toothcomb" that I've been able to find. As the article states, the lemuriform toothcomb has been studied extensively, while the others are hardly known or documented. I wouldn't even be surprised if toothcombs were far more common among mammals, but either haven't been described as noteworthy characteristics or have been given special terminology. The antelope toothcomb, for instance, is called a "lateral dental grooming apparatus" (or "lateral dental elements" or "ruminant grooming apparatus"...). The only reason I even stumbled across it is because one of the articles that discusses it noted the similarity with the lemuriform toothcomb. Had they not made mention of it, my searches never would have uncovered it. I'll try emailing the researchers and ask for a photo. – Maky ^« talk » 14:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with the responses above, an antelope pic would be good, but I wasn't expecting one to suddenly appear, so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I had good luck getting a dental pad photo once, so I'll see what I can get for the "lateral dental grooming apparatus". – Maky ^« talk » 20:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Maky, doesn't appear to have been a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing here; can you point to a recent such check for one of your contributions at FAC? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Historically, Ucucha has done spotchecks of my FAC noms (when I nominated under the name "Visionholder")... although I'm not sure how that's relevant to this one. In fact, quite a few of my sources are available online for checking if anyone wants. The links are in the references. – Maky ^« talk » 22:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Since a spotcheck is just that, something designed to get a feel for the accuracy of sourcing and avoidance of copyvio or close paraphrasing, rather than a rigorous inspection of each and every citation, FAC doesn't necessarily require one to be performed for all the noms that someone submits. Hence if you can point to a recent one that was largely 'clear', we might not require it for this article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been inactive for a while in regards to FAC, but one of my last candidates was Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Seacology/archive1 dating to October 2011. The spotchecks are in there near the top. I hope that is recent enough. – Maky ^« talk » 02:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Had a look, that should suffice. For your next FAC I think we'd expect one, however -- even experienced editors need to be kept on their toes... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I actually expect one every FAC. But I also realize how demanding they are. – Maky ^« talk » 01:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 08:58, 22 March 2012 [19].

---

Georg Solti

Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have brought articles on other conductors to FA, and Georg Solti seems to me among the finest of his generation. His career was strikingly varied, and perhaps more than many of his colleagues, his life story is interesting for more than purely musical reasons. As always I shall be glad of comments on the prose, the balance, the proportions and anything else. – Tim riley (talk) 12:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Culshaw 1967 or 1968?
  • Amended (to 1967). – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • I've replaced it with a ref to the Royal Opera House's website. – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• For newspaper/magazine/journal articles, be consistent in whether the author name is followed by a comma or period
  • Now consistent. – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Be consistent in how multi-author sources are notated
  • Done (I think). – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• FN 14, 99: italicization
  • Amended (two earlier refs removed, so these are now notes 12 and 97) – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• FN 25: publisher?
  • Added. – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether page notations are spaced or unspaced
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• FN 61: missing opening quotation mark
  • Amended. (As above, now note 59). – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Use a consistent format for journals - compare for example FNs 78 and 81
  • Done. – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Compare FN 83 vs 84
  • (Now notes 81 and 82.) The punctuation? Both are as printed in the original. Strange, I agree. – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• FNs 2 and 107 appear to be the same.
  • Removed the one in the lead. – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Why does FN 113 not match the same source in bibliography?
  • Amended. – Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think (I certainly hope) I have picked up all the points you mention above. My thanks, as always, for your keen-eyed vigilance. Tim riley (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Looks good, will try to do a full review--from the looks of the lead and the first couple sections I may not have much to say. I made a few small formatting--feel free to revert. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• There are a few wikilinks that are repeated somewhat closely together, check Ludwig van Beethoven, Salzburg Festival, EMI Classics, Chicago Symphony Orchestra, and Moses und Aron.
  • Thank you: I'll check them all. Tim riley (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Also, I noticed you have "Moses und Aron" once and "Moses and Aaron" twice, was this intentional? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It was, though I dithered over it. I have tried to reflect the language in which the performances in question were given. At the Garden in the 1960s it was given in English. The Decca recording was, unsurprisingly, in German. The alternative would be to refer to it by its German title throughout and add "(in English)" at the Covent Garden mention, but that seemed to me to be making too much of the point. Happy to go with the consensus on this, naturally. Thank you for these points. Tim riley (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, I guess that's fine then, I didn't realize it was given in English at the garden. (that might justify the repeated link too).
• "At about this time Solti dropped the name "György" in favour of "Georg"." Do we know why he changed it?
  • He doesn't actually say in his memoirs, but I get the impression that Hungarian names were not popular in Germany at the time. And most Europeans and Americans can manage "Georg", but "György" might have been (might still be) daunting for non-Hungarians to attempt. I believe it actually sounds rather like "George", but one mightn't guess it. Tim riley (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, I guess we'll just have to wonder then. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• "In Switzerland he was not permitted to work as a conductor, but earned his living as a pianist..." Do you know why he wasn't allowed to conduct?
  • He couldn't get a work permit for anything very much, and at first scraped a living in the grey economy until he won the piano competition, after which he was given a permit to work as a pianist. Tim riley (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, I see now, I'm not sure if that is clear in the article though. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I'll add a sentence, either in the text or as a footnote. Tim riley (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• "They married in 1946.[1] He wrote of her..." When did he write this, later in his life, I assume? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, in his memoirs, written in his last months and posthumously published. Do you think I should say so here? Tim riley (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, it might be helpful to state that it was in his memoirs. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
      • It shall be done. Tim riley (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Done. Tim riley (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Just a suggestion, but it might be nice to have a brief explanation of the politics behind why he was "effectively stateless as a Hungarian exile" and believed "believed he could never return to Hungary". Mark Arsten (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The Communist regime was no keener than the earlier Fascist one to have him back, though it isn't at all clear to me from the sources why not. Residual anti-Semitism? A feeling he had sided with the West? I have wondered, but can find no reliable answer. The matter became acutely critical for him, as the US wouldn't give him a visa, and he had to delay his US debut until the German government gave him German nationality. Tim riley (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, well, like above, we'll just have to wonder. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Thank you for all these suggestions. I agree with them all, and will act on those for which I can produce a proper source. Tim riley (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- Alright, your responses to my above comments look good to me, I left a couple MOS comments below. I am more than willing to support this article's promotion to featured status. It is a beautifully written, comprehensive article, and is probably one of the best I've read in some time--great job. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• One quibble, at the end of the fourth paragraph of the Covent Garden section and in note 14 you have some linked terms inside a quote, I think that's frowned upon in the MOS, but that may just be a preference issue.
• Also a MOS quibble: "seven of Shostakovich's 15 symphonies" I think it's frowned upon to switch between words and numbers like that.
• I made a few small copyedits to punctuation and rephrased a couple sentences, but feel free to revert if you don't like my rephrases. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I think you're right about links from within quotes, and I try not to overdo them, but sometimes it seems unhelpful to the reader not to add a link.
  • Good point about seven/15. I'll amend. Thank you so much for your help and support. Tim riley (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Support: My comments are recorded in the peer review, at which all my concerns were fully addressed. The above comments are useful, and help to enhance the article still further. I saw Solti conduct Mahler, circa 1976, and by then I'd heard his epic recording of the Eighth: Lucia Popp, Arleen Auger, Heather Harper, Yvonne Minton, John Shirley-Quirk, a tenor whose name I forget—I remember them all (with that exception). But I ramble. All I can think to say now is that the bust of Solti in Chicago, in my view, looks nothing like him; maybe they did it on the cheap and used an existing head? No, seriously, all I can really say now is well done (again). Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that support, and for your very thorough peer review. It is such a pleasure to find one's efforts improved by the perceptive suggestions of Wiki-colleagues. (As to the bust, all Frink heads look exactly the same.) Tim riley (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Images: File:Solti György sírja.jpg lacks an English description (I added a FOP tag). File:Georg Solti Monument.JPG is falsely labelled as both PD and non-free; for our purposes, it's one or the other (at the very least, the appearance of the image in PD categories is contrary to the NFCC- as an example of how I'd recommend dealing with images like this, see File:Notre dame de la paix yamoussoukro by felix krohn retouched.jpg.). However, regardless of this issue, the image does not seem to meet NFCC#8. Yes, the statue is discussed, but mere discussion of something does not justify a non-free image of it; equally, discussing a person in an article would not justify using a non-free image of that person. If there was sourced commentary on the artistry/appearance of the sculpture, then perhaps; as it is, it's just details about its location; sorry. J Milburn (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have warned the editor who put the image there that I didn't think it would survive scrutiny at FAC. Ought I now just remove the image? Tim riley (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that's the only option, really, unless you were able to determine that the statue is in the public domain (which seems unlikely). J Milburn (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks to Tim for his excellent work, and kindly allowing me to defend my contribution. It's my image and has been in the article and on the Pedia for a long time. Obviously, I disagree that it is not fair use. I guess I didn't realize this is a current controversy, see Wikipedia:Non-free content/Cover art RfC. I think the above interpretation is overly restrictive of educational content and, although, I don't have time right this minute, I would like to discuss it further. For the time being, I am registering my objection. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
    • But, before we get into extensive discussion, about how visual art and its setting is markedly different from people, requiring different analysis, about how other FAC articles are similar in their use, and what is really required by NFCC#8, I have added more detail, and comment, and cites to the sculpture discussion at Georg Solti#Honours and memorials to address the concern. Please, re-review? As for the more technical tag issue, the photo contains original elements with respect to the setting, so the current tags seem appropriate, as written (it would be odd not to require clear free license for those elements). I agree about the categories, though, and would delete them, as needed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I think this image is acceptable as a non-free image, as there is sufficient discussion of the sculpture in the text. If the problem is the background around the sculpture, you could crop the image. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Thanks. I have modified the tags to address the issue (I think the setting is educational, as well). I think all issues are now addressed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
          • This is completely the wrong way to approach the issue. "Hmmm, I want to use this picture; how can I modify the article so it meets the guidelines?" is not how we should be thinking. Intead, we should ask "Given that we want to use the minimal amount of non-free content possible, how little can we get away with here? What is required?" I concede that, now there is comment on the artistic style of the sculpture, the image does seem justifiable, but I still don't think it's necessary; the article is hardly horrifically damaged without it. (As an aside, there's simply no way it was justifiable beforehand. Alan, I can explain this in detail, if you like. It's not really related to any serious controversy short of the "controversy" as regards NFC generally; it pretty clearly wasn't OK as per the NFCC. Calling something controversial doesn't make it so. I'm sorry if this sounds unconciliatory, but we already have our compromise- the NFCC represent the compromise between the pro-non-free and the anti-non-free. We can't then try to compromise the NFCC with some third other position.) J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Why is that the question, we should be asking? Your talking about a legal policy not an educational policy, and for a legal policy all that must be observed are the forms. You also, in an assuming-bad-faith-way badly misstate my position. I don't want to "use the image." I want to increase the educational value of the article, with the image. Wikipedia's primary purpose is not free v. non free. It is knowledge vs. not knowledge; education vs. not education; information vs. non information. Since the image is now justifiable (whatever it was or wasn't before), it's not this FAC process that determines use but the ordinary consensus process, and this image has been deemed appropriate and educational in the article for over a year, by that process. And it does significantly so, including issues about reputation, legacy, honor, international importance, appearance of art and memorial.Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
              • I'm sorry, are you now trying to say that we shouldn't be starting with the assumption that we should use the minimal amount of non-free content possible? It absolutely is not the case that "for a legal policy all that must be observed are the forms"; that's just wikilawyering. Where on earth are you getting that idea from? The NFCC have to be respected as much as any other policy; often moreso, precisely because of the legal implications. You seem to be making the claim that because this policy has legal implications, we're allowed to treat it more loosely than others, which is... weird. The false dichotomy between "knowledge and free" is an argument that'll get you nowhere- if it's needed, it's allowed. It's pretty clear that this isn't needed. Would the article really be severely lacking without it? I doubt it. Of the reasons you list, "reputation, legacy, honor, international importance, appearance of art and memorial", only one of them (appearance of the art) actually indicates that an image might be needed. You claim that the image was "deemed appropriate and educational in the article for over a year", but were you not told when the image was first added that it was probably too trivial to survive FAC? And yes, I most certainly agree that FAC can't go against "the ordinary consensus process", but nor can you; you may have forgotten that the NFCC actually have consensus. To repeat, we cannot say "well, the NFCC are at position A, but I'm at position C, so the consensus is position B". We have to go with the policy. If I'm misstating your position, it's because you're giving the impression that you have no idea what the NFCC are or say. J Milburn (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Please. It is your comments that keep misstating policy (and your continued incivility regarding not reading it is, also noted). Your comments ask questions not asked by policy, and make statements not supported by policy. Nowhere does NFCC#8 say that. In fact, "necessary," is almost never used in the entire NFCC policy except four times and not in any way relevant, here ("need" or "needed", 8 times but also not in the way your comments do), because "necessary" does not have consensus, and is against policy. Other hyperbole in your comments that are contrary to policy are "damaged horrifically." And no, I was not told that, it appears you are unfamiliar with the history of the article and what I was told? And no, my first point (in the immediate preceding comment) merely pointed to the latitude given to editors by policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• The nominator is clearly caught in the middle of this argument and it's holding up promotion of the article. As I don't consider myself an expert on non-free images and can see merit in some points on both sides, I'm going to ask for an additional opinion that I hope the nominator can act on and bring this to a close. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment on non-free image. Ian asked me to offer an additional opinion here. With apologies to the nominator and the photographer, I must concur with J Milburn that the image does not meet NFCC#8. It simply does not add substantively to the understanding of the topic, which is Georg Solti. A case might could certainly be made for the image in the sculptor's article (or in an article about the statue, if there was one) but not here. Let's remember that FA status represents our best work, including our best application of policies and guidelines. I recommend that the image be removed. --Laser brain (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• This is far from the best application of policy, as "topic" in policy means topic for which the image is used in the article, which is "Honours and memorials" of George Solti. And of course, it does add "substantively" to that. I thank Tim, kindly, for his time. But enforcement of this policy here by the misstatements made is most regrettable, and far from Wikipedia's best work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• • I have removed the image, as instructed. Tim riley (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Most regrettable for the damage done to educational value, but they gave you no editorial control as allowed by policy; thanks again for your fine work. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• I am most grateful to Alanscottwalker for acquiescing with good grace to force majeure. If I may say so, his colleaguely attitude is in the best traditions of Wikipedia. Thanks too to all the editors who commented on this question. Tim riley (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

And you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Tks all re. this discussion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Kommentar Very good article, and nearly there, but I think some of the critical comments should be brought out of the notes & put into a section on his style, which remains rather controversial. Was he not distinctive in insisting orchestras followed him on his beat, not behind it as usual? The point might also be made that his age was ideal for an opera conductor, spanning exactly the golden period (which he helped to create) of studio opera recordings in terms of budgets, and arguably technology. When I saw the contracts & royalties department at Polygram some 30 years ago, where the artists never penetrated, they had a large poster on the wall of "Sir Jaws" as they liked to call him, leaning forward conducting some intense passage. There was an added speech bubble saying "Give me my money and give it me now". Johnbod (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Interesting – thank you. I can't remember seeing any references to his insistence on being followed on, rather than after, the beat. The most likely source would be Donald Peck's book, but he doesn't mention the matter (he describes Reiner's and Monteux's baton techniques but not Solti's, beyond calling it "incisive"). I'll be interested to see if other reviewers think a "style" section would be helpful. I haven't put one in previous FA articles on conductors, but I'm happy to do so here if there is a consensus that I should. Tim riley (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't of course mean just "critical" comments by critics. Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Quite so. Now I come to think of it, I did something of the sort in Sir Adrian Boult's article here. Is that the sort of thing you have in mind? Tim riley (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly that - in fact that's fuller than I had in mind, but excellent. With some conductors consistent critiques of style are hard to pin down I think, but not Solti. Everyone seems agreed as to his strengths and weaknesses, but differ on their overall net result - and of course he was more successful in some areas of the repertoire than others. I can probably dig up some pithy quotes from the Opera on Record book & the Penguin & Gramophone guides if needed. Let me know. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd still like to see what other reviewers think, but I'll start drafting a similar section for this article. Tim riley (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I comment on this below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Kommentar In the third paragraph of the lead, "reputation. . . for some time" is, it seems, unaccountably vague, as to who and time. Is what is meant: "fortunes," and "during the tenor of its immediate prior director"," "since 1955", "since 1910" or . . .? I see reference to an earlier celebrated decade and to debt, in the body of the article, but it does not really elucidate the sentence in the lead. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Redrawn (without mentioning poor Martinon). Tim riley (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Good. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I fully support this nomination. The article is well-written, comprehensive, nicely illustrated and thoroughly researched. One statement has been recently added that needs referencing: "It has twice been voted the greatest recording ever made, in polls for Gramophone magazine in 1999 and the BBC's Music Magazine in 2012." As for a "style" section, it should only be added if there is well-referenced material that demonstrates that Solti's style was distinctive - lots of conductors are "incisive" or "intense", so it would have to describe something unusual about his style that is discussed, rather than just mentioned, by the commentators, as being important. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm! You may find these google searchs on "Solti sledgehammer" and "Solti brutal" instructive. "Haitinck brutal" results all seem to refer to the composers (or Solti). Of course those are the negative views, mostly. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Thank you for the support and comments. The "greatest recording" poll was previously mentioned in the text and an editor though it notable enough to mention in the lead. I am open-minded on the matter, but I think the cited ref in the main text covers the pre-echo in the lead. I look forward to seeing what other editors think about a "style" section. Tim riley (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Quite right, Tim. I missed the refs in the body of the article. I agree that it is fine as is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support I think enough is said about his musical style without a need for a new section. The interested reader may pursue it further in more specialized outlets.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

*Support This meets the featured criteria. Thanks. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Tim, can you point to a spotcheck of sources at one of your recent FACs, as one doesn't appear to have been performed on this one? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

User:DrKiernan gave me a comprehensive going-over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Barbirolli/archive1 last month, and then, to my continuing guilt, most generously gave the Jacques Offenbach article another spotcheck and source review in advance of an FAC that subsequently keeps vanishing into the distant horizon. Tim riley (talk) 22:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Tks Tim -- Barbirolli's is recent enough to earn you a bye this time round. Now, although I'm satisfied with the checks and the level of support, and there's no specified minimum time for a FAC to remain open, I'd like to leave this one a little longer to give anyone else who's interested a chance to comment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of source paraphrasing

• Article: "A series of "Hungarianisation" laws were passed by the right-wing regime of Admiral Horthy" ; Source: "After the First World War, a series of "Hungarianisation" laws were passed by the Fascist regime. – not particularly severe, but could do with rephrasing

That one was actually the only I could find, and I checked every cited source not behind a paywall. Eisfbnore ^{(下さいて話し)} 10:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I'll redraw as active rather than passive, which is probably better in any case. Tim riley (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Later: done. Tim riley (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 23:20, 20 March 2012 [20].

---

Capcom Five

Nominator(s): Axem Titanium (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FAC criteria. It was promoted to GA and I am prepared to address any concerns about the gap between GA and FA. With this article, I tried to place the Capcom Five in its proper historical context—part of the ongoing relationship between Nintendo and Capcom. Hope you like it! Axem Titanium (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Resolved comments from Mark Arsten moved to talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- Alright, at this point I think all of the issues that I was able to find have been satisfied and I'm now willing to support this article's promotion to featured status. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for all your helpful comments! Axem Titanium (talk) 06:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Comment: The article looks in good shape and I'm leaning towards supporting it (though I would say that, I reviewed it at GAN). I've tackled most of the overlinking thanks to Ucucha's script; I've left the links to the individual games in their relevant headings there for the time being but I'm now thinking that perhaps unlinking them there and using {{Main}} to provide the same navigational function would be a better approach. GRAPPLE X 12:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for the help. I feel that adding Main links might disrupt the flow more than it needs to (it's already suboptimal to have the 3rd level headings for each game). Do you notice any prose issues? Axem Titanium (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  I've kept an eye on the changes being made here, and I'm more than willing to support now. Nice work, and I'd love to see this as the head of a featured topic some time in the future. GRAPPLE X 01:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot! Axem Titanium (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• "to reach a wider audience and maximize profitability" - source?
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Check for typos in references (ex. FN 7) and minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • Those doubled periods are because passing in "Foo Inc." into the publisher parameter of cite web doesn't remove the excess period. I just removed the Incs. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This? This? This?
  • Nintendojo. Destructoid is a "situational source" according to WP:VG/S; the Destructoid article is by Jim Sterling, who also works for IGN UK (he also authored Fn 79). Looking into others... Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry I've been absent this week. Two presentations, whew! Anyway, I replaced the NerdMentality ref with one from VG247, which is approved by WP:VG/S. I also replaced Pietriots with Edge magazine. I removed Brainy Gamer, Infendo, and N-Europe. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Okay, thanks. The Nintendojo discussion you link suggests it is situational, so need a bit more info on why that would apply here. Could you also link the VG/S discussion for VG24/7? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
      • VG247. The Nintendojo article was written by Adam Sorice, who has since been promoted to co-Editor-in-Chief, which suggests that he has been praised for his editorial oversight. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• This link returns an error message - check for and fix broken links
  • Argh. The archive link used to work! Commented out. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether web sources are cited using publisher or homepage
  • Not sure what you mean here. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I think she means the work parameter. You should stick to either publisher or work, not switch between them. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Ok. I think I fixed that. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Also in how those are formatted - compare FNs 82 and 84 or 65. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Ah, I missed one. They should be consistent now. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Fn 24, 46: page(s)?
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Fn 37: too many IGNs
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Check for wikilinking consistency
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• FN 44: issue?
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with all your copyedits. What were you looking for in changing tone? Axem Titanium (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
    • The spots I flagged - "another episode in Nintendo's perennial quest", for example - seem rather journalistic in tone. Try to word them a bit more formally. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I tried to work on the tone. What do you think? Axem Titanium (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Better, but I'm not crazy about the "series is a symbol" verbiage, nor about "Learning from this experience, Capcom discovered a few principles..." Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Alright, I did some more compressing. How about now? Axem Titanium (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
          • Much better. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Good to hear. :) Axem Titanium (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support well-written and instructive article (and good to see that despite the subject, only one non-free image is used...). igordebraga ≠ 13:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I'm glad you liked it. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 comments:

• Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk page.
• Support: Very nice indeed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I will post a spotcheck when I get home (~6h from now), I have one half-completed (didn't have time to finish this morning). Clay^Clay_Clay 19:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC) Spotcheck of some high-density sources (1, 3, 4, 21, 22, 37)

• No problems: 1(a, d through h), 3(all), 4(b through e), 21(a, b), 22(a, b, d), 37c
• Misrepresentation:
  • 1b) Source: "The arrival of the PlayStation in the mid-90's had seen Capcom shift much of its attention to Nintendo's rival, with games like Resident Evil helping put Sony's console on the map."
    Article: "Due to increased manufacturing costs and severely limited cartridge memory capacity, many third parties—Capcom included—moved to the PlayStation to start new franchises, such as Resident Evil."
    Notes: The source states Capcom specifics, and doesn't mention general motivation behind the move (which is likely to be disputed). Ref #3 can probably be used to support this.
    • Probably got sources #1 and 3 confused somehow. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • 4f) Source: "The game revolves around a warrior and takes place on a floating ancient city. The warrior must slay monsters and other disgusting creations that inhabit the world."
    Article: "Capcom's announcement described the setting as a mythical floating city, full of demons and dragons."
    Notes: Described as "monsters" in source, then "demons and dragons" in article.
    • Must have misplaced a ref here. It's in ref #25. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • 22c) Source: Talks about struggles in the overseas market
    Article: "The first was to focus on multi-platform releases and avoid GameCube where possible."
    Notes: Source says nothing about avoiding GameCube, just about multiplatform releases.
    • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Not in source:
  • 1c) Article: This third-party abandonment allowed the PlayStation to outsell the Nintendo 64 during that console generation.
    Notes: Source says nothing about N64. Could also probably be covered by ref #3.
    • As I said, I probably got these confused while I had 20+ tabs open. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • 21c) Article: These ports were generally inferior in quality: many reviewers noted slowdown issues and lower resolution graphics.
    Notes: This sentence is supported by two other citations, removing would be appropriate in this case.
    • What do you mean? Should I leave it uncited? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • 37b) Article: Mikami was also upset by the port because it went against his promise to GameCube fans.
    Note: The source mentions nothing about his being upset.
    • Found another source which is more explicit about his reaction. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• Random (not sourcing problems, per se):
  • 4a) The text is in one big block quote in the article, but in the source it is split up into 3 paragraphs. Do you think you could format it like in the source, so it isn't such a wall of text?
    • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • 37a) Source: "...in which he promised to "cut his own head off" if the game ever made it to another platform."
    Article: "...Mikami claimed that he would "cut off his own head" (a Japanese colloquialism for quitting his job) if it were to be released on another platform."
    Notes: Direct quote means quoting directly.
    • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I originally intended to support, but I kept running into problems (~1/4 misrepresentation/not in source); neither will I oppose, as I contend it is a superb read, and as far as I have read on the subject the information is accurate. I think, though, that you should check over the rest of the multiply-cited sources and some of the more controversial statements to make sure there are no glaring errors. Clay^Clay_Clay 07:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I just went through the whole article again and all of its sources to make sure I didn't make any other silly source misplacements like that. It should be all in order now. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Support: I am happy with the changes made, just checked ref #47 (4 cites) and no errors to be found. Great job on this article! Clay^Clay_Clay 18:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Also, thanks for your kind words about the prose. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Thank you for your source spotcheck, Clay. I couldn't see a dedicated media check but as there are only two images, I decided to review them for myself and am satisfied with the licensing/usage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 06:46, 20 March 2012 [21].

---

Jaws (film)

Nominator(s): igordebraga ≠ 01:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC) DocKino (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Like Martin Brody, my ship was sunken by an adversary willing to chew on me, and I'm taking shots at it. Lame jokes aside, I had already rewritten this Former Featured Article hoping to return its bronze star, and then during the last FAC User:DocKino joined and did a much-welcome copyedit. Now that my two weeks of waiting are done, I just want to see if I'm gonna need a bigger boat. igordebraga ≠ 01:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Note to delegates: WP:FFA, has already been on main page, should this be promoted, it needs to be reflected in WP:FFA, and added to WP:FA as already having appeared on mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources comment: I think the main sources/citation issues were cleared at the previous FAC, but I notice one small point: there is duplication and/or overlapping in the page ranges of a number of the McBride citations, and for consistency these should be combined. Note, for example, cites 23, 24 and 30; cites 47 and 48; cites 84 and 117; cites 124 and 187. There may be other instances, although this does not seem to be a general problem. Brianboulton (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

These citations are proper as stands. A citation of, for instance, pages 236–237 (cite 24) is not the same as a citation of page 237 (cite 23), nor should it be altered to appear the same. There is neither a "problem" nor an apparent correction to be made in this regard. DocKino (talk) 04:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. To me, the commonsense understanding is that "236–37" includes "237", and the same principle applies to the others I have mentioned. You have freely used combined references elsewhere in the article;, so what is so different about these? Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If something is mentioned only on one page in the range, why is it necessary to cite the full page range? I see no problem with either approach, and citing individual pages when applicable alongside ranges containing those individual pages is perfectly fine. Page N might contain the entirety of a quotation being used, whereas pages N–P contain a train of thought being summarised. Why cite the full range for something only contained on one of its pages, then? For the specific example being given, pp. 236–237 does contain p. 237, but a reader wishing to verify this with a book in hand shouldn't be directed to both pages when only one is used. GRAPPLE X 00:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Grapple X is correct. This is precisely the logic employed in the referencing in almost every one of the thousands and thousands and thousands of high-quality book sources on which we rely. Brian, I appreciate the detailed attention you brought to this point, but you are simply wrong here. Like virtually all other high-quality reference works, we properly cite the page or pages that are relevant and none other. DocKino (talk) 11:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This is of course a very minor issue in the context of the article, and I apologise for labouring it. However, I don't accept that I am "wrong"; I do accept the reasoning behind the strategy that has been employed here, provided it is maintained consistently. Brianboulton (talk) 10:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe either approach is right or wrong, so long as it's consistent. I generally tend to use the style seen here myself, unless the article's references list has grown quite long, in which case I'll fold individual pages in with their parent ranges to clean things up a little. It's mostly down to personal choice, I believe. GRAPPLE X 12:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lobo

Lobo comments: I just read through the article, and on the whole it is excellent. Easy to read, fully comprehensive and extensively researched and referenced. This is undoubtedly a very important cultural article, so thank you for bringing it up to such a high standard. I have a few comments: I feel like the plot summary in the lead is a bit longer than it needs to be? "and it is now widely regarded as one of the greatest films of all time." > Might be better as "..it is often cited as one of.."? I don't see any mention of "Inspiration and themes" in the lead. It's not something that should be dwelled on, but a sentence or two is needed. "For a director.." This is a bit of an awkward way of starting this discussion. "whose résumé included The Old Man and the Sea" > Later on this book is mentioned as an inspiration, but the relevance may not be immediately clear to readers at this point. Maybe add in "a film with similar themes", or something. "he had picked the still-unpublished Benchley novel up off a stack of manuscripts" > Not sure we need that level of detail. I also feel like this whole experience should maybe be attributed, ie "Spielberg reported that..." "When the producers purchased the rights to his novel, they guaranteed that Benchley would write the first draft of the screenplay." Might read better as, "..they promised Benchley that he could write the first draft.." Why did Benchley pull out? It's not really clear. "According to Gottlieb, Quint was "in the abstract" based on Mundus, whose book Sportfishing for Sharks he read for research." A bit awkward and unclear. And I think there needs to be a smoother connection between this and Quint's monologue (the discussion of it seems to start quite abruptly, in the middle of the paragraph). You should probably also make clear that the monologue is one of the film's most praised moments—it is kind of written like everyone already knows this. The "Filming" section is excellent! "His gamble paid off:" I think this could be removed. The "Critical response" section should ideally be weighted to match the proportion of positive/negative reviews. Since it says it received "mostly positive", I'm wondering if the negative section is a bit too long? I just tried to give both sides the same weight (5 reviews each for positive and negative - Berardinelli's one doesn't count as we only used it for his opinion on the shark), despite more examples of positive ones. It should only be equally weighted if the reviews were equally bad/good. See WP:WEIGHT. I think the ratio should be more like 5 positive, 3 negative. I don't believe in "equal weighting" in terms of doing a count of how many different critics are quoted. The reasons for negative criticism are here, as often elsewhere, more diverse than the reasons for praise--a version of the Anna Karenina principle applies. Furthermore, in the generally "negative" paragraph, two of the critics cited--Canby and Magill--are quoted also making positive statements. I believe that the primary text of the article successfully conveys that the critical response was "mostly positive"; I don't see any need to eliminate any of the negative comments, and I feel that doing so would detract from the article's informational value, while adding still more praise would court both redundancy and puffery. DocKino (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Accolades: it might be nice to explicitly mention that you're moving on to "later recognition" in the third paragraph. I personally don't see the need for the comparison with Psycho's shower scene...and did Psycho really make people scared of showers anyway?! Janeth Leigh was scared. People bought more transparent curtains. And the comparison seems to be common. The bluray apparently now has a release date, see if you can ref it with a reliable source. Given the only source so far for a release date isn't that reliable... igordebraga ≠ 01:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC) That's it from me: not many complaints for a long article. Well done! --Lobo (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks very much for your thoughtful comments, Lobo. Between Igordebraga and myself, above and in a series of edits, I believe we've addressed them all. DocKino (talk) 10:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Yes, everything looks good now (although please see my inline comment about the weighting of reviews). The only thing that maybe remains unclear is Benchley leaving the project. But I'm guessing maybe there isn't a clear reason why he left? --Lobo (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC) It's been reworded so we don't have him actively "leaving" the project. It is common practice in Hollywood that additional screenwriters are brought in after an original screenwriter does his or her work, and I believe the section now more clearly describes that unexceptional process. In addition, inspired by your previous comment, the relevant passage now clearly states Spielberg's dissatisfaction with Benchley's version. (And please see my response above to your inline comment about the weighting of reviews.) Thanks again. DocKino (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Support, if I may. I'm new to FAC, so delegates may wish to disregard this, but I personally can see no reason why this shouldn't be a featured acticle. It is top-class. --Lobo (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Leaning support, with comments: I'll try and add to it as I go through, but just niggling things:

• Should really add some non-breaking spaces per WP:NBSP for figures like budget and such. I've done a few myself.
• "prompting effects divers to search for the lost shark, scaring a few in the process" --> Scaring the divers, presumably, after they happened on a shark in the seaweed. Could this be made a little more clear?

• I've reworded the passage, trimming the bit about the effects divers, which was a bit of a diversion there. DocKino (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

--I'll continue adding comments as I go through. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The choice of word "watershed" in the second sentence seems unfortunate because of the clash with watershed (television). (Full disclosure: I had to look up what "watershed" meant, so I googled "watershed film" and ended up at watershed (television).) 82.8.55.199 (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's being used with the third definition listed at wikt:watershed, though perhaps "watershed moment" would work better than "watershed film". For what it's worth, this meaning is what I tend to think of when using the term, though as a simple definition and not a concept, it doesn't have an article here to link to. GRAPPLE X 14:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "watershed moment" seems better. 82.8.55.199 (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

While "watershed moment" does seem better, "the prototypical summer blockbuster" all by itself after that comma seems fragmented and peculiar, as if we're saying the "moment" is the blockbuster rather than the film...does this make sense to anyone? Maybe, "and is considered the prototypical summer blockbuster"? Or is that too complicated? Blake Burba (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

How would "It is regarded as a watershed moment in motion picture history, becoming the prototypical summer blockbuster" read? GRAPPLE X 16:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

That reads better, sure. Blake Burba (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've changed it to that, then. GRAPPLE X 16:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

More comments on the lead 82.8.55.199 (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Taken in isolation, the words "professional shark hunter to hunt the shark" sound redundant.
• "Jaws was generally well received by critics, and it became the highest-grossing film in history to that point." -> When you write "to that point", what point is it? Probably clearer to write "at the time".
• "simple, "high-concept" premises" -> I find the comma after 'simple' to be unfortunate. Breaks the rhythm.
• "released in the summer at hundreds (now thousands) of theaters and supported by heavy advertising" -> The construction of the sentence could be revisited. It is difficult to tell 'released' refers to. Is it "premises", "business model"? Something is wrong here.
• Going back to when the article was first featured, the lead mentioned the Jersey Shore shark attacks of 1916. I quick search revealed no mention of this event. This seems like a major hole in the article.
  • As mentioned in that old version, the book was inspired by the attacks. So, mentioning that is needed in Jaws (novel) (where it is done so), but not here. Done the rest. igordebraga ≠ 17:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Box office

Some of this information is erroneous; it didn't finish its original theatrical run with $129 million—this was the gross rental as opposed to the gross revenue. Jaws actually took something like $200 million on its original theatrical run, equating to about $115 million gross rental: [22]. Gross rental is the historic measuring system which is no longer in use, but many modern sources confuse it with revenue. Also the claim that it was the first $100 million grosser is incorrect. In fact, it was the third one after The Sound of Music and The Godfather (and Gone with the Wind via reissues): [23]. Again, this is most likely due to the confusion over gross rental and gross revenue, since with its $115 million gross rental it beat The Godfather ($81.5 million) and Gone with the Wind ($77 million): [24] (although all of these films made $100+ million in revenue). I would have gone ahead and corrected this, but it is under review and the problem is there are sources corroborating the incorrect claims, based on the misinterpretation of gross rental, so I thought I'd bring it here first. I notice this issue has been addressed in a previous review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Jaws (film)/archive2) but wasn't acted upon. I'm happy to fix this for you (we also have international figures at List of highest-grossing films too which can be incorporated), so if no-one opposes my suggestions or wants to do it themselves I'll sort it out tomorrow. Betty Logan (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, when I researched for more BO data (after all it had at least 2 reissues) the word "rentals" came up frequently. Either I'll fix them, or you're welcome to do so, Betty. igordebraga ≠ 16:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  I've sorted it. Obviously it would be much better if we had the gross figures, but at least it's clear now. I also took the liberty of removing the claim about its 5 weeks at number 1, because BOM only shows five weeks and I suspect it spent much longer in pole position (in its 6th week it was actually up from its 3rd and 4th week takes) so we are probably doing it a disservice by saying it spent 5 weeks at number 1; that would be good by today's standards, but back then a film was only starting to get going by its third or fourth week. Betty Logan (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks, Betty. And I fully concur with your removing the claim about the 5 weeks at number 1. DocKino (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the delay; I'm semi-retired you know. :-) Some comments (Steve ^T • C):

• Despite (or perhaps because of) its status as the prototypical summer blockbuster, Jaws is a film that has been analysed, scrutinised and pored over by film historians and scholars in ways that must make some of the most high-brow art films envious. It's a little surprising, then, to see a relatively slight themes and analysis section, one that seems to be a somewhat random dip into the waters instead of a comprehensive immersion, when compared to some of our other film FAs. Can either of the nominators confirm that this list of potential sources has been properly mined for useful commentary? From the snippets I've read, there do appear to be several promising depths left unexplored.
• Similarly, the list contains several entries from production-related publications that have seldom left me wanting (though I understand on this point that perhaps the various books you've used have covered what there is to know).
• From the title alone, "'Jaws' played to 80 million on ABC" from The New York Times seems like it might give up something useful about that first TV broadcast beyond the headline.
  • Added two TV tidbits on Legacy.
    • Struck. Steve ^T • C
• The film's international release strategy and box office performance are limited to one statement each; there are several sources, most notably Variety, that will be able to provide a more comprehensive breakdown, especially of the film's excellent, record-breaking performances outside North America. Such detail is not uncommon in film FAs, and it is possible to craft this in ways that it doesn't seem like an uninteresting info-dump. Regardless, to be truly encyclopaedic, the article may have to find room for it.

• This has been fleshed out, largely thanks to Betty. DocKino (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely convinced that there isn't more to be had from those Variety articles (as I say, it looks like we're mostly citing the headlines here), but given the expansion I'm OK striking this point as a major concern. Steve ^T • C

• Returning to the point I made during the first FAC, it still seems odd to say that "the film received mostly positive reviews upon release" when McBride (pp. 255–256) states outright that was not the case. I understand that the AFI link you've chosen to use presents a different view, and I don't deny the site's reliability, but where two seemingly-reliable sources conflict, I'm not sure we should just eliminate or ignore one of them—the implication being that you deem McBride unreliable, yet not for the 22 other occasions you've used him. Note, I'm not taking about the mix of reviews you've chosen to illustrate the section (which seems to be what you thought I was saying during the first FAC), but the statement of the film's critical regard. It may help to bolster the claim if you can find sources from closer to the film's release rather than relying on retrospective commentary.

• As I mentioned above, positive ones (note that all of those quotes are from reviews of the period!) are more frequent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igordebraga (talk • contribs)

• That's fine for what it is—another source that says the film received positive reviews, but a few minutes on Google finds plenty of others that go with the "mixed" line or generally favourable. And the collection of glowing quotes doesn't mean anything on its own, as it's possible to cherry-pick positive or negative reviews of any film to present a desirable narrative. Enough quotes could probably be gathered for even the most reviled of films to present it in a positive light. I'm not saying that's what the author of the linked article has done, but the approach does leave us little better off. Steve ^T • C 00:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• There is no question that McBride is a high-quality source, but "mostly positive" (AFI) and "widely divergent" (McBride) are not necessarily contradictory. AFI's language appears to describe an overall up/down tally, while McBride focuses on the breadth of opinion--and the latter, I believe, is captured by our current selection.
• Also, at your suggestion, I looked for a source that characterizes the critical response from closer to the film's release. What I found was this: "Critical response to Jaws was as overwhelmingly enthusiastic as its public reception" (Current Biography Yearbook 1978, p. 402). That clearly bolsters AFI's overall appraisal. Beyond that, in doing a straightforward Google Books search on "Jaws Spielberg reviews", I came up with "great reviews" (Parish, Steven Spielberg, Filmmaker, p. 47) and "the reviews were strong" (Morton, Close Encounters of the Third Kind: The Making of Steven Spielberg's Classic Film, p. 86). No overall appraisal of "mixed" that I could see. DocKino (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for delving deeper; I only pushed this point because I've seen so many times before how retrospective analysis of now-revered films can get the original reception wrong. The additions and your explanation are enough for me. Struck. Steve ^T • C

• Do you think it's worth considering a move for the "Inspiration and themes section"? Its current placement doesn't flow particularly well with the structure of the rest of the article, and feels as if it was chosen at random. Would you be opposed to moving the section to appear just after the plot? There, it may benefit from the context provided by being closer to the events in the film it is dissecting. This method has worked well in other film FAs (e.g. Fight Club, American Beauty).
  • Struck. Steve ^T • C
• Although the plot section clocks in at only a little over the recommended 400–700 word count, it does feel a tad overlong, and I did zone out a couple of times when trying to read through it. The plot section is intended to complement the wider coverage that follows about the production, reception, themes, and other real-world aspects. However, you should be wary of including too much fine detail, unless directly referenced later in the article; the broad strokes will usually suffice. The plot section is the first that your readers will encounter, and will turn them off the rest of the article if it's difficult to get through.

• I've cut out some relatively extraneous details, paring it down by 70 words. DocKino (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Struck. Steve ^T • C

• In looking for some decent commentary from the period on the critical consensus, I happened across this article, which presents a slightly different version of the story told towards the end of the filming section, a story that although essentially the same, seems to have had its edges rounded with time.
  • It confirms that it was done due to test audience response, and he shot one scene at a pool. The other is there, though told in a confusing way (it even sounds like it was shot in the pool too!).
• The BAFTA and LA United Film Fest links appear to be dead.
  • Betty fixed them.
    • Struck. Steve ^T • C

That's all for now. I look forward to reading your responses/rebuttals. All the best, Steve ^T • C 23:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with the suggestion to tighten the plot and to relocate "Themes and Inspirations" to follow on from the plot section. Obviously the themes follow on naturally from the narrative, so the plot provides a context for any analysis. Betty Logan (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I moved, even though I disagree (unlike the two examples above, Jaws has a straightforward plot without much symbolism). Expanded a bit on foreign performance, too. igordebraga ≠ 18:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree, don't do it and don't worry about it. No-one is going to oppose over section placement. It was just a suggestion. Steve ^T • C 20:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but looking at the additions regarding the international performance, specifically those cited to Variety, the impression I get is that you haven't been able to access these; each statement that has been added could have come from the article headline. Are you sure that's all there is? Steve ^T • C 00:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for how extensively Igor has researched this, but Variety didn't track international box office in the 70s; it may have reported on it from time to time when films broke records, but it wasn't like today where you get weekly updates. I would imagine the best sources would be local trade magazines and newspapers, but those are most likely to be in a foreign language. Betty Logan (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That's understandable, but in this case these articles plainly exist, and it may be telling that the only ones that have been used are those that can be cited to the headline. Steve ^T • C 23:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Google Books didn't have much into foreign results (though I knew a country where the film is still a record holder because I live in it :). And I returned Inspirations to where it was - still think how hard it was to make the film is more important, and two recent film FAs put Production before Themes, after all. igordebraga ≠ 23:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• tentative support Comments reading through now. Will copyedit as I go (please revert any accidental changes to meaning) and jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No deal-breakers prose-wise are jumping out at me, and it is pretty comprehensive, so I am leaning support on those two criteria. I'll take another look tomorrow. can't see any prose or comprehensiveness issues. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments from Noleander

• "Shot largely on location ..." - I'd prefer "Shot mostly on location ..." but maybe that is just me. Not a FA showstopper.
• "skinny dipping" - Should have link for readers that don't know that term
• " Benchley returned to play a small ..." - Odd wording. Why "returned"? it is common for authors or directors to have roles as extras. Did Benchley depart? Was there an argument of some kind?
• "rewriting the entire script for a nine-week period ..." - "for" does not seem right there: the 9 weeks were not the purpose or goal. Maybe change to "during"; or re-write the entire sentence.
• Need attribution: " ... caused substantial controversy. Spielberg described it as a collaboration between Sackler, Milius, and actor Robert Shaw, who was also a playwright. Milius turned Sackler's "three-quarters of a page" speech into a monologue, and that was then rewritten by Shaw." There is controversy, so you need to ascribe the viewpoints to various participants. The 2nd sentence above is "Milius turned Sackler's ..": who is claiming that? Is that in opposition to Spielberg's view? Or to Gottlieb's view of the next sentence "Gottlieb gives primary ..". Readers love controversy, so if you're going to present them with one, explain what the 2 or 3 viewpoints are, and who they belong to.
• Needs clarification: "Most minor roles were played by residents of Martha's Vineyard, where the film was shot". I know that local residents often play extras; but is this article saying that local residents actually had speaking roles? If so, you need to clarify that. Which persons? Were they trained actors?
• Consistency: ""sea-sled shark" vs "platform sharks" vs "side model" sharks - Should "sharks be inside or outside the quotes?
• Wording not great: "To some degree, the delays in the production proved serendipitous." Either delays had a beneficial aspect, or not. I'd drop the "To some degree"; or reword to "The delays proved serendipitous in some regards ..." or similar.
• Ugly footnotes: "It is generally regarded as the best of the sequels.[207][208][209]" - The three footnotes at the end are very ugly, and interferes with reading flow. Ditto for all places you have 2 or 3 footnotes for 1 sentence (of course, bundling cannot be done if it is a named ref). I recommend WP:CITEBUNDLE: put all three cites into a single "ref", separated by bullets or whatever. I know unbundled cites have passed muster here at FAC, but the goal of FA is to exceed bare minium FA standards. Tastes vary, and others may not view it as a FA show stopper, but that is my opinion.
• Define term: " the beginning of the end of the New Hollywood period." - Need to explain what "new hollywood" means here, and why it is important in the context. The term is _linked_ above in the article, but even above there is no definition. In any case, another explanation is needed at the 2nd occurrence of the term.
• Bibliography: Two books: Collins and Buckland, are not cited by any footnote. Maybe they should be moved to a "Further reading" section? Because the Bibliography section appears to be intended to be "References" that were read/used by the article's author. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT etc. Not an FA showstopper.
• Overall, a very good article. Leaning towards support once above are addressed.

Changed to Support, based on recent changes. --Noleander (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Anyone made a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing? If not we'd better organise one... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• BTW, as the previous FAC included a media check, and no additional files have been added since then, I think we can dispense with a similar check here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Source spot-check
  • Ref 6(a), OK:
    • Article text: "To direct, Zanuck and Brown first considered veteran filmmaker John Sturges—whose résumé included another maritime adventure, The Old Man and the Sea—before offering the job to Dick Richards, whose directorial debut, The Culpepper Cattle Co. had come out the previous year."
    • Source text: "The first director with whom they discussed the picture was John Sturges, whose films included not only the classics Bad Day at Black Rock and The Great Escape but also The Old Man and the Sea..." and "They decided to offer the job instead to Dick Richards, who ... had made his feature debut at Fox in 1972 with a Western about a teenaged cowboy, The Culpepper Cattle Co.."
  • Ref 34(b), OK:
    • Article text: "The model required 14 operators to control all of the moving parts."
    • Source text: "Dubbed 'Bruce,' it required 14 operators to function..."
  • Ref 205, OK:
    • Article text: "The DVD shipped one million copies in just one month."
    • Source text: "The title shipped more than a million units for its special-edition DVD debut July 11..." --Laser brain (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Tks Andy. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 06:46, 20 March 2012 [25].

---

Thurman Tucker

Nominator(s): Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Those who are familiar with me may have seen Operation Big Bear in my signature, and may or may not know much of said project. Well, here's the first FAC for this project, and presuming I remain interested in the project, it should be the first of many.

Thurman Tucker was a baseball player in the 1940s and early 1950s, who made his mark in the mid-1940s. He developed a reputation as a great fielder, and a good enough hitter that he was okay to leave in the lineup. He usually split time with other players in the lineup, including when he was on the World Championship 1948 Indians (see OBB above). Once 1950 rolled around, he lost a step and was pretty much done as a player. He may be far from the biggest name on that World Series-winning team (I'll get to the more exciting ones soon enough), but he lives on as a result of that season. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Review by Wrestlinglover; Result: Support on all criteria

Lead

• "In 701 career games, Tucker recorded a batting average of .255, and accumulated 24 triples, 9 home runs, and 179 runs batted in (RBI)." - Remove the second comma.--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "He was nicknamed "Joe E." Tucker because of his resemblance to comedian Joe E. Brown." - This piece of information is not featured in the article. His resemblance is, however, the nickname I did not see noted.--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "After his retirement, he became a major league scout and insurance agent. He died in 1993." - Merge them: "After his retirement, he became a major league scout and insurance agent before his death in 1993."--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• As for the infobox, I've noticed some of the information noted is not elsewhere in the article outside the lead, such as his left-handed batting, right-handed pitching, and his overall career statistics.--WillC 11:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Early life

• "Thurman Tucker was born and raised in Gordon, Texas." - Include his middle name and birthday, such as "Thurman Lowell Tucker was born on September 26, 1917, and raised in Gordon, Texas.".--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "At high school, he was a three-sport athlete, playing baseball (where he was a second baseman), basketball, and track and field." - Switch "At high school" to "In high school" or "During high school".--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "After graduating in 1935, he played semi-professional baseball, and enrolled in a baseball school located in Hot Springs, Arkansas." - Remove the second comma--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "In 1936, aged 18, Tucker signed as a professional with the Fayetteville Bears of the Arkansas-Missouri League, but left the team after only two weeks, without playing a game." - Change to "In 1936 at age 18, Tucker..."--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Minor league career

• "After recovering from the injury, Tucker continued to progress through the minors, and spent the 1938 season with two separate clubs;" - Change to "After recovering from the injury, Tucker continued to progress through the minors, spending the 1938 season with two separate clubs;"--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "During his first few years in the minor leagues, one manager asked him to take up clowning due to his resemblance to Joe E. Brown; as someone who was on the serious side, Tucker was against the idea, and it was dropped." - I don't really see how this is notable to his life exactly. This is more like trivia to me. I feel the second part should be changed to "Tucker objected due to his serious nature and the idea was later dropped."--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "At spring training for the 1942 season, Tucker competed with Dave Philley for the final outfield spot." - Switch to "Tucker competed against Dave Philley".--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Change "White Sox management liked his defensive abilities, and as a result Tucker was on the major league roster on opening day, making his major league debut on April 14, 1942." to "White Sox management liked Tucker's defensive abilities, leading to them adding Tucker to their 1942 major league roster; Tucker made his major league debut on April 14, 1942."--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Chicago White Sox

• "Only Wally Moses of the Chicago White Sox outfielders was assured of a place at the beginning of the 1943 season." - Reference?--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Owing to his achievements, Tucker was named to the All-Star roster for the only time in his career." - Sounds a bit odd, I suggest "Owing to his achievements, Tucker was added to the 1944 All-Star roster for the only time in his career."--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• "After returning to regular play, Tucker platooned with Philley, and he finished the season with a .236 batting average in 89 games." - Wouldn't "platooned" be jargon?--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleveland Indians

• "Tucker also participated in game six of the 1948 World Series, scoring a run in the sixth inning on a walk en route to a 4–3 win for the Indians." - Remove "also", its getting repetitive as the previous sentence has it as well.--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Later life

• Good--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

References

• All appear reliable in my view.--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

External links

• Everything appears necessary and useful, however, there is a hidden category. Its Category:Persondata templates without short description parameter, which would mean one of the templates is acting up. I've had this type of issue with the wrestling portal recently.--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Images

• Only one image is featured, I assume as there are no more available? The image has no alt text or a caption, which would be useful. The image appears to have the correct licensing.--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually familiar with your Operation having checked it out before. You got a battle ahead of you, but I see the determination as I've got a few myself. Anyway, here are some comments. I've attempted to give a very in-depth review to help as much as I can. You've reviewed several articles I've written in the past, I thought I'd return the favor.--WillC 11:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Issues fixed for the most part; did not add the middle name to early life since it doesn't seem necessary or appropriate to me. The Joe E. reference is slightly trivial, but does provide insight into his personality, which helps with the article. The Wally Moses ref is in the following sentence, I can repeat it for both if needed. Lastly, there is only one image available, and it took me a while to find even that. I could add in a free image of someone else (such as Philley or perhaps Hornsby) if it's desired. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Support with a copy-editing disclaimer: I peer reviewed this article and had another look before this nomination, doing some copy-editing both times. All my concerns were addressed and I think this is a good piece of work. I cannot comment on the quality of sourcing, but the article seems comprehensive to me. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Quite a few issues in the writing and style for a modest-sized article, but they should be fixable without too much fuss.

• I see no need to link the White Sox twice in the lead. Same goes for the Indians.
• Also, World War II is such a well-known event that I doubt it needs the link.
• Chicago White Sox: To me, the first sentence of the section would read better as "Of the Chicago White Sox outfielders at the beginning of the 1943 season, only Wally Moses was assured of a place on the team."
• "causing his batting average to shrink from .345 to .327 and in the process losing his status as league leader." The "and in the process losing" doesn't work well with the rest of the sentence. Not sure how to fix it; would "causing a batting average drop from .345 to .327 that resulted in him losing his status as league leader."?
• "After his average fell to .320 after hitting once in 35 at bats." He hit in each of his at bats; he just wasn't always successful at it. How about "after recording one base hit in 35 at bats."?
• "His form recovered in the second half of the season, finishing the year...". The part after the comma doesn't go well with what comes before it. Try "and he finished the year...".
• Don't need two platoon links in three sentences. I know it's jargony, but that's a bit much.
• Cleveland Indians: The "also" in "and also ended the season with a perfect fielding percentage of 1.000" is redundant and should be removed to make the prose a shade better.
• "both attempted to make the Indians roster to secure their position on the team". Don't "to make the Indians roster" and "to secure their place on the team" really mean the same thing?
• Ref 40 doesn't verify that Tucker's move to the PCL ended his major league career, and I don't think that's fully accurate; he just never got called up again by the Indians or another team. Perhaps making it clear that the April 29 game was his last MLB game would solve this issue. Baseball-Reference includes the last appearances of players, so you wouldn't need another cite to insert that.
• Later life: The Oklahoma City Indians and Texas League links are both repeats from earlier in the body.
• At the end of the section's first paragraph, and start of the third, there are consecutive cites to the same reference. When this happens, it's usually okay to just have a reference for the last sentence that covers both. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

  Issues fixed. Kept the WWII link in since while it is very common, it's not a link you'd necessarily expect in a baseball article. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

  Support – All of my comments have been resolved, and I believe this meets all of the FA criteria.

  Images: the only photo is of a 1951 Bowman baseball card, which appears to be legitimately in the public domain due to a lack of copyright renewal. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

All comments noted at this point have been addressed as of this writing. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Source comprehensiveness check. A quick check of the sources doesn't indicate any issues. All the given sources in this article are considered to be reliable sources. For people who are unfamiliar with The Sporting News, it's considered to be one of the finest sources that are available relating to baseball. It was an baseball only publication for nearly 75 years and was edited by one of the most renowed sports journalists of the era J. G. Taylor Spink. Baseball Reference is the most widely used source online regarding baseball stats, and also the most reliable. Secret ^account 05:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Kommentar I see several statements in the article that he was a great defensive player, but it didn't go into any detail. I think a few sentences on his style of play would be appropriate. Thanks Secret ^account 03:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  I'll look through the sources again, but stuff like that generally isn't gone into greater detail, and I doubt I'll find anything. When one thinks of a good defensive center fielder the same time of player generally comes to mind. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• OK once Giants concern is resolved Support Secret ^account 02:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- While you've got sources on your mind, Wizardman, can you point to a recent spotcheck on one of your FAC noms, as it doesn't look like anyone's done one here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Giants did the spotchecks for me on Hornsby and Killebrew, my last FACs. He already did a source and image review so I don't want to overburden him, but I could poke him for one. Since this one relies more on The Sporting News than most of my FACs, I can e-mail those to a spotchecker if they want them. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Given that those found some issues, I think we'd better have one here. I realise those articles had more edits from others than this one but best get a clean bill of health... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. It should be fine since I wrote 99+% of this one unlike the last two, but always best to err on the side of caution with sources. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, based on your earlier response I'll leave you to request that of Giants, or on WT:FAC if he's unavailable -- yep? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

• Support. I do not see any serious problems, but I am still curious whether anything is known about his parents? Ruslik_Zero 17:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

  Wasn't able to find anything; pretty rare to find family info except for the big-time players, got lucky finding what I did. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 12:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Source spot-checks – Wizardman asked me on my talk page if I'd consider doing source checks here, and I see the topic has come up here as well. I looked at refs 1, 8, 16, 21, 31, 40, and 44, and found a few points worth bringing up. None are major, though.

• Ref 1 doesn't say his children were living with him in Oklahoma City, as Later life implies. It just said he had four children, with one in Vietnam (couldn't have been living in Oklahoma then, could he?).
• Ref 16 doesn't say Tucker had a "comfortable" lead in AL batting average at this point, just that he led. It would have had to give the average of the player behind him to support such a claim.
• Ref 44 doesn't mention his playing for Carlsbad, just his managing. I suggest moving this ref to come after the next sentence, as the cite there will support the playing career just fine. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

  Done. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 12:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 19:14, 17 March 2012 [26].

---

United States Bicentennial coinage

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. This nom failed through lack of reviews several months ago, I'm bringing it back for another shot.Wehwalt (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Why give page number in footnote for Webster 1986 and Reiter 1981 but not for Bardes 1974 or Reiter 1979?
• FN 36: shouldn't italicize AP. Also, why use that type of date formatting here? Complete dates aren't given for other news or magazine sources
• How are you ordering "Other sources"?
• File:1976_Bicentennial_Quarter_Rev.png could use a better description
• File:1976HalfReverse.jpg: suggest using the coin-specific tag instead
• File:Scott1479.jpg: what does "Scott 1479" refer to? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, will look though these. On Scott 1479, that is that stamp's Scott catalogue number.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Alarbus corrected the page number matters when he saw your note, for which I thank him. The other things are done. The Other Sources are now by author, with the anonymous works by first significant letter of publication name.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support by Ruhrfisch - I supported last go round and still feel this meets the FA criteria. I also note that the images all passed review by Sven Manguard last time, and have not been changed since (and it appears that they are all PD anyway). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your reviews each time.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Wehwalt's authoritative series on US coins is always impressive, and this article continues the high standard. Two quibbles: "momentos" is in a quote, so I didn't like to alter it, but I hope it's a typo. And "The total coinage by striking mint are shown below" seems to me to want a singular, not a plural, verb. Other than that I have nothing but praise. The article meets all the FA criteria, IMO. Tim riley (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not a typo. I just checked the source. I've changed the other bit. Thanks for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support I think this is the first time I've read one of your coin article beginning to end, and I was not disappointed. Well written, comprehensive etc. I made a few copyedits, hopefully I didn't introduce any errors. I have a few minor comments on prose:
• "a bill seeking a coin honoring Abigail Adams and Susan B. Anthony." Just checking, it sounds like the bill proposed a coin honoring both--it wasn't seeking one for each, right?

Correct. It was to be on the contributions of American women.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The judging was originally supposed to take place at West Point; with the delay, it took place instead at the Philadelphia Mint." Do you know why it was changed?

Doesn't say. Could have been any number of reasons. Schedule, unavailabiity of West Point now that they were installing coin presses, Philadelphia's easier to get to (especially at a time when unnecessary travel was a little bit frowned upon), or the fact that the Philadelphia Mint is within a couple of blocks of TV studios and they wanted to do publicity. I expect to pay a return visit to the ANA library, possibly this spring or summer, they may have stuff offline I didn't see on my first visit.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I guess if it doesn't say, it doesn't say. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• "From the entries, the judges selected twelve semifinalists; the sculptor submitting each received a prize of $750." I'd suggest something like "...twelve semifinalists, each of whom received a prize of $750."

I'll play with this one a bit. Technically the semifinalists were designs, not people.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I see now. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• I saw a couple WP:PLUSING constructions ("with the dates appearing" & "each also with ceremonies marking the issuance" maybe try to rephrase if there is a good way to.
• I'm not sure if the two "due to" and the one "because of" are being used correctly, but I can never keep them straight. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. The rules keep shifting and I prefer to do what feels naturally and let reviewers call me on it. Thanks for the review and the support, I will make those changes shortly. I'm glad you liked the article. I think very few read them from beginning to end, they just want some fact or other, and I try to keep the lede and infobox stuffed with the facts I think they'll want.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That's probably a good strategy. Fixes look good. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 18:32, 17 March 2012 [27].

---

Common Tern

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

There is masses of RS stuff on this widespread, well-studied species, so it's been a matter of what to leave out, rather than my usual scratching around for suitable material. Anything missing, I ought to be able to fix (60 pages on Common Tern parasitic worms if necessary!). Thanks to :Casliber, Snowman, Shyamal and Maias for comments and improvements Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• General comment: I tend to think that going from B to FA, by-passing the GA stage, leaves a lot of work for the FA reviewers, sometimes leaving the FA reviewers to almost completely re-write the article. In this case, I think that the article has been worked up quite a lot, and I will be interested to watch the progress of this FAC. Snowman (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• My last few bird FAs have all gone straight to FA, and haven't created any obvious heavy commenting. There are other current FACs by experienced editors which have also gone straight in Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have found it interesting reading the Common Tern article. I have found a few problems, which have now been fixed, but I have not focused much on MOS. I guess that I found fewer problems than I might have done on an average FAC, so to me this seems to support the nominators option to bypass the GA stage. After a careful copy-editing from new reviewers, I expect that it will get a FA star soon. Snowman (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• From the table: "The nominate subspecies, there is only limited variation within this form." This is not consistent with the content of the other boxes in this column, which have an actual description of salient features. I think that this entry should also mention the salient features. I think that it should also have an in-line ref, like the content of the other boxes in this column. Adding this will help to make the table a more useful summary that could stand alone separated from the text in the article. Snowman (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Sea Swallow". Is which parts of the would is this term used? What is the history of this term? If this is an alternative common name (or an informal name), why is it not included in the introduction? Can all the other terns be called "Sea Swallow" as well? Snowman (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, it's used throughout the English-speaking world, but I don't intend to add a massive list of references for every relevant country. The name is historic, old-fashioned, and at best informal — I've never heard the term in RL. Because it's not significant enough to be a proper alternative name, I've debolded. Now This resemblance also leads to the informal name "Sea Swallow",[7] recorded from at least the seventeenth century.[6] As the text states, all the names for Common Tern have been used interchangeably for Arctic, I haven't come across anything suggesting that this name was deliberately used for any other species. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Especially in the early part of the breeding season, for no apparent reason, ...": Would it be better to imply that the reason for this phenomenon is unknown, rather than imply that is is for no reason. Presumably, the mass cooperation and the energy expenditure would tend to indicate that there is a reason for this to happen, perhaps flock or colony cohesion or a tactic that enables the flock to know where to find the best fishing areas. Could it be because of the wind or weather? Could it be to avoid predictors or competitors? Snowman (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• changed to no known reason. If the experts don't know why this happens, for me to speculate would be WP:OR Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why is there a lot of literature on this species? Should the article mention how much this species has been studied? Snowman (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I can't see how this can be done without OR. It's a common species which occurs in most of the world, it would be surprising if it wasn't well studied. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not at all. A reliable source might say; "It has been well studied, because ...", "The migration patterns have been investigated to find out more about bird migration in general", "its parasites have been researched a lot, because ..." Why did you say "masses of RS stuff on this widespread ..." in the nomination? Surely, there must be some explanation of what you describe as 60 pages on parasites. You could have omitted something from the article that is important regarding the vast amount of literature and research on this tern. Snowman (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, leave this with me for now, I'll come back to it over the weekend Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this is actionable. None of my sources say why there is a lot of research. As I indicated, it's not studied because it's an ideal subject Drosophila, or has particularly interesting characteristics compared to its similar relatives. If you are an ornithologist in a northern hemisphere university, there will be probably be common terns breeding nearby, without the inconvenience and cost of heading to the Arctic or tropics, but that's unlikely to be the reason you give in your PhD thesis.Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Surely, this is potentially actionable. I presume that you are implying that the reason for the mass of literature is rather mysterious. Snowman (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• The origins of the genus name is briefly mentioned in the text. The genus authority is Carl Linnaeus (a man from Sweden) and I presume he Latinised a word that became Sterna. What word was Latinised? Would Linnaeus have been aware of an old English poem or Old Englsih? The article could be read to mean that the Old English word "stearn" was changed to the Genus name, but I am not entirely sure if this was the word Linnaeus used or if he used a Swedish word or a Latin word. Snowman (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Linnaeus wrote in Latin, and he lists three earlier sources that used Sterna, so I imagine that it was already established by then. I'm not an expert on etymology, but it does seem likely that the word was latinised from the Old English or a closely related Gemanic word. The Seafarer was presumably itself derived from an older Germanic oral tradition Jimfbleak - talk to me?

I do not know much about Latin and I have not been able to find out if there is a Latin word for tern; however, it seems that "sterna" is Italian for tern (see Wiktionary) and very similar words were used by the Frisians and in Old English for a tern, according to the OED. The OED actually says that Linnaeus adopted this word for his name of the genus. I have tried to do clarify and tidy up this part of the article, and please make more amendments, if needed. Snowman (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted this for now since all the links in the ref went to the Wikipedia article, which is not RS. I don't have the OED, so I couldn't fix it. Can you do so? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I see. I probably did not test the links in the ref, which was [[OED]]. Oxford University Press. December 2011. {{cite encyclopedia}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help). Snowman (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just noticed that clicking on the arrow does open the OED website. It is probably best to use the template format instead; "sterna". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.). Snowman (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have put back the text using the OED template ref. Do you think that this is suitable? Anyone, with a council library card in the UK can log on to the OED using the card number as the password. Snowman (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine, I've tagged to indicate that a subscription is required. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Chicks do not drink before fledging, reabsorbing water and excreting a strong salt solution instead." This sounds interesting, but it is seems rather vague to me. I would be interested to learn a little more about fluid and electrolyte balance in tern chicks. Reabsorbing water from where, kidneys, special salt glands, or somewhere else? Snowman (talk) 20:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can find Jimfbleak - talk to me?

• added all I can find Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• "..., reabsorbing water and salt from the cloaca, and excreting a strong salt solution from a nasal gland." The salt glands in the nose is interesting. As the cloaca is a hole, I can not understand how a hole can reabsorb water. From what I know about human anatomy, cells with the capability of reabsorbing water will be lining the gut and in the kidneys. Excuse me, I can be a stickler about anatomy. Presumably, the droppings that pass through the cloaca are fairly dry. It would be logical to mention the role of nasal salt glands in the adults too, if they have them. Snowman (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I had doubts about the cloaca myself, now removed. It's clear that the salt is extracted by the nasal glands, that's now referenced, and extended to adults. I can't find a mechanism for the water, so I assume it's what you would expect — absorbed from food by the digestive system, cleaned up by kidneys, salt dumped by nsasal glands Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• That looks fine to me, but if someone subsequently thinks that "reabsorbing water" is jargon, then it may be simpler to say something to the effect that the "chicks droppings are rather dry preserving body water". Snowman (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• "The chicks fledge in 22–28 days." This sounds incredibly young to me for a chick to reach a weight of about 110 to 140 gm and gain all its feathers in this time and leave the nest. I would be grateful if this is double checked. Snowman (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Four different sources all give figures in this range. Remember that these are precocial species, so already more developed than hole nesters when hatched, and they are fed on what amounts to solid protein. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I would never have guessed that they grow up so fast. Parrots have only just started to get some of their big feathers at that age. Snowman (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• For obvious reasons, most species that breed on open beaches tend not to fledge as early as possible Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• It seems logical that chick's that grow up faster will have better survival rates. I guess that dryish droppings would also produce a minimum of mess or smell at the site of the nest for predictors to pick up on. Do chick's produce faecal sacs? Do the adults take droppings away to protect the nest site? Is there anything about the adults keeping a nest site tidy and secure from predators? Snowman (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've added a bit about excretion, no point in faecal sacs since young are mobile, and tern colonies are highly visible so it's basically just a matter of not fouling the nest itself Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have looked at the incubation time in two seabird books now; one says "about four weeks" and the other says "28 days or so". These two book are saying something slightly different to 22–28 days. Snowman (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Those are within the range, I've added a bit to say that 25-26 days is usual. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• To me, that seems to make it much better. Snowman (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Territory. Please clarify that terns are territorial before making nests, and all the time while the eggs are incubated and while the chicks are growing up. The section seems to concentrate on prior to egg laying. Snowman (talk) 13:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• I thought it was obvious that the nest would continue to be defended once it had eggs and chicks, can't really see how it could be otherwise, but made explicit now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• "... and long bulgy legs"; I have looked at the pictures and I see no reason for calling the legs bulgy. In flight the legs seems to be neatly retracted to me. Snowman (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Eek! it's nonsense. I copied this from a previous tern FA since the family stuff is common to both, must have read it dozens of times in two facs, still didn't notice. Changed to relatively weak in both articles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I expect that the legs are strong enough, so I have changed it to "slender" legs. Snowman (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• I used WikiBlame to find the edit which wrote in bulgy legs. It looks like it was added by a vandal to me on the Greater Crested Tern article. See this edit at the start of a sequence of vandalism done on 19 November 2008, the day the Greater Crested Tern was shown on the main page. Snowman (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• "... it is therefore classed as Least Concern on the IUCN Red List."; even if it had a large range and a large population, it could be classed as vulnerable, if numbers were declining rapidly. The "therefore" here is therefore wrong. A and B might be true, but here B may not always be true when A is true. Snowman (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• "... millinery trade caused large decreases in Common Tern populations ..."; I have got a little book on seabirds and it says that in the 1800s these birds were also killed for sport and food. Snowman (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Several sources say that the main reason for the massive decline was the trade in feathers and skins. Everything was shot and hunted before legal protection, and I've mentioned that hunting continues in some areas. I haven't seen anything to suggest that hunting was a major cause of the near extinction. Terns have coexisted with man forever, and their typically remote nest sites probably meant that they suffered less than more accessible and more edible species (fish-eating birds tend to be something of an acquired taste!). If you think it should go in anyway, can you give me the ref please? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• It is in The Guinness Book of Sea and Shore Birds. 1982. page 132, ISBN 0851123074, but I would be reluctant to mention sport and human food, if it is not in up-to-date books as well. Snowman (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I have written in that the millinery trade was the main cause. Snowman (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Omission: Not much about the feet in the article - are the feet webbed or not? Snowman (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• It's so obvious that seabirds have webbed feet that it took me a while to find an RS source, added to start of Taxonomy Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Although, they do not swim much (according the the article), I wonder how useful webbed feet are to get around underwater, perhaps to get to the surface again, when they dive underwater to catch fish. Is the article implying that they do not swim on the surface much, swim underwater much, or neither. If use of webbed feet is to be included, I suspect that more details are needed of what they use their webbed feet for, or perhaps the bit about not swimming much could be left out. Snowman (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've removed the swimming comment. They don't use their feet for anything related to them being webbed, it's just an evolutionary feature common to most seabirds, even those that don't swim. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• I am aware that the appendix is considered to be evolutionary remnant in humans, but I am sceptical that an external feature like webbed feet would be an evolutionary remnant in seabirds. I think that a bird that spends a lot of time in the air would soon loose webbed feet shedding weight, if they were not useful for something. Surely, web feet would be useful for launching from the sea surface to gain as much upward thrust as possible, in a similar way that a parrot jumps when launching from a solid surface. I also would guess that it would be handy for a seabird that feeds on fish to be able to use webbed feet to swim (under water or on water). I guess that it is probably wise to remove hints of use of webbed from the article and I suspect there there has not been much research on the use of webbed feet by Common Terns. Nevertheless, it might make an interesting topic on the genus or family page. Snowman (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Omission: How long do adults feed fledged chicks? Snowman (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Good point, added to para 3 of Breeding Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Omission: About their sleep: Where do they sleep? Do they have preferred night time roosts? Do they ever sleep in flight? Snowman (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• last sentence of habitat tweaked to clarify In addition to natural beaches and rocks, boats, buoys and piers are often used both as perches and night-time roosts. AFAIK, Common Swift is the only species that sleeps in flight. That's so unusual that I think it's redundant to say that a bird doesn't do so. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• "On hot days the incubating parent may fly to water to wet its belly feathers before returning to the eggs, thus affording the eggs some cooling.[4]"; there is nothing about this in reference 4, at least on the webpage that the link in the reference opens. However, this looks like the correct source, which I found after being puzzled and doing some searching for it. After a quick check, I think that most of the 13 in-line references to reference 4 have no information about the respective content in the article on that particular webpage. Snowman (talk) 10:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've linked to the introduction page and specifically said that a subscription is needed for full access. As it happens, for reasons that are not entirely clear, all the content for this species is currently available, but I don't know how long that will be for so I don't want to create lots of links to subpages that might become inaccessible. If it is available, the full content can be reached from the introduction page. Arctic Tern illustrates the problem. AFAIK, this is the normal way of dealing with subscription sites Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• I can see your point of view. I welcome other readers views. Have other readers been puzzled when they attempt to verify something in reference 4? Snowman (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Jim, I have the printed version of this. Let me know if you want to use a page number instead. MeegsC | Talk 15:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, I think the present arrangement at least gives a gateway to content which can be used while access persists. If it becomes an issue, I'll take up your kind offer, but obviously there won't be any url at all then Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• To me it seems sensible to leave the in-line references to reference 4 as they are, in view of possible temporary access to many webpages about the Common Tern. I do not know the guidelines about what url to use, but I think this issue need not be a problem for FA, unless other readers find verification a puzzle. An explanatory note in the main ref=name tag might be helpful, but unconventional. Snowman (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Incidentally, the Template:Cite book does allow for a url, so I think that page numbers and a url could go in the book cite. Snowman (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• The point of changing to a book cite is that there is no requirement to give a url, so the problem of subpage accessibility goes away. I'd rather not go down that route unless it becomes an issue, since the current referencing, although not ideal, gives more transparency while free access lasts. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Impression. I edit bird articles and I have edited this article, so I may have a conflict of interest in commenting on this article; however, I have tried to be as objective as I can. At this juncture, I am not aware of any major problems in this article. I think that this article has essentially reached FA status; however, prior to the FA star being awarded, I think the article needs new reviewers or new copy-editors to focus on the text and MOS, partly because this article has had few reviewers having bypassed the GA stage. Snowman (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support (moral or otherwise as a member of wikiproject birds) on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. I've read this a few times and it's come together very well. I can't see any clangers but fresher eyes than mine are always good.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for support and tweak Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Media Review

• All images are taken from Commons
• All images have appropriate attribution, source link and copyright information
• Video and audio have appropriate attribution, source link and copyright information

- Lemurbaby (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• SupportComments from Lemurbaby (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Can you explain or link to something to explain what a "failed breeder" is, for laymen readers?
• "often replacing at least some two, occasionally three times in a year" - doesn't quite flow and could benefit from rewording.
• "The visible difference in feather age is accentuated in the ultraviolet reflectance" - do newer or older feathers reflect more?
• I was distracted by the switching back and forth between using "the" before a tern species or not using it. What is the system you're using? Consistency will be key with this.
• "These adaptations are understandable for a bird living in an unstable, wind-blown and tidal environment" - Can you reword this to exclude "understandable" so it doesn't come across as a value judgment?
• Varela ref not in template.
• "American mink is a serious predator" - is there a better word than "serious"?
• "Tapeworms of the family Cyclophyllidea are also a possibility." - reword
• I'm seeing some refs provide first name middle initial, and others first and middle initial. Can you pick one and use it consistently?
• Did a copy edit - take a look to make sure I didn't alter or remove meaning

• Thanks for review and helpful copyedit. I've followed most of your suggestions here. I don't think it's a requirement to use a template for any or all of the references as long as they present consistently, and in the case of Varela, where it's a chapter in a book which is a collection of articles, it's hard to see what template would work (which is why I haven't used one). I give authors' first names if I know them, initials if I don't. In over 30 FAs, it's never been suggested before that only initials should be used, and I'm reluctant to go down that route because effectively I would be removing information. The alternative, to find all the full first names is neither necessary or practical. Thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• The changes look good. I still see a few instances where "the" could be put before Common, but that nitpick won't keep me from supporting the promotion of this article. Well done! Lemurbaby (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks again for media review and support, I'll have another run through later Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Sasata

• I made a number of copyedits, please review
• lead: circumpolar redirects to subarctic; subarctic is linked in the next sentence
• if subarctic and arctic are linked, might as well link temperate as well
• "or all-black." -> no hyphen needed (not adjectival); there's a couple later too
• suggested links: vocalisations, downy, habitat loss, breeding colony
• should have non-breaking spaces in short form bi- and trinomials
• link nape, fitness
• "there are other confusion species" fix
• "the intermediate plumage and calls shown by these birds is a potential pitfall." pitfall for what?
• link alarm call
• "Most winter off western or southern Africa, with birds from the south and west of Europe tending to stay north of the equator, with other European birds moving further south." needs a tweak, sounds a bit irregular to have the two successive clauses starting with "with"
• link pair
• caption tweak: "This autumn juvenile in Massachusetts has a white forehead having lost the ginger colouration on its forehead of younger birds" -> "This autumn juvenile in Massachusetts has a white forehead, having lost the ginger colouration characteristic of younger birds"
• "first-laid" -> first laid
• link buff; link Great Horned Owls earlier; caches; Ligula intestinalis; Schistocephalus, Reighardia sternae (redlinks are ok!)
• "29,200,000 km2 (113 mi2)" something wrong with that conversion
• "Some birds are hunted in the Caribbean for commercial sale." sale as food, pets, or feathers?
• link Feminization (biology), conservation (?)
• citation 54 is "de Wolf, P, in Best & Haeck (1984) p. 362." what type of citation is this, a book chapter? If so, should give the title of the chapter
• I noticed several articles that could have Jstor links to 1st-page previews; I added just one, but thought I should check to see if that's ok with you before adding more
• should Cuthbert 2003 instead use cite report instead of cite journal? Why is the title not title case like the others?
• publication year for Lima's Aves do litoral norte da Bahia?
• I had thoughts similar to Lemurbaby's about putting "the" in front of some occurrences of "Common"

• Thanks so much for copyedit and review. These changes] fix almost everything. Apart from changing the case, I've left Cuthbert as is for now, pending your further thoughts. Cite Report seems to be intended for conference reports, not government docs, and my citation reads the same as the document itself recommends, except that I've spelled out first names and abbreviations in full. I don't put in jstors myself since it seems to be promoting a commercial organisation, but I've no objection should you do so, thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Feeling in a nitpicky mood, I went through the refs again and trimmed empty parameters, extra spaces, added a few Jstors link as well as some links to PDFs, and made a few other miscellaneous corrections. I think the article meets FA criteria and is of comparable quality to other avian FAs. Sasata (talk) 05:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks again for further tweaks and support. It's amazing how a few minor MoS errors still managed to survive to this stage. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 15:00, 17 March 2012 [28].

---

St Cuthbert Gospel

Nominator(s): Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is "the earliest surviving intact European book and one of the world’s most significant books", according to the British Library, who are just about to buy it for £9m ($14M), having had it on loan and on display for over 30 years. In particular it is the oldest European binding still in place. Its 1300 years of history is unusually well-recorded, and long and interesting, sometimes verging on the wierd, and the book has an unusually large amount of scholarship on it. I have had some help from the BL in doing the article. It's not a Wiki-cup entry. Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Redtigerxyz

• Images
  • File:St Cuthbert Gospel - f.1.jpg: Is tagging with PD-art right? Certainly not a piece of art

You don't think calligraphy is art? I wouldn't agree, nor would the various authorities cited, for example in the text section. We have hundreds or thousands of images of calligraphy using art tags. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As per Commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Can_.22old.22_book_pages_use_PD-art.3F, you need to crop it as it contains 3D elements and PD-art can be used for only 2D work. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

It could use the same tag as the front cover one; that Commons link is dead btw. Johnbod (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Corrected Link. Missed a commons. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Excluding you & me, that section is now 3:1 saying the pic is ok. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• • File:Cuthbert covercropped.jpg: Irreplaceable?? File:Britannica Bookbinding - St. Cuthbert's Gospels.jpg may serve the purpose.

Hardly - it's very fuzzy and in black and white, and you can't see the detail discussed, nor of course the colour. I hope the BL will fully release the pic on a CC license in due course - they are certainly keen for us to use it. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Let someone else too take a look. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this image is necessary and irreplaceable because it shows the coloring and size of the book. The Britannica shows a book that could be any color and any size, fwiw. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• • File:StonyhurstGospelText.jpg is missing source.

Hmm I didn't upload this, & it's a scan from some book, but which will be hard to say. I have emailed the original uploader, though he is no longer active on WP. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

He's pretty sure it's Brown 1967, which reproduces all pages & he had a scan of. I've read most of the literature & never seen it elsewhere. I'll add to file. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Prose
  • "Cuthbert's death in 687" in lead. The lead just said 2 lines ago about the date 687. Repetition.

Done Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• • "It presumably remained in the coffin through its travels after 875, forced by Viking invasions, and was found inside and removed in 1104 when the burial, by then in Durham Cathedral, was once again moved within the building." Confused??? Split

Split & rewritten Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• • " Monkwearmouth-Jarrow Abbey,.." and "the monastery of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow": IMO, one term can be used throughout.

Then the 2nd one becomes "It was written at the Monkwearmouth-Jarrow Abbey during the abbacy of Ceolfrith" where the repetition of "abbey/abbacy" is clunky. I think it's probably no bad thing to make clear that abbeys are monasteries, which perhaps one can't expect all readers to be sure of. All subsequent mentions just say "Monkwearmouth-Jarrow". Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• WP:OVERLINK
  • Morgan Library, Book of Kells linked twice in 1 section

Done; don't think there are more like that. A few links a long way apart are deliberately repeated, which is ok. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

"Anglo-Saxon_cross" is linked twice in Binding. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Binding: "Although the binding ...." got lost in middle. Split

Done Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Who is Roger Powell? Explain with short summary why his views are notable

He gets a pretty full write-up later, at the end of the history, & has a linked biography, which mentions his work on this. I've added "the bookbinder" here. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• " It has been suggested that in the St Cuthbert Gospel ... caution by other scholars"

Both are in the note, which is enough. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

IMO, attribution is needed in text. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

This would be too long by the time you have both sides. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Added. Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• IMO, "Boisil's book" and "Appeal" should be merged into history.

I'll think about that. Boisil is a bit awkward because really he is something of a red herring, but his missing book is the alternative that may be referred to in various sources, if this one is not meant. I thought it was too messy to go into the history, which is pretty long anyway. I would have expected, and may yet get, suggestions to split up the big sections rather than do further merges. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, "Appeal" now merged. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Boisil section also merged to "History", with a little clarification added. Works well actually. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I could not find details like number of pages and their conservation status. I have not read the article thoroughly and may have missed it. But if they exist, such details should be close to the "Binding" section, which also deals with the description of the gospel book.

They are both there. The number of pages is in the lead & the rest in the "Text" section, which is where the text is described. The "Binding" section only covers the binding, and is long enough already. The current condition is covered in the "Binding" section and at the end of the "History", which seems appropriate. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not suggesting merging, but just that the sections "Binding" and "Text" are in sequence. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The book is not really important as a text, but the binding is very important. I've put the sections in the sequence that I think reflects their significance. In fact both the number of pages & the overall condition (very good) are in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The text is a very good and careful copy" Says who??? This is a view, not a fact

Says Brown, and also other experts, as referenced. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

So it is an universal view (no expert disagrees), the no attribution is needed in text. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The book begins with 19 lines on a page, but at f42 changes to 20 lines per page" f42 seems to be a page. How are the pages numbered?--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As is usual with manuscripts, the numbering is by folios, denoted by "f" then Recto and verso, which is linked in the lead. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've spelt out folio here, and linked it again. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think these should all be ok now. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Looks good. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments on the lede by Aa77zz

• The sentence beginning "Although it was long regarded as Cuthbert's personal copy of the Gospel..." is too long for the lead and should be split. Done Jb
• Why is the citation to Skemer required in the lede? Removed Jb
• "one of the smallest surviving Anglo-Saxon manuscripts." - there is ambiguity here as 'Anglo-Saxon' can be the language (See footnote 1 at Old English). Perhaps "smallest surviving manuscripts from the Anglo-Saxon period."

I think this is ok. There is a link to Anglo-Saxons, & I've added "in Latin" just after. Johnbod (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• The lede contains "a gift from Monkwearmouth-Jarrow Abbey, where it was written," and "It was written at the monastery of Monkwearmouth-Jarrow during the abbacy". I'm not very sure about this but would it be better to omit the first "where it was written"?

Second sentence merged/removed. Johnbod (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Aa77zz (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Support by Truthkeeper88 - first, lovely article, very important, and nicely done. I think the "Binding" section is too stuffed - have you considered separating into subsections? I haven't read it closely but am thinking something along the lines, maybe, of design and color, construction, bla bla. Will get back to it later. Truthkeeper (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I've thought of that & it may well be best. After an introductory section, one the decoration of the covers - or one on the front, one on the back - then one on the construction. I'd have to rearrange a bit. I'll ponder further. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, done a simple one. I may tinker further, but I think it's an improvement. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, easier to read now. I'll get to it as soon as I can. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm finding very little to nit-pick - only two comments below:

• This sentence lost me: "The lines forming the interlace patterns are coloured in the dark blue/black and the bright yellow, but differently, as the yellow in the lower panel colours the left half of the design, but the upper panel begins at the (deviant) left in the dark colour, then switches to yellow once the pattern changes to that used for the rest of the panels, continuing in yellow until the central point, then changing to the dark colour for the right hand side of the design." > Maybe split or something?

Split into 3, but it needs to be read in conjunction with photo (in colour). Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Unsupported" > from my reading of it, it refers to the spine. I.e the manner in which the boards & pages were attached, but I'm thinking I might be wrong. I'm a slightly confused here. Do the horizontal cords across the spine attach the boards to the spine, and is the coptic stitching used to attach the leaves together? If so, I'm not sure that's made clear.

Pretty much. Coptic stitching uses small threads both to attach the leaves together and to attach them to the boards. Normal binding uses thread for the former and thicker cord for the latter, with the thread knotted onto the cord. I've added a sentence, but I don't think stitching is ever easy to understand in words, for non-sewers, and we don't seem to have really helpful photos. Somewhere there'll be a video which it might be worth linking to. I may restructure the whole thing later. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Rejigged a bit; I hope clearer. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it is clearer. I think I may have misread as well. It's an interesting technique. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I've moved to support but would like to read it again, so might come back with another comment or two, but essentially, as far as I'm concerned this meets the criteria. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Sarastro1: This is an outstanding, scholarly piece of work. For once, I am fairly familiar with the period and topic so I can vouch for comprehensiveness and the sourcing looks good. I've quite a list of nit-picks, with which you are free to argue, but nothing major. I look forward to supporting. --Sarastro1 (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• It may be worth saying in the lead how it became known as the Stonyhurst Gospel. - I would if it were the main name now, but as it is I'm not sure this is needed. I'll think. Jb - Now added Jb
• One or two arguable instances in the lead of slight POV phrasing: "finely decorated leather binding", "outstanding condition". But not a big deal if you disagree.

Really I think these are ok, and supported by the sources. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "where it was written": Suggests authorship. Created? Copied? - "scribed" seems a bit poncey to me, and this does allow for the possibility, mentioned later on, that the binding was in fact added at Lindisafarne. "Copied" is possible. Jb
• "It presumably remained in the coffin through its long travels after 875": Not too sure about presumably which suggests editorial judgement. Maybe "probably" or similar? - I'd rather stick with "presumably", which better reflects the arguments for this, which all sources agree with but rests on a number of presumptions, as to when and why the book might have been in the coffin since 698, and to it not being added on any of the numerous other occasions the coffin was probably opened, sometimes to pop other stuff in, as in 930 (see the article on the coffin). All we can be pretty sure of is that it was there in 1104, in pretty good condition. Jb
• "when the burial was once again moved within the cathedral": I don't think you can really move a burial.

I think you can - see a google search. An alternative would be "shrine", which it certainly was by then, but that is less clear. There seem to have been 3 layers of coffin by this stage, so I don't just want to say "coffin". Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "and important visitors were able to wear the book in a leather bag around their necks": Maybe include why they might do so, or it looks a little odd until you read the whole article

- It's "It was then kept there with other relics, and important visitors ..." - doesn't that cover it for the lead? Jb

I'm not sure that this really covers why they would feel the need to wear it. That would be the obvious question, and maybe a mention of the "charm" aspect is not too much for the lead? --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It being worn was nothing to do with it being a charm or amulet, but to do with being regarded as a relic of Cuthbert. I'm not sure how to explain that quickly in the lead, and maybe more needs to be explained lower down. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll leave this one to you. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

More now added on this, from a new source, in the "context" section. Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• "It is now on long-term loan to the British Library, catalogued as Loan 74" It is worth adding to the lead who owns it now. (Or who owned it if the library succeed in buying it) - Added. I think ok for now; it will all need rewriting in 5 weeks or so, when the number changes etc. Jb
• Just a thought: Is it absolutely certain that the binding is original, and not a (very) early addition? - Pretty much; that possibility is not even discussed by any of the sources, except that the MS might have been delivered unbound from M-Jarrow & bound at Lindifarne (as mentioned). Both the binding technique and the decoration fit better, as far as can be told, with the date of the text than later. Jb
• "which should be understood as representing a vine": Slightly cumbersome. Why not just "which represents a vine"?

- I'd prefer to be tentative; in fact Brown I think entirely avoids mentioning "vine", though Mynors (in Battiscombe) and Powell use it without demur. Jb

I'm fine with tentativeness (if that is a word!), but "should be understood as" is fairly clunky prose and has a hint of editorialising. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, removed. Johnbod (talk) 17:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "It has been suggested that in the St Cuthbert Gospel this design represents Christ (as the central bud) and the Four Evangelists as the grapes": Who has suggested? - Van Regemorter, as the note says. Jb - She's now added to the text Jb
• I thought that external links were not allowed in the main text, but there is a link to the bible reference. - They are one of the types allowed. Jb
• "The combination of different types of ornament within a panelled framework is highly typical of Nothumbrian art, above all the Lindisfarne Gospels.": I'm not sure how this relates to the plant motif discussed in the rest of the paragraph. Though it's possible I'm being dim.

The previous two sentences discuss the combination of classically-inspired plant motifs with interlace, as on the cover, in crosses and the portable altar, & this continues that, bringing in the framed compartments. The combination of classical/Mediterranean and Germanic/Celtic decorative elements together is the great characteristic of Insular art, and is what makes it a crucial forerunner of and influence on later medieval art. This is just touching on a huge subject, but maybe I need to add a little. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'll leave this one to you as I've just got the point (yes, I was being dim) but maybe a little more would make it clearer. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The stitching of the pages uses "Coptic sewing", "flexible unsupported sewing (produced by two needles and thread looping round one another in a figure-of-eight sewing pattern)"" Requires In-text attribution.

- I've clarified which Brown is quoted. If you mean the author should be mentioned in the text, I really can't see why, as this is merely a usefully snappy & simple phrasing of a standard piece of knowledge many of the other sources take longer to say, describing "kettle stitches" and the like. Touched this passage up a little. Jb

Personally, I've no great issue with this, but it is part of MoS and should be done in FAs: see MOS:Quote. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That says "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named", but none of these are full sentences. This goes for the others below. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "the closest resemblance is to an even smaller Irish pocket gospels from some fifty years later": Although you are almost certainly right, the clash of "an" with "gospels" jars slightly for the reader. - Yes; went to "gospel book" Jb
• Not sure I see the need to discuss "supported" binding at such length, when this binding was "unsupported".

- The easiest way to explain what "unsupported" means is by explaining what "supported" means, and in the process describing how almost all Western books from shortly after this were probably made with supported bindings, hence the significance of it being unsupported. Or so it seems to me. Jb

Happy to go with your view on this one, unless others see it as a problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The boards of the covers are now thought to be birch, not limewood as once though": Repetition of thought. Also, who is thinking? Historians? Scientists? Art historians? - gone to "... birch, rather than limewood as previously assumed..." Jb
• ""imitate very closely the best Italian manuscripts of about the sixth century"" Attribution?

- er, the reference immediately after Jb

As above, MOS:Quote#Attribution, I'm afraid. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• "which has always been greatly admired": By historians? Contemporaries? Art critics? (This is addressed in a later section, but should be explained here)

All of those, and also scholars of biblical texts (with paleographers, the only people who actually read such books right through, and appreciate their legibility), and calligraphers. Maybe if I just add "for their calligraphy"? Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "who may not all have developed at the same pace": Developed in what sense?

- In terms of changes in the style, broken down into changes to the formation of individual letters and other aspects; very technical stuff we don't want to go into here I think - this is paleography-lite, though as a specialist Brown is as happy as a pig in mud. Jb

Could your answer here be incorporated in the text; i.e. "developed their style"? Not a big issue if you don't like it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Should also be clearer from the rewrite covered below. Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Second paragraph of Dating, in particular with reference to the Codex Amiatinus, does not seem directly relevant. Why do we need such detail about a different work. It is not immediately obvious.

Rewritten, which I hope clarifies that the Codex Amiatinus provides pretty much the only firm date in the sequence, at 716, so underpinning all the paleological argument for dating. Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "by coincidence now bound up with the famous Utrecht Psalter" The general reader will not think it is famous. Also, why does this "coincidence" need to be pointed out? And is the "coincidence" relevant to the article, as the Psalter has not been mentioned until this point?

It does at least save having to identify the MS by more cumbersome means, and then having people who check think - "oh, he's made a mistake, that's the Utrecht Psalter"! I don't think there is anything wrong with telling people who don't know it is famous that it is - if everybody could be expected to know that there would be no point & it would just be bathetic, like "famous Taj Mahal". It clearly is famous as manuscripts go. It is essentially a coincidence, though an interesting one in various ways, showing the relatively small number of very early manuscripts, and the efforts made to preserve them from an early date, not that I've checked if we know when they were first united, which we probably don't - the current binding was added by Cotton. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy to go with your opinion here. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Cuthbert was an Anglo-Saxon, perhaps of a noble family, born in the Kingdom of Northumbria in the mid-630s, some ten years after the conversion of King Oswald to Christianity in 627, which was slowly followed by the rest of his people": The last clause, "which was slowly followed by the rest of his people" looks like it refers to Cuthbert, but must refer to the conversion. Perhaps this could be rephrased?

I don't really see how "which was" could refer to Cuthbert. I've added "that of" after "followed by" - does that help? Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "when his remains were moved to behind the altar to reflect his recognition, in the days before a formal process of canonization, as a saint": Maybe just "moved behind"? - Hmm, that makes it sound as if they were tidying him away, somehow, when the reverse was the case. Jb
• "He has been described as "perhaps the most popular saint in England prior to the death of Thomas Becket in 1170."" Who described him?

- well Marner, as cited, but other sources could be. I don't like attributing what are fairly standard assertions in the text; then people want you to add who they are and why we should credit their statement. Jb

That damned MOS:Quote#Attribution again, I'm afraid. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• "No doubt these and other relics were reverently packaged in cloth and labelled, as more recent relics are.": Is this in the cited source? It looks a little like editorial voice, so a citation for this sentence may be helpful.

I think this is ok. There is no actual record, apart from the much later Symeon of Durham, of the arrangements in 875, but Reginald's account of the 1104 opening mentions wrappers or wrappings, partly decayed, for the other relics, and the anonymous account mentions a linen sack apparently containing all the non-Cuthbert bones, which they had no difficulty telling apart, so presumably they were individually packaged. Cuthbert himself was swathed in layers and layers of cloth, on which there is great detail in Battiscombe, from 1104, 1827 and 1899, though the thinner cloths were mostly disintegrated by the 19th century, and no remains seem to have been kept. Some of the heavier Byzantine silks still survive at Durham. I wanted to avoid the impression that they had a box full of loose bones, which they certainly did not. They also took two later bishops with them, who were still there in 1104, when according to Reginald all the bones except Oswald's head was removed. Maybe I should just remove the "no doubt". Johnbod (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

"No doubt" cut. Johnbod (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• "the predecessor of the present great Durham Cathedral": Is "great" necessary here?

- I don't think this is unduly peacocky; can be referenced if needed. Jb

To be honest, I think it could be taken out as it is a little peacocky, and suggests an editorial comment. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed, somewhat grudgingly. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• ""written in a modest book-hand apparently of the later twelfth century"" Attribution?

- Brown, per the reference 8 words later. Jb

MOS:Quote#Attribution again, I'm afraid. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Milner thought that "the binding seems to be of the time of Queen Elizabeth"!" I'm not sure the exclamation mark is encyclopaedic.

It is rather a jaw-dropper, and I wanted to convey that. I think a review of Battiscombe called it "astonishingly amateurish" or something - it's the interlace that is really un-Elizabethan. I've added a bit to balance it, as on the text his account was pretty good for the period. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Not personally convinced that there should be an exclamation mark, no matter how ludicrous the opinion was! --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "This seems to have been done hastily, as most left offsets on the opposite page from the pages being closed before the ink was dry.": This reads a little clumsily; I initially read it as "left offsets" meaning opposite of "right", rather than "leaving". Also, repetition of pages.

- Gone to "...as most left offset marks on the opposite pages from the book being closed before the ink was dry." Jb

Sounds good, but I can't see this in the text! --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No indeed, I forgot to save it. Done now - I hope there was nothing else in that edit. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "This seems to indicate that the book was used at least once as the gospel book for a Mass for the Dead, perhaps on the occasion of Cuthbert's elevation in 698." Is this cited? The next ref refers to a specific page, which makes this seem to be slightly OR. - This is strictly following Brown; two pages are cited in fact, though I don't see why more than one would needed to say it. Jb
• The description in the text of the illustration of Folio 27r may be better placed in the caption of the image. - That would make a very long caption, & the picture itself may be "threatened" - see above. The point is not just incidental as it bears on the possibility that it was used for the mass at his elevation in 698. Jb
• The section on "Boisil's book": Is this making the point that this book has been confused with the Cuthbert Gospel? I'm not too sure I see the point of including this here otherwise. - This section has been merged to "History - Durham" and I hope clarified, while you were writing these. Boisil's book has been something of a red herring in the understanding of the St C Gospel, ever since Flambard in 1104, but Brown seems finally to have eliminated it. Jb
• "and all the examples known to Brown were of John": Presumably Brown the historian mentioned earlier, but maybe make it explicit. - "Julian" added Jb

--Sarastro1 (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for these - working through them. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Where I've struck, my comment has either been addressed or I am happy with the explanation/reasoning. However, the attribution points are about MoS. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

SupportProvisional support: I am happy to support this excellent article as it stands as it almost certainly meets the criteria. I am keeping the support provisional for now simply so that others can chip in. My remaining concerns over one or two phrasing points, and over attribution of quotes in the text are not enough to prevent my full support, but I would like to see what others think first. Also, as I do know something of this period and the type of analysis etc covered here, I would like a few other eyes to make sure that the article is comprehensible and not over-detailed. Once there have been a few other reviews, I will switch to full support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC) Switched to full support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. As above, the MOS says "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named", but none of these are full sentences. Johnbod (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for a very careful review! Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Jones and Michell or Mitchell? - Well spotted; it's Michell. Done Jb
• Check alphabetization of References - Done Jb
• Ranges should consistently use endashes - Run a tool, should be ok now. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Be consistent in how web sources are notated - done; convenience links to google books not access-dated. Jb
• Be consistent in how multi-author sources are notated - done, insofar as the works are equivalent Jb
• No citations to Brown 2003 - Coming Jb - Now there Jb
• Why the doubled dates in the Brown reference entries? - The first are to disambiguate between three Brown books, the second to be consistent with other refs. Jb
• Be consistent about whether locations are provided for books, and give publisher consistently - Done; a couple of cities left for very obscure publishers in Brussels & Dublin. "Town House Dublin" is the publisher's name, so comma removed. Now it's no longer all done on the kitchen table they seem to use "TownHouse Dublin", but my book has the three words. I've left "Brussels" for "Bibliotheca Wittockiana" as they are pretty obscure, and mainly a museum, though unlike Town House they are easy to find with google. Jb
• be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced. - Done Jb

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

All done, I think. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Comments from Jim I saw the 2007 BL exhibition, and that inspired me to review this generally excellent FAC. A few quibbles of course. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• link sarcophagus and blind stylus? - done sarcophagus & stylus Jb
• link British Museum, Coptic at first occurrence? - done Jb
• damages in certain places.. — plural reads oddly to me, why not "damage"? The plural is usually confined to the sense of legal compensation. - actually this is common in describing the condition of artworks [29], as more convenient than saying "areas of damage" etc. I don't see that other senses can't use the plural too, although I agree they tend not to. OED notes the legal sense is "now always in the plural" but says nothing about sing/plural for the other senses. Jb
• John 15:5 — I didn't think we ever had external links in the body of the text, but I would not expect an experienced editor to get that wrong, so can you assure me that this EL conforms to MoS — We have special templates for them; my FAs like Royal_Gold_Cup#Iconography and others have them, and the vast majority of relevant religious articles. Wikipedia:External links says: "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article.[1]" Note is: "Exceptions are rare. They include use of templates like {{visualizer}}, which produces charts on the Toolserver, and {{external media}}, which is only used when non-free and non-fair use media cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia.", and I suppose these. There is a lot of debate at Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible (2010) and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_18#Template:Bibleref (2006) but all seem to take inline links for granted & the questions are Wikisource vs. external, and which external. Jb
• today in Scotland, but was then in Northumbria — Twice we are told that Melrose is in Scotland, but you don't give current countries or counties for other locations. Unless you are emphasising its misfortune, I'm not sure you need this, certainly not twice. —- 2nd time removed, but the first is certainly needed. Old Melrose until I recently edited it avoided all mention of Northumbria, which is not good. Most people, including apparently some locals, don't realize that early Anglo-Saxon England went up to the Firth of Forth, which is important here. Jb
• cultus — at first glance I assumed this was different to the more familiar "cult", but since it actually redirects to the common word, I'm not sure why you've selected an obscure term in preference to the familiar. — Changed, though actually cultus goes to Cult (religious practice) not cult, and the word is used to try to maintain that distinction. Link moved to an earlier occurence anyway. Jb
• house of Wessex — I'd cap "House..." —- Well it's nice to see someone asking for more caps for a change! It's "Thereafter the royal house of Wessex..."; if it were "Thereafter the House of Wessex ...." yes, but I think the adjectival phrase means no cap, no? I don't feel strongly. Jb
• Masses for the Dead — ... but I'd lc "dead". — Hmm, knew it wouldn't last! This is a specific form of mass (aka Requiem) & I think should be capitalized, even in the plural, though it is not always in sources. Jb
• Brown, Michelle P., — does she really need two links in consecutive lines of the references? -— Delinked, I suppose not. Jb

Thanks for these! Johnbod (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Great article, I'm happy with the responses and I've indicated my support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Support – A fine article, combining formidable scholarship with highly readable prose. Only one quibble: "paleography" but "palaeographical" and then "paleographical" – I prefer the middle version, and so, more to the point, does the OED. Anyway, one or the other spelling, please. That really is all I can find to object to. Bravo! – Tim riley (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Support with comment: Absolutely gorgeous article that is well written with fantastic images. I had a great time reading (and drooling), so thanks. Only one quibble, slightly on par with Tim's comment above:

• Two consecutive sentences in the second paragraph of the lead refers to the BL as both "the Library" and "the library"; lower or uppercase L?

Other than that, things look wonderful. Great job well done! María (yllosubmarine) 15:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Many thanks both. Changed all to palaeography/ical and to "library" and "they". Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see a spotcheck on this article. Ucucha (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The 2 main sources are rare, especially outside the UK (Brown 1969 was originally printed in an edition of 100), but there are 8 of the shorter sources available online, including Jstor. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have access to JSTOR and will be happy to do a spotcheck tomorrow. Is that OK? Tim riley (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds great to me, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• I have checked 26 of the 103 references, namely: 1; 11; 23; 24; 26; 30; 31 (Avrin); 34 (Avrin); 36; 37 (Avrin); 50 (Farmer); 51 (Farmer); 52 (Farmer); 53 (Farmer); 54; 55 (Bede); 56; 58 (Farmer); 70; 76 (Milner); 77 (Milner); 88; 89; 98 (Skemer); 99; and 100.
• Where references refer to both print and online sources I have indicated above the portion of each of them that I have been able to check. I have not got access to the printed sources, but could arrange to have access to the main one, Brown (1969), if necessary, but not till Monday.
• The statements attributed to these online sources check out, except for ref 88, which points at the info relevant to ref 89, rather than the earlier announcement. This appears to be because of the way the website is set up, with new info overwritten on older info at the same url.

Indeed - I've just cut the earlier statement, which is now not needed. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• There is a page number that needs tweaking at ref 23, which should read "pp. 153–154", not just "p. 154". – Tim riley (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Many thanks for this tedious work! Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 14:48, 17 March 2012 [30].

---

Spanish conquest of Guatemala

Nominator(s): Simon Burchell (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Pedro de Alvarado crossed into what is now Guatemala in early 1524, three years after Hernán Cortés defeated the Aztecs, and found a region containing a complex mix of competing Mesoamerican kingdoms already ravaged by diseases accidentally introduced by the conquistadors. Thus began a series of conflicts that lasted around two hundred years as each of these kingdoms was conquered or evangelised. I rescued this page from a redirect in August 2011 and it passed GA in December. I am now satisfied that it covers all the major incidents of the conquest of Guatemala and have done what I can to iron out any problems before bringing it here. The article is comprehensive and stable; I hope that FA review will further improve it. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments on References section
I know that the main requirement with referencing is for consistency but I would...

• Remove all the explicit pp. from the references. The template will insert them for edited books. A number of references currently have "pp. pp."

I've done this. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Use the jstor= parameter for the journal articles available from jstor – instead of linking the title. It is then clear that a subscription is required.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Omit the oclc number where an isbn is available

On Worldcat, an ISBN can point to multiple entries while an oclc points to a specific entry so I prefer to keep both. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Simplify the "6th edition, fully revised and expanded ed" to "6th ed.", the "5th, revised and enlarged ed" to "5th ed.", etc

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Give only the first publication place where several are listed by the publisher.

I prefer to give the complete information. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• In the "Citations" section, insert a space between the pp. and the page number.

Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• (and I don’t like the use of small caps – I find them more difficult to read)

The use of small caps is fairly standard at WikiProjects Mesoamerica and Central America. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Aa77zz (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for going through this - it's a bit tidier now. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it necessary to cite books by Robert M. Carmack written in Spanish? Has he published similar material in English? His English publications have similar titles. Aa77zz (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of his works may also have been published in English (but not Historia Social de los K'iche's as far as I know). However, I bought my copies in Guatemala and don't have access to English language versions; page numbers would not be the same in any case. Carmack's books are solid referencing for the K'iche' and the fact that they are in Spanish shouldn't make a difference. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Where possible you should use English sources – see WP:NOENG – "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." The titles obviously aren't identical but is Carmack, Robert M. (2001b): "Kik'ulmatajem le K'iche'aab': Evolución del Reino K'iche'" the same as "The Quiché Mayas of Utatlán: the evolution of a highland Guatemala" First published in 1981, reprinted in 2012? If it is then you should use the (original?) English edition. Aa77zz (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And I would use the English version if I had it but I don't. Where English texts are available, I've used them. In an article upon the history of Guatemala, Spanish texts should not be unexpected, and I've had no problems with using Spanish texts in previous FAs. WP:NOENG points out that an English text is preferred (not demanded) if I have one available, that is not the case. Carmack is a reliable source, and I only have the text in Spanish. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Polo Sifontes, Francis (unknown). Zaculeu: Ciudadela Prehispánica Fortificada. Guatemala" This seems not to be generally available – I cannot find it listed in the Library of Congress catalog or by using google. Is it published? I expect to be able to verify the information without visiting the Instituto de Antropología e Historia de Guatemala. Aa77zz (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is published; I can't seem to find it under my book mountain at the moment. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing in it that isn't supported in the other sources, so I've removed it as redundant. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments on prose

• There are a few 'due to's in the article which need to be replaced by 'owing to' or 'because of'. 'Due to' is adjectival and should hence only be directly attached to a conjugated form of 'to be' (like 'the cancellation of the concert was due to the rain), whilst 'owing to' is adverbial and can therefore be attached to all other verbs (like 'the concert was cancelled owing to the rain'). 'Because of' ought to be used when its sentence can answer a 'Why?' question w/o a full sentence. Another good rule of thumb is that 'due to' can only be used when 'attributable to', 'caused by' or 'resulting from' also would work. And never start a sentence w/ it.

• I've replaced all instances with alternate phrasing. You might want to cast your eye over it to check the changes are all OK. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, looks good. There were a couple of places where I would have used 'because of' instead, but I'm not a native speaker of English, so I cannot be sure. Eisfbnore ^talk 02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• "New crops were also introduced but sugarcane and coffee led to the plantations that came to economically exploit native labour." → "New crops were also introduced; however, sugarcane and coffee led to plantations that economically exploited native labour."

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Guatemalan society is divided into a class system largely based on race, with Maya peasants and artisans at the bottom, with the mixed-race Ladino salaried workers and bureaucrats forming the middle and lower class and above them the creole elite of pure European ancestry."—bin the second 'with'.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Make sure that all year ranges are separated with dashes and not hyphens.

• I think I've changed them all. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Pedro de Alvarado's brother Jorge wrote another account to the king of Spain explaining that it was his own campaign of 1527-1529 that established the Spanish colony."—swap 'explaining' for 'that explained' to remove noun+present participle construction.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Is the article written in Brit. or Am. Eng.? I find both 'neighbouring' and 'percent'.

• Whoops - that's British English; I've fixed that "percent". Simon Burchell (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Although it was well-planned the rebellion was quickly crushed and its leaders were executed; most of the mission towns were abandoned as a result."—my eyes would prefer a comma after 'well-planned'.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "The Tlaxcalan allies of the Spanish who accompanied them in their invasion of Guatemala wrote their own accounts of the conquest, these included a letter to the Spanish king protesting at the poor treatment of these allies once the campaign was over."—comma splice

• I've swapped it for a semi-colon. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Caption: "Relief map of Guatemala showing the three broad geographical areas; the southern Pacific lowlands, the highlands and the northern Petén lowlands"—replace the semicolon w/ a colon or an em-dash.

• I've swapped it for a colon. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "At the same time as the Spanish were occupied with the overthrow of the Aztec empire a terrible plague struck the Kaqchikel capital of Iximche"—comma after 'empire'.

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Cortés' allies in Soconusco soon informed him that the K'iche' and the Kaqchikel were not loyal, instead harassing the allies of Spain in the region" → "Cortés' allies in Soconusco soon informed him that the K'iche' and the Kaqchikel were not loyal; instead they reputedly harassed the allies of Spain in the region."

• I'm not clear why this needs "reputedly". Simon Burchell (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Nevermind the 'reputedly'; I just want to get rid of the gerund construction. Eisfbnore ^talk 02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think the gerund can easily be changed without changing the meaning of the sentence in some way - and in this case the gerund is preferable since the harassment was an ongoing process at the time when Cortés was informed. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

More to come. Eisfbnore ^talk 15:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for checking this over, I've been staring at it for so long sometimes I just don't see the mistakes! Simon Burchell (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• My pleasure; I will continue the review as soon as I am able. Eisfbnore ^talk 02:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• "The Spanish viewed the taking of prisoners as a hindrance to outright victory while the Maya priority was the capture of live prisoners and of booty."—this sentence would take better use of its grammatical parallelisms if it read thus: "The Spanish viewed the taking of prisoners as a hindrance to outright victory while the Maya prioritised the capture of live prisoners and of booty." In that way you'll have a more logic and parallel structure with 'subject - predicate - object ; subject - predicate object'

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Bernal Díaz del Castillo wrote a lengthy account of the conquest of Mexico and neighbouring regions, the Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva España ("True History of the Conquest of New Spain"), his account of the conquest of Guatemala generally agrees with that of the Alvarados."—swap the second comma for a semicolon to elude the comma splice

• Done.

• "Two pictorial accounts painted in the stylised indigenous pictographic tradition have survived, these are the Lienzo de Quauhquechollan, which was probably painted in Ciudad Vieja in the 1530s, and the Lienzo de Tlaxcala, painted in Tlaxcala."—another comma splice (the first comma); could have fixed it myself though ;P

• Done.

• "In response to the use of cavalry, the highland Maya took to digging pits on the roads, lining them with fire-hardened stakes and camouflaging them with grass and weeds, a tactic that the Kaqchikel claimed killed many horses."—perhaps I am being unkind, but I do maintain that the the 'claimed killed' produces a garden path effect. I would try something down the line of "a tactic that according to the Kaqchikel killed many horses."

• Done.

• "In March 1524, Pedro de Alvarado entered Q'umarkaj when invited by the remaining lords of the K'iche' after the catastrophic defeat of the K'iche' army in the Quetzaltenango valley."—not quite sure, but I think I've heard some other WPedians argue that the comma after the year is un-British.

• I've obviously been reading too many sources in American English! Fixed. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• "The Kaqchikel appear to have entered into an alliance with the Spanish in order to defeat their enemies"—'in order to' is an unnecessarily verbose formulation; try 'to' instead.

• Done.

• "A Kaqchikel priest foretold that the Kaqchikel gods would destroy the Spanish and the Kaqchikel people abandoned their city and fled to the forests and hills on 28 August 1524 (7 Ahmak in the Kaqchikel calendar)."—another garden path sentence: When I read it, I first thought that the priest foretold that both the Spanish and the Kaqchikel people would be destroyed! I would swap the 'and' for a semicolon or an em-dash.

• Hah, that's what it looked like to me too! Fixed.

• "A day later they were joined by many nobles and their families and many more people and then surrendered at the new Spanish capital at Ciudad Vieja."—and...and...and... At least the final one could be replaced by some fancy semicolon construction.

• Done.

• "The Kaqchikel kept up resistance against the Spanish for a number of years but on 9 May 1530, exhausted by the warfare that had seen the deaths of their best warriors and the enforced abandonment of their crops"—'on 9 May 1530' is a parenthetical phrase; please put a comma after 'but'.

Done.

• "Conquistador Bernal Díaz del Castillo recounted how in 1526 he returned to Iximche and spent the night in the "old city of Guatemala" together with Luis Marín and other members of Hernán Cortés's expedition to Honduras."—the lack of a def article before 'Conquistador' creates a tabloid-ish sound in my head; I think The Guardian's style guide also recommends against the non-def use. --Eisfbnore ^talk 20:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Added the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Support – 'tis a lay-friendly and accessible article. Well done. Eisfbnore ^talk 08:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Eisfbnore. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why is the lead image so huge?

• I've changed this to 300px as recommended for a lead image at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, can't say I see much difference on my screen though. Simon Burchell (talk) 02:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• PD-old requires that you also include a US PD tag

• I've had a look at the PD-US tags over on Commons and I'm not sure which one to use, maybe PD-1996? Simon Burchell (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Depends on the image - File:Bartolome_de_las_casas.jpg, File:Alvarado.jpeg and File:CartedAmerique.jpeg should either be PD-US or PD-1996. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• All done.

• File:Guatemala_Topography.png: what is SRTM?

• That would be Shuttle Radar Topography Mission. Simon Burchell (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• File:Hernán_Cortés,_Museo_de_América.jpg: source link seems to be broken

• I've put in a link to Waybackmachine. The original pic doesn't seem to have been captured by the archive (just a broken frame) but the click to see larger version does work. Simon Burchell (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• File:Bartolomedelascasas.jpg: source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Imported from English wikipedia(!) Original file long gone by the looks of it. I can replace it with File:Bartolome de las casas.jpg, which was taken from Bartholomew de Las Casas; his life, apostolate, and writings by Francis Augustus MacNutt, 1909 (available at Project Gutenberg, just scroll down slighlty). Simon Burchell (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've swapped the images over. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, but if you're claiming author+70 you really should include author name on the description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, this should be really obvious, but 3D works like File:Maya-Maske.jpg need to account for the copyright status of the work itself as well as the image. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've dropped the approximate date of creation (AD 250-600) onto the description page, with ref. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for comming back! I believe I've sorted out everything. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick comment about the table. I've made it accessible by adding row and col scopes, but I note that if you wish it to be sortable, I think you need to fix the dates column to sort correctly (i.e. by date), probably using the {{dts}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for that, I've long wondered how to get dates to sort in tables. Any idea how to get the "February - March 1524" to sort correctly (sort as February 1524 but displayed as "February-March 1524" would be fine)? All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• No problem. You could use the {{dtsh}} template to sort as February 1524 and then just have "February-March 1524" as free text straight afterwards, I think that'd do the trick! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Perfect! All sorting fine now - many thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• You're welcome, glad to be of assistance. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Question The table has no citations. Is all the information contained within the table also present elsewhere in the article? If not then the source(s) for the info in the table should be specified. Aa77zz (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• That's right, all the info is taken from the article body and is cited in the text. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries; WP:Checklist will explain some of them. - Dank (push to talk)

• Thanks to Eisfbnore for working on the prose here; there are only two things I'm sure I disagree with. I don't like the first comma in "The Kaqchikel kept up resistance against the Spanish for a number of years but, on 9 May 1530, exhausted by ...", and I moved the comma in front of the "but". Perhaps I'm to blame here if I got an earlier version of WP:Checklist wrong ... I'm not sure, but I tried to be careful to say that if there's a comma before the parenthetical phrase, then you need a comma after, and not the other way around, that is, a comma coming after doesn't absolutely require a comma before (although I always stop and ponder where the "breath" is most likely to come). Also, I've always liked the style guide of the Guardian when I've consulted it, and if they say this is important, I'd like to know, but I'm pretty sure it's fine with just about everyone to start a sentence with "Conquistador Bernal Díaz del Castillo". I'm guessing the Guardian is objecting to sentences like "Farmer Jones said ...". - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I admit I prefer it as it originally read "Conquistador Bernal Diaz..." rather than "The conquistador Bernal Diaz...", which sounds rather forced to my ear... Simon Burchell (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 00:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'd like to suggest you change every "upon" to "on" except for two: "upon the initial approach" and "upon the approach".

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• "the Maya kingdoms resisted integration into the Spanish Empire with great tenacity, causing the conquest of the Maya to last almost two centuries.": See WP:Checklist#cause. I'd go with: "the Maya kingdoms resisted integration into the Spanish Empire with such tenacity that their conquest took almost two centuries." - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Malleus is reading this now, and it's British English, so ... I'm going to move on, but if I can help with anything, don't hesitate to ask. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input - best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oh dear, I hope you haven't left because of me Dank. Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Just saw this ... Heh, no, it wasn't "OMG it's Malleus, everyone out of the pool!" I meant that with supports from (hopefully) you and Eisfbnore, I'm probably not needed to get it over the hump, and I'm stretched as it is, so ... very much obliged, and if I can help with anything (here or elsewhere), please give me a shout. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment on formulation of specific sentence in section Conquest of Petén:

"The Franciscan friar Andrés de Avendaño oversaw a second attempt to overcome the Itza in 1695, convincing the Itza king that the K'atun 8 Ajaw, a twenty-year Maya calendrical cycle beginning in 1696 or 1697, was the right time for the Itza to finally embrace Christianity and to accept the king of Spain as overlord. However the Itza had local Maya enemies who resisted this conversion and in 1696 Avendaño was also fortunate to get away alive." [my italics]

The text I marked in italics is a bit puzzling and may need clarifying, i.e., it appears to imply the Itza may have been ready for conversion this time, but instead of going along with the Franciscans, decided to chase them away, because their (the Itza's) enemies were against it. This seems contradictory. -- Arjuno (talk 22:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Arjuno - I've rephrased to ...in 1696 Avendaño was fortunate to get away without these hostile Maya killing him. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Malleus Fatuorum. I like this article, and will likely support its promotion once I've read the whole thing, but I really do hate inconsistency; is it "Guatemalan Highlands" or "Guatemalan highlands"?

• Scholarly sources (in English and Spanish) use caps and treat it as a placename, so I've changed every instance of "Guatemalan highlands" to "Guatemalan Highlands". In those places where "highlands" stands alone (so is not a placename) I've left it with the small "h". Please let me know what you think. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  I think that's fine. Malleus Fatuorum 15:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Impact of Old World diseases

• This is just a question to which the answer may be obvious, but I'm struck that there's no mention of the Spanish being affected by New World diseases such as yellow fever or malaria. Even at the end of the 19th century those two accounted for a large number of construction workers excavating the Panama Canal.

• All of my sources concentrate on the Spanish impact upon Guatemala rather than the opposite - I have seen mentions in Spanish primary accounts of fever etc. although exact diseases weren't so easily identifiable. Malaria was an Old World disease so wouldn't have had any effect until some time after the conquest. Yellow fever was also an Old World disease. The only significant New World disease seems to have been syphilis but I'm having a lot of trouble tracking down sources for Guatemala, or of diseases affecting the conquistadors in general. It seems to be a chronically understudied area. In the "Fall of Nojpetén" section there is mention of disease badly affecting the colonists. Anyway, I'll see what I can dig up, if anything. Simon Burchell (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Subjugation of the K'iche'

• "Their resistance failed and the conquistadors crossed the river and ransacked nearby settlements in order to terrorise the K'iche' resistance. On 8 February 1524, after forcing their way across the river, Alvarado's army fought a battle at Xetulul ...". Presumably the ransacked settlements were on the other side of the river? But why are we being told twice that the Spanish crossed the river?

• Good point. I've cut "after forcing their way across the river". Simon Burchell (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Kaqchikel rebellion

• "The Spaniards abandoned Tecpán in 1527 ...". Why is "Spaniards" linked in that sentence, and why are they called Spaniards here and "Spanish" almost everywhere else?

• No good reason - I originally wrote this section for the Iximche article, I think, and the language and link are a holdover from that. I've changed both. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• "A day later they were joined by many nobles and their families and many more people". Many more people than what? It seems strange as well to say "a day later", as no date was given in the preceding sentence for when the two kings "returned from the wilds".

• The preceding sentence is "The Kaqchikel kept up resistance against the Spanish for a number of years, but on 9 May 1530, exhausted by the warfare that had seen the deaths of their best warriors and the enforced abandonment of their crops, the two kings of the most important clans returned from the wilds.", so a date was given for when the kings returned. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Land of War: Verapaz

• "In response a punitive expedition was launched, headed by Juan Matalbatz, an indigenous leader from Chamelco; the independent Indians that the Q'eqchi' expedition captured were taken back to Cobán and resettled in Santo Tomás Apóstol." Is the Q'eqchi' expedition the one led by Juan Matalbatz? If so, it seems odd to introduce its name here, when the only prior mention of the Q'eqchi' is that they had been relocated, and the friar was murdered by the Acala and their Lacandon allies, apparently not by the Q'eqchi'. And what does "independent Indians" mean?

• The expedition was a colonial Q'eqchi' expedition and the "independent Indians" means those Indians still not subjugated by Spain. I've changed "an indigenous leader" to "a Q'eqchi' leader". Simon Burchell (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Lake Izabal and the lower Motagua River

• "The new settlement immediately suffered a drop in population, but although they were reported extinct before 1613 in some sources, Mercedarian friars were still attending to Amatique Toquegua in 1625." That doesn't quite work; "they" is presumably meant to refer to "population", but that's a singular noun, and to compound the problem it looks like "they" is referring back to the subject of the preceding clause, "the new settlement". Needs rewriting in some way I think.

• I've rephrased to "The new settlement immediately suffered a drop in population, but although the Amatique Toquegua were reported extinct before 1613 in some sources, Mercedarian friars were still attending to them in 1625." Simon Burchell (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

  Much better. Reading the original again, it even looks like it might be the Mercedarian friars who were reported extinct. Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Heh! That raised a smile...always good to have a fresh eye! Simon Burchell (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

  What a great ghost story that would make; the extinct friars attending to a deserted settlement. More seriously, you'll no doubt be relieved to hear that I've almost finished reading through, just a couple more sections to go. Thanks for dealing with my no doubt irritating nitpicks so quickly and patiently. Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for taking so much time to go through it. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• "During the same campaign to conquer the Itza of Petén ...". Why is it saying "the same campaign"? The same campaign as what?

• I've dropped the "same", which was referring to the events of the next section and isn't really necessary. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Subjugation of the K'iche'

• "With the destruction of Q'umarkaj and the execution of its rulers, Pedro de Alvarado sent messages to Iximche, capital of the Kaqchikel, proposing an alliance against the remaining K'iche' resistance." Starting this sentence of with "with" implies that the message being sent was the destruction of the town and the executions, but that can't be the case if Pedro was also proposing an alliance.

• I've changed "with" to "after". Simon Burchell (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. I think this is a great piece of work, really excellent, especially as it's such a helluva span to try and cover. Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Malleus - that was a heroic copyedit. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. This is an excellent article that fully deserves to be promoted. I have a couple of suggestions:
• I think it would be nice to have a couple of quotes from original eyewitness accounts of the conquest both by Conquistadors and by Mayas. I know that Restall and Hill/Maxwell have published translations of some of those accounts. I forget whether Bernal Díaz del Castillo participated in Guatemala, but if he did his account would be another one that might be worth quoting. I think eyewitness quotes would make the account even more compelling for the lay reader.

• I had previously thought of dropping in some quotes and never got around to it - I think I might even have some notes somewhere. I'll see what I can do - I certainly don't have a shortage. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've dropped in three quotes - from Pedro de Alvarado, Bartolomé de las Casas and the Annals of the Kaqchikels. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that's excellent. They're just suggestions by the way not something that I think is imperative for the article to work.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Also I would suggest chaging the wording in the lead where it says "translated for their Spanish masters" - I think this suggests a very clear power structure between Nahuatl allies and Spaniards - where I think that recent scholarship have suggested that many of the indigenous allies at this point did not consider themselves subjugated by Spanish masters, but rather as participants in a joint military venture.

• I've changed this to "the Spanish". Simon Burchell (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Also I would suggest another image than Alvarado for the lead - perhaps an illustration of a conquest scene in an indigenous codex (for example found here at John Chuchiak's homepage[31]), or in a comtemporary drawing if one can be found.

• Thanks for the link, but since I'm unsure of the copyright status of the image (it could be a copy rather than an original) I don't think I can use it - when writing the article I did try to find a free use version of just that. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I am sure there are free use scans of Lienzo de Tlaxcala somewhere on the net. I'll try to look into it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• The article mentions that the K'iche sent envoys to Tenochtitlan after its fall. It doesn't mention the fact that they were told of the Spaniards arrival by envoys sent by Moctezuma II - who was related to the K'iche' ruler by marriage. this I believe is mentioned i Restall's Seven myths of the Spanish conquest.

• I don't have Seven Myths, so I'm unable to add that - I had no idea that Moctezuma II had family connections with the K'iche'. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to find it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Also perhaps mention the fact that Cortés executed the rulers of the triple alliance in Acalán before he entered Petén.

·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think I cut that because it wasn't relevant - it happened in (what is now) Mexico before crossing into Petén, but I might add a sentence. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
• Thanks for the comments, I'll sort them out properly Wednesday evening. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support on prose and comprehensiveness Comment - beginning a read-through now. Will post queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Many thanks Casliber, I'll respond individually below. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Many conquistadors viewed the Maya, without regard to the achievements of their civilization, as "infidels" who needed to be forcefully converted and pacified - comes over a tad clunky to me. I think it'd be smoother as: "Many conquistadors viewed the Maya as "infidels" who needed to be forcefully converted and pacified, disregarding the achievements of their civilization."

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

:I wonder if the lead would read better if the second and third paragraphs were swapped. To me the flow is more natural (temporal overview followed by some specifics), but others may disagree.....

• Do you mean the third and fourth paragraphs? The third paragraph, now I come to look at it, splits two paragraphs dealing with historical events, so I've swapped the last two around. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, much better flow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

two of these letters are no longer extant - why not " two of these letters no longer exist"?

• I've changed it to "two of these letters are now lost", although I don't really see what was wrong with the original wording. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Even better. The original wording is ok, but I just figured my (and your) alternatives make it crisper still. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• See above - no prose clangers remain. Looks nice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Casliber! Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like we still need a spotcheck on this article. Ucucha (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments - I was the GA reviewer for this article and was quite impressed at that point; the article has only improved since then. A few further comments:

• Guatemala before the Conquest, "All were Maya groups except for the Pipil, who were a Nahua group related to the Aztecs; they had a number of small city-states along the Pacific coastal plain of southern Guatemala and El Salvador." I'm not sure if "they" is referring to the Maya groups or the Pipil (I'm assuming the latter, but am not 100% sure).

• I've clarified this. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Guatemala before the Conquest, "the Kaqchikel allies of the K'iche' rebelled against their former overlords". "Allies" does not seem to jive with "overlords" - allies implies (at least to me) something approaching equality, or at least a voluntary relationship, while "overlords" implies that the pairing was involuntary and that one group was basically a protectorate of the other.

• I've rephrased this to in the late 15th century the Kaqchikel rebelled against their former K'iche' allies. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Conquistadors, "Bernal Díaz del Castillo was a petty nobleman who accompanied Hernán Cortés when he crossed the northern lowlands, and Pedro de Alvarado's on his invasion of the highlands." de Alvarado's what?

• Look's like that's been rephrased since I wrote it - originally "Pedro de Alvarado's invasion". I've cut the "'s". Simon Burchell (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Impact of Old World diseases, "In 1666 pestilence or murine typhus". Is "pestilence" referring to a specific disease here or just the general grouping of things that killed the natives? If the latter, it seems a little strange to have the sentence saying basically "in 1666 some general disease (or maybe this really specific one) swept through..."

• Yes, I thought it strange but that's what my source says:

For 1666, pestilence or, possibly, murine typhus (Span. tarbadillo) is reported for the actual Departamento de Huehuetenango.

• Subjugation of the K'iche', "However, he encamped" I don't think the "however" is necessary here, as encamping outside is not in opposition to his fear of a trap. If you really want a lead in, you could say "Due to this" (referring to his fear discussed in the previous sentence), or just have nothing there.

• I've cut the "however". Simon Burchell (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Cortes in Peten, "Hernán Cortés led an expedition to Honduras over land". Should this be "what is now Honduras", or had it already been named in 1525?

The territory had apparently been referred to as Honduras since 1502, so-called because of the deep water off its coast (honduras is Spanish for "depths"). Simon Burchell (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Land of War:Verapez, "In 1555 the Acala and their Lacandon allies killed the Spanish friar Domingo de Vico." Do we know why?

• Yes indeed. A grisly tale, and a testament to the dangers of evangelising natives who still practise human sacrifice... Simon Burchell (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Not much, and all very minor. I'm going to be out of town this weekend and don't know if I'll have Internet access, but if not, will check back in on Monday. In the meantime, I plan to support once the comments above are addressed. If no-one gets to a spotcheck before then, I will try to make time for one on Monday, although it would probably be better for someone with better Spanish skills than mine to do so. Dana boomer (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Dana, I've responded to each of your comments. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Gerda Arendt

I am very impressed with the depth of the article, not unexpected, given author and topic. Minor comments:

• lede: I understand that no refs are required in the lede. I would not link trivia such as wheel, steel, poison. I would like the lede not to end somewhat harmless, but summarize like de las Casas: "one could make a whole book...out of the atrocities, barbarities, murders, clearances, ravages and other foul injustices perpetrated...by those that went to Guatemala".

  These are not general links - "wheel" links to the history of the wheel in Mesoamerica and "poison" links specifically to Arrow poison. Fair enough on steel though - I've delinked it. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  To maintain neutrality, I think the Las Casas quote should not be picked out for inclusion in the lead. I've sprinkled 3 quotes in, and I carefully chose each to give as balanced a view as possible. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  The occasional ref in the lead is because that specific information is not covered elsewhere in the article - e.g. the article as a whole relates the "prolonged conquest over almost 200 years" but the ref specifically states it. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Historical sources: I would link Lienzo de Tlaxcala in the pic cap, for ease of reference

• Done. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Tough reading, what people do to people. Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Closing comments - I have taken the liberty of spotchecking the sources and paid close attention to those used for describing the impact of old world diseases, since this is a speciality of mine. I found no issues. Graham Colm (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Graham, and to everyone who left comments/feedback. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 13:59, 17 March 2012 [32].

---

James Garrard

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Recently re-written after obtaining a hard-to-find biography of Garrard. (Merry Christmas to me!) Chronicles the life of Kentucky's second governor – from Revolutionary War soldier to excommunicated Baptist minister to shunned abolitionist to the only Kentucky governor to succeed himself in office for a span of 200 years, I hope you'll enjoy the article. Hope to respond to concerns quickly. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Page number(s) for the Note?
  • Added. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Dictionary bibliography entry should use the title of the article cited, not the work as a whole
  • Apparently, the "chapter" parameter doesn't work with {{cite web}}. I've got the article title showing now, but I had to lose "Gale History in Context", which is the name of the electronic database. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether or not locations are included for books
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Compare editor format for Blanchard and Everman 2004
  • It's not an editor format. I used "in" to distinguish between two sources by H.E. Everman. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    • That's in footnotes - I'm looking at Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see what you mean now. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 17:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Given that the Collins source is self-published, how does it satisfy WP:SPS? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Collins is recognized as a prolific early Kentucky historian. He has his own entry in The Kentucky Encyclopedia, and the entry specifically mentions Historical Sketches of Kentucky (the work cited in this article) as his most popular work. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review: Five images in total, all five clearly in the public domain. I'll try to get a prose review done soon as well. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Kommentare:
  • I'd include a link for "common schools".
    • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • At one point you say his home was in Fayette County, then later in the same paragraph you say that his home was in the new Bourbon County, which was formed out of Kentucky County. It's a bit confusing. Did Bourbon arise from Fayette or Kentucky (or both)?
    • Technically, both. Kentucky County was first, created from Fincastle County, Virginia. Then Kentucky County was split into three counties, including Fayette. Part of Fayette was then carved out to form Bourbon. I've tried to clarify. See if it makes sense now. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • In "Political career in Kentucky", I think "before" sounds better than "prior to". It means the same thing. It's a personal preference, though, and I won't withhold support if you stick with your wording -- just my two cents.
    • No, "before" works just fine. Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll return with more later. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I have been told in some of my FA nominations that "re-elected" is the British spelling and "reelected" is American. I don't totally agree, but someone else might bring it up, so it might be best to standardize them in non-hyphenated form.
    • Hmm. Didn't know that. I've changed to the "Americanized" version, although I like the British version better. Still don't get the "u" in "colour", though! :) Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • In "First term as governor", I think the last two words of this sentence are unnecessary: "Over the course of his tenure as governor, Garrard approved enabling acts for the creation of twenty-six new Kentucky counties; no other Kentucky governor oversaw the creation of as many new counties."
    • You're right. Deleted. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You use the word "opined" four times. It kind of sticks out.
    • Hehe. I like "opine". Changed three of them. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • In "1799 gubernatorial election", there seems to be a word missing in this sentence: "Garrard Todd to fill the next vacancy on the Kentucky Court of Appeals after the election, which occurred in 1801." --Coemgenus (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Quite so. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Hope I can address any additional issues and gain your support. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

All resolved, changed to support. Good luck!

Comments. Some of these are explained at WP:MHU. - Dank (push to talk)

• "2nd": see WP:ORDINAL. Also, avoid consecutive links when possible; you could just link "second governor of Kentucky" here, which will get your readers quickly to "Governor of Kentucky" if that's where they want to go.
  • Changed the ordinal, but the consecutive links follow a convention used in every Kentucky governor article, each of which is at least a good article. I'd like to keep that. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• "slavery protections": I think "guarantees of the continuance of slavery" would be easier to parse.
  • Works for me. I was trying to say something like this without resorting to forms of the term "abolition" because Garrard didn't necessarily advocate immediate abolition, only provisions for the eventual emancipation of the slaves. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Fredericksburg, Virginia": period needed.
  • Weird that I missed that. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• "twelve children, five sons and seven daughters": five sons and seven daughters
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• "He later escaped and returned to his military service. ¶ In 1779, while still serving in the militia, Garrard was elected to represent Stafford County the Virginia House of Delegates. He interrupted his military service ...": repetition
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
    • You say he was in the service, then you say he was still in the service, then you say he interrupted his service, then at the end of the paragraph he resumes his service again. I've tried to condense this; please make sure I didn't introduce any inaccuracies. - Dank (push to talk) 02:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• "advocated for" (in three places): Garner's is silent. MWDEU and SOED recommend using "advocated" transitively. You might prefer "lobbied for". - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've used a mixture now. Good catch. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• "he surveyed and entered at the state land office": "... and recorded" might be easier to parse, if that's accurate.
  • The jargon used in the source was "entered", but I'm pretty sure "recorded" is accurate, too. Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "recently-created": see WP:HYPHEN and other punctuation guides. Search throughout for "ly-".
  • Fixed in a few places Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "the latter being the location of Garrard's home.": conciseness, appositive. "Garrard's county of residence".
  • Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • "The latter being" is wordy. I went with: "... and Garrard's county of residence, Bourbon." - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• "his friend, Augustine Easton, attended ...": restrictive appositive, so it's a little better without commas.
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "five of these conventions, held in May and August 1785, 1787, 1788, and 1792.": Possibly "... in May or August in 1785, 1787, 1788, and 1792", but probably better would be to give just the years, or give the month and year for each.
  • This one is a little difficult. I don't have the months for all of them, but two were held in 1785, so the month is needed to differentiate between them. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Ah I misunderstood, I thought it was in May or August in each of those years. Then: "... in May and August 1785 and in 1787, 1788, and 1792." - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Works for me. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "article 9" (twice): Article 9, or the ninth article.
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "it appeared as though": it appeared that
  • Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "who was recently defeated": who had recently been defeated
  • Changed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "chose and elector": chose an elector
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "thus he voted for Brown": comma splice. "so he voted for Brown" - Dank (push to talk) 00:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Among the pro-squatting legislation supported by Garrard were measures the forbade ...": Garrard supported pro-squatting legislation, including measures that forbade
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "A Democratic-Republican, Garrard agreed with Thomas Jefferson's dissension toward the Alien and Sedition Acts.": I'm not sure what this sentence is saying.
  • See if it is clearer now. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "In a November 7, 1798, address to the General Assembly": Garner's recommends rephrasing: "In an address to the General Assembly on November 7, 1798"
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "on grounds": on the grounds
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Among the reforms were the exemption of jailers, tutors, printers, judges, ministers, and legislative leaders from service in the militia; the imposition of penalties upon "distractors" in the militia; and provisions for citizens' hiring of substitutes to serve in the militia on their behalf.": Per WP:MHU#series, it's better to put the element with commas last in the series if that makes the sentence easier to read, and it does, here, allowing you to remove the semicolon (an improvement because readers usually expect an independent clause after a semicolon): "Among the reforms were the imposition of penalties upon "distractors" in the militia, provisions for citizens' hiring of substitutes to serve in the militia on their behalf, and the exemption of jailers, tutors, printers, judges, ministers, and legislative leaders from service in the militia."
  • Works for me. Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "required that a majority of voters had to approve": repetition (required, had to)
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "5,446 favored the call, 440 opposed it, but 3,928": 5,446 favored the call and 440 opposed it, but 3,928
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "This cast doubt upon the true will of the people.": That's an opinion; whose?
  • Technically, I guess it is the opinion of the source's author. I have clarified that the doubt was in the minds of some legislators. I think that is supported by the idea that opponents reliably held that abstentions were votes against the convention and the fact that the legislature ultimately decided that there were not enough votes to call a convention in that election. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "calling for another vote on the calling": one "calling" too many
  • Well, yes, that was a rather atrociously written sentence. Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "the electorate raised issues of their own.": I'm not sure what this is saying.
  • Clarified, I hope. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "in the state's Bluegrass region, Jefferson County, and western Kentucky.": This can be misread that Jefferson County is the Bluegrass region. It's harder to misread this: "in the western counties, Jefferson County, and the state's Bluegrass region"
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Unbeknownst": Many AmEng style guides prefer "Unknown".
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "further strained relations between him and the Senate": further strained his relations with the Senate
  • Fixed. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• "He died January 19, 1822": He died on January 19, 1822
  • Done. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• Done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

We may have a few lingering issues to sort out on a couple of these, but I hope you will be able to support soon. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Now Supporting on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No major quibbles with any of your edits. Always good to have a review from you, Dank. Thanks for the support. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 15:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, my pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 21:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Support

• Structure, prose, referencing, images and level of detail all seem fine; been a long time since I've read over a FAC and couldn't find any wording that I wanted to alter...
• Also performed a quick spotcheck of two online sources, the Dictionary of American Biography and Kentucky Encyclopedia entries, and saw no inaccuracies or close paraphrasing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and kind comments. Was really afraid this was going to fail with 2 supports and no opposes. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. - Dank (push to talk) 16:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

No prob, been meaning to review it for ages but other things always seemed to get in the way... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Review on 1(a), (b), (c) (source quality only, no comprehensiveness or spot checks), (d), and (e); 2 (a) and (b); and 4: Basically support (to the point that if a delegate needs to either archive or promote before my comments are addressed, I favour promotion). Comments:

• Did some copyediting; revert what you don't like (except my correction of "tenants" to "tenets", which is nonnegotiable). I'm going to try to come back within a couple of days to do another sweep through, as I'm a little groggy at the moment and may have missed some stuff.
• "Early in life, he associated himself with the Hartwood Baptist Church..." Is there a reason "joined" wouldn't work here? I almost made the change myself, but there is some change in meaning and I don't have access to the source, so I thought I'd better check. The current wording is somewhat awkward.
  • This may be me nitpicking as a Baptist personally, but we don't know exactly when Garrard was baptized, which is the method for obtaining membership in a Baptist church. (Thereafter, membership can be transferred to another church of like faith by letter of recommendation; few Baptist congregations that I know of actually re-baptize people coming from another church of like faith.) So, if he was baptized by Hartwood Baptist, he was a member. However, if he was not baptized there but merely attended, he technically was not a member, unless he was previously baptized and joined Hartwood by letter. Confused yet? The source, as best I recall, doesn't explicitly say he was a member. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• If all of his surviving sons served in the Assembly, why are they not linked in the Infobox under "relations"?
  • None of them have wiki-articles, so I thought they would just be cluttering the inbox. William seems to have been the most politically active, but even then, I doubt he'd ever have more than a stub or start-class article. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Delegate David Rice, a Presbyterian minister, was the leading voice against the inclusion of slavery in the new constitution, while George Nicholas argued most strenuously in favor of it." It's not clear here what's meant by the "inclusion" of slavery in the constitution.
  • Good point. I've changed "slavery" to "slavery protections", which I guess is technically what they were arguing over. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Five Baptist laymen defied Garrard's instructions and voted to retain Article 9; their votes provided the necessary margin for its inclusion." By my math, if they had switched sides the vote would have been 21-21 - still a defeated motion.
  • I'll have to go back and check this. I don't have the source readily at hand. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Both Logan and Garrard were chosen as electors from their respective counties." I gather from this that Todd did not. Do we know if he ran?
  • I don't have any more information about that at present. Like you, I assume since the source didn't mention him, he wasn't chosen. This was very early in what would become an outstanding political career for Todd, so he may not have had the necessary support to be chosen an elector yet. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Do we know anything about the dynamics that made Garrand the preferred candidate of most Todd electors?
  • I don't remember reading anything about that, but I'll double-check when I have a chance. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Although he did not retain outgoing Attorney General John Breckinridge, who had sided with Logan in the disputed gubernatorial election..." This seems slightly misleading, since when it most counted, he sided with Garrard (by refusing to intervene in the election results).
  • Seems strange in today's world of political gamesmanship, but my impression is that at least some elected officials let their understanding of constitutional limits override the personal desires. Breckinridge was clearly and publicly of the opinion that Logan was the winner, but he refused to overstep what he perceived as a constitutional limit on his power to do anything about it. Politically, Garrard and Breckinridge disagreed more than they agreed, but they still respected each other enough to consult each other on difficult political matters. Can you imagine that happening with any kind of regularity today? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• "To that end, he signed legislation combining Transylvania Seminary and Kentucky Academy into a single institution." What was this new institution called?
  • According to Transylvania: Tutor to the West, it was called Transylvania University. (p. 32) It was later called Kentucky University (following a merger with a college of the same name), but after the creation of the University of Kentucky, it returned to the name Transylvania University to avoid confusion. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• Since all parties apparently agreed that the constitution needed amending, why was there such opposition to a convention?
  • There was some language about this in Everman's book – something about the aristocracy fearing its power would be reduced if a new convention was called. Basically, they thought some things needed to change, but they would rather live with those than risk holding a convention that might include more populist notions in a new constitution. I can try to dig up a few specifics. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

All in all, another fine piece of work, Mr. Dixon. Steve Smith (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, especially the excellent copyediting. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support, well written and well sourced article. However in the sentence Most of Todd's electors supported Garrard on the second vote, giving him a majority could you provide the exact number? Ruslik_Zero 12:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I wish. I have been looking for this for a while with an eye toward creating an article about the 1796 election, but no source mentions it, and best I can remember, Everman implied that the final vote may not have ever been published. Bummer! Thanks for the support. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 14:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 23:14, 15 March 2012 [33].

---

HMS Queen Mary

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The last British battlecruiser completed before World War I began, this ship had only a brief career before she blew up during the Battle of Jutland in 1916. This article had a MilHist ACR last April and I've revised it slightly to meet the FA criteria. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Kommentare This article is in good shape, but needs a little bit more work to reach FA class:
  • The para which begins "Queen Mary was slightly larger than her predecessors" doesn't actually compare this ship's dimensions to those of the Lion class
    • The differences in dimensions were fairly trivial, but added up to a significant difference in displacement, which is given.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Following complaints from the Fleet" - should 'Fleet' be capitalised?
    • That's how it's given in my source, but I can go either way since it's an implicit proper noun. Like the (US or Royal) Navy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • What's a 'cruising stage'?
    • Lemme add a definition somewhere.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Was the ship always intended to be an 'orphan', or were others ships of her design planned but not built?
    • She was a singleton as the pattern by that time was to authorize one battlecruiser as part of the tranche of capital ships every year.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Can you add some material explaining this? Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Ping: this comment is still outstanding, and is the only reason I haven't moved to 'support' (though I have no objections to the article being promoted in it's current excellent state). Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for, but I added a sentence explaining the above.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
            • That's exactly what I was looking for :) Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • More generally, details on the decision to build this ship and the selection of the design are needed - these are included in most other FA level articles on warships.
    • Lemme see, but I don't think that there's actually much out there as she was a slightly improved Lion so no major changes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Added some additional details.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Later, on 13 October, Captain C. I. Prowse took command." - of this ship, or the squadron? (the entire section is about the squadron, so it's unclear)
    • Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Queen Mary is not specifically mentioned in either the 'Battle of Heligoland Bight' or 'Raid on Scarborough' sections. Can anything be said about the ship's role in these battles?
    • I don't think so as she was just conforming to Beatty's movements, but I'll check.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Still need to check for anything specific in the raid, but I've checked every source I have access to, including Jellicoe's book on the Grand Fleet and a book on the battle, and no details are available on her activities during Heligoland Bight.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Nope, nothing on her participation in the raid.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • (comment only) I know that it's in quite a few articles (many of which are FAs), but I find File:Scheer's illustration of I SG disposition 16 Dec. 1916 en.SVG really difficult to understand as some of the arrows depict distances between ships while other identical arrows show the direction ships were traveling in. The point in time at which these distances were relevant is also needed. I think that this image should be removed until it can be re-worked, but this won't affect my vote in this FAC given how many FAs its currently being used in. Nick-D (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    • But the measurements use hollow squares while ships use solid squares. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
      • ...I thought that one colour was for the Germans and the other the British. That this isn't the case is another flaw with the image, but as I said, it's not a deal breaker here. I'd strongly suggest re-working this image though. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support All my comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Gnangarra

General characteristics section;

• Queen Mary was slightly larger than her predecessors... doesnt hold up 703ft compared to 700ft, beam of 80ft compared to beam of 88ft, draft of 32 4 compared to 32 5 two of the first three stats when compared are smaller. displacement is larger but height is again smaller 5.92 feet compared to 6. I think it would be better described as similar as the comparisons just dont hold up.
  • I had a typo for her beam, it's 89 feet, not 80. As I said to Nick-D above, those trivial differences added up a significantly greater displacement. Metacentric height is a measure of stability, not size.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Armament v Fire control

• The armament gices the impressionthat asignificant change occurred with The guns could be depressed to −3° and elevated to 20°, although the director controlling the turrets was limited to 15° 21' until prisms were installed before the Battle of Jutland in May 1916 to allow full elevation.(two sources) but when you read the fire control it says 'Queen Mary received her main battery director before the Battle of Jutland in 1916(third source) what happened its as if the change wasnt significant and barely notable. IMHO the fire control needs more detail about process before the change and what affect it had after the change.
• Fire control information looks like a copy/paste from Lion class battlecruiser yet there it has more detail about the system.
• see below for detailed thought, remove fire control section
  • Lemme see about this--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Armour;

• opens The armour protection given to the Queen Mary was similar than that of the Lions. hmm similar to that maybe than is for where there are comparative differences where as similar is for less distinct difference, combine they just dont read well.
  • Typo of "than" changed to "to".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Heligoland Bight

• Later, on 13 October, Captain C. I. Prowse took command the para starts in AUgust and continues through the battle, so where does the October date come from, why is it significant to the battle?
  • It's not, but otherwise it's a one-sentence paragraph.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Raid on Scarborough;

• Queen Mary was refitting in January and February 1915 and did not participate in the Battle of Dogger Bank.[24] looks a little lonely/lost I realise its putitng things in cronological order so maybe its a chance to address the fire control issues in a new section that covers the actual refit and what took place along with absence note from the battle of Dogger Bank.
  • Unfortunately, I do not know exactly when the ship actually received her fire-control directors. It may well have been this refit, but it likely wasn't the only refit that she received before Jutland. It's just the only one that I can document.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Jutland;

• last paragraph maybe used to create an Aftermath type section rather than being tacked onto the end, at the moment the story feels like its just been left hanging.
  • Good idea, thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Beside this the images are PD as the diagram no issues there, otherwise an Interesting read Gnangarra 13:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

My appologies for not getting back here sooner, I've been distracted by Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes Perth Foreshore and wont have time until after sunday to give it another detailed look, if my reviewing your responses to my comments are holding it up feel free to tag them as done or unactionable noting I'm unavailable but I've never had FAC that wasnt a positive exercise in collaboration so I'll WP:AGF in your efforts you have my support. Gnangarra 16:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Kommentare.
  • I think that "Aftermath" should be its own top-level section, rather than part of "Service", since it deals with a much later time period and a wholly different context.
    • Good idea.
  • "She was refitting during the Battle of Dogger Bank in early 1915" in the lead makes it seem like she was refitted right there in the middle of a battle. The body text makes this clear, but what battle she missed is not important enough to be in the lead, just say she was refitted during early 1915.
    • Reworded, but the name of the battle was given.
  • "She was the last battlecruiser completed before the war" is given in the lead but never presented or sourced in the article body. Also not sure what the significance of this is in terms of being in the lead.
    • Sourced.
  • "and exploded shortly afterwards" in the lead indicates there was some lag, whereas the article body indicates the ship broke in two right away.
    • No time interval was specified in the main body since it's uncertain exactly how long it took.
  • Was C. I. Prowse still captain at the time of the sinking?
    • Yes.
  • I'd repeat the link for Protection of Military Remains Act 1986 when it occurs again at the end of the article.
    • Why? There's a cite and link to the actual document there.
  • The 1,266 figure is stated twice close together in the article body. I think the second instance could just say "the lost officers and men". However, it would be good to include this figure in the lead.
    • Rewritten.
  • "Her wreck was discovered in 1991 and rests partly upside-down, on sand, 60 metres (197 ft) down." is given in the lead but these facts are never presented or sourced in the article body.
    • I'll see if I can find a cite for the depth.
      • Deleted as I couldn't find a RS cite.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The lead puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that this was a battlecruiser, but there's no analysis later of whether this 'battlecruiserness' was a factor in her blowing up so quickly.
    • None of my sources make any conclusion about the issue since the exact cause of her destruction is still unknown.
  • The article lacks any analysis of whether her design departures from the Lion class make her better or worse.
    • That would be OR since none of my sources make any such judgements about her.
  • The article needs some historical context about Beatty, battlecruisers, and Jutland. Not to re-hash the whole story but just to indicate that there is a story. Consider that if this article ends up on the main page, readers will come to it directly. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
    • There are links for all that stuff; the focus here is the ship. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
      • The nominator has just asked me to come back here and say whether my concerns were addressed. Basically, they weren't, since at the time I thought the responses to my points were cursory and uninterested. I thought, and still think, the article lacks sufficient analysis and historical context to be FA. But given that the nominator and I were clearly not on the same wavelength, I decided to neither support nor oppose, and instead say nothing further. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure about using "Great Britain" as an author
  • That's how it's cited in Worldcat.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Where is Greenwich? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It seems that there's always one! Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Kommentare

• The lead is rather short and fails to summarise the article. It could do with another couple of paragraphs.
  • Lemme see what I can do, but I'm not going to try to summarize the technical details of the design as that would just be redundant.
    • Lengthened slightly, but not a whole lot to work with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• The lead image lacks alt text; in fact the alt text for all the images should be reviewed since I've now seen another couple of images lacking alt text, or with extremely short alt text. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Alt text is not a requirement at FAC.
    • I see it's been pulled since the last time I was at FAC. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• There seem to be a few terms that still need to be wikilinked, such as "deep load". "direct-drive steam turbines" should be linked to both Direct drive mechanism and Steam turbine. There are probably more terms that can use wikilinks. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Added more lots more links. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

A little more

• "Transmitting Station" (in Fire Control section) - does this need to be capitalised? Also should be wikilinked (or redlinked) to something - plotting room is the closest I could find but probably isn't appropriate... Simon Burchell (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Linked, although plotting room isn't a bad link if it were expanded beyond the coast defense usage that the article has now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• I've dropped in another dozen or so links, you might want to check them to make sure they're going to an appropriate destination. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Kommentare

• Infobox:

Complement uncited

Good catch, done.

The precision in the conversions from imperial to metric is different in the infobox and the prose, some examples: 703 feet 6 inches (214 m) vs. 703 ft 6 in (214.4 m); 89 feet 0.5 inches (27.140 m) vs. 89 ft 0.5 in (27.1 m)

Rounding errors, fixed.

• Draft or Draught?

Good catch.

• 9-inch vs. six-inch? 9 inches vs. six inches?

Fixed.

• Change Midshipman Storey -> Midshipman Jocelyn Latham Storey (that may not be the right link). Kirk (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not linked so I can't tell if it's the same person or not. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Support - I researched Storey's account and he retired as a Captain; since he's notable according to the guidelines I linked his name. Kirk (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries; WP:MHU will explain some of them. - Dank (push to talk)

• I can't get an image for "partly upside-down" (and it doesn't have a hyphen when it's not in front of a noun, per M-W) ... is part of the ship upside down? "Bottom of the North Sea" sometimes conveys a sense of the deeper parts of the North Sea ... I haven't seen the nautical maps but I wouldn't expect this to be true. - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Reworded and changed bottom to floor.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. Though necessarily technical, the article is an engaging summary of solid references. Although it may not be required, I've added alt text to images. • Astynax ^talk 08:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

SupportComments

• Images all check out. You might consider adding File:QueenMary.jpg, which should be alright to use.
  • Much better photo for the infobox.
• A couple of suggestions on the lead: you might want to qualify Jutland as the largest naval battle of the war. Also, make it clear that the ship sank as a result of the magazine explosion. It's obvious to us, but might not be to non-experts.
  • Done.
• Why is "protected place" italicized?
  • Beats me, fixed.
• SMS Köln should be Cöln
  • Damn spelling reforms.
• Queen Mary was the only British BC to accurately judge the range to the Germans in the opening salvo at Jutland. I think Halpern ascribes this to the Argo clock - may be worth including.
  • Brooks says that Princess Royal had the most accurate range with QM 1,000 yards over.
    • You're right - I was remembering it wrong.
• Do we need links to this and this? Neither seem to add much, and the second is a poorly cited wiki. Parsecboy (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I've deleted the photo gallery link, but I think that the Dreadnought Project links are worth keeping. Not least because they go into a lot more detail about the fire control equipment, with cites to contemporary documents, than I've done here. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. My concerns have been addressed, so I'll move to support. Parsecboy (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Support Queries nice read, almost there.

• last Battlecruiser commissioned before WW1 or last British one? I think its the former but it could be read either way.
  • Addressed in the lede.
• "Later, on 13 October, Captain C. I. Prowse took command of the ship." doesn't really fit the paragraph it is tacked onto.
  • Added to the following section
• There is a substantial difference between the peacetime and wartime complements of the ship. Were the extra men naval reservists, do we know how quickly they were taken on after the outbreak of war and what difference did they make to the capabilities of the ship?
  • Unknown. Changes in crew complement are little documented in the sources other than vague generalities.
• Her namesake is mentioned in the infobox, but I would have thought that merited a sentence in the article, along with whoever launched her, and perhaps some context as to the use of the name. Is she the only Queen Mary in the history of the Royal Navy?
  • Good idea. Paragraph added.
• Colour scheme is also worth a mention, did they still have peacetime and wartime colours in those years? Thanks for checking, FA only requires that we cover that which has been covered in reliable sources, so if they haven't yet then we don't need to. ϢereSpielChequers 22:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Not sure. Burt, usually my best source for changes in paint scheme, says nothing on this. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    • OK that's enough for me. I'll leave it to others to check sourcing and MOS compliance. But as regards prose, balance and completeness, I think this is ready for FA. ϢereSpielChequers 16:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Notes -- lot of support there, Storm, but still a a few things:

• "British Royal Navy"? I know this has probably been discussed but the RN should be known well enough to get by without being qualified by "British" -- and even if clarification were needed, there's no need to link countries.
  • That one snuck by me.
• Battlecruiser linked twice in the first two sentences; perhaps you meant Lion-class battlecruiser in one go the second time...
  • Yes, I should have specified which version of the sclass template to use a little more carefully.
• North Sea linked twice in successive sentences.
  • This is all just in the lead, pls give the whole article a going-over for redundant wording/links.
    • Found one more later in the article.
• While we're at it, just remind me when you last had a spotcheck of sources at FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • USS Arizona, back in December, was my last spotcheck.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Tks, I see that was Fifelfoo, so I think that's comprehensive and recent enough to give you a bye for this round. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 01:51, 15 March 2012 [34].

---

Noisy Miner

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Mdk572 (talk · contribs)

Marj and I have buffed this little critter (found in everyone's backyard here in Oz ("noisy" is an understatement!) to give it a shot at the mainpage one day. Feel it is as good as many other bird FAs and there are two of us to address concerns pronto. Have at it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from PumpkinSky

1. Who's Marj? (curious, not in article history by that name)
2. Ref 3 has a date format that does not match the others. PumpkinSky talk 03:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• 1=Marj = user:Mdk572 Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Ref 3 fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Jim usual high standard, obligatory niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• I made these edits, please check. In particular, I remove much double spacing from the text. Some of this was at the start of sentences, so may have been intentional, but was not consistent so I edited it out. If you prefer the older, AE type double spacing (no pov from me!), please make sure it's reapplied consistently.
• I pruned the "howevers", please check that the survivors are essential

• 1= looks ok to me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Two subspecies have long been recognised, with M. m. leachifound in eastern Tasmania, while the mainland population has been split into three in 1999. — "was split", I think, but clunky anyway. What about something like Four subspecies are currently recognised. The separation of the Tasmanian M. m. leachi is of long standing, and the mainland birds were further split in 1999?

• yep, I'll take that one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Is it worth mentioning that the change from Merops was because it was realised that it wasn't a bee-eater?

• If I can find a source which says that, I'll add, but I don't recall seeing any thus far. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• One of their most obvious characteristics — perhaps add of the genus?

• done Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• A 1999 study suggested that two additional subspecies be recognised — are these now generally accepted?

• Schodde's 1999 book was one of the big landmark works, and the four are recognised in the official government list but some study is still needed to fine-tune. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Far North Queensland — is the capitalised "Far" correct?

• Yup, see Far North Queensland. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• (Ocyphaps lophotes) — why binomial for this but not other birds?

• binomials of bird spp. (but not genera) now added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support, CoI as member of bird project, one more comment I notice that grevillea is lc in the text and capitalised in the image caption, they can't both be right. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've lowercased the cases where "grevillea" is used as the common name for the genus, rather than when it is italicised and used in a scientific name. Can be tricky.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Images All appropriately licensed, I wonder if it's possible with the second image to clarify that User:Noodle snacks is J J Harrison. I know one redirects to the other, but it could be made explicit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• Missing bibliographic info for Officer 1964 (unless that should be 1965?)

added some info. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

64 typo fixed Marj (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• No citations to Beruldsen 1980

Reinstated. He is quoted by Higgins but is the recognised nest/eggs expert. Marj (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• FN 1: why the bolding?

Looks like double italics - title and scientific name. Fixed Marj (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Check formatting of quotes within quotes in titles

Changed to consistent single within double Marj (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• What is ANU E?

Hosted by the Australian National University, ANU E Press publishes electronic scholarly works Marj (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not

Looks like I don't and Cas does. Think I have them removed them all.Marj (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Don't mix {{citation}} with the {{cite}} family
• Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for journals

The cite doi template does not give publishers. Do you want to change the others to match Cas?Marj (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

All journal publishers removed Marj (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• When listing Australian locations, be consistent in whether they include state name, just "Australia", or none of the above (more common names could include nothing, but consistently - compare Canberra and Sydney, which have about the same recognition), and if states whether these are abbreviated

• I'm going with states and unabbreviated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated or not

• all to two digits now (I think) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• What is CSIRO, and why does Emu have two different publishers?

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation - a government publisher of scientific and technical books and journals, including Emu, the mouthpiece of the Royal Australasian Ornithologists´ Union. It was previously published independently by the RAOU. Given CSIRO consistently and wikilinked first mention. Marj (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Advice? In RL I'm used to giving the publisher when it is published by/for a noteworthy organisation only. So 'Nordic Society Oikos' but not 'Wiley-Blackwell' Is there a wikipedia or bird project guideline on this? Marj (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• How I've always worked is that I've never put a publisher for journals but always for books and web links where possible. Makes things alot simpler :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced

• should be all spaced now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how multi-author works are notated

• all aligned now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods

• got dble pds Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• FN 58: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk)

Hey, Cas, your green responses are created with some sort of template, I guess? Templates get more than double-counted (for some reason Gimmetrow can explain) in transcluded pages, and cause errors in the FAC archives per Wikipedia:Template limits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok -I'll de-templated them in a sec. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Ucucha:

• In the lead, you talk about Tasmanian and mainland birds before you give the essential context that it's an Australian bird.

• rejigged order. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• The lead mentions twice that the increase in this species's population has led other species to decrease.

• removed one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• The nomenclatural discussion seems incorrect to me according to Article 23.9 of the Code. If M. garrula was actually suppressed by the Commission, it is not technically a nomen oblitum. I haven't seen the text of the opinion, though.

• I couldn't get the fulltext of the decision, but the oblitum designation is mentioned at the next ref. If you can get fulltext of FN7 I'd be grateful. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've fixed this now. Ucucha (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• The lead and the body differ on their assessment of the validity of the two additional subspecies. Also, calling a subspecies a "race" is confusing.

• Ah yes, Higgins the HANZAB bible is cautious about fully accepting, but Schodde is another broad publication-review, and the official Australian Gov't directory accepts the four, so have updated accordingly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• The description section says that the proposed subspecies lepidota is only in western NSW, but the map shows a large range in Qld.

• rejigged. correct and updated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• "These churring calls vary between individuals,21 and coupled with laboratory tests showing Noisy Miners can distinguish calls by different birds, suggest this may be integral to the complex social structure of the species"—this sentence is a little too complex.

Ucucha (talk) 01:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• split last sentence. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

No further issues; haven't yet had a chance to look for sources that may have been missed. Ucucha (talk) 01:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Support. All looks good now. Ucucha (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comments. Not done reviewing yet, but it looks pretty good. All I've got so far is suggestions for links. Will finish the rest later tonight. Sasata (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• lead: link subspecies, colonies, display, manna, courtship display, culling, protected species; link Tasmanian earlier

• all done bar the tricky ones...manna should be plant sap but isn't discussed in plant sap as of yet, and protected species redirects to endangered species which is wrong, especially with this one. Need to think about this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Taxonomy: link John Gould, aboriginal people, conserved name, molecular analysis

• linked now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• "John Gould elected to use the name Merops garrulus as the original description" how could he use a name as a description? (I know what is meant, but it could be worded better)

• I've changed it to "treated", but was thinking of "assumed", "took" or "followed" as other verbs which can convey the meaning better.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Description: link plumage, nape, crown, mottled, alarm call, conspecifics

• linked now Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Dist & Hab: link Adelaide, sedentary, edge habitat

• linked now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• don't think hypothesized needs linking

• agree - delinked Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• Behaviour: link canopy, bonding, agonistic, infanticide, grebes, herons, cormorants

• linked now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• link exotics (I'm assuming this means introduced species?); spatial memory; buff; die-back; cooperative breeding; habitat restoration; revegetation; habitat corridor
• eucalypt is variably capitalized
• "Banksia ericifolia, integrifolia and serrata, Grevillea aspleniifolia, banksii, hookeriana, juniperina and rosmarinifolia" I haven't seen this method of listing only epithets when referring to species, are you sure we can do that?

• nope, did break it up a bit better but might veer away from official usage a tad far, so rejigged. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• "When searching for invertebrates, however, it appears to employ a different strategy based on learned rules." any chance of explaining/expanding this a little bit? Are the dual cognitive strategies employed by the noisy miner for foraging a behavioural mechanism unique to this species?

Expanded. It was the first study to find so, I haven't located similar studies of other species. Marj (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• the lead says the clutch size is 3-4 eggs, the body says 2-4

• aligned now Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Hatching is asynchronous, with up to six days being recorded between the hatching of the first and last chicks in a clutch." you might want to reword to avoid the noun+ing construction (there's another earlier starting "the other three being the Black-eared Miner...")
• That one-sentence final paragraph could surely be integrated into one of the previous paragraphs?

• relocated hanging sentence, though not a great destination either, still as the opneing comment it isn't bad Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Expanded sentence so that it seems to belong in the first paragraph. Marj (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Lit review: I think in general the overall coverage of the article is good, and comparable to other avian FAs. I did, however, find a few sources not yet used in the article (including some very recent) and have listed them on the article talk page—not with the expectation that they must be included, but with the hopes that the nominators would have a look and add any relevant or interesting material as they see fit (sorry for not doing this several months ago!).

• That's ok. Have seen bits and pieces but is good to record why we'll use some and not others. Will update here once we've taken a look at them all. ok, have reviewed them and added most - alot on miner management :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• I noticed that several of the journal articles used as references are lacking issue #'s even though this information is available by clicking through the DOI link. Sasata (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• issues added, now, apart from one journal which doesn't appear to have them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• an "In popular culture" section seems to be conspicuously absent; I would think that such a common and annoying species would have many cultural references. Am I wrong, or was this a conscious decision to leave it out? Sasata (talk) 19:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I did start compiling a list of films in which they appeared, but realised it was a list of every film shot in Aus. Marj (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that an IPC section is absent - I've been trying to find some aboriginal stories but found very little so far. Ditto modern pop culture - reminds me a bit of Common Starling as something, I dunno, a bit like a toilet - everyone has one but no-one really waxes lyrical about it...... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• common names: why is it called a miner? The names "Mickey Miner" and "Soldierbird" are mentioned, but I could not verify these with the closest following citation. This snippet suggests that "cherry-eater" and "snake-bird" are alternative names. Sasata (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure if you'll be able to see this other snippet: "The origin of the term "miner" is obscure. It has no association with the mining fields but was applied by colonists at an early stage to the noisy miner (M. melanocephala), and may have been a mis-spelling for myna, or minah, ..." Sasata (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• I get wary of tertiary sources - and have seen that written before but never in much detail or discussion. My impression was that it would be that the sooty faces that Tasmanian settlers of coalminers, but have never seen anything written. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Given that myna is a Tamil word, a generic term for starlings used in India, it seems unlikely that Australian settlers were using it to describe Miners. The black face explanation seems more likely, but I haven't seen it confirmed in writing. Marj (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. Thanks for the additions and changes above; I think the article meets FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 15:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 21:24, 13 March 2012 [35].

---

Golding Bird

Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Article has been through GA, PR and GOCE. It is about an important figure in the history of medicine. I believe it is now ready for FA. SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• "In his electrotherapy, Bird used both electrochemical and electrostatic machines (and later also electromagnetic induction machines) to treat a very wide range of conditions, such as some forms of chorea. Treatments included peripheral nerve stimulation, electrical muscle stimulation and electric shock therapy. Bird also used his invention, the electric moxa, to heal skin ulcers." - source?
  • The sources are at the end of the paragraph. Is there a specific problem.electric moxa section. The paragraphs immediately following the "Electricity" heading are an introduction to what follows (a mini-lede if you like) and contain no information that is not referenced in what follows (other than the reference to the New Frankenstein magazine).
• Use a consistent format for Bird's own articles
  • Erledigt
• Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • The bibliography is consistently last name, first name where alphabetical listings are of some use to the reader. Elsewhere the natural form of names are used.
• FN 30 and similar: there are two works with that title
  • Erledigt
• Why not include both authors for Payne?
  • Erledigt
• Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Erledigt
• FN 72: why not put this in Bibliography?
  • Erledigt
• Ranges should use dashes
  • Erledigt
• Be consistent in whether or not months are abbreviated
  • Erledigt
• Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations
  • Erledigt
• FN 19: formatting
  • What is the issue? I don't see the problem.
• Don't include page numbers in Bibliography book entries
  • The only one that (now) has page numbers is Steel. This is because a specific, named chapter is being referenced.

In general, citation/referencing format should be more consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have gone through putting ref elements in a consistent order. SpinningSpark 01:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC) to 13:32, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• tentative Support Comments (it has engaging prose and impresses as comprehensive, and formatting looks ok. I can't seeany actionable opposes but con't exclude that others will find things to fix. I'll keep an eye on developments but I think we're tentatively over the line here) - I'll jot some notes below and copyedit as I go. Feel free to revert me if'n I inadevertently change the meaning. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

and was advanced enough to deliver lectures to his fellow pupils at school. - I'd change "advanced" to "precocious" as it has a more specific meaning which I think is what you're trying to get at here.

I did mean "advanced" and this is my understanding of the sources, in the sense that Bird was knowledgable through his own self-study. It was certainly also precocious of course.

.. at a private school that was not very interested in science - hmm, "interested" one usually thinks of students not schools, I'd go with " at a private school that did not promote (or teach?) science"

"promote" is acceptable, "teach" is not, afair the sources do not directly state science was not taught. Science is not included in the classics so this is implied, but it would by synthesis to say so.

This must be a record - nine (9) consecutive paragraphs in the Life and career section begin with "Bird...". I will change a few.....

It was only eight before it was copyedited but that still leaves me 83% to blame! SpinningSpark 13:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, oops! I've never seen this problem before, and completely overlooked it. Thanks for dealing with it, Casliber. --Stfg (talk) 08:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I have now incorporated Casliber's second suggestion in the article. SpinningSpark 10:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering whether the first 3 sentences in the The electric moxa section (which are a bit repetitive) can be somehow folded in together. If you can't do it, I'll take a look later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've tried something. The flow seems better now, in that one sentence deals with the name alone before we return to the main business. I'm not quite happy about the position of the "roughly two decades ..." clause yet. What do you think? --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I am struggling to identify what you think is being repeated. The three sentences are addressing very different points: the date of invention, etymology of moxa, and link to electroacupuncture. The second sentence is about just the element moxa and needs to distinguish its subject from the whole phrase electric moxa. The cleanest way to do this is to start a new sentence, admittedly leaving a very short first sentence. The third sentence is already quite long, would become difficult if merged with the second sentence, and needs to disambiguate that the whole phrase rather than just moxa is being discussed. Sentence one and three could be run together, and may even read better, but with the disadvantage that the reader now has to wait for the next sentence before understanding why acupuncture is being discussed at all. SpinningSpark 10:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Stfg. If you would prefer the exact date of the introduction of electroacupuncture, it is 1823 (Simpson, already cited). SpinningSpark 10:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Reads better now. It wasn't strict repetition per se, I just thought it could be more economical with wording when I read it and I feel it reads better now...now where was I....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You were right:) --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

...for which Bird carried out an analysis of the milk of the porpoise and a dog bitch - I was going to suggest "...of the milk of the female porpoise and a dog", but then I think it is obvious it'd have to be female so maybe female is redundant. Either way, I think it is better than the current wording, which (oddly) specifies the sex of one animal and not the other....(?)

It is "bitch" because strictly speaking "dog" refers to the male of the species but I am happy for bitch to be deleted if others think that "dog" is acceptable. SpinningSpark 19:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's acceptable: "bitch" has a gender but "dog" is the whole species. How about "... analysis of porpoise and dog's milk"? Hmm ... now why do I want dog to have 's but not porpoise? --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting grammatical question - am tempted to shift the animals from possessive to adjectival - "dog and porpoise milk"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that works. (Interestinger and interestinger :)) I've gone ahead and put it in. Is that OK, Spinningspark? --Stfg (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the term "Collateral sciences" - and google searches seem to bring up Bird alot of the time. Did he come up with the term? If it is more of a historical one, then it needs to be noted as the way it reads now it gives it as a term in current use....

I don't think he coined it, references to it go back to 1800, if he did he would have had to have had an influence on the great many journals that used it in their title from a very early age. However, I am not surprised his name comes up often, it was very much his thing. At least one of my main modern sources (Coley) uses the phrase as if it were current, and gbooks has a lot of hits from books published in recent years. SpinningSpark 19:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Aaah, typing it in the singular seems to change what has come up. Hmmm, ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Pulvermacher's main market for these devices was the very quack practitioners that Bird so detested, but it did actually work as a generator. - plural to singular subject (can be remedied by these type of devices if that is what is meant, or making it singular "The main market for this device..." (note I think the first word is repetitive and unneeded too.

Done as suggested. A clear improvement. --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Snow had previously investigated arsenic poisoning when he and several fellow students were taken badly ill after a new process for preserving cadavers was introduced by Snow at the suggestion of lecturer Hunter Lane. -two snows in the one sentence, try and remove one if possible.

Done. It only needed turning into the active voice and the second Snow could become a he. Can't think how I let it pass last month. --Stfg (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander

• Picture of GB medal should be moved down, adjacent to the paragraph that discusses it.
  • Moved picture down to paragraph above. Moving right to the end para causes push down into next section
• Section title "Controversy" could be better, more specific. Something like "Pulvermacher's chain" or "Endorsement controversy"
  • Erledigt
• Prose is very good quality.
• "A bemused Bird pointed out ...". Is "bemused" from a secondary source? or the interpretation of a WP editor?
  • "Bemused" is perhaps too kind a characterisation of Bird's reply. I have changed it to "In a reply full of anger and sarcasm, Bird pointed out..." I think it only right that out readers should get a flavour of the tone of Bird's letter. This is hardly a synthesis, as a reading of the letter will surely show to anyone.
• Cite: minor formatting inconsistency: When using WP:CITEBUNDLE approach, the individual items within a single footnote should all terminate the same way: either with a period, or semicolon, or nothing. This article mostly uses nothing, but FN #19 has some items that terminate in period. My personal preference is a period for all, so readers dont have to guess where one item stops and the next starts.
  • The format used in this article is that short citations are treated as sentence fragments and do not have a terminating period (just as we do not use periods in an image caption that is just aentence fragment). The footnotes are nearly all short citations, but a few are given as full citations where the reference is not an article or book and does not appear in the bibliography. In those cases a period is used for consistency with the bibliography section.
• FNs 80, 81, 83 end in periods: others dont.
  • As above.
• Paragraph: "Bird was vain, with a tendency to self-promotion, and his driving ambition ..." that paragraph has a lot of disparate facts, and the end of the paragraph lists about five sources. Either (a) distribute the footnotes throughout the parag, or (b) parenthetically note within the footnote which source represents which fact.
  • Not done. The citation style would need to be changed throughout the entire article for consistency.
• "Bird designed and used a flexible tube stethoscope and in 1840 published the first ...". Do you have the year that he designed it?
  • Erledigt
• Note 1 (not footnote 1) is a bit odd. Some issues (a) it is the only non-cite footnote; (b) the Journal Articles section looks odd with that footnote at the top; (c) it is indented farther to right that the following list of articles; (d) the Note is numbered (1) identically to the footnote (1) ... could use a letter instead. Probably the best resolution is to just eliminate Note 1. Many articles have "Works" sections, and they dont have a need for a footnote saying "and here are his works..".
  • Done. Seems to be a leftover from a previous organisation of the article.
• Pic caption: "Electrotherapeutic treatment to stimulate facial muscles, 1862". Who is the doctor in the photo? Need to state whether it is Bird or not.
  • I have no information on people in the picture, however, it is clearly not Bird as it is dated after his death.
• Alt text for pics: My understanding is that the alt text should describe the photo, so seeing-impaired users of the encyclopedia can grasp the contents of each picture. The Alt text now doesn't meet that need.
  • My understanding is that the main purpose of supplying alt text is to prevent the screen reader from reading out the image filename. To quote from WP:ALT: "Often the caption fully meets the requirements for alternative text." Under those circumstances, the most useful thing for a viually impaired reader is to keep the alt text to a token word or two so the screen reader immediately goes on to read the caption. A detailed description is only necessary where this is needed for an understanding of the article and is not supplied by the caption.
• Very good article over all (though the subject is a bit dry :-) Leaning to support.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for reviewing, responses are above SpinningSpark 20:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC) to 21:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It is looking pretty good. My only concern is the "multiple sources bundled into one footnote at the end of the paragraph" issue. The purpose of the WP:INTEGRITY guideline is to help readers (and future validators) correlate the sources to the material in the article. WP:INTEGRITY and WP:CITEBUNDLE suggest that it is better to either: (a) have the cites per-sentence; Or, (b) use a single footnote at the end of the paragraph, and the multiple sources (in that single footnote) should have parenthetical comments identifying which source goes to which fact. For instance, if you have a 6 sentence paragraph, with a single footnote at the end containing six separate sources: how is the reader/validator to know which source corresponds to which sentence? What is the harm of adding small (one word per source) notes into the footnote to establish that association? --Noleander (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the benefits of this system, but it is much more than a trivial amount of work to carry out. I am not able to comply at this time. If that is a deal breaker, then so be it. SpinningSpark 21:25, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Here are two scenarios illustrating why WP:INTEGRITY is so important: (1) imagine in the future that another editor edits Golding Bird and splits one of your paragraphs into two. How will that editor know which of the six sources in the original footnote go to each of the two new paragraphs? (2) Imagine that the same editor moves a sentence from paragraph A to (a more appropriate) paragraph B. How will that editor know which source (in the original footnote) to carry with the sentence? You, now, are in the best position to help that future editor by correlating the sources with the sentences. You have all the sources at your fingertips. If it is not done now, it will never get done. No other editor is going to fetch all the sources, read them, and update the footnotes. I'm not saying this is an obstacle to FA status, but why don't we see what other reviewers say? --Noleander (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Kommentare

• I'm uncomfortable with the citation style, as it makes verification quite a bit more difficult. However, I seem to be in the minority in that I would consider opposing the nomination based on the citation style; therefore, I will not do so.
• "He received this licence without examination because of the reputation he had gained as a student at Guy's" Guy's should be re-introduced and re-explained here. The lead should summarize the body of the article, but should not be considered an integral part of the narrative.

  I've tried something. Is it enough? --Stfg (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why is "materia medica" not italicized? I see that it is inconsistently italicized in its article. MoS seems to call for it being italicized.

  That article appears not to have had any kind of review yet. I agree with you and have italicized it. --Stfg (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• "He died on 27 October 1854 at St Cuthbert from a urinary tract infection and suffering from kidney stones." Parallel structure is needed here. I could not think of a way to reword it that would leave the meaning intact. Maybe "suffering from a urinary tract infection and kidney stones"?

  There's a subtlety to watch for here. If the two conditions were joint causes of death, it would be better to have your wording without "suffering" -- he simply died from them. If the infection was the cause and the stones were merely aggravating his discomfort, then any parallel structure would mislead; in this case I would suggest "from a urinary tract infection. He was also suffering from kidney stones." --Stfg (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  "For some years previous to his death, Dr. Bird had suffered from disease of the heart; a short time before that event, he had an attack of haematuria, which soon 'became associated with other and unerring evidence of renal calculus.' This was followed by pyelitis, which ended his career on the 27th of October." (The Medical Examiner)

  "By the month of October it was evident that his case was a hopeless one. Nausea, vomiting, oedema of the feet and face, haematuria, pyelitis, and vesical pain, all indicated that life was drawing to a close." (Balfour)

  "The causes of his death are thus summed up - acute rheumatism, valvular disease of the heart, jaundice, irritability of stomach, calculus, and pyelitis. (Balfour)

  SpinningSpark 08:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Bird himself certainly believed so." Something about this bugs me—maybe it's the wording that suggests he had feelings about his death after the fact. I know that's not what's meant. Maybe it's no big deal.

  It bugs me too, now you mention it. This is a reason why the citation style is a difficulty. I would have gone to the sources to look for what was said and then looked for a suitable wording, but which source? --Stfg (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  Ironically, this is one of the few places where I did provide in-paragraph citations because of the likelihood of a challenge.

  "It is God's will, and the mandate is sent in mercy; but my broken health will, ere many weeks have expired, cause me, before seeing forty years, to retire from this position of honour, usefulness, and, indeed, of affluence. My success has been my bane, for I have done too much, and neglected my health." - Bird to Dr. Cormack (Balfour).

  "Bird's health was always delicate and it is likely that his tireless mental energies, spurred on in his early years by an overriding ambition, led him to drive himself too hard in his ardent desire to achieve recognition in the highest circles of his chosen profession." - (Coley).

  SpinningSpark 08:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry about my oversight, and thanks for these quotes. I've tried something. Does it do? --Stfg (talk) 11:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Only made it through Electricity—will return shortly. --Laser brain (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Support, with a couple additional comments. This is quite good—thanks for the opportunity to read and review it. It's an interesting portrait of a man of whom I was previously completely ignorant.

• "Treatment was applied in several sessions of around five minutes, often causing skin eruptions." Jargon needs linking or explaining: "skin eruptions"
• Clarification needed: "bringing on menstruation where this had failed" How does menstruation fail? Do you mean temporarily (like a late cycle) or menopause? --Laser brain (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support and I'm glad you enjoyed it. changed "skin eruptions" to "blistering the skin". On menstruation, the first case is meant - added a link to the condition, amenorrhoea. SpinningSpark 19:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Support [following comments and discussions below from 23:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)] Carcharoth (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm coming in rather late to this review, but I saw that it hadn't had a lot of comments, and the article caught my attention when it arrived at FAC, though I didn't have time to review it then. I'm going to leave some initial comments, and then try and return to this at or before the weekend and say some more depending on the responses. Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• I too stumbled on "Bird was advanced enough to deliver lectures to his fellow pupils" - advanced does seem wrong here, but it is difficult to think of smoother wording. What I would probably do here is remove "advanced", just state the bald fact in the lead that he gave lectures at school, and leave the detail to later. The body of the article says: "Bird, who seems to have been far ahead of his teachers in science, gave lectures in chemistry and botany to his fellow pupils." This is less forceful than the way it is presented in the lead ("advanced enough"), so possibly the lead needs rephrasing. SpinningSpark
  • I cannot agree that "advanced enough" is more forceful than "far ahead". It reads just the opposite to me. I do not think it is acceptable just to state he did it, an indication that this is out of the ordinary is needed. Not to do so could leave readers with the mistaken impression that this was standard practice in 19th century schools, which is not the intention at all. SpinningSpark
    • I agree that "advanced enough" is weaker than "far ahead of his teachers", because one could be even a little behind one's teacheers and still know enough to give lectures. Something somehow feels a bit awkward about "advanced enough" as a phrase. I've tried replacing it with "far enough advanced". Does it help? --Stfg (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
      • That does read better. About the main body of the article versus the lead, I wasn't clear enough. What threw me was the switch from "seems to have been far ahead" to "was advanced (enough)". In the main article body, there is less certainty ('seems') than in the lead ('was'). But I've struck the above point as mostly addressed. If more is done on this, it can be done independently of my commentary here. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Looking at the lead as a whole, I think it needs to be heavily rewritten, possibly from scratch. Currently, it doesn't do a good job of summarising the article, and there are no dates in the lead at all. Someone reading only the lead should still be able to get an idea of the critical dates of his life other than birth and death. Currently, the reader has to read the main body of the article to find out when the events mentioned in the lead happened. Mentioning his age when he died would be a standard addition to the lead. I would suggest looking at the lead section of other FA-level biographical articles for more ideas on how to improve the lead section here.
  • If the lead is not an adequate summary, you should be able to specifically state what you think is missing. I have added has age and some dates, hopefully Stfg will check for any copyediting issues. SpinningSpark
    • adding the age at death makes the whole parenthesis need rephrasing, and none of the eight other biographical FAs I checked does it, so I hope I can be forgiven for removing that. The only other thing I saw (very minor) has been dealt with. --Stfg (talk) 10:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    • The years being added has helped a lot. Tomorrow, I'll go through the comments I made here (and the new ones I'm about to add) and strike the addressed points. For now, to explain where I'm coming from on the lead section (as I was rather critical of it, probably unfairly), I would mention the year of marriage, number of children, and place of birth and death, and something brief on his death. This may be just a matter of style, though, with some preferring to pack details into the lead and others preferring to leave details until later. One thing I would definitely do is remove "a well-known teaching hospital usually referred to simply as Guy's" - that is best left until the first mention of Guy's in the main text.

      The reason some articles probably don't mention age at death and spouse and children in the lead section, is because those are present in an infobox. My view is that articles don't have to have infoboxes, are often better without them, and I oppose absolutely those who go around adding infoboxes for the sake of infoboxes. However, if there is no infobox, then the lead section should help the reader who doesn't want to have to scan through the whole article looking for basic biographical details such as name, place and dates of birth and death, profession, family, and so on. Carcharoth (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

      • I have added something on his death to the lede. In my view, children, marriages and exact place of death do not belong in the lede. This is not what Bird is known for; none of these things would be mentioned at all on Wikipedia if he had not been notable for other things. Whether in an infobox or the prose, it is just clutter in the lede detracting from what the article has really got to say. On the question of Guy's, the disambiguation was added at the request of a previous review. As far as I am concerned, Guy's is famous enough not to need any disambiguation or explanation and the link is good enough. However, if it is going to be explained, it has to be done at first mention in the article and cannot be relegated to the body. SpinningSpark 12:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. I agree that Guy's doesn't need explaining. I'd put the glossing of Guy's in a footnote, rather than in the text, but the lead has improved enough for me to strike my objections. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• The phrasing "Born [...] to a father" is awkward. Is there a reason more standard phrasings haven't been used?
  • Amended. --Stfg (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• It may be worth being explicit about the age he left school and become an apprentice apothecary. It was normal for those times, but modern readers will not all be aware of this.
  • The age would be 14. I will leave it stfg to work that in nicely. SpinningSpark 11:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Worked in. --Stfg (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• It would be better to maintain chronological order and put the 1836 apothecary licensing after the 1832 commencing of medical studies at Guy's. There is no need to jump back and forth in time, as that only confuses readers.
  • Withdrawing this objection, after reconsidering it. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• No explanation is given for the sudden switch from London to Scotland (St Andrews). If the details here are sparse, it is best to say this in the text, rather than fall silent and leave gaps. Maybe "St Andrews required no residence" means he gained this degree while still living and working in London? If so, that should be said explicitly.
  • Done. SpinningSpark 11:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• I really dislike "Adjusted for inflation, this amounts to a spending power of about £76,000 now." This misses the point entirely. What you need to do, if this is to make any sense, is to compare with spending power then, not spending power now. What was typical incomes then? That sort of thing. Also, "At the end of his career" could be just "at his death x years later".
  • Ok, but at least the inflation template automatically calls up decent reliable sources. What sources should be used for your suggestion? I don't want to do a random google search and come up with something dubious or OR. SpinningSpark 11:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    • My view has always been that side digressions into matters of economics and wealth should be relegated to a footnote, much as digressions on name pronunciation and name variants and names in different languages. The whole point is to give the reader an idea of where this wealth placed Bird in the society he lived in. My vague impression is that he (like most doctors) was able to make a very good living, but he was not among the most fabulously wealthy. But this is obvious from his purchase of property and other things mentioned in the article. Consider, when people end up in poverty, there is no such strained attempt to convert monetary values, they are just said to have died destitute and in poverty. Quite why so much effort is spent converting monies received into 'present-day' values I'm not sure. Sometimes I think it would be better to say nothing, and just give the value of his wealth, remind the reader that it was a lot of money for that time, and let the reader investigate further if they will. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I can't agree that readers should be left to work out for themselves that this was a lot of money, many will be unable to do so without some kind of yardstick. Simply saying it is a lot of money without one of the sources actually saying this would be OR. It may well be that I am not using the best yardstick (although it is something commonly seen in newspapers) but it is the only reliably sourced one currently available to me. I am an electrical engineer and as far as economics is concerned I wouldn't know a reliable source from a confederate dollar. Alternative suggestions welcome. SpinningSpark 16:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, the DNB article on him by Payne (published 1885) had this to say: "He was very successful in practice, and there are few instances of a London physician having earned as large an income as he did so early in life." FWIW, that wasn't kept in the updated version in September 2004 in the ODNB. Carcharoth (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Bird was a member of the Linnaean and Geological Societies, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of London." - it should be trivial to find the years when he was elected to these societies, and this should be included.
  • Done for Royal Society, looking for the others. SpinningSpark 11:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    • The Geological Society page is currently offline with a problem but does state it is still accessible to members. So unless a member is watching this page, we will have to wait for that information. The Linnean Society website does not seem to have details of members: I have e-mailed them and await a response. SpinningSpark 12:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
      • I found mention of the election to the Geological Society [books.google.co.uk/books?id=sT0iAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA414 here]. That is in a volume of that society's proceedings, covering the period 1833 to 1838. Not been able to work out which year that was (those pages are loading slowly for me here), but it should be possible to pin down the details from that. Note that he is stated there to already be FLS, so the election to the Linnean Society came first. Carcharoth (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
        • I've put it in, but linking the ref to a better site than google books. I also removed the "of London" qualifier to the Royal Society which was difficult to keep with the new sentence structure. This was requested at a previous review but its notability does not really need it, is consistent with its own article title, and the London context of Bird makes it self-explanatory. Anyone disagreeing can feel free to put it back in, but it would really need to be done for all three societies. SpinningSpark 12:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
          • I agree with the removal of the 'of London' qualifier for the Royal Society (and noticed the updating of the categories as well). A couple more minor points on societies, did Bird use the postnomials much? I looked at one edition of his book, and he did use some of them. I can't remember what the guidance is here on Wikipedia for which ones to use, but posssibly some of them should go in the lead? I also noticed a list of foreign societies he was a corresponding member of. I only looked up one (the 'Philosophical Institute of Basle') and noticed that he was elected to that at the same time as Faraday, and it was rather celebrated at the time. Possible a sentence noting that he was also elected to membership of foreign learned societies (probably quite a few, as the book title page ends with 'etc.'), but it depends more what your sources say. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
            • Can't say I've taken much notice of what he used. Looking at one letter from the refs at random he used his medical degrees but not the learned societies, although this was pre FRS. The relevant guideline is WP:POSTNOM but it is unclear to me from that whether or not learned societies are to be included (possibly it means the more notable ones - and then we have to decide...). I don't recall his membership of foreign societies being mentioned in any of the sources. SpinningSpark 16:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
              • I'm not greatly bothered about it, but raise it for stability reasons as you may get people trying to add postnomials at some point. The DNB [slightly modified in the ODNB] does say: "He was also a corresponding member of several learned societies on the continent [in Europe]", but give no further details. The link you provide in the article to the third (1848) edition of Elements of Natural Philosophy has on the title page:

                "AM, MD, FRS, FLS, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians; late President of the Westminster Medical Society; Corresponding Member of the Philosophical Institute of Bale, of the Philosophical Society of St Andrews, of the Medical Society of Hamburgh, etc.; Assistant-Physician to, and Professor of Materia Medica at, Guy's Hospital."

                For what that is worth. I wasn't sure how prestigious those corresponding memberships were (the one for Basle, here spelt Bale, does seem fairly prestigious), or how common it was to be elected a corresponding member, so I was hoping your other sources would have more. If not, then fair enough. Carcharoth (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• The reference to the London Electrical Society is interesting. It was these electrical demonstrations that (in part) eventually led to the science behind electricity being uncovered, but that's drifting off-topic here.
  • Yes, that's why I redlinked it, it is on my to do list. Going off-topic even further, do you have any good sources for this? SpinningSpark
    • No, but my recollection of this came from that recent TV documentary series on electricity on BBC4, well worth a look if you missed it. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• "notable winners of the medal" - the phrasing 'winners' is unencyclopedic here. Medals like that are awarded to recipients, not won. Suggest changing to 'recipients'.
  • "unencyclopedic"? ;) But I agree that "recipients" is the right word here. Done. --Stfg (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Those are my initial comments, having read up to the end of the 'Life and career' section. I've skimmed the rest, and my concern here is that there may be too much material being presented here. The question I'd want to see answered before going any further is whether this article is summarising Bird's life and work, or whether it is aggregating various sources to expand on the shorter accounts provided elsewhere, but falling into the trap of providing too much detail? Could you say which of your sources gives the longest account of Bird's life and works, and whether this article is of comparable length or not? Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Downloading the article as pdf it amounts to 12 pages not including refs etc. My main modern source is Coley at 14 pages. Payne is 2 pages. Of the contemporary sources Balfour is 67 pages (although it has to be said there are frequent sermon-like digressions), the relevant chapter of Steel is 9 pages and Wilks (chapter) is 6 pages. I would also point out that a good deal of material has already been moved to the spin-off articles interrupter and Pulvermacher's chain because of length or excessive detail concerns. The current length seems to me to be a reasonable match to the sources. SpinningSpark 09:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Carcharoth, just to offer a third opinion as someone who as read through it: I thought the level of detail was appropriate and pursuant to summary style. There were several places where I actually wanted to read more detail, but it would have become too much if added. I get the impression that Bird's contributions to more than one field were quite significant, and the article is appropriately sized. --Laser brain (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that, and having now had time to read through the rest of the article more closely I tend to agree. But I am looking for more than just an 'impression' regarding Bird's contributions. I think an article aspiring to FA level, with these sort of sources, should be able to say clearly what Bird's status was during his lifetime and how he is seen now by modern historians of medicine. I'm not yet seeing the clarity and definitive statements that I would expect. This FAC was introduced with the statement that Bird is "an important figure in the history of medicine". The question I would ask is how important? Compared to figures like Thomas Addison and Astley Cooper for instance? The article covers the medal that was founded in his honour, but there is nothing on contemporary reaction to his death. Were there obituaries? Did his colleagues lament his death as a great loss? And how did views change over time (i.e. what is the modern view by historians)? I would at the least expect some direct quotes covering these points.

And to give more of an idea of where I'm coming from on the issue of level of detail, I recently wrote the article on Victor Negus (another medical practitioner from a few generations later), and have been considering expanding that to go into more detail, but it's a balancing act between on the one hand a succinct and readable account of someone's life and career, and a more in-depth look at the work they did. Probably at some point you have to chose to go one way or the other with the article. My concern here was that things may have gone too far towards the in-depth approach, but I'm reassured somewhat upon reading through the article again and from what Spinningspark has said about some of the material being spun off to other articles. I do have a few more specific comments from when I read through it again today, so I'll jot those down now. Carcharoth (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not in favour of any major restructuring or additions to the article during the course of the FAC. To do so would only lead to confusion and probably result in the FAC being restarted anyway. If it is a cause for failure it would be better to let it fail now and bring it back later. But pass or fail, if you wish it, I am willing to collaborate with you on the issue after the FAC has concluded. SpinningSpark 13:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a very valid point. Practically all the minor points have been struck, and this is my only major point left. I'm not sure I can quite support yet, but I'm not going to oppose as it is a very good article. I would be happier supporting if you could give some indication within this FAC of what contemporary reaction was (why, for instance, did Balfour write a biography of him, was the Christian society connection the motivation there?) and the most definitive quote from a modern historian of medicine that you have available. With that reassurance that there is material there to work on the contemporary status (e.g. the article says at one point that he is famous, without really expanding on that point) and reputation after death (right up to the present day). I'd then be happy to support and leave any further work for after the FAC. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Both Balfour and Steel write from a religious pov and sing his praises. The article already mentions Bird's connection to Balfour. However, somewhere in Balfour (can't give page numbers off the top of my head) he also talks about Bird being repeatedly accosted in the street for medical advice due to his fame while he is on holiday. I think the obituaries already cited in the article could well be said to "lament his death as a great loss" and their are probably others (list in a footnote in Coley). Coley (modern source) is perhaps too scholarly to use "famous" but does describe him as a "well-known physician". SpinningSpark 16:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. Let me take another look at the way in which the sources are handled here. I'm sure the use of the sources (both modern and contemporary) are fine, but I need to check before I can properly support. I am slightly concerned that, not having clicked on the Coley source link before now, I was taken to what is clearly the wrong article: Molecular cloning and sequence analysis of human Na,K-ATPase beta-subunit from 1986? Is that the wrong article ID or something? Carcharoth (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Weird, even putting in the correct article id to that rendering url does not go to the right page any more. I cannot even find a link to that rendering on the pubmed site (clicking the scan or pdf render links gives a similar rendering but with a different url), I can only assume that the ids used by the rendering are temporary and have changed since the article bibliography was written. I have now put in what should be a more stable link to the article full text. Sorry I did not notice it earlier, I have been working from an offline copy - actually, I had even forgotten it was available online it has been so long. SpinningSpark 22:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've now read through the whole Coley article, and the balance and mix seems to have been got right between summarising what Coley said, bringing in other sources, and rephrasing things in your own words where needed, so I'm happy to support. Thanks for taking the time to respond to some of my comments during the review. Carcharoth (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Couple more comments:

• "Bird did not limit himself to challenging his brother-in-law." This should still be "future" here, as not yet married.

  Done. --Stfg (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• "In 1853 he purchased an estate, St Cuthbert, for his retirement in Tunbridge Wells, but it needed some work, and he could not leave London until June 1854. Meanwhile, he continued to see patients, but only in his house, despite seriously deteriorating health." My impression here was that this implies he was intending to retire, but died before he could. But when I read the ODNB article, it stated that he did retire (can't remember the year). Did the ODNB simplify things a bit here? From memory, they refer to him retiring from hospital work.

  He was officially retired, but seems to have been congenitally unable to actually stop except when completely impaired. He did actually get to St. Cuthbert but it was for a very brief time. The exact sentence from ODNB is "He resigned his hospital appointment on 4 August 1853 and the following year retired from practice." SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• A picture of his grave should be possible. Not essential, but would be nice to try and get that picture. It can be seen here. That could be added to an external links section (which currently doesn't exist).

  Added link. SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Is Cyril Golding-Bird related? Might be difficult to confirm (I tried and failed), but when the article is written on Cuthbert (who died childless, I think, so maybe a different branch of the family if it is the same family), it would be nice to get all three linking properly with hatlinks and placed on surname pages where needed.

  No idea, but the name is so unusual it is likely. I will make a note of it in Cuthberts draft notes. SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

  Found his father Rev. Robert J. Golding-Bird and a lot of books by him but got stuck after that. Possibly Cyril is a grandson. SpinningSpark 19:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

  Continued on your talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Bird is mentioned in Tracheotomy but that work is not mentioned here. I'm guessing from your draft for Cuthbert in your userspace, that the wrong Bird/Golding-Bird has been credited in that article. If so, might be worth fixing sooner rather than later.

  Yes that's a mistake (apparently my own). That's what you get for letting electrical engineers edit medical articles. Fixed. SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC) and 20:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Is Henry Letheby (another article where Bird is mentioned) worth mentioning here?

  It is going a little off-topic. There was a great deal of material here about interrupters but it has been spun out to another article to keep this one focused. SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

  If Letheby improved on Bird's work, it's not really off-topic, as it puts Bird's work in context (i.e. who preceded him and who followed him). But this is relatively minor, so I'll strike this. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• 'frog galvanoscope' is a red-link in this article (though I found your draft). There is an article on something different, called the frog battery with mentions of Bird and a picture of his frog battery. You (Spinningspark) wrote that article (which looks excellent) and uploaded that picture. Is there any reason not to mention and link to it from this article?

  Yes, another spin off, I just had to drop everything else and write that one. Bird certainly covers this topic in his textbook and used it in lectures. But it is not his original invention and so has been left out as not strictly relevant. It is just a piece of laboratory equipment - the Isaac Newton article does not give details of the scales he used for instance, although most likely the information could be found in his writings. SpinningSpark 14:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• The article Pathological Society of London claims Bird was a member. Can this be sourced and added to this article, remembering that some sources confuse Bird and the Golding-Birds?

  Yes, the source in that article verifies the claim. SpinningSpark 19:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• There is another article mentioning the Golding Bird award: D. Bernard Amos. If that can be sourced, is that worth adding as well?

  Done. SpinningSpark 20:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the above from Cyril onwards all found by searches within Wikipedia and using "what links here" (apologies if you knew of most of those already). As I said above, I'll return to this tomorrow and strike what has been addressed, and I may have a few more comments on the latter parts of the article (which I read today), such as pointing out that named people are at times not properly introduced, leaving the reader with little idea who these named people are. Overall, the more I read the article, the more I like it, though it was a bit hard to get into at first. Carcharoth (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

All my comments and objections either struck or responded to above. I am close to supporting, but am waiting on a few more replies. I doubt I will have much more to add, as the article looks in good condition. On the CITEBUNDLE issue, I too found it moderately difficult to work out which bits were from which source, and that will make it hard for future editors to make changes and retain text-source integrity. If I ever have reason to consult some of the sources used here that I wasn't able to access during this FAC, I may try and unpack things a bit on the talk page or somewhere helpful (with a link to the version that is being deconstructed). Carcharoth (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Additional note: Have just tidied up some source documents at wikisource and created the page Bird, Golding (DNB00). That is the 1885 entry for Golding Bird in the DNB, which is what formed the basis for the updated entry in the ODNB in 2004 (updated again in May 2008). That ODNB entry is referred to in this article as 'Payne and McConnell'. Payne is Joseph Frank Payne. His wikisource author page is at Joseph Frank Payne and there are more details on him here (providing this so it is clear what Payne's credentials are). I've added a wikisource box to the Golding Bird article, so the DNB entry can be accessed that way (it is also available from the ODNB site as well). Carcharoth (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Has there been an image review yet? Ucucha (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Images:

• All images are verified in the public domain, except:
• File:Bird stethoscope.jpg - I do have a question about this one. Since this came from a 19th-century magazine, wouldn't it be public domain? If so, is the uploader allowed to apply a more restrictive license to it? Spinningspark has uploaded it and applied a cc by-sa 3.0 license. --Laser brain (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, that's an error - I make no claim to this image: licence corrected. SpinningSpark 17:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you, sir. All images look good now. --Laser brain (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Notes

• While I can see there's been a fair bit of discussion on citations, has anyone made a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing?
  • Andy, did you do any source spotchecks in your review above? Given Carcharoth looked at some (see below), a brief check/okay from you would help conclude this process... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
• Re. citations, there are still a couple of instances that seem overloaded at first glance, e.g.
  • Bird was a Fellow of the Linnaean Society, the Geological Society (elected 1835) and the Royal Society (elected 1846).[5][8][13][14] -- given three organisations are mentioned, are four citations really necessary?
  • He is buried in Woodbury Park Cemetery, Tunbridge Wells.[5][13][21] -- bit hard to imagine three sources being required for his burial place.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It would seem perverse to remove refs having done the work of establishing they cover the cited fact. Many of the book sources also have overlapping coverage, but have been bundled into a single inline ref so are not so visible. SpinningSpark 02:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The references appearing at the end of the burial place sentence puzzle me. It seems to be a consequence of bundling references at the end of paragraphs, because the three online references there don't give his burial place at all, so presumably the burial place is from one of the book references and the three online references I'm looking at are in fact being used to cite material that appears earlier in the paragraph, but what, I don't know. There are problems with those three references anyway: (i) The obituary from the St Louis medical and surgical journal is all of six lines long. It is not really an obituary, more a death notice. I would strongly urge dropping this as a reference, as from what I can see it provides nothing that is not covered in other sources. (ii) The other two online references are archive records where the archivists have compiled biographical information using biographical sources. It would be preferable (almost required in my view) to use the proper sources here, rather than piggybacking on the summary provided by archives. The archive records should, in my view, only be used to source statements about the archives (that they exist, where they are located, when they were deposited, and what they contain). They shouldn't be used to source biographical details. Both archive records (the Kings College London archives and the AIM25 record of the archives at the Royal College of Surgeons of England) give the biographical sources they have used: "Dictionary of National Biography CD-ROM (Oxford University Press, 1995)" and "Lives of the Fellows of the Royal College of Physicians, Volume 4, 1826-1925, p39 and The Lives of the Fellows of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, Volume 3, Page 332". The former (the DNB entry of 1885) has already been dealt with by linking the wikisource transcription and using the ODNB entry (initially published 2004) as a source. The latter two, the entries in the volumes of Lives from the RCP (written by the same person who wrote the 1885 DNB entry) and the RCS (this likely refers to Bird's son, not Bird himself), should be used directly as sources, as relying on summaries produced by archivists is not ideal. The archival records should really be external links, not sources, and I'm going to add the second one (the AIM25 record) in the external links. What is needed in terms of the article is to be clear what those archival records are being used to cite in this article that can't be cited using other sources. Carcharoth (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. The archive summaries were actually used in the early construction of the article, but are now largely duplicated by other refs. The only thing I spotted was the dates for Cuthbert which I have now replaced with a more acceptable ref. SpinningSpark 18:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. As far as spot-checks of the sources go, I don't have time to do that right now, but several are online so I hope someone manages to get to that at some point. I didn't see any issues in the sources I looked at, though I only looked at a few in any great detail. Carcharoth (talk) 20:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Tks Carcharoth. We now have single footnotes for the two statements I noted above, yet the burial footnote still cites three different sources (one of which covers nine pages) for one apparently simple fact. It also concerns me that you (Carcharoth) appear to have found an instance where three citations didn't reference the fact they were supposedly supporting, i.e. the burial place. If I've interpreted you correctly there, we will need a further spotcheck of sources before this gets promoted, in which case I'll be requesting one at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

As Carcharoth rightly surmised, those references are not specifically for the place of burial, but for the paragraph as a whole and is a consequence of bundling citations. SpinningSpark 00:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Mea culpa; in the previous version you had three citations that appeared to be only for the final sentence (burial place) because there was another citation immediately before that sentence -- I can see now that's no longer the case, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Spot-check of sources available online:

• Ref 3, OK:

• Article text: "He had four younger siblings, of whom his brother Frederic also became a physician and published on botany."
• Source text: Page range given is a botanical article published by Frederic.

• Ref 24, OK:

• Article text: "This name did not stick, however, and the compound became known as uroerythrin from the work of Franz Simon."
• Source text: "The name of uroerythrin, assigned to this colouring matter by Franz Simon in 1840, has since been generally adopted"

• Ref 70, OK:

• Article text: "The book was well received and was praised by reviewers for its clarity. The Literary Gazette, for instance, thought that it 'teaches us the elements of the entire circle of natural philosophy in the clearest and most perspicuous manner'. The reviewer recommended it as suitable not just for students and not just for the young, saying that it 'ought to be in the hands of every individual who desires to taste the pleasures of divine philosophy, and obtain a competent knowledge of that creation in which they live'."
• Source text: Supports the quotations given and that the book was praised and recommended as such.

Hope this helps. --Laser brain (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It does, tks Andy! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 20:14, 10 March 2012 [36].

---

Boletus frostii

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Boletus frostii is a handsome edible bolete mushroom found in North and Central America. I've done all I can with respect to research/sourcing and tweaking prose & MoS, and think it's ready for this FAC. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources look good to me, nitpicks:

• Generally, designations such as Ltd. needn't be included for publishers.
• Ref 19: Translation seems a bit off (I'm a native Dutch speaker with considerable knowledge of German). In this context, "distinct" would be a better translation for auffallender than "striking". Also, would "Bolete" for "Röhrling" make more sense than Boletus? What exactly is Luridi?

• Have changed these words as suggested. Luridi is the name of a section of the genus Boletus. Sasata (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 28: English title translation seems incomplete to me. Auree ^★★ 20:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oops, fixed. Thanks for the check. Sasata (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Support on criteria 1a/c/d/e and 2/a/b/. Sasata, your mushroom articles always make for a delightful read. I simply could not find anything worthwile to comment on, so I took the liberty of fixing any nitpicks I had myself (please check if I haven't altered any meanings). One suggestion: It might be useful to mention that it's a North American species in the opening sentence; at least, that's what I gathered from the article. I'm no expert on the subject, so I don't feel comfortable judging comprehensiveness, although I performed spotchecks for all uses of refs 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 10 -- I found no problems whatsoever. (For 5 and 6, I suggest linking to the pages where the quoted text appears instead.) Auree ^★★ 03:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for your review and support. I've directed the links to the specific page #'s as you suggested, and reorganized the lead so the distribution info is closer to the beginning. Sasata (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support I find it increasing difficult to find anything to nitpick in your tasty mushrooms. Personally, I would have assumed the meaning of rootlet was obvious, but it's clearly not wrong to link it, so... nothing more to say Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Jim. Sasata (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Just a single comment from me regarding the wording, on what otherwise seems to be a spotless article. For the lede:

"amber drop" - wouldn't "amber-coloured" be more correct here? It would also remove the need to inter link to 'amber (color)'. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• I added -colored (but kept the link, it's borderline useful). Thanks, Sasata (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Images

• File:Adnate_gills_icon2.png cites itself as a source

• I'll ask the image creator about this and get back to you. Sasata (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've added a book source for the image. Sasata (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• File:Karl_Johanssvamp,_Iduns_kokbok.png needs a US PD tag

• Done. Sasata (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks great. A few tiny quibbles-

• "Another characteristic of young, moist fruit bodies are the amber-colored drops exuded on the pore surface." Another characteristic ... are...- singular/plural?
• You don't mention the "adverse effects" experienced by some outside of the lead- is this a hangover from something unsourced, or is there something that needs to be added to the edibility section?
• "shaped somewhat like a swollen bottle; they are 30–53 long by 7.5–14 µm wide.[4]" Not certain about this- how about splitting it into two sentences?
• "A 1980 publication tentatively suggested that the fungus was also present in Italy,[27] but the author later determined that the putative B. frostii was actually Boletus siculus.[28]" Perhaps Boletis siculus would be a useful addition to "similar species"?

Very well written overall. I made a couple of tiny changes. I'm sure I'll be supporting soon. J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I've made your suggested changes here. I grouped mention of B. siculus together with B. permagnificus, as they are both similar Euro species (some have suggested they are synonymous, but I don't wan't to get into that in this article). Regarding adverse reactions from consumption, after checking through my sources, it seems that Kuo is the only one who mentions this specifically for this species (and he's a little vague about it anyway), so I added a little quote from his book in the edibility section and modified the mention in the lead to better reflect the consensus from sources. Thanks for reviewing. Sasata (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Support, I am happy that this is ready for featured status. J Milburn (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Support provided the image issue noted above is resolved. I couldn't find any issues, except that I disagree with Auree: "striking" is a better translation for "auffallend". Ucucha (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ucucha. I changed the word to the original "striking"--not disparaging your German skills, Auree, but that was the word used in the translation provided by the Web of Knowledge. Sasata (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I definitely trust Ucucha over myself on this one, haha Auree ^★★ 01:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Quick comment – At the start of Ecology, habitat, and distribution, is "mycorrizhal" meant to be "mycorrhizal"? Don't want to change it myself since I'm not 100% sure that's a glitch, but that isn't how I remember the term from my schooling. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Good catch, fixed. Sasata (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 20:03, 10 March 2012 [37].

---

Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

Nominator(s): Mark Arsten & Mitch Ames

At the risk of causing the extinction of the human race and—even worse—the end of Wikipedia, I am co-nominating this article for featured status with Mitch Ames. The content disputes that dominated the talk page (and spilled over to ANI) for a while have finally been resolved, and the article has passed GA, been copyedited, and been peer reviewed. I think we've found virtually all of the coverage they have received in quality sources, and I believe that the article is now as neutral as is possible. I hope you agree that it meets the FA criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Support: My comments were addressed at the PR. Good luck! ResMar 05:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, you were a lot of help at the peer review. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments'

• "Knight, however, believes that even if humans become more environmentally friendly, they could still return to environmentally destructive lifestyles and thus should be eliminated." – Perhaps I am missing a point in American usage, but I'm pretty sure that the 'thus' should be 'hence' or 'therefore', as the sentence otherwise would mean that humans should be eliminated in this way – ie. a dead end/garden path.
• There are quite a few consecutive sentences in the 'Ideology' section which all start with 'He'. I'm not quite sure what to do about it, but it certainly makes the prose somewhat repetitive.
• "Philosophers Steven Best and Douglas Kellner view VHEMT's stance as extreme, but they note that the movement formed in response to what the group sees as extreme anthropocentrism." – I have no idea what this sentence is trying to tell me.
• These are all my quibbles; it's a pretty well written and sweet short article. Regards, Eisfbnore ^talk 11:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments, points 2 and 3 were a bit tricky, but I had a go at them. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments This is an interesting and comprehensive article on a rather odd topic: nice work. I have some comments though:

• The comma in the first sentence is unnecessary
• "that calls for the human race to abstain from reproduction" - surely they call for 'humans' to not reproduce
• " VHEMT argues that human extinction is preferable" - preferable to what?
• "who became involved in the environmental movement in the 1970s and thereafter concluded that human extinction is the best solution to the problems facing the Earth's biosphere and humanity." - 'is' should be 'was', I think
• "Knight publishes the group's newsletter and serves as a spokesman for the movement." - 'Knight publishes the group's newsletter and is one of its spokesmen' perhaps? (including both 'group' and 'movement' in the same sentence is confusing)
• "Many commentators view its platform as unacceptably extreme, though some have applauded their perspective." - who's applauding who here? (read literally, this says that some commentators have applauded other commentators views)
• "a VHEMT newsletter" - were there others at this time?
• "In the newsletter, he asked readers not to procreate, to further human extinction." - second comma not needed
• The lead says that Knight is 'a spokesman' but the article says that he's 'the spokesman'
• What's an 'outreach' in this context?
• The 'ideology' section makes it appear that this 'movement' is really a one-man band as there's almost no coverage of differing views within its members. Is this correct? (though there probably isn't much room for debate in an organisation with such a clear cut - and absolute - goal!)
• 'The paper admits that Knight's support for reduction of the human population' 'admits' is rather non-neutral
• The 'reception' section's focus on what various writers have said about the organisation seems to miss the point that the organisation appears to have had no impact at all on the general public, and is hugely unlikely to ever have any. Nick-D (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Alright, thanks for your comments--you have a good eye for prose issues. I think I made all of your suggested changes. As far as the "one-man band" goes: basically yes, there are a few other members, but Knight pretty much runs it all. The only thing I could find about differing views is the quote by Ormrod in the second paragraph of ideology. As far as your last point goes, I've added a couple statements from Knight where he says that the group hasn't gotten a great reception/is unlikely to succeed. I'm not too sure what else to put there, most sources tend to take it for granted that they're not having much of an impact. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • "Reception" and "impact" are not the same thing. For example, if they received a lot of publicity, so that a large percentage of the population knew about them, there might be a significant reception, eg everybody laughing at them and/or accusing them of being nutters, but virtually no impact because nobody agreed with them so everyone kept breeding. I'm not aware of specific references that indicate what sort of impact they are having - ie whether a significant (relative to the entire human population) number of people have chosen not to breed because of them. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree with both of Nick-D's statements that the comma is unnecessary. Both sentences to which he refers have the same general form, with the comma in question indicated here in angle brackets:

"... calls for the human race to abstain from reproduction <comma> to cause ... extinction ..."

"... asked readers not to procreate <comma> to further human extinction."

In both cases, without the comma the sentence could easily be misread as implying (using the words of the first sentence here, but it applies to both) that reproduction causes extinction, ie with the last clause ("cause extinction") being bound to "reproduction" rather than being bound to "abstain from reproduction". With the comma, that incorrect binding doesn't happen. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Those changes look good to me, though a clearer statement on the movement's lack of success would be helpful, though as you note this is obviously self-evident. As another comment though, I'm going to take issue with the statement that "Voluntary extinction is seen as a laudable goal by The Economist". This is a fairly extraordinary claim, and is referenced only to a tongue in cheek speculative article from one of magazine's Christmas issues (which traditionally include several such lighthearted articles). I've been reading The Economist for well over a decade, and have never seen any references to such a position (in fact, The Economist generally advocates larger populations in developed countries and is relaxed about population issues in general). This and the following sentence should be dropped unless you can find a secondary source which states that this is the magazine's actual position. Nick-D (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, I removed the bits about The Economist and the laudable goal and so on. (I was actually unaware of the Christmas issue thing, my mistake.) I'll ping Mitch and see if he can think up a good way to put it. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support All my comments (including those below) are now addressed. Nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all your detailed comments! Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - check formatting on FN 14, otherwise fine. Spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, only one. I'm getting a lot better. I changed the formatting a bit, hope it's better now. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Spot checks

• Reference 1a: the article says that Knight lives in Portland, but not that he's a native of this city. References 1b and 1d check out. 1f: the references says the researcher counted "close to 400 people on Mr Knight’s mailing list", when you say that there were 'around 400'. I suggest changing this to something like 'just under 400' Please also note the above comment in relation to 1k.
• I don't own the same edition of Weisman as what was consulted in this article so I can't verify the page numbers, but the statements attributed to this book in refs 5a, 5c and 17 check out to my 2008 Virgin Books edition (5a,c to p. 242 and 17 to p. 243). I'm not sure about 5b though; my edition says that he "posts charts" at "Earth Day fairs and environmental conferences", but not that he speaks at them (which implies that he's been invited to speak as part of the conference program), so please double-check your copy.
• 6a and 6b check out
• 8a and 8d are fine (and the Fox News story is more reasonable than its hysterical headline implies!)
• 13a and 13b check out
• Reference 18: The article says that VHEMT's aim is "in many ways laudable" when you've just used "laudable". He doesn't 'question' "whether compassion for the planet can drive humans to voluntary extinction", but actually describes such a notion as being absurd (particularly the voluntary component of this). All up, this article is a bit more negative towards the group's aims than the quotes make it out to be.
• Reference 19 checks out
• Reference 22 is also fine
• There were no problems at all with close paraphrasing in any of the above spot checks. Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey, thanks for the spotcheck. I rephrased the information sourced to 1a, 1f, 1k, 5b, and 18 in light of your comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I should also note (as a image review) that the article's only image is used under an appropriate fair use claim. It might actually be a free image though, as the organisation's website states that "Except where noted, works on this site are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License" and no exception for this image is identified. Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Huh, interesting, thanks. I've changed the licence on the picture's page. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Very well-written article about an interesting subject. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 10:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'm glad you kept pushing me to nominate this :) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 comments

(Resolved comments by Crisco 1492 moved to talk page)

• Support -- Short and to the point; great for an article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Interesting and engaging, has my support. GRAPPLE X 16:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 14:29, 10 March 2012 [38].

---

Ferugliotherium

Nominator(s): Ucucha (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It's been a while since I last nominated an article at FAC, but I figured that we need some more fossil mammal teeth here, so I'm bringing you this article. Ferugliotherium lived in Argentina just before the big dinosaurs went extinct, and it's part of an unusual group of extinct mammals—the gondwanatheres—that I'm producing a series of articles on. I'm looking forward to seeing your reviews. Ucucha (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support and comments from Jim Why are my teeth itching? Usual highly competent stuff, some minor comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think we link countries now (Argentina)
• "honors" twice in taxonomy para 1, perhaps change one to "commemorates" or similar
• Incertae sedis is italicised, I think correctly, in its own article
• "wear facet" — I can't see the point of red-linking this unless its meaning isn't what it appears to be, in which case there should be a gloss
• "Dentary" I think is technical enough to need a link or gloss
• Bonaparte (1986) is presumably in Spanish, which should be indicated
• Bonaparte (1986) — what's the point of the url when there's no text at the end of it, just a confirmation that the book exists

• Thanks; I've corrected most of these. As for the last one, it does lead to a snippet view of the text in America. Ucucha (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comments: I've started reading the article, haven't finished yet. Not the sexiest topic, but it seems very well written thus far though.
• "an enigmatic tooth from the Paleogene of Santa Rosa, Peru" Could you link to the specific Santa Rosa? There are a few Santa Rosas in Peru.
• "the lower-crowned Ferugliotherium was more likely an insectivore or omnivore, like similar multituberculates such as Mesodma," Would it be possible to avoid the "likely... like" here? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. I've changed "likely" to "probably". The Santa Rosa meant here is not any of those listed on the dab page; it's in Atalaya Province. I linked it to Santa Rosa local fauna in the article on LACM 149371 and will try to make time to write an article about the (very interesting) fossil site. Ucucha (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Alright, sounds good. No offense intended about the un-sexiness of the topic, I'm sure it reflects more on my admittedly short attention span than anything else.
      • No problem; I didn't even mean to refer to your comment about sexiness. Ucucha (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• In the last paragraph of Taxonomy you start three sentences in a row with "In [year]...", maybe try to vary that a bit? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Reworded. Ucucha (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• "The identity of a few additional isolated premolars assigned to Ferugliotherium, some also resembling multituberculates, is also uncertain." Is there a good way to avoid the "also... also" here?
  • Removed the first one. Ucucha (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Ferugliotherium is known from isolated teeth, the assignment of some of which is controversial." Is there a good way to avoid the "of some of which" here?
  • I can't think of one right now, but don't think the current wording is very bad either. Ucucha (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Your duplicate linking script is highlighting the first couple links of the Upper molariforms section and four of the first five links in the Range and ecology section.
  • All of those are linked previously in the taxonomy section, separated by a lot of dental anatomy. I think it's reasonable to link them again down in the lower part of the article, particularly because some of the things that are linked multiple times (e.g., the formations) are discussed in the most detail there, and it makes sense to enable readers to click through to the articles on the formations in that section. Ucucha (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, no problem, I just thought I'd bring it up. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• "The three incisor fragments are identified as Ferugliotherium because of their size and provenance" I can never remember the rule about when to use "because of" vs "due to" and "owing to", do you know if it is being used correctly here? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "Because of" sounds best to me here, but I'm happy to change it if that's thought necessary. Ucucha (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Alright, I've examined the article's prose as best I can and any real issues that I could find have been dealt with so I'm ready to Support on prose/presentation/MOS. (I know very little about the subject matter so I'm not qualified to judge in that respect.) Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Don't think total pages for Gurovich is needed
• What does n.s. stand for? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • New series. I've unabbreviated it. As for Gurovich, I don't see why not, since I also give total page numbers for books. Thanks for the review. Ucucha (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support on prose and comprehensiveness - I reviewed this for GA and found little to complain about then. The article straddles the line between accessibility and exact meaning using technical words well as anything that can be described in plain English is. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Consider all items below stricken; article meets FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comments by Sasata (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• I think the lead could be made a bit more newbie-friendly. Some suggestions:

• link taxa, crown
• The first sentence should state explicitly (rather than the second sentence by implication) that Ferugliotherium is a genus.
• there's no easy indication about what kind of mammal this was. Perhaps if (a group of rodent-like mammals) was glossed after Multituberculata, it would help.
• "were assigned to indeterminate multituberculates instead." is there a more accessible way to say this?
• formations -> geological formations

• I've done most of these, but I think for this animal it's actually good that we give little indication about the kind of mammal it was, because we have little idea about that. But I've glossed multituberculates. Ucucha (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• two very close occurrences of the phrase "after the discovery of" is repetitious
• link Bonaparte in taxobox
  • It's linked on the first occurrence in the taxobox; I don't think it's necessary to link all of the three occurrences. Ucucha (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• "a now-extinct group of mammals" why specify now-extinct? were they not extinct when Bonaparte created the family?
• link morphological, procumbent
• "because they are less laterally compressed, more curved, and elliptical in cross section, and have a less acute angle at the tip." delete the second last "and"?
  • No, then the ellipsis would not make sense. But I've rearranged the sentence. Ucucha (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
• "With a width of at about 55 μm" extra word in there
• "The crown is about rectangular" suggest "about" -> roughly
• loph? anteroposteriorly?
• "The middle row is oriented oblique with respect to ..." oblique->obliquely?
• doi for Goin 2006 is broken; the article is viewable (by me at least) on Google Books here
• This is just a stylistic preference, but reading through the article I get the impression that semicolons are overused.
• have you tried contacting any of the paper's authors for use of an image? I noticed, for example, that a tooth image was used in this book; perhaps Kielan-Jaworowska and Bonaparte might release a similar low-res version that we could use?
  • Thanks for the comments, which are detailed and useful as always. I've fixed all the issues I didn't respond to separately. As for images, I've contacted Gurovich and received no response, but haven't tried either Kielan-Jaworowska or Bonaparte (though both are old enough that I doubt they would use email). Ucucha (talk) 20:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 21:27, 4 March 2012 [39].

---

Washington quarter

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria.Wehwalt (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why abbreviate in FN 57 but not 54?
• FN 58: source italicizes Numismatic News but not NumisMaster
• Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated or not
• Given the abbreviation method you're using for states, "Ma." is ambiguous - could be Massachusetts or Maryland
• "Whitman Publishing, LLC" or "Whitman Publishing LLC"?
• How are you ordering the sources without authors?

Alphabetically by first significant word of the name of the newspaper/other publisher.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• How are you dividing "Bibliography" and "Other sources"? It seems to mostly be books vs other, but you're got a report with the books and a book with the other...Nikkimaria (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That's modified now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I will work through these this evening. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

These things are done now.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Eisfbnore

• "Hoover was concerned about the large numbers of designs used for commemorative coins in the 1920s, fearing that confusion would aid counterfeiters." — Perhaps change "fearing that" to "and feared that" to avoid noun+present participle construction?
• "The Depression had caused there to be little demand for coin in commerce..." — Methinks 'tis a bit clumsy; how about: "The Depression had diminished demand for coin in commerce..."?
• "The House of Representatives Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures issued a memorandum stating that the design of the existing Standing Liberty quarter had been found to be unsatisfactory, and that the new piece would not only be struck for 1932, it would permanently replace the older design." — I am a bit confused; does the use of a comma after "1932" create a comma splice?
• "No quarters were struck at any mint in 1933, due to the oversupply caused by the 1932 issue" — Shouldn't the "due to" be "owing to"? I think I've read somewhere that the former modifies conjugated forms of "to be" (indicating that it would be correct in this context), but since it's in the passive, I'm not sure.
• "These minting operations were rapidly depleting the Treasury's stock of silver." — Is the use of the past progressive correct in the sentence? IMHO, it would be more idiomatic with "These minting operations rapidly depleted the Treasury's stock of silver."

Eisfbnore ^talk 12:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I've done all of these, though I modified matters in most cases, except the comma splice one. I think that one is OK as the final clause is not independent. Note the use of the word "only".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes. I forgot one point though: "Beginning in 1976, and continuing over the following twenty years, the design was tweaked a number of times" — Isn't the use of tweak a touch informal for an encyclopaedia? My Thesaurus suggests adjust, modify, alter, change, adapt and refine as substitutes. Eisfbnore ^talk 16:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I picked "modify" and recast it in the active voice. Thank you again. Do not hesitate to let me know of other glitches.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Support I'm not that into numismatics, but I found the article—surprisingly—very interesting, and have no hesitations with giving it my full support. Other than that, I think there might be a comma splice in the sentence "Other commemoratives had been sold at a premium, the Washington half dollar would, for one year, be the normal Mint issue." but I might be in the wrong this time as well. Eisfbnore ^talk 08:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I try to write the coin articles both for the coin collecting reader and also for the general public at large. I think you are right; that should be a semicolon.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Support: My detailed comments were given at the peer review, some months back. I've only a couple of minor issues to raise now:-

• I notice the presence of one or two intrusive redundancies, e.g. "in fact", "actually", which could probably be zapped.
• It would be useful to link the term "territories" as it occurs in the penultimate paragraph of the article, since this term will not be widely understood outside America. How about this: territories?

A worthy addition to a lengthy, high quality series. Brianboulton (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your praise. The recommended changes have been made.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from RexxS: Looking at the article for any accessibility issues, I am pleased that I can find no major problems. There are a few minor niggles, which may not necessarily be resolvable:

• Alternate text for images is mostly well done, but I can imagine that a screen reader announcing "The progression of Washington quarter obverse designs" might cause a little frustration. This is probably the sort of case where a long description might work. Nevertheless, much of what is illustrated in the image is actually described in the Production sections, so I'm guessing that alt text along the lines of "The changes from 1932 to the present are described in the production section" might be helpful. You could always ask Graham87 whether he felt additional alt text would be an improvement to get a definitive answer.
• The scale of that image File:Wikipedia Washington Quarters Obverse Designs.jpg at a width of 150px results in the embedded text being just a bit too small for my aging eyesight to cope with comfortably. I understand the problems that would be caused on very widescreen monitors by making it much bigger, but I think you could tweak it a little bit bigger to be kind to your elder audience.
• Similarly, I have problems spotting decimal points when they are the first character in a number. I really find it difficult to distinguish between ".18" and "18" at the point size used in the infobox. Is there any reason why that couldn't be "0.18 troy ounces"? The difference between 0.18 and 18 is rather significant.
• I suspect that there is a numismatological convention that dictates ".900 silver, .100 copper", rather than "0.900 silver, 0.100 copper". I suppose "90% silver, 10% copper" is just not what the sources use? I accept that these are proportions, so it doesn't matter as much as if they were absolute quantities.
• Finally, I'm quite comfortable with most conversions between imperial and metric, but found the juxtaposition "(silver) 6.25 g containing .18 troy ounces of pure silver, (clad) 5.67 g, (silver clad) 5.75 g" just a little confusing and somewhat jarring. As this is in the infobox and hence providing a quick overview, would you be expecting the lay reader to make sense of that?

To put the above into perspective, I found the article as a whole to be well written and very informative, as well as accessible for most readers. --RexxS (talk) 03:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The fact that the quarter has had different specifications during its 80 year existence does tend to strain the infobox, which is fairly inflexible. I'm open to suggestions, but what you see is the best solution I could think of. I will keep tweaking it though. Regarding the .900, I suppose that it could be switched to percentages, but that's fairly impractical in text, if you check the end of the article. I will work through these, and certainly enlarge the quarters image. I will report back when I'm done.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Support and thank you. I no longer have any issues with text size, and the new alt text makes that image much better for screen readers. I'd be happy to endorse this article as its accessibility reaches the standard I would expect for Wikipedia's best work. --RexxS (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. Comprehensive, formidably referenced, well illustrated. A few trivial drafting points, which don't affect my support:

• Lead
  • I wondered about the en dash in 1975–dated. I'd expect a plain hyphen, I think.
• Inception
  • "it was anticipated he would interpose no objection to the plan" – a bit wordy. Would "he was not expected to object to the plan" do?
  • "Houdon" – is blue linked in successive paras
• Competitions
  • "Secretary Mellon" is used twice in a row. You might drop the "Secretary" for the second one.
• Production
  • "hoarded in rolls" – a technical term that could do with a word or two of explanation for the layman
  • Image with the five coins – it may just be my elderly eyes, but I found the legends too small to read comfortably at normal 100% view.
  • "The year 1964 saw a shortage of coins" – some people (not me) get very aerated about the idea that a year can see.
  • "a dime contained" – ignorant foreigners like me have heard of a dime but don't know offhand what it's worth in cents; it would be kind to add the figure in brackets.
  • "1776-1976" – en dash wanted, I think – Tim riley (talk) 07:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Dash it all. Thank you for your supports. I will deal with these today. It's interesting on the coin roll thing. I'm aware that the US is somewhat unusual in storing coins in roll form (I know in the UK it is weighed plastic bags) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs) 10:30, 29 February 2012‎

I think I've changed or explained everything raised by Tim and by RexxS. Thank you for the reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• Some sandwiching on my (small laptop) screen with the bust image and the coin below it

It's the best that I can do. The images point in opposite directions and it's not a long section.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• File:WLA_lacma_Houdon_George_Washington_bust.jpg should give licensing for bust as well as for image
• File:Wikipedia_Washington_Quarters_Obverse_Designs.jpg needs licensing info for the coins as well as the image
• File:Congressional_Gold_Medal_G_Washington.jpg: should clarify what the tag is licensing (the coin, the image, or both)
• File:2012-ATB-Quarters-Unc-El-Yunque.jpg: should be fairly obvious, but best to provide a licensing tag for the image as well as the coin. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Those things are fixed except as noticed above, thank you. Four supports, image review done (assuming Nikki is satisfied with the Flanagan's Design images), source review done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 15:46, 4 March 2012 [40].

---

Pain fitzJohn

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 18:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... after patient research, as well as lots of copyediting, I think i've got a pretty complete view of this rather elusive Henry I's "new men". Pain was a relatively lowly nobleman who rose in Henry's service to control a very strategic position in the Welsh Marches, as well as one of England's most famous castles - Ludlow Castle. He and his brother were powerful magnates, but Pain died before his brother and did not found a long lived family as his brother did. The article is a complete new start, as I started it back in 2011, I've done all of the research as well as most of the writing. It's been kindly reviewed at GA, as well as having a nice peer review and other reviews by a number of editors - including Fifeloo, Nikkimaria, Brianbolton, and Ruhrfisch. It also has benefited from comments from Nev1 about Ludlow as well as a final polish by Malleus. Note - I'm competing in the Wikicup, but this article will NOT count for points, as most of the work/research/etc was done last year. I present to you - Pain fitzJohn, an nobleman who mixed with kings and earls in his lifetime but has largely fallen from historical sight since then. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources review

• Spotchecks carried out on ODNB sources, no issues
• Multiple citations should be in ascending sequence, e.g. [[16][24] not [24][16]

Otherwise all sources look good. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Support: I copyedited the article and made a few review suggestions, duly implemented. An excellent peek ito our vanished past when knights were bold...etc etc. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why is Wrightman's opinion of the man given his own paragraph? And the closing one? - hahnchen 23:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• If I could find other opinions on Pain's career or character, I'd have included them also. Wrightman's the only one who editorialized on him - originally I had it in with other paragraphs, but it doesn't really fit well anywhere. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• If you think his opinion is important, that's fine, I just thought it stuck out, possibly as undue weight given that Wrightman's book is focused on the Lacy side. - hahnchen 23:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments from Noleander

• Explain/define in lead: "..one of King Henry I of England's "new men".". Reader should not have to click on link to determine the significance of the "new men" term. Either define/explain right there, or later in lead.
• Ambiguous: "Pain was probably the eldest son of John fitzRichard..." - Ambiguous: need to specify what is uncertain: the "eldest" or that his father was JFR?
• Grave site: "He was buried in Gloucester Abbey .." - Is he still there? Can tourists visit the grave? Any photo available?
• Clarify: " ... as they are frequently found witnessing the same charters and other royal documents." - I presume "witness" means that they signed a document. Probably should explain that for lay readers.
• Define: "...and that the king "stationed them above earls and famous castellans" - I'm pretty well read but I have no clue what a castellan is. Someone who owns a castle? Someone from Castile?

• The more familiar French form is "Châtelain", and perhaps this could be pipelinked. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Verbose: " is not securely confirmed in " - The "securely" seems redundant. Remove? Or, if need to keep it, change to a more conventional adverb like positively or absolutely etc.
• Verbose: "... she was described as being a widow." - Could be simpler: " ... she was a widow" or "... she was described as a widow".
• Define: "... Henry gave Pain the lordships ..." - Define "lordship" for lay readers. Or, at least, link to WP article.
• Awkward wording: "... the date of their granting to Pain is unknown." - How would E. B. White phrase that?
• Define/explaiin: "...his payment for danegeld in 1130 ..." - Shouldn't have to click on "danegeld" to comprehend the meaning of the sentence.
• Punctuation: "On 10 July 1137 Pain was killed by a javelin blow to the head, during an ambush by the Welsh ..." - Move comma from after "head" to after "1137".

• If Ealdgyth moves that comma I'll buy a plane ticket to the US, hunt her down, and kill her. Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• And I will personally conduct the burial service. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• All-in-all a fine article. I'm having a hard time finding any shortcomings.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've dealt with all of the above except for the "securely" and the comma where I was threatened with death... securely here is the correct "technical" term - using another would be less correct to the source. And I'm not touching the comma .. not after my two main copyeditors threatened me! Thank you for the review - sorry it took a few days to get back, I"m still fighting some cold/flu/something that's driving me nuts. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I changed my "Comments" to "Support". Regarding the comma: my real point (which may have gotten lost in the humor :-) was that introductory time phrases should normally be followed by a comma, as in "On July 5th, the army advanced ..." because speakers usually pause briefly at that point. Not a big deal. --Noleander (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)::::

I think that's something Americans tend to do rather than the wider English-speaking world. Malleus Fatuorum 18:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Image review

• It's a bit hard to read some of the town names in the map, though I don't know there's much you can do about that
• What source or data set was used to create File:WelshMarchesMap.jpg? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• I used my handy Michelin Europa map - isbn 2061005764. Didn't need a huge map for this. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks

• "is not securely confirmed" - would suggest "clearly confirmed" or similar
• Do we know if/how Hugh and Walter de Lacy are related (since Walter has no article)?
• "Her kinsman Gilbert de Lacy was the son of Roger de Lacy, who had been banished from England in 1095 and his English estates confiscated; he had though retained his properties in Normandy; Roger's English possessions were given to his brother Hugh de Lacy, from whom Sybil had inherited them" - would suggest making "Roger's English possessions..." a new sentence
• Be consistent in whether you use en- or emdashes for sentence breaks
• Compare FNs 19 and 31. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• I really prefer "securely" - this is the normal terminology for the status in historical circles. The de Lacy family article - sucks. And the state of research into the de Lacy's is fluid. I'd rather not get into a long digression on more de Lacy's - Sibyl's bad enough. Malleus got the Roger's English possessions bit and the dashes - thank you Malleus!!! Fixed the spelling issue in the footnotes. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 14:11, 4 March 2012 [41].

---

Alexis Bachelot

Nominator(s): Mark Arsten (talk) & Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 00:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Alexis Bachelot led the first permanent Catholic mission to Hawaii, but encountered religious persecution and was even suspected of being a French spy. While he saw limited success, his treatment by the Hawaiian government led to an international diplomatic incident with lasting consequences. The article is currently at GA status and has been peer reviewed and copyedited since then. I'm fairly confident that it meets the Featured article criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Eisfbnore

• Check alphabetisation of bibliography
• There are a couple of 'due to's in the article which should be 'owing to' or 'because of'. I'm too woozy and tired to give a full explanation of what ought to be used when (though I think that I've erewhile explained it in one of Mark's FACs), but this website gives a considerably thorough elucidation. --Eisfbnore ^talk 01:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I think I got them both (took me a couple tries to find the out of place reference though)--and yes, I am definitely a repeat offender when it comes to due to vs because of! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

(Obvious) Support as co-nominator. I'm the GoCE member that Mark roped into editing this article, and it turned out being one of the most pleasurable CE experiences I've had. I'm open to any and all suggestions on how to clean up the prose further. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 18:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Redtigerxyz

• Disclosure: I was the GA reviewer.
• Should it be "Alexis John Augustine Bachelot (born John Augustine Bachelot ..." ???
• Kaʻahumanu, the Kuhina Nui of Hawaii: Kuhina Nui must be italicized IMO. Also a short English summary will better explain the jargon

• Comment I don't think Kuhina Nui should be italicized. We don't italicize other honorifics such as "King," "Queen," "Emperor," or "Grand Pooh-Bah." I could see an argument for italicizing it under the "foreign words not in common English usage" clause of MOS:ITALIC but I don't care for it here because the title forms part of a person's name. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 01:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• "By Bacehlot's arrival however," -> Should it start with however ???
• "He was freed only after...." Three consecutive sentences start with He. repetitive
• "a French adviser to Hawaiian king .." -> "a French adviser to the Hawaiian king"--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Alright, good to see you again. I think I have taken care of the issues that you have spotted thus far. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Because Kamehameha III was young at the time of his his ascension, Kaʻahumanu (a wife of their father) ruled as Kuhina Nui." stepmother???
• La Comète -> the La Comète?? (eg The Waverly) Simarly, La Vènus

Everything seems fine. Towards Support --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• • Ok, I've made both those changes. I think I just introduced that "his his" recently. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
    • All issues resolved. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Kommentar -- Wouldn't having harv templates make verification easier? It's nice to link directly to the reference. Further review to follow. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I'll think about it, I haven't been using them much lately though. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk page)

• Support. My issues have been addressed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Images (again)

By my count everything is fine. All images have source details and all but one is undeniably PD. The only one that is not PD is the work of a Wikipedian with and licensed correctly. Captions are in accordance with MOS. It would be preferable to have ALT text, but it's not required. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I gave this article a detailed peer review, as a result of which a number of improvements were made; more have been effected during the FAC process. The one quibble I have is that I don't see the purpose of the two "See also" links and I don't imagine that any of your readers will use them. Personally I would drop them. But whatever you decide to do, well done in producing an original and historically fascinating article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks, you were a great deal of help at the peer review. I've removed the See Also per your comment. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Be consistent in how multi-author sources are notated
• Missing bibliographic info for Scott 1991
• Rayson & Wong or Wong & Rayson? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, I think I've taken care of those three. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Closing comments - I have taken the liberty of spot-checking the sources (using Google Books) and found no issues. Graham Colm (talk) 14:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 21:34, 3 March 2012 [42].

---

Ontario Highway 401

Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination restarted. (Old nom) Raul654 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support—I was quite critical of this article the last time it was here, and it's come a long way since then. It received a fairly thorough A-Class Review and plenty of attention here prior to the restart.
  I've read through the prose, and I feel it substantially meets the criteria. (I hedge that statement only because we can always polish the prose in articles, and other editors may have different opinions on a piece of text, and both be right.) As for the other criteria, I believe that the article meets them as well. Imzadi 1979 → 22:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Based on my comments earlier in the FAC, I feel this article meets all the criteria and is an interesting article on an important highway in Canada. Dough4872 01:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - This article has been consistently progressing since mid 2010 and is ready to be featured. Content and media are of high quality and are properly sourced. The layout is well structured and organized. Simply put, the Ontario Highway 401 article is now one of the best road articles on Wikipedia and is worthy of Featured Article status. Haljackey (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Resolved comments by Nick-D moved to talk page - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support My comments are now addressed. I still think that the material on the Highway of Heroes name is over-long, but this is a minor point, and doesn't detract much from this fine article. Great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support I supported last time around, and I'm happy to do so again in the expectation that the relatively minor issues identified above will be easily fixable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
• Note -- Previous pass of this FAC included an image check but I believe we still need a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• My previous objection on the grounds that the article lacks coordinates for key features still stands (the addition of map links referencing a separate KML file does not address this). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • And our replies that your objection is unactionable still stand. --Rschen7754 00:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    • And still of no merit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Object, also on the grounds of lack of coordinates. I'll not rehash the arguments again; I'm guessing most readers understand the two positions on this subject. The KML link to two map sources is very welcome. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment on both opposes above - What coordinates are missing? What are "key features", and do you have a reliable source? Also note "no consensus" for use or non-use of coordinates at the recent RfC, as the closing admin stated: "The consensus of this RfC is section 9 to use shapefile software to illustrate the the area of highway mentioned in the article.", exactly what is accomplished through the KML. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The KML matter has no bearing on this one; and the inevitable lack of consensus at that lamentable RfC means that it's still down to editors to make decisions on a more local basis. I have an open mind as to which features are key; but it's implausible to suggest that none are. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    • So in other words it's original research, since you can't offer any reliable source that singles out features on this road as "key features"? Thanks, but moving along... - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 13:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
      • How you leap from "open mind" to "original research" is a mystery I have neither the time nor inclination to resolve. And, please, use your edit summaries to summarise your edits, not make snide remarks which, as in this case, and as so often on others, are wrong. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
        • If you are not willing to list and source what "key features" are so that I can decide whether or not to tag them, and instead move aside to comment on how I arrived at original research (because you haven't presented a reliable source) or on my edit summaries (I'm perfectly happy with my snide remarks, thank you), then there is nothing I can do to address your vague, exasperating request, which borders on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. To repeat, the closing admin stated at the top of the closed RfC: "The consensus of this RfC is section 9 to use shapefile software to illustrate the the area of highway mentioned in the article.", so you are incorrect in stating "the inevitable lack of consensus at that lamentable RfC" (speaking of snide remarks). The KML file is a shapefile translated into XML format. No list of features that you feel are "key" + no source for those features being key + circuitous arguments = inactionable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
          • I cannot speak for Highway 401, but for the UK articles for which you equally vociferously argue against coordinates using the same tired arguments, the reliable source for key features of roads are road atlases which devote whole pages to illustrating each motorway or major road junction - i.e. not only is the road junction featured in the main map; each road junction is then lifted out into a Road Junctions of the M1 type page. I'd be a little surprised if things were different for Canada. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
            • I do have a book that not only lists each and every exit, but has various tours of local restaurants, villages and wineries, and well as historic landmarks in towns along the way. However, tagging every junction would break the template limit for a single article. Picking and choosing random points to tag gives undue weight. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
              • Editors regularly and inevitably choose what to include or exclude from an article, without drama. But, for the sake of argument, and by way of example, we could start with coordinates for the extant service centres, in the table listing them - there are only about ten of those. Then, in the junction list, we could have coordinates for junctions with other highways - I count roughly 30 of them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Source spotcheck This is my first time doing one of these, so please let me know if I did it wrong.

• 20, 27, 32, 39, 60, 67, 73 good.
• Hardcopy maps not checked; though there are no plagiarism concerns there.
• Source 4 - I think it's good. "the busiest highway in North America" seems to be used by more than one source, I don't think that's a particularly distinctive phrase.
• Source 6 - second cite - confused as to where you're getting the Santa Monica Freeway and the Houston references from. Third cite - "carrying 60 percent of vehicular trade between Canada and the US." versus "It carries 60 percent of all vehicular trade between Canada and the US."
• Source 8 - don't think "busiest truck route in the world" is particularly distinctive either.
• Source 14 - where is 2013 coming from? Third cite not supported. (My guess is that you got that info off the other pages in the site?)
• Source 50 - not seeing the info for the first or third cite, maybe I'm missing it.
• Source 79 - not sure where the "widening" part is coming from.

There's 177 citations so I'm about half done, but I'm running on very few hours of sleep and thus the spotchecking is getting more and more painful. --Rschen7754 03:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• A word of caution - source numbers can change of one is added, mid-way through the sequence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I do this the same way, and when one gets changed, I usually re-reference it in my next post as the current number. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 14:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, I'm just copying the format of several other spotchecks; look at some of the other current reviews for examples. --Rschen7754 18:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Floydian, do you plan to address these issues? --Rschen7754 20:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • My bad, lost track of this among the pointless arguments. I've fixed everything up mentioned thus far; everything was already in the article but sometimes I've referenced the wrong thing. For ref 6, Shragge's online article mentions SMF, but I can't remember where Houston came from. It's not particularly important, so I removed it. I'm not sure how else to word that one particular sentence without making it grammatically incorrect or overly wordy. I backed up #14 for the 2013 date (the reference was for the routing). #50, the third is definitely there, but you are right about the first. I've switched that instance to the opening dates reference, which I use for the colour coded map. #79 I had to use my offline Shragge reference for (the newspaper reference just mentions that Highway 27 south of the 401 was part of the bypass, which other references earlier in the text had mentioned was a four-lane divided highway constructed in the 1950s. All fixed now though). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Conditional support This is a nice well written article that deserves FA status when the elephant in the room has been addressed. The Infobox has no provision for the addition of terminal, or median co-ordinates. You cannot have a geographical infobox that doesn't give you a location- that needs to be fixed. The infobox fails to mention which country we are discussing, and the location of Ontario within it, I am sure that is easily fixed. Not surprisingly for a North American article the terminology used is regionally specific, for instance the the article is about a road- but the word highway is used without explanation throughout.The article itself is totally lacking in coordinates- and while this could be said valid design decision the fact that this issue remains open precludes this lovely text from being considered for FA. It is worrying that a particularly acrimonious RfC, is cited as justification, for one extreme POV. This rather proves that the text is not jet ready for FA. --ClemRutter (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the correlation in your last point between using the outcome of an RfC that is directly relevant to this to justify not including something that I am not going to include (and that are NOT a requirement of a featured article. I can add the KML link into the infobox, but that is redundant when it appears directly above the infobox. There is absolutely no need to duplicate the information this KML contains with coordinates. If it can be done without displaying the degrees, minutes and seconds in the infobox, cluttering it with numbers that appear in the link provided, then I may reconsider. Until then, additional piling on will not change the situation. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Come on, stay on focus. The task in hand is getting this brilliant piece of writing past the FAC. The problem is the level of proof required- being brilliant isn't enough. The team trying to get this accepted has to get everyone on board- and there is this big elephant in the room.is a sparce guideline to the requirements of a featured article. Item 1a- the most important one talks about brilliant prose. This text is some of the best I have seen. Item 1b- is the sticking point comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; as the text, and for me the infobox is totally lacking, or deliberately neglects a category of major facts and deliberately fails to place the subject in the context that is required by specialist editors- and required to set your SATNAV- and required in secondary school exam syllabuses the world over. As such the text will fail 1.b. The task is thus how to introduce sufficient coordinates in a form that doesn't damage the flow of the prose, so the text can be said to be comprehensive. As I have stated changes to the infobox could be beneficial and an easy way forward, and then I suggest that adding some tags to the tables may sweep up the rest of the problem. The next task 1.c is about referencing and I assume that is watertight. But now we come to 1.d neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; which I am convinced the group has rigorously attempted to do but does it look that way to a random outsider, or does it look as the editing is ruthlessly protective of a particular style of editor to which many have been excluded- you have to be seen to be conciliatory and embracing. Finally 1.(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. Thankfully, other editors who have been commenting are too busy elsewhere to play tit-for-tat and to even start making simple edits to the substantive text- but as I intimated there has been a proxy edit war going on elsewhere. The RFC was vicious, and drawing it to outsiders attention is not wise. For FAC it matters not who won the RFC but that there was no conflict in the first place and that is not true. To progress this further it will be necessary to address 1 b, 1e and to a lesser extent 1d. I seriously suggest that the infobox is the place to start- as doing this correctly will open up every Ontario Road article to FAC, and I would seriously suggest that being acrimonious is detrimental to the task in hand here. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I think all those can be solved by methods other than adding the degrees, minutes, and seconds to the article, and I look forward to compromising in that respect. I will not add obtrusive strings of numbers though, as they serve no purpose in this context. It is the link to geohack that is desired, not DMS coordinates. If {{coord}} had a method to suppress the DMS coords in the article, I would be happy to add them to the endpoints and Major junctions in the infobox and to the junction list. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you agree to hiding each of the junction numbers behind a link that says "junction"? Mileages behind a link that says "mileage"? I look forward to compromising in that respect. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I can relate to the horror of templates with 8 or more | chars, so though I normally set the output format of the {{coord}} to dms- I always input in dec. I have mocked up on in a sandbox one possible way of coding a bare minimum infobox, with two start/end coordinates that I pulled in using a bookmarklet I have set up. As you can see it is in Degrees and deci-degrees. If the aim is to keep the numbers to a minimum and suggesting that for a 16 lane highway an accuracy of +- 700m should be appropriate we arrive at 2 dec places as shown in the source code. I have <-smalled-> down the text and added the missing word Canada, and bolded the Highway name at the same time. In time this should be hardcoded into the template to enforce consistency- but this is just a mock up. In the article its self I can see merit in hiding the coords behind a graphic, so they only appear on a mouse roll-over (I did it once in raw javascript- but have never tried in Wikipedia to achieve the same effect-technical advice needed here). Enough for tonight.--ClemRutter (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've used your infobox. This is reasonable enough and doesn't stick coordinates in stupid places or for rediculous random points along the length of the highway. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting that we "duplicate the information this KML contains with coordinates"; since the KML does not explicitly identify the locations of key features. And, though it may surprise you, you are not the only editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This may surprise you, but I am the principal contributor to the article. So what are you suggesting? I don't care about anybody else: What the hell do you want? The KML explicitly identifies the endpoints of the highway, and the course it follows. Without a source, I do not know what a "key feature" is on this road. Do you? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If the article is in such a state that its "principal contributor" [whatever that means] can't identify its key features, then perhaps we should abandon all attempts at FA until that situation is resolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Principal contributor means that in a list of contributors, I have made the most edits... In fact, very close to as many edits as all other editor combined![43]

If you are not willing to list and source what "key features" (whatever that means) are so that I can decide whether or not to tag them, then there is nothing I can do to address your vague, exasperating request, which borders on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. To repeat, the closing admin stated at the top of the closed RfC: "The consensus of this RfC is section 9 to use shapefile software to illustrate the the area of highway mentioned in the article.". The KML file is a shapefile translated into XML format. No list of features that you feel are "key" + no source for those features being key + circuitous arguments = inactionable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

so "Principal contributor" has no special meaning on Wikipedia, nor does it endow special privileges, thanks for clearing that up. "Key features" similarly has no special or technical meaning, just the dictionary definition; "significant features" or "important features" will do. You don't need to do anything; like I said above, you're not the only editor; nor is there any need for you to decide anything. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, important points. I don't know of any point on this highway that is any more important than any other point on this highway. Fortunately, wikipedia doesn't accept my subjective opinion. I am not going to do anything, but similarly, I am not going to allow others to add some arbitrary points that they have decided are "important" when they can't provide a single piece of verification for those "important" points. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As you have been told previously, maps will verify the location of such points. If you believe that to be inadequate, raise an RfC to prohibt them. Oh, wait... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No map I have ever read indicated the key features on Highway 401, so if you have one please share it so that I can use it as a source and add the coordinates your desire so! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're looking at map which shows Highway 401, but none of its important features, get a better map. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Kommentar this is inactionable. The reviewer refuses to elaborate on what things they feel need to be tagged. They refuse to provide a reliable source for "key features" ("Key features" is not a cartographic term). I have over three dozen maps of southern Ontario, various municipalities in southern Ontario, and historical maps of Ontario from every year between 1949 and 1990. I have official maps, I have commercial maps, I have tourist maps. In fact, I even have a book that describes the surroundings of every exit along the highway! None of these texts use the term "Key feature". None of the maps label any special points along the highway. The only Point of Interest (now there is an actual cartographic term!) on the entire highway is the Basketweave, which has a coordinate in its article. I cannot provide information that does not exist, and I cannot act on an ambiguous command. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

As is so often the case, Floydian chooses to misrepresent my position, rather than to address it. I have never "refused to elaborate on what things need to be tagged"; though I have stated that I have an open mind on that matter; not presuming to be the font of all knowledge. It is Floydian who refuses to engage on the subject, preferring instead to pretend that my position is one of advocating original research; and to continue treating the generic phrase "key feature" as an exact technical term, despite having already been told that it is not. Many editors manage to include coordinates for features on other, comparable linear features, without the problems he claims to see. I am unsure of how to engage meaningfully with an editor who suggests that including coordinate data without making it readable to our readers (in which case it suddenly becomes possible to find, we must presume) is a "compromise". Fortunately, though, we do not need him to provide such data; merely to acknowledge that it would improve the article, allow it to meet FAC requirement 1b, and to cease his practice of refusing to allow other editors to do so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

After posting the above, I added the coordinates for the Basketweave to the nominated article. Floydian summarily removed them. QED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• • Again, coordinates are not required whatsoever in a featured article. Please review WP:WIAFA. --Rschen7754 18:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, that's a fallacious approach, WP:WIAFA deals with all topics from minerals to colours to clouds to laws to hedgehogs to books to movies, of course is doesn't say in the guidelines explicitly that co-ordinates are required. However, I draw your attention to: "1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
      • And we have stated that coordinates are not the only way of presenting that information; it's done in the KML. Also, please read Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria#Coordinates, where both Karanacs and Ucucha (former and current FA delegates, respectively) have stated that the FA criteria should not be interpreted as you have done so above. --Rschen7754 18:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
        • You know, that's just fine, but as I said below, a tiny map of some obscure place in Canada which presents me with no context whatsoever of what I'm about to read is hardly what I would expect from a featured article. Former and current FA delegates are welcome to their opinions just as I am mine. The infobox in the lead has no easily identifiable global context. This is English language Wikipedia, some of our readers may not recognise a very small map of a specific portion of a province of Canada. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
        • The KML maps the full course of the Road. It does not explicitly indicate the location of key features; it is not a substitute for the use of coordinate templates in the article, for such points (nor did the section of the re3cent RfC which introduced it claim that it was). Individual FA delegate's views carry exactly the same weight as mine, or any other individual editor's, and no more than that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
          • "it is not a substitute for the use of coordinate templates in the article" - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment as a complete outsider who has merely commented on the content and not the rights and wrongs of KML files etc, I do find it odd that an infobox that opens an article about a geographical subject in an encyclopaedia lacks both global context and geographical detail. I'm not from Ontario, not from Canada, not from North America – from the infobox there's absolutely no geographical context for this road. I'm neither for nor against adding arbitrary waypoints (on one hand it would be useful to know the extents in the case of road like this, on the other hand, of course that couldn't be extended to roads such as ring roads) but it is a little strange (from my non-expert, naive perspective) that I can't tell where in the world this is easily, particularly in an article we are aiming to be one of our "finest examples". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What about the map in the infobox? --Rschen7754 18:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but as I mentioned, I'm not from Ontario, Canada or North America, how would I recognise the context of that map in any way at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Either by clicking the link directly below the map that indicates it is a map of southern Ontario, or by reading the first sentence of the article: "King's Highway 401, also known by its official name as the Macdonald–Cartier Freeway and colloquially as the four-oh-one,[3] is a 400-series highway in the Canadian province of Ontario" - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I mean global geographical context. If I clicked "random article" and this came up, how would I know where in the world it was from its infobox? And what is the "link directly below the map"? I don't see it. I should be able to gain a contextual understanding from the graphics in the infobox, wouldn't you agree? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I would not, and you would by reading more than the infobox, which is merely a summary. Picture books are for children; readers need to read to understand the topic they are reading about, and not rely solely upon pictures to tell them about the topic. The caption of the map is sufficient to provide the context: "Highway 401 (in red) within Southern Ontario", with that link taking you to an article that describes Southern Ontario. The map is appropriately scaled, as maps should be, to show the topic within ITS geographical context (and not within the context of the planet). If you want to know where Southern Ontario or Canada is, then read the articles on Southern Ontario or on Canada. I cannot provide basic geography lessons for people. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Then I see no point at all in a map in the infobox. It provides information, it would seem, to only a handful of people who understand the context of the map, i.e. people from Ontario or north-east (?) Canada. I suggest removing it altogether or providing more context to a global audience. It's nothing to do with "basic" geography lessons, that map is effectively useless to everyone bar those who know where it is. In which case they don't need it because they know where it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

So what you want is a picture of the globe with a dot on it showing people - whom can't be bothered to make use of the interlinked encyclopedia we have built - where Ontario is in the world? Should I make the map a copy this map and stick a dot just north of Lake Ontario, since that will have more encyclopedic value than... well... absolutely nothing? I don't know what you expect, besides making a map for a person that probably wouldn't recognize the shape of North America either. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, a clickable link in the infobox to take me a decent mapping application would be perfect because that way, it wouldn't matter who was looking at this article, at least they'd have a way of getting some immediate context. And reduced hostility in your response would be even better. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize. Please be aware the hostility is directed solely at Andy, and that anything else is spill-over because this is getting old, fast. I have added the kml links to the infobox (a clickable link that offers you the choice between two decent mapping applications), even though I feel it replicates links that are less than an inch above the infobox on my screen. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

So far today, you've admitted that you're "perfectly happy" making my snide remarks to me; and now being hostile towards me. I suggest you go and brush up on WP:5P, particularly WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you answer the questions I have asked instead of beating around the bush so that your reasoning has a leg to stand on. You're going to quite the extreme to avoid actually showing me a list of "key features". - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have already answered that request; I said that "I have an open mind as to which features are key". You responded, albeit with an inane comment, so I know you saw it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I had the same issue when I took a road article to FAC. The reviewer was satisfied when I added an inset map showing Iowa's location in the US. I created a mockup of what we could do here in a sandbox. It's a map of Canada with a box around the area of the current map? Also, I'm leaning towards darkening Canada a little bit in the inset map, so let me know if you agree. –Fredddie™ 18:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's close, but you'd still need idiot readers like me to be able to recognise the Eastern seaboard of North America.... (maybe look at some of the taxonomic articles which provide global context...) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

If the article says it is in Ontario, Canada, is it not safe to assume that a map of Canada suffices? I like the mockup, if that what's necessary (because editors either look at pictures or words, but never both), but I'd make the tan colour of Canada the same as the light green colour I use for land in the southern Ontario map. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

See above. It would be useful to see a globally contextual map. The current map is pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Other quick issues beyond the map/co-ordinate issue, just in case:

• "Quebec City – Windsor Corridor" our article has that unspaced, would resolve it here or there if I were you.
• Is it "E.C. Row Expressway " or "E. C. Row Expressway " or "E C Row Expressway "? be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia if possible.
• Do you really think that "truck route" equates to "bypass"? Perhaps this is a US thing but I certainly don't equate the pair, although if I'm honest, I've never heard of a "truck route".
• Should auto industry really be "automobile industry"?
• Should changeable message be hyphenated (like the article)?
• Yorkdale Mall appears to be called Yorkdale Shopping Centre....
• Weird that West and East Don River both link to exactly the same article. Is there a sub-section you could link to in the article?
• I'm not sure I see the point of linking all the Durham roads if they lead to the same article. Is there a sub-section you could link to in the article?
• Is it St. Lawrence River or Saint Lawrence River? Consistency and avoid over linking is needed.
• " Windsor Salt mine" our link is " Windsor Salt Mine" in its entirety.
• What makes all those external links relevant? Some seem to be YouTube videos. What do they tell me? Are they relevant to a professional article?
• Also, FWIW, a quote from Floydian (above): "This may surprise you, but I am the principal contributor to the article. So what are you suggesting? I don't care about anybody else: What the hell do you want?" doesn't encourage me to support this nomination at all, to the point of making an clear oppose. What a remarkable world we live in where we get to such aggression in an online project over a bunch of co-ordinates etc. I think, maybe, this kind of article has had it easy at FAC, many early supports, all of whom clearly miss basic problems, and sometimes fundamental questions need to be answered. Let's cut to the chase. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with the 8 month history of these two and the absolute unwillingness of Andy to compromise on ANYTHING and you will understand why there is such aggression. It's not just a case of it springing up out of nowhere: Andy and Tagishsimon have made a point to follow each other to every FAC held in the past several months to oppose on coordinates. Several FAC's have been promoted regardless. I am not putting coordinates in this article, no, nope, not, never, nay, non. You may choose to support or oppose accordingly. An oppose based on FAC conduct is offtopic. I will address the other comments tonight. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As a new reviewer to this kind of thing, I try to bring new perspectives. I don't need to familiarise myself with your arguments. I haven't brought any external issues here, I've just brought up issues from this and the previous discussion at FAC. I've tried hard to remain objective, and yes, I'll oppose because this miniature map of nowhere with no context for the remainder of the world is inadequate. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point, but where does it end? The original map showed the highway within Southern Ontario, and now there's a map showing Ontario in Canada. Do you want a 'in-between' map showing Southern Ontario in Ontario? Do you want another map showing Canada in North America, and another showing North America on Earth? That's a lot of maps... If you're going that way you may as well show Earth's place in the Solar System and a Galaxy map showing our place in the known Universe. Haljackey (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A broader map would lack any EV that this map has. I have added links to google maps and bing maps directly below it so that those who are unfamiliar can zoom out and see what they are looking at. I cannot compromise precision. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

To address the other points, in order:

• This was a recent change in our dash conventions for article titles, fixed.
• Not even sure why that's linked
• Probably... fixed
• Yep, fixed
• That's probably the official name, but locally it's just Yorkdale Mall (signs on the highway also refer to it as such)
• They were once separate I think, but in either case both branches are notable for eventual separate articles
• Good point. Fixed
• Fixed
• Fixed
• These satisfy the requirements of WP:EL. The videos are essentially a virtual tour of some sections of the highway. They're standards on most Ontario freeway articles, including Don Valley Parkway

-- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the infobox map. Let me know if this is what you were looking for. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"the absolute unwillingness of Andy to compromise on ANYTHING"; "Andy and Tagishsimon have made a point to follow each other to every FAC held in the past several months to oppose on coordinates" Why are you telling lies, Floydian? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

"I am not putting coordinates in this article" Again, you are not the only editor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Coordinates are optional and shouldn't impede this Featured Article nomination. Can we move on, please? Haljackey (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you're too busy to read the above debate, so allow me to summarise. FAs are required to meet the criterion: "1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Being an FA is optional, too. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits

I believe that this article meets all Featured Article criteria and that's why I have given it my Support. Sure Featured Articles are 'optional', but there are requirements that have to be met. A coordinate system is not one of them. Drop it and move on to more constructive things. Thanks. Haljackey (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have failed to read what I wrote: FAs are required to meet the criterion: "1 (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". This is expanded upon by other editors as well as me, above. An instruction to "drop it" is not a compelling counter-argument. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

You're argument fails to challenge the criterion you quoted as the article already complies with everything stated in the criterion. While it's fine that we have a difference in opinion in the matter, I would prefer that this discussion not take place in this nomination page as it contributes to clutter. That is what I meant by 'dropping it'. Having said that, I will no longer discuss the matter on this page. Haljackey (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, the article does not adequately define the location of any of the individual features of the highway discussed, as giving those features' coordinates would. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Kommentar I have to say that the above argument for coordinates should be disregarded by the FA delegates. Coordinates aren't normally added for the locations of things in articles that cover wide geographic areas, and adding them would clutter the article for little benefit. Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Your claim that "Coordinates aren't normally added for the locations of things in articles that cover wide geographic areas" is false; as is your claim of "little benefit". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Note -- I was contacted by a reviewer here regarding the continuing discussion re. coordinates. Obviously this was hashed over a few months ago at WT:FAC and based on that and what I've observed of this and similar articles I can't see myself holding up this nom on the subject of coordinates -- a couple of which the nominator appears to have just added to the infobox anyway, despite initial reluctance. Since the spotcheck I requested earlier has been done (tks Rschen) I just have a few more checks of my own to make, which may give ClemRutter and other reviewers a chance to respond to that recent change. In any case, I think the process has gone on long enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for expressing your view; but where do you see consensus to proceed without coordinates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Although WP:FORUMSHOPPING doesn't directly answer the question here, because this isn't a "noticeboard" and we're not asking multiple admins, I think the general question is relevant, that is, whether it helps or hurts FAC when people use this forum as a do-over for arguments that have already been won, lost or drawn elsewhere. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question. Which argument has been "won, lost or drawn"? Come to think of it, which Wikipedia policy allows for an argument to be "won, lost or drawn"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

All things must come to an end. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Kommentar: This may be a moot point since it was subsequently removed, but this edit added coordinates to the prose of the article. That in itself I'm not arguing against. According to WP:MOSICON, we cannot put icons in body of an article, but in tables, icons are fine. Thus, we are forbidden from saying "...is a 400-series highway in the Canadian province of Ontario..." Why would "East of Highway 400 is The Basketweave (43.717613°N 79.502950°W / 43.717613; -79.502950), ..." be any different? Both have icons that interrupt the text. –Fredddie™ 22:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Such concerns should be raised on the template's talk page; or the relevant MoS talk page, and are immaterial to this FAC nomination. (Anyone contemplating the current consensus should note the many thousands of instances of {{Coord}} already in article prose; and that - unlike the flag icons - the globe is functional.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Will do. I look forward to the discussion at WT:MOSICON. –Fredddie™ 23:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I've reverted a few of the edits made today to this article. The "lane counts" table was completely unsourced, and seems to be extraneous detail. The AADT table seems that way too, but I didn't remove that. Also, the random coordinate added by Andy I removed as well, as being irrelevant, and covered by the related article. I've also restored the KML links to the title area; Andy's replacing those with the coordinate links flies in the face of the outcome of the HWY RFC we held earlier this year. --Rschen7754 00:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't add any random" coordinates, I added the coordinates for what the nominator earlier referred to "The only Point of Interest[sic]… on the entire highway". And I didn't "replace [KML links] with the coordinate links", I merely removed the former as they overlay other text in the same area; as I noted in my edit summary. Why are you posting false statements? Your reference to the RfC is a complete red herring; I have done nothing in contravention of its result. Note, though, that the RfC found no consensus for proposals to remove coordinates form articles about highways. You've also neglected to mention that at the same time, you removed accessible list markup from the article's infobox, thereby restoring deprecated <br>-separated lists, in contravention of the MoS. In fact, what you did was to revert all changes since Floydian's last version. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you are [sic]'ing there... Just because it's the only Point of Interest referred to on any of map does not mean it is a significant point on the highway. A great example of how this is [[WP:OR|original research] and undue weight on your part. "I didn't "replace [KML links] with the coordinate links", I merely removed the former" - why are you removing useful information for irrelevant information? The overlapping text only shows up to registered opt-in users, and will be resolved once this nomination is complete; a title coordinate would suffer from the same problem - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm [sic]-ing your claim that there is only one point of interest. Your claims of OR remain as bogus as they ever were. I removed no information, useful or otherwise, I removed links which already exist elsewhere in the article for reasons I have already given twice; and I added no information, much less irrelevant information, in their place. please feel free to demonstrate otherwise. We should not feature an article with overlapping text, even if "only"[sic] for registered opt-in users, so that's an additional objection on my part. Your comment about a title coordinate is a red herring, since the article has none. Your argument that the Breadbasket, which is notable enough to have its own article, is not a significant point on the highway is utterly fatuous. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Sic is for transcribing spelling mistakes ("thus it was written"), not an equivalent to citation needed or something...

The overlapping text will be resolved when the FAC is completed, as the text at the top will be truncated. You earlier opposed (before the reset) based on the lack of a title coordinate; it would have the same overlap. It's not a red herring, it's pointing out an obvious mediawiki flaw that needs to be addressed - not on the article level though, as it potentially effects all articles in a narrow enough window.

If you log out, all that appears is "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". If you have not opted-in to the "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article." gadget, all that appears is "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". This is not a content issue, and I will not address it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for attempting to teach me to suck eggs regarding the use of sic; but I'll stick to using it as I did, since my usage was correct. I didn't request a citation, since there cannot be one valid for your false assertion. Noted that you refuse to address my valid objection; however, whether or not the article gets featured is, fortunately, not your call. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

What false assertion has been made? Fortunately it isn't your call either; it's the call of the delegates who you continue to pick arguments with. Good luck with that one. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The one referred to above. Unlike you; I've never refereed to what I will or will not "allow"" on the nominated article. And funnily enough, I always thought Wikipedia worked by consensus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the lane table, Floydian gave me the green light to put it in as it shows the reader the girth of the roadway without diving into the text and piece together where the highway expands and contracts. All the data was collected from referenced text in the article, including the lengths which was acquired from the exit list. Normally I would agree that this would be unnecessary for a highway article, but the fact that the 401 varies so greatly in lane count warrants this list. It also shows just how long the widest sections are, which are normally short for most freeways. Haljackey (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If you can put the sources right in the table, it might work out. --Rschen7754 04:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, even if they're repeat sources found elsewhere in the article? Should the volumes table have these references too? Haljackey (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. You can just aggregate them using <ref name="ref" />. --Rschen7754 04:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I have added the references for lane count, but the Kingston widening references are pending until they can be dug up. Haljackey (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it's still under construction until July.[44] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Judging from these photos, the widening is complete. Looks like it was completed ahead of the mid-2012 deadline indicated in that contract. [45]. Now we just need to find some sources that state this, perhaps Kingston media. Haljackey (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning support (for delegates closing this). I made a huge number of picky technical points, all of which were dealt with. I asked one or two more fundamental questions about the whole co-ordinate thing,and as an outsider, I'm reasonably satisfied that my non-expert requirements have now been met. I don't want to get involved with the lengthy ongoing issues, so I just wanted to clarify my position in case there was any misunderstanding from the archived FAC. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Leaning support. I don't have the time to read the article thoroughly, but from what I've found, it seems good. Spotcheck found no major issues; a few mismatched facts to citations, but nothing serious. --Rschen7754 08:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 13:15, 3 March 2012 [46].

---

Battle of Arawe

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The Battle of Arawe was a small-scale campaign fought between Allied (mainly United States) and Japanese forces on the island of New Britain between late 1943 and early 1944. The operation served as a diversion from a larger American landing on the island, and both sides regarded it as something of a sideshow to this. Nevertheless, the battle involved large scale Japanese air attacks as well as a series of raids made by the American and Japanese forces. As such, it's an interesting microcosm of the way in which much of the Pacific War was fought during this period.

I've been working on this article on and off for several years now. It was assessed as a GA last December and passed a Military History Wikiproject A class review several weeks ago. It has since been expanded and copy edited, and I think that it may now meet the FA criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• File:CartwheelAreaMap.jpg: source site credits "F. Temple" for this image. Same with File:USA-P-Rabaul-17.jpg. File:Japanese_Withdrawal_Routes_in_West_New_Britain.jpg and File:Arawe_Landings.png are credited to R.F. Stibil
  • I've added full details added for all images (and uploaded File:USA-P-Rabaul-17.jpg to Commons under a much clearer name).
• be consistent in how multi-author works are notated
  • Only one is left now.
• Be consistent in how reprinted works and new editions are notated
  • Fixed
• "General Headquarters, Army Forces Pacific" or "General Headquarters Army Forces, Pacific"?
  • Oops: it's actually neither of the two versions I used, but actually 'General Headquarters, Army Forces, Pacific'. Well spotted and fixed.
• No citations to Hough and Crown 1952, Krueger 1979
  • Both removed
• Check formatting on Morison bibliography entry
  • Fixed
• Osprey or Ospery Publishing? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Osprey Publishing, fixed. Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

comments by Gnangarra

• My initial read of this article is thats its comprehensive, and clear no obvious issue stand out its not over loaded with jargon. I did stumble on the Plans for Operation Cartwheel were amended in August 1943 when the British and United States Combined Chiefs of Staff approved the Joint.... <emphasis added> as British felt out of place but the link to Combined Chiefs of Staff clarified that, but I consider more during a second reading. Is the abbreviation necessary for Imperial Japanese Army (IJA) as its not used anywhere in the article. Gnangarra 16:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I've removed the IJA. I agree that it's complex to explain what the Combined Chiefs of Staff where in half a sentence when they didn't play much of a role here, but as they were the decision makers it needs to be said who approved what and this was the best I could come up with (after trying quite a few different options!). Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Just a thought can Plans for Operation Cartwheel were amended in August 1943 when the British and United States Combined Chiefs of Staff approved the Joint Chiefs of Staff's proposal that Rabaul be isolated rather than captured.[5] become Plans for Operation Cartwheel were amended in August 1943 when the Combined Chiefs of Staff approved the proposal that Rabaul be isolated rather than captured.[5] remove British and US stops the double take I had, and as the section starts with In July 1942, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff directed that the main objective of the Allied forces in the South Pacific and South West Pacific area commands was to neutralize the major Japanese base at Rabaul on the eastern tip of New Britain makes the use of Joint Cheifs of Staff's redundant and by removing it as well eliminates any confusion between the command level structure that your trying to avoid by using British and US in that sentence. Gnangarra 14:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
      • directed in the opening sentence can then become recommended, suggested or proposed as they really couldnt direct until the Combined Chiefs of Staff approval anyway Gnangarra 14:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
        • After a second reading and considering the issue I raised above, IMHO this article appears to be ready to be promoted to FA. Gnangarra 14:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I've reworded and slightly expanded that section to clarify what happened and improve the wording. Thanks a lot for your comments and support. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
            • That change works for me Gnangarra 10:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support
  • I like the wording of the bit about the JCS and the CCS. The fact is that far from directing operations, CCS 301 endorsed operations that were already under way.
  • "advanced along the north coast of eastern New Guinea, capturing the town of Lae and the Huon Peninsula in September" The Huon Peninsula was not cleared until December.
    • Good point; I've removed 'September' here as it wasn't really necessary
  • "in favor of capturing Cape Gloucester to in order secure" Word order a little off here.
    • Tweaked
  • You describe Chips as commander of the 7th Fleet, which is true, but he was also in charge of the Allied Naval Forces, and therefore equal to Kenney, whereas the article might be interpreted otherwise due to the wording
    • Tweaked
  • Could the article consistently use "South West Pacific" without the hyphen, as this is the modern Australian form?
    • The article uses American English (as this was a US-dominated operation)
      • In that case, you should replace "South West" and "South-West" with "Southwest" Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Could you link "landing ship infantry" and "landing ship dock', as many readers will not be familiar with these ship types?
    • Good point; done

Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for your comments and support. Nick-D (talk) 02:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Spot checks:
• fn 3: The JCS directive said: "Seize and occupy Rabaul". The source says: "the ultimate reduction of the Japanese stronghold at Rabaul". The article says: "neutralize", which is unsupported and incorrect. It was right at the A-class review this edit messed it up.
  • I've changed this to 'capture', which appears to be in line with both the source and the Oxford English Dictionary. I'm trying to avoid using 'reduce' as I suspect that people who are unfamiliar with military terminology won't understand what it means, though it is the best term for those who are familiar with this use of the word. I hope that this is OK, but would appreciate alternative suggestions for wording this. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I understand the problem, which I have experienced myself in several other articles. I went through all the primary documents once attempting to discover when the decision was taken to neutralise rather than capture Rabaul. As it turned out, this decision was not taken at once by the JCS, and was opposed by MacArthur, so it took some time. The other point that this drove home is that while many accounts of battles in the Pacific start by talking about a JCS decision, in reality most of the planning was bottom up, with planning being done in the theatres and sent to the JCS. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• fn 4, 11, 31, 54, 56, 73, 83, 85, 87, 96, 98 - all okay. No sign of close paraphrase.
• Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for these spot checks.

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries; WP:MHU will explain some of them. - Dank (push to talk)

• "expanded to 60 days of general supplies and six days worth of all categories of ammunition": I don't believe we implement WP:ORDINAL consistently, I'm just pointing out that some will object to "60 ... six". Also, Garner's prefers "days' worth". Also, why "days" in the first part and "days' worth" in the second? - Dank (push to talk) 15:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Changed to '60 days worth'. I've used digits for numbers higher than 12 and words for numbers lower than this in the same sentence in previous FA-level articles without complaints, and I think that it works best. I'm not wedded to this though if anyone thinks that it really sucks though! Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, Opposing forces. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot for your changes. Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Sure thing. Continuing: "The Allies possessed little intelligence on western New Britain's terrain and the exact location of Japanese forces. To rectify this, Allied aircraft many extensive air photography sorties over the region and small ground patrols were landed from PT boats.": I changed it to "The Allies possessed little intelligence on western New Britain's terrain and the exact location of Japanese forces, so they flew extensive air photography sorties over the region, and small ground patrols were landed from PT boats." - Dank (push to talk) 22:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
• "This party was detected near the village of Umtingalu, leading the Japanese to strengthen their defenses there.": voice, since. Changed to: "The Japanese detected this party near the village of Umtingalu and strengthened their defenses there." - Dank (push to talk) 05:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Few attacks were made on the Arawe area, however, in an attempt to achieve tactical surprise for the landing.": "Attempt" is the wrong word to describe not doing something.
  • Tweaked (it's more wordy, but also - I think - much clearer)
• "In addition to these air raids, a force comprising two Australian and two American (designated Task Force 74.2) bombarded the Gasmata area during the night of 29/30 November.": missing word(s)
  • Fixed
• "lacked confidence in conducting amphibious operations.": in their abilities, their men's abilities, the wisdom of the operations, the specific plans, or something else?
  • The officers didn't really know what they were doing - I've tweaked this to 'trained'
• "they had not been previously equipped": Garner's prefers "they had not previously been equipped". - Dank (push to talk) 05:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • That works for me; changed. Thanks again. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• "5 in (130 mm) guns", "5 in ammunition": Garner's generally recommends avoiding abbreviations in running text that are common English words, and I guess that would include "in". (FWIW, they don't like "am" instead of "a.m." for the same reason, but MOSNUM says it's okay.)
  • Fixed
• "It was originally intended that the troop would land close to Paligmete, but it switched to the island's west coast ...": "it" dangles.
  • Fixed
• "Once ashore, the cavalrymen advanced east but came under fire from a small Japanese force stationed in two caves near the village of Winguru on the island's north coast.": If "until they" can be substituted for "but" here, do it. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Replaced with 'and' (as this engagement didn't have much of an effect on the American force). Nick-D (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. This was just promoted; I'm almost done and can do the rest in the article itself. Supporting on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks

• What are way stations?
  • Places for the crews of these craft shelter from Allied aircraft. I've linked to Layover (which seems the most appropriate article) and briefly explained their specific purpose. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Several small islands called the Arawe islands..." - Google suggests "Arawe Islands"
  • Fixed Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• What was produced by the Amalut Plantation?
  • Coconuts; added Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• "it anchored off Arawe at 3:30 am" - what time zone?
  • Local time. All the action in this article takes place within the same time zone, so I don't think that this needs to be specified. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Use the "adj" parameter in the convert template for cases like "A 172 ft (52 m) pier".

• Don't need that when the unit is abbreviated, as in this case, only if it were spelt out in full. Malleus Fatuorum 17:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments Nikki Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum

Military situation

• "... it was decided to land a small force in the Arawe area to establish a PT boat base and create a diversion prior to the main landing at Cape Gloucester.[10] The landing at Arawe had three goals: to divert Japanese attention from Cape Gloucester, to establish a base for PT boats, and to establish a defensive perimeter and make contact with the Marines once they landed". Why do we need to be told twice that two of the goals were to establish a base for PT boats and to create a diversion?

• Good point: we don't, and I've trimmed the first sentence in the para

Planning

• "... asked for only emergency refuelling facilities to be constructed at Arawe". I can't quite get that. Should it be "asked only for", or "emergency refuelling facilities only"?

• "asked only for" sounds good. I've tweaked the initial sentence of this paragraph for good measure (no need to repeat 'bases'). Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• "Under these plans, the Task Force was to initially capture the Arawe Peninsula". What plans? The preceding sentence talks about orders, not plans.

• Changed to "He directed that" (and rearranged the para so it flows better) Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Landings

• "More than 20 Japanese were located in a cave on the east side of the peninsula, and these were killed by members of "E" Troop and personnel from the squadron headquarters." I'm not fond of referring to the Japanese soldiers as "these", seems disrespectful.

• It's also awkward and unnecessary. I've removed the 'these'. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Japanese response

• "The American force defeated several Japanese attempts to move around the Umtingalu during the day ...". Why the Umtingalu?

• Typo - removed. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• "... the Japanese were repulsed by fire from the 112th Cavalry's 60 millimetres (2.4 in) mortars". Should that be "60-millimetre (2.4 in) mortars"?

• Yep - fixed. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• "... elements of the Komori Force ambushed two platoon-sized American patrols traveling in trucks north-east of Umtingalu". We have "northeast" and "southwest" elsewhere.

• Well spotted: changed to 'southeast'. Thanks a lot for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Support. All my comments have been more than adequately addressed. Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot for taking the time to review the article, and for your helpful suggestions. Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

  I was bribed. ;-)[47] Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

  ...and all this time I've been reviewing articles for free. Thanks again for your copyedit. Nick-D (talk) 03:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:47, 3 March 2012 [48].

---

Faryl

Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Last Sunday, I nominated Faryl Smith for featured status, and today, I bring you her debut album. An archetypal classical-crossover recording, it broke records for its high number of sales and was nominated for a top award, but had no great success outside of the UK. The classical community liked it, even though I'd imagine a lot of them didn't want to like it due to Smith's appearance on Britain's Got Talent. I feel that the article is well-written and referenced, and comprehensively covers all details of the album. J Milburn (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, use a consistent date format. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; made one fix. J Milburn (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comments by Jim No serious problems, a few niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Repetition of "features" in para 1, can this be tweaked

• Changed. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Smith meeting with then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown — reads as if this was was organised as part of the promotion, which seems unlikely, although it obviously helped. Needs rephrasing

• Changed. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• and the album sold 29,200 copies in the first week — avoid repetition, perhaps and 29,200 copies in the first full week

• Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Though generally critical of move — Is there a word missing?

• Though generally critical of the move. Changed. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• because obviously, it's a big deal for me — The punctuation is clearly wrong. This may be how the source put it, but although you can't change the words of an oral statement, it seems reasonable to correct erroneous punctuation by the reporter or subeditor.

• Fair. Added a comma. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• out of a possible 5 stars — should be possible to avoid repeating this

• Rephrased slightly- I think it reads better, but there is still some repetition. What do you think? J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support with one more comment I'm happy with most of the changes, but I made this edit to remove the newly introduced repetition of "promotion", and to fix my pet hate of unlinked-hyphen-bluelink. What do you think? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No objection, thanks for your comments. J Milburn (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Image review The only image has an appropriate non-free use rationale Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your thoughts. I appreciate the time you've taken. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks and the disclaimer that I've still done no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Some repeated wikilinks, the most egregious of which is The Blue Danube twice in as many sentences. Also, be consistent in whether it's The Blue Danube or "The Blue Danube" or The Blue Danube
  • Tweaked. J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• "60 piece orchestra" -> "60-piece orchestra"
  • Changed. J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Further, he was critical of some of the more predictable song choices; "Amazing Grace" and "Ave Maria", for example" - can this be worded differently?
  • "Further, he was critical of the inclusion of "Amazing Grace" and "Ave Maria", considering them to be overly predictable song choices." J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Davis also awarded the album 3 out of five" - either spell out both or keep both as numbers
  • Changed. J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• What's an early listening chart? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I'm not sure, and I can't find any mention of it on Amazon. I could perhaps change it to the slightly less interesting fact about it being 295th on the bestsellers chart? J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Given that GHits for that term are almost exclusively the article, this review and copies thereof, I wonder whether it might be "easy listening"? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I thought the same thing- Amazon does list the album as "easy listening"... Would you object to me "correcting" it? Or would that venture into original research? J Milburn (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
        • You might add an explanatory footnote if you're worried about OR, but I think it'd be fine to just correct it. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Added a hidden comment. Thanks again for your thoughts, I really appreciate you taking the time to review the article. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks: A thorough article which is very readable and clear. Seems comprehensive, but I'm afraid I know very little about the album or Miss Smith! Just a few picky points, and feel free to argue with any of them. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• "The album's promotion included numerous television and radio appearances": Reads as if the album made appearances; maybe better to say "As part of the album's promotion, Smith made numerous television and radio appearances, and around this time met…"
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• "and a total of 29,200 copies in the first week, which is higher than any other debut album of a classical singer" Redundancy?
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• Very minor, but promotion/promotional is used three times in the lead which jars very, very slightly.
• "Despite the fact she was at one point the favourite to win…" A little cumbersome? Maybe "Although favourite to win, …" (I think the source justifies the slight change in emphasis)
  • "Although favourite to win" is a little strong, I feel. It's not quite like she was going into the final with everyone expecting her to win; more that, at one point, she was the one the bookies liked the best. If you think my wording doesn't accord with the source, I can add a couple more references. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
    • No, I think the source supports either wording and I'm happy for it to stay like this. My main objection was that the phrase was a little clunky, but not enough to be a big problem. One other possibility I could see would be to remove "Despite the fact" to make it flow marginally better, but happy to go with your judgement either way. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• "and after the show she rejected offers": Again a little clunky. What about "and later rejected"?
  • Rephrased slightly. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• "during Smith's Christmas holiday": Presumably holiday from school rather than a "getaway"? Is this important enough to include?
  • It provides an idea of timescale, as well as the stress that it was not interfering with her school life. This is something that is often stressed with artists like this. I remember a while ago there was controversy about teen singers missing school, and so record companies now need to be much more careful. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• "on the third of January" Why not "on 3 January"?
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• "with performances at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel and appearances at the debut of Oliver!.": Maybe specify "performances by Smith". Also the comment about "the debut of Oliver!" is a little strange as Oliver obviously did not come out in 2009!
  • Done, clarified the Olver! thing. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Contrary to what was said on the third series of Britain's Got Talent, Smith had no plans for a concert tour in 2009; she was quoted as saying that "I'm too young and don't think I would be able to do a tour on my own"": Not sure why we need to have a "contrary to" thing happening here as the reader probably will not realise what was said on the series. I would consider cutting the start of the sentence and beginning "Smith had no plans…"
  • That appearance on BGT was probably the biggest she had made at that stage beyond her original BGT appearances. I'll reword slightly, as you're right that the average reader will not know what was said, but I do think the mention needs to stay. Also an interesting aside about how little BGT apparently cared- in some ways, I'm amazed they took her when she didn't sign with Syco. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• "On 23 May 2009, after the US release, Faryl peaked at 31 on Top Heatseekers Albums chart, and at six on the Classical Albums chart, remaining in the charts for one and 17 weeks respectively": The date confuses me slightly here. Was the album released on that date or did it peak on that date? If the latter, maybe lose the date entirely? Also, maybe make it clear here that this now refers to the US charts? --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Rephrased slightly. Thanks very much for your comments and time. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too happy with the prose yet; there are too many clunky constructions like "it was reported by The Sun that" (why not "The Sun reported that"?) and "Smith described the song by saying that". Ucucha (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Both sentences have now been reworded. I hope dealing with Sasata's niggles has gone some way to deal with your concerns. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments. Prose niggles by Sasata (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Faryl became the fastest selling classical solo album" -> fastest-selling
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "entered the charts at number 6, rising to number 4" normally, these numbers would be spelled out per MoS, but perhaps there's an album article-specific rule that contravenes this?
  • Can't find it explicitly. I think it would be covered by WP:ORDINAL- "Measurements, stock prices, and other quasi-continuous quantities are normally stated in figures, even when the value is a small positive integer: 9 mm, The option price fell to 5 within three hours after the announcement." Both the policy on record charts and the MOS note numbers in the same way I have- see WP:CHARTTRAJ and MOS:HASH. As I say, I can't find it explicitly, but I think my way is accepted, and reflective of current practice. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• is there a link for "classical chart"?
  • Just redirects Billboard charts. I can throw the link in if you like? J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "As one of the ten best selling classical albums" -> best-selling
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• link for "album of the year"?
  • There's no article on the actual award- I could redlink? J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "During the show, she performed "Ave Maria" and a cover of Sarah McLachlan's "Angel",[2] as well as receiving singing lessons from Yvie Burnett." receiving -> received; the second half doesn't quite make sense to me--she had singing lessons during the show?
  • Adjusted. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• might want to use a few words to describe The Blue Danube
  • Reworked. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "On 23 February, it was reported by The Sun" -> "On 23 February, The Sun reported"
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "The mix up received attention" I think, when used in this way, mix-up needs a hyphen (correct me if I'm wrong)
  • Either works, I think, your way is better. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "the cover photo was modified ... due to her "gappy teeth"" -> I think (again, not 100% positive) that this should be "owing to"
  • Interchangable it current English, it would seem- see this and this. Interesting issue. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "More promotional appearances in the weeks leading up to the release of Faryl included appearances" reword to avoid repetition of "appearances"
  • Changed. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "during her summer holidays in order to again promote" in order to -> to
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "before going back into the recording studio later in the year" going back into -> returning to
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• link easy listening chart
  • The article is on the Billboard chart, I'm talking about the Amazon chart. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "was the top selling opera album" top-selling
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• sometimes UK and US are spelled out in full; not sure if there's some consistent application that I'm missing
  • All abbreviated per MOS. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "became the fastest selling classical solo album" -> fastest-selling
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Faryl officially entered the charts at number six," which chart? UK Albums?
  • Yes, fixed. J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate you taking the time. The MoS is labyrinthine... J Milburn (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• no problem, here's a few more: Sasata (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "The album was recorded during December 2008 and January 2009 and features the track "River of Light", a song set to The Blue Danube, for which a promotional music video was recorded." needs tweaking; it currently reads as if a music video was made for the Blue Danube
  • Reworked slightly. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "Smith subsequently embarked on a promotional tour of the US…" in the US, unless she was promoting the US of A
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• I think it would be useful to state explicitly somewhere how old she was when she recorded or released this album, or in the background section, how old she was in her first BGT competition
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• maybe link pressing and recording studio
  • Done the former, the latter seems a little common. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• "you can practically hear Katherine Jenkins weep as Faryl flawlessly executes Amazing Grace" is this an inside joke? … who is Katherine Jenkins?
  • Katherine Jenkins is a Welsh singer to whom Smith can very easily be compared- she's probably the most popular mezzo-soprano working in the UK today. She's also something of a mentor to Smith, and signed on the same label. The reference would be clear to anyone reading the review, but I appreciate that the same doesn't hold with the article- do you think it needs clarifying? J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
    • As as outsider, I'm still left wondering if she would have been weeping because she thought the performance was immaculate and beautiful, or because she was in anguish that another younger singer performed the piece even better than she did? Maybe I'm jaded... Sasata (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I interpretted it as the latter. It's a real "watch out Jenkins, there's a new kid on the block" sort of line. J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• imho, there's a couple too many usages of impress/impressive in the first paragraph of "Reception"
  • Scratched two. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Note -- Ucacha and Sasata, do the recent changes/responses satisfy your prose concerns? I found a couple of inconsistencies in chart number formatting that I corrected. Re. spotchecks, I saw that Milburn's previous FAC had one and Sasata appears to have checked some sources here, so I have no quibbles on that front. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• I hadn't actually performed a spot check, but since one was requested on FAC talk, I checked about a dozen citations, and found no problems with close-paraphrasing or otherwise. One statement fails verification (I suspect the citation got mixed up):
• the external link in ref #27 (Pahphides 2009) redirects to the Times current front page

• Added an archive url. J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• fails verification: "…while Birchmeier was slightly more positive, awarding Faryl 3.5 out of 5."[5]

• Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm otherwise happy with the prose and MoS compliance, and willing to support, 1a, 2a, 2b, 2c, 4 (once the above gets fixed). Sasata (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support, and thanks again for your careful review. J Milburn (talk) 15:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments on accessibility: The image in the infobox lacks any alternate text (no alt text; no caption) and would therefore be invisible to anyone using a screen reader, other than a link to the image description page. WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Images is the relevant guideline and WP:Alternative text for images gives good advice on implementation. The template {{tracklist}} unfortunately produces a table which lacks scope attributes and also does not identify row headers, which results in a limitation on the way many screen readers are able to navigate the table. If that template is to be used for articles that showcase Wikipedia's best work, then it really would benefit by being updated to take account of the guidelines at WP:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Data tables. I understand that accessibility issues represent an additional "hurdle" that many editors may not yet be comfortable with, but we should be aiming towards raising the standards of our articles to be the best that they can be. The more editors who are aware of the difficulties that can be caused to disabled visitors, the better an experience we can offer to them. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have added alt text to the image, but I am not comfortable making any changes to the tracklist template, as I am not overly familiar with the relevant syntax, and I am not comfortable using something different, as the tracklist template is standard and recommended. I gather that this is not part of the criteria, but I'm willing to do what I can. J Milburn (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Might I ask (politely!) if you really feel that you need to use the {{tracklist}} template at all? I'm sure that one simple answer to that is that "it's how these featured album articles are done" but I was wondering if there was a way we could please more of the people more of the time...?! Hand-coding a table of this style and keeping it accessible is reasonably easy (I'd be more than happy to help with that, have a look at a really quick attempt here). I certainly understand your reservations with regard to changing a template which is used elsewhere. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I quite like the way it looks, but other than that, no. J Milburn (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, my sandbox has a very first stab at an accessible table. We can tweak fonts and colours and things for "visual appeal", but this table will be accessible to screen readers and presents those who don't use a screen reader with identical information. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it not possible to fix the track list template itself? Ucucha (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be the ideal solution of course. It's quite intricately coded and I am no expert. Besides that, there's a general grumpy feeling towards changes purely made for accessibility which may have subtle changes for the majority of users (usually based on IDONTLIKEIT). If we could find someone prepared to do that, it would be perfect. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the alt text, JM. The table is probably less daunting than it looks. The templates {{Track listing}} and {{Track listing/Track}} are editprotected, so I've made copies in my userspace and edited them to show the changes that could be made. This shows (1) changing the headline into a caption and (2) adding column scope to the existing column headers. This shows how to make the Title into a row header and give it row scope. This shows where to add the 'plainrowheaders' class to restore normal formatting to the title cells if required. Caution: I've not had time to test those changes, so they need to be trialled before anybody thinks about implementing them. To be honest, with only three columns, the row headers don't offer much improvement for the visually impaired, so although it's best practice and sets a good example, I wouldn't worry if the row headers were not implemented in this case. Also the caption is redundant when the table immediately follows a section heading (as it usually does), so that makes the caption implementation much less crucial. Long story short, the big, cheap gain is adding column scope to the existing column headers, and I really would recommend doing that a.s.a.p. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 23:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:43, 2 March 2012 [49].

---

Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary

Nominator(s): ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me present you an article about the largest Russian Catholic church. The Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary survived the Revolution, WWI, and WWII. During that time, it was used for other purposes, but finally, after the fall of the Soviet Union, it was reconstructed and reconsecrated, and it is nowadays an active church.

The article just recently passed the second Good Article Nomination, it was copyedited by User:Binksternet, User:Malleus Fatuorum, User:GiacomoReturned, User:Gandydancer, User:Mark Arsten, User:Jimfbleak, User:Wehwalt, and others during the mainpage appearance. Thanks again to anyone who assisted! :) It is a WikiCup nomination.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: GreatOrangePumpkin. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I just listed this article as GA quality, but it needs more expansion to become FA. For instance, it has nothing about the conflict with Eastern Orthodox leaders who did not want to have the cathedral restored, who did not appreciate Roman Catholics regaining a toehold in what they consider their territory: Moscow. There were Orthodox protests in 2002 but they are not summarized in the article. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, there were no riots between those denominations. Of course the Orthodox criticized this decision, but after a while they have to forfeit anyway. I am not sure what 2002 protest you have in your mind, and I am not sure if they were influential and if we need to include this information on this article, as they could be just minor disputes. I only know one notable critical decision, but between the Russian Orthodox Church and Hinduism. But maybe I find something you have proposed. ♫GoP♫_T^C_N 21:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The sense of "protests" I intended was not "riots" but publicised vocal and written complaints, non-violent activism against the Roman Catholic expansion signified by the restoration of the cathedral. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Ugh, why do we need this information? I believe it is way too off-topic, and I was not able to find such information; maybe I have better luck at the archives in Moscow and St. Petersburg. But I have no intention to travel only to find a few information. With the 2002 disputes, do you mean the signing of the "Venice Declaration of Environmental Ethics"? But I don't see why it should affect this church, but Alexy II just critized this decision. I assume it has nothing to do with this article.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 16:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I added a sentence about Alexy II's response, but still think it is trivial.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Okay, the Alexy II quote is fitting. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I am striking my 'oppose' vote. I was mistaken in thinking that there was more missing content. The past friction between the Eastern Orthodox people and the Roman Catholics was not focused on the cathedral. Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to know what other reviewers think about this. Thanks.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• CommentsSupport: The article does not actually look too bad; it's quite nice. But do not fully trust my remark as I have never read an article about churches nor have I been to one in quite some time. Brackets around ellipses are not necessary and are better removed. In fact, the "[...] [Every detail]" seems a bit redundant and probably does not even need ellipses as the "[Every detail]" takes the place of all that is omitted from the source. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• I removed the brackets. Regards. --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Why were they removed from the "Every detail" as well? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Now in brackets.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Leaning to support with a few concerns (this article was really well done, by the way):

• "Bearing in mind the council's requirements, on 16 May 1895 the parish purchased a 10 hectare site on Malaja Grusinskaja street" - a bit awkward with the date right there, but I won't mind if it is left unchanged.
• "Groundbreaking was in 1899, but construction did not start until 1901 and continued until 1911." - could be tightened, maybe to "Groundbreaking was in 1899, and construction took place from 1901 to 1911." Now, you also don't have to use the word "until" twice.

• Reworded

• "The construction cost was 290,000 rubles in gold (roughly US$197,000,000 as of 2012). Much of the cost was donated by members of the Polish parish of Moscow. More funding came from Catholic parishes throughout Russia, Poland and Belarus." - these two sentences are a bit short, so you could connect them maybe? "The construction cost was 290,000 rubles in gold (roughly US$197,000,000 as of 2012), much of which was donated by members of the Polish parish of Moscow and Catholic parishes throughout Russia, Poland and Belarus."?

• Reworded

• "Observers that argue for an earlier construction date state that they were damaged during World War II and left dismantled for some time." - "state" would be past tense, wouldn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

• Yes, it should be simple past. Changed.

• Per MOS, nbsps should be added before roman numerals, such as in "Pope John Paul II" and "Alexy II".

• Added

• Please check for overlinking: Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz, stained glass, Saint Andrew and Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Moscow are linked more than once in the article. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 22:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Delinked. Thank you very much for reviewing! --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 10:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• My pleasure. The support was well deserved. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment, on a very quick glance, I couldn't find anything to complain about :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I do. It's a page with no conclusion and finale; it needs a "wrapping up" at the end to be a well written page. I have copyedited it, and it's a very interesting page, but everything needs a intro, information and conclusion. Giacomo Returned 19:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is a digital, and not a paper encyclopedia, there is no real "start" or "end". Wikipedia is not the ultimate encyclopedia with every piece of knowledge. Or maybe I incorrectly understand you; how about you give me an example of what you mean?--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 19:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Just basic rules of writing, one introduces the subject (the lead) then, then presents all the information in an understandalble form (chronologically/poltically or whatever depending on te subject) and then conclude by drawing together all the strings mentioned in the above and referred to in the lead. You cannot just finish a well written page by saying ".....(named after the patron saint of archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz), "Anniversary-2000" and "St. Victor" (named after the patron saint of Bishop Wiktor Skworc).." As it is, the page just stops in midflow, it does not end. Giacomo Returned 19:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Giacomo, I removed the brackets from the last sentence of the last section. I am still not sure how to "end" this article. The last sentence of the lead is about the listing, but unfortunately there is not much information about its legacy or reception. What I could do is to reinstate the organ disposition, but one user said it was unnecessary. Feel free to discuss this. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, I am not expressing myslef very well; the page needs a final chapter/section (like in a book) uniting all the loose threads together - make a new final section and say what is going on there today (steal from other sections if necessary) - relate any plans for the future - you can even mention resident priests, numbers of the congregation - all that sort of thing - just leave the page on a positive note. Giacomo Returned 20:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• I can see where Giano's coming from - often we have a "Popular Culture" or "cultural depiction" section. In this case it might be a "cultural significance/legacy" section - has there been a revival in catholicism in Russia in the past 10 years? Is this church seen as an icon? Has it been promoted or discussed by the pontiff? Some of the material from the "Renovation and reconsecration" section might be expanded upon and placed in a "legacy/revival/cultural significance" section - has the pope been since 2002? How many times etc. I think this is doable and would be a fine way to end the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• As I said, there is not much information available. I am still not sure how to build such a section, as its reception was mentioned throughout the text. has there been a revival in catholicism in Russia in the past 10 years? No, there was no revival in Catholicism in Russia; quite the opposite: because of conflicts between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, there were logically no revivals (see also Roman Catholicism in Russia). Is this church seen as an icon? No, as far as I know; mainly because Catholicism is a minority denomination in Russian, and the church was only for a few years active, among other issues. Has it been promoted or discussed by the pontiff? see my first response; no, the church itself was not discussed (I am not sure what you exactly mean?) but the relation between the ROC. has the pope been since 2002? No; Pius XII never visited Russia; John Paul II never visited Russia despite expressing a desire; Benedixt XVI has not visited Russia yet. So I can't imagine the final section; maybe you could help somehow?--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 10:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Happy to help once I clear some other stuff. I'll have a think about how to approach this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. Now as Giacomo sadly Returnedired, it is unknown whether we can manage this anyway.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it extraordinary that we have no rules to minimise this unreadable clutter at the top of so many articles on foreign places and subjects. Here we have a good example of why some or all of the garbage needs to be footnoted or appear further down—not interrupting with more than three lines between the opening item (the subject) and the second item ("is"). I've indented to show the lineage against the infobox.

""The Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary (Russian: Собор Непорочного Зачатия Пресвятой Девы Марии Sobor Neporotschnovo Sachatiya Presvyatoj Devy Marii, in colloquial speech sometimes Костёл/Kostyol or Кирха/Kirkha – "the Catholic church") is a neo-Gothic church that serves as the cathedral of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Moscow.

The cyrillic scripts are in the Russian WP; that is why we have it. There's a quick link to their article at the left, if any English-speaker wants to see the cyrillic script. Funnily enough, we're not taught cyrillic at grade school. And why we need that and a transliteration of it in roman script, all aclutter at the start, eludes me. I look forward to the time when en.WP matures and can start an article thus:

The Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary is a neo-Gothic church that serves as the cathedral of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Moscow.

... with either a footnoted or the information in a less privileged place than in the first four lines of the lead. Ah, now I'm engaged and know what it is withough hunting through a jungle. Tony (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree and I'll back you on that, Tony1, but in the right venue. This FAC discussion is not the place. Binksternet (talk) 05:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed the last part in the brackets. However, I must disagree with you to remove the original name in cyrillic; "Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary" is just a translation, so it is an inofficial name (as beside the Russian name there is no correct one for this church). The transliterated title is, logically, important for those who do not understand cyrillic. Furthermore, you are also incorrect that it is from the Russian Wikipedia, but from the German (which is a Good Article). Regards. --♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, as this is a Russian church, and not located in an English-speaking country, we should use the official name in cyrillic. The English title is just there for people who don't understand cyrillic, but still want to know its name meaning. So we could basically move it to the cyrillic title, but many won't like the idea. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"as this is a Russian church, and not located in an English-speaking country, we should use the official name in cyrillic." ... errrr ... why? This is the English-language WP, not the Russian-language WP. I can cope with a short cyrillic string, but not an enormous, three-line interruption between the first and second items in the opening sentence. It's almost unreadable. The full cyrillic article is a click away, to the left. No other WP puts this enormous amount of unreadaable gobbledy at the opening. This is what the Russian WP inserts for St. Paul's Cathedral, for example: (англ. St. Paul's Cathedral). Your reduction of the cyrillic clutter and the transliteration in this nomination is welcome, but begs the question of why we allow editors to max out this valuable space at the top of an article with as much unreadable script and foreign-language transliteration as they can jam in. It is past a joke. Tony (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

But the English Wikipedia is the biggest worldwide; the English language is the most spoken public language, enwp has more than 3 million articles; many readers are from foreign countries, including Russia. How about now?--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 13:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

All the more reason the Russian WP might be inclined to clutter the first four lines of its articles with three or four lines of English right at their openings. But they don't. Because it's rude to their readers. It completely dissipates the impact of the opening. And look, to the left a few centimetres in the English-language article (well, supposedly English-language): a link to the Russian article, complete with all of the cyrillic text you could ever want—that's why we have the links to the other WP articles to the left, isn't it: for Russian-speakers, whether native or non-native. This site is for those who want to read about the topic in English. There seems to be some objection to either (1) clicking to the native-language article if cyrillic text does mean more than a jumble to you; and/or (2) footnoting the gobbledy. What could possibly be wrong with a footnote—at least of most of the interruption, if you really can't bear to have no decorative script shoved into the opening sentence—to save the ruination of the first four lines for those who weren't privileged enough to have training in the Russian language? Tony (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I think you are viewing an older version. I moved the cyrillic name to the infobox. I believe it is better as footnoting the clause. Just my personal taste, but let's see how others think. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I participated in a peer review of this article earlier, and all of the issues I spotted have been dealt with. The subsequent reviews and improvements by more experienced reviewers have only improved the article, I'm confident it meets the WP:WIAFA criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The article has improved to FA level. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your supports. What do you think about Giacomo's proposal to add a finishing section for stability?--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 10:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm looking at St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery (a Featured Article about another religious building in the former Soviet Union) right now, and that ends with a section on the building's architecture, so I don't think the current organization of this article should hold it up from promotion. It might still be a good idea to take a stab at closing the article differently, not sure that I could offer any good suggestions on how to close it though. Splitting the current use out of the history section and putting it at the end is the only idea that comes to mind, like in Stanford Memorial Church? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
      • The last section of the Stanford church article mainly tells which denomination this church belongs to, the last section deals with weddings, church music and masses. I don't think any weddings take place in this cathedral; as for the church music and masses, this is mentioned throughout the text, so I don't think a new, final section is necessary.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 13:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I have read through again, and made a couple of copyedits - it would be nice to have some sort of legacy section but agree with what GOP stated above - as such, if we can't construct one then it isn't a deal-breaker. Something could be said for keeping the structure as is, which is chronology then description, which a legacy section might not slot well in at the end. Anyway, a nice read....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Note - I have taken the liberty of spot-checking the sources in Russian, and found no problems. Could someone provide an image review, paying particular attention to Freedom of panorama? Graham Colm (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Kommentar The title change by the nominator last month, removing the " , Moscow", was unwise and should be changed back. The article has a hatnote, and there are loads of other cathedrals, with loads of local languages, with this basic name. Given the unfamiliarity of the building outside (and even inside?) Russia, the vagaries of translation and the use of short names, the current title is both ambiguous and unhelpful for the reader. Johnbod (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No, it was unwise to move without discussing it. I explained on the talk page why it should stay as is.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 13:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I had forgotten I moved it. Your only rationale was "This is the only cathedral article with that name at the moment" which, if it is true, is only so in an extremely narrow way. Moving to Oppose for now as no FA should have a clearly ambiguous name. Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception has no less than 35 entries, and yes, each one of them refers to the "Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary". At least 21 of them are in English-speaking countries and no doubt many have fuller formal names. A google search strongly suggests that the current name is not even the WP:COMMONNAME in English - plain "Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception" is more popular, and there are "Blessed Virgin"s and "Most Holy Virgin Mary"s also. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I disagree with you, I just moved the page to Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception (Moscow). Note there are different Conceptions, such as Saint Anne's, so actually it was correct. Regards.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Oppose removed, thanks. The ", Moscow" would have better but whatever. There is only one Immaculate Conception - there was a legend that St Anne was herself the subject of a virgin birth but this is very different, & the idea was condemmed by the Catholic church centuries ago, & never made headway in any other Christian church. I hope I will have time to review the article fully. Johnbod (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The name of the French church in the first paragraph of "History" appears to be misspelled (it should be "Saint Louis des Français"), but I couldn't find its name mentioned in the cited source. Could the nominator clarify? Ucucha (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I corrected the name, although you can also write "c" instead of a "ç". The source uses a short name, and on its homepage it is called "Saint-Louis-de-Français". See also [50]--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 09:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Malleus Fatuorum. Picking up on Giano's point above about the missing conclusion, what I think is missing is a concluding "Present-day" section or similar, to round the story off. The final paragraph of the lead tells us something about the cathedral's current use, but strictly speaking the lead ought not to include material not covered elsewhere in the article; rather it should be a summary of the whole article. Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Mark Karsten was so nice to create this section. (Thanks Karsten! :))--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Note - An image review is still needed, and a response to the remaining questions and comments. I have requested an image review on the WT:FAC page. Graham Colm (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Kommentare regarding criterion three:
  • I understand there may have been concerns regarding FoP: Russia indeed does not have sufficiently free FoP; however, as Tomasz Bohdanowicz-Dworzecki died in 1920, the building would be expected to have fallen into the public domain (pma 70). No issues in that regard.
  • File:Catholic Cathedral Moscow Concept.jpg: the source does not attribute Bohdanowicz-Dworzeck as author. What is the basis for that claim and the related support for the pma 70 tag? If it were, for example, an artist's sketch based on Bohdanowicz-Dworzeck's "blueprints," it could have a separate copyright. Source, however, does appear to establish (if only implicitly) that the image was published before 1.1.1923, which would make the image PD in the US (the only jurisdiction about which Wikipedia is concerned) regardless of authorship; accordingly, it may be advisable to change the tag and to relocate the image to Wikipedia (as Commons requires an image to be PD in both the US and country of origin; image may well be PD in Russia in truth, but support therefor is not currently present).
  • No other issues noted. Эlcobbola _talk 17:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I think the addition of the new section has rounded the article off nicely. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

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