Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. Please do not split FAC review pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, embolden headings). The FA director, Raul654—or one of his delegates, Ucucha, Graham Colm, and Ian Rose—determines the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate:
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. Table of Contents – This page: , Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks |
Featured article tools:
Related pages: |
||
Nomination procedure
Supporting and opposing
|
Nominations
Avatar (2009 film)
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is ready to be a Featured Article, instead of a good one. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 12:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note: No record of edits from this nominator. Has there been consultation with main editors concerning this nomination, as required? Brianboulton (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Ra.One
I am nominating this for featured article because the film Ra.One is considered important, especially from a technological point of view. Besides, the article is currently a good article, but it has a level of detailing and content that is fit for a featured article status. The article has undergone two quite successful peer reviews as well. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think the article is written very well and satisfies most of the feathered article characteristics. JPMEENA (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thank you Jpmeena. However, as per rules, a completely uninvolved editor must review this article for the FAR. You have contributed to this article in a considerable way. Your opinion is appreciated, but please understand that due to your affinity to the article, your opinion may not be taken up as an official support. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Typhoon Gay (1989)
- Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Typhoon Gay was one of the worst tropical cyclones to strike Thailand on record. Its unusual origin an unprecedented intensification within the Gulf of Thailand caught hundreds of vessels off-guard, leading to tragic loss of life. Its unprecedented intensity in the region led to immense damage onshore as well, with tens of thousands of buildings damaged or destroyed and nearly 600 lives lost. The storm's trail of damage continued into India where a further 69 people were killed. All told, the typhoon was responsible for nearly 1,000 fatalities and ranks as one of the worst natural disasters in Thailand's history.
Over the past several months, I've rebuilt this article from the meager piece it was into what I believe is the most complete account of the storm available. Relative scarcity of information made writing this a bit of a challenge and for the scale of damage caused by this storm, the article's size may seem a bit short. I've read through every journal mentioning the storm I could find and I fully believe there is nothing left to add. With that, it's time for this to enter the spotlight. I hope you enjoy reading this article as much as I did writing it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Quick question. How come you put a clear after the table of contents? That creates a bit of unnecessary space. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- To keep the format. If the clear isn't there, the infobox will be pushed into the next section and make it a bit messy. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK. I tested it and thought it looked fine, but I'll trust you. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- To keep the format. If the clear isn't there, the infobox will be pushed into the next section and make it a bit messy. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Cyclonebiskit. 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, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Expect a review of the article soon. hf24 14:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
-
- Lede
- Shouldn't "Kavali Cyclone of 1989" be bolded per MOS:BOLDTITLE?
- It's not an official name for the storm, it's just a common name for it in India. Cyclonebiskit (talk)
- "800 fatalities" needs an
- Done Cyclonebiskit (talk)
- Same with "November 1989"
- Done Cyclonebiskit (talk)
- "more than"? What does track file say? If it says 120, then do 120, not "more than"...?
- It's another way of saying that it attained typhoon status to avoid using "typhoon" too many times. It also works well with the track since it attained 120 km/h winds early on Nov. 3 and continued to intensify throughout the day. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- "first typhoon since 1891" – linky?
- Reference #8 Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- "after temporarily weakening over land and gradually reorganized" doesn't flow too well
- Removed "after temporarily weakening over land" Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- "by surprise" seems a bit informal. I don't have a problem with it, but the tone seems a bit too casual.
- I'd prefer to leave it as is for now unless another editor has similar concerns. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- "275 offshore fatalities" needs an
- Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- "amid" seems a bit like "during"..."under" or something might be a better word IMO
- During and under don't work as well in this context. Would amidst work better? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- "588 people" needs an
- Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- "1989 United States dollars" ^
- Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Striking India as a powerful cyclone" isn't too relevant at this point; it was mentioned earlier in the lede and readers should understand that...
- It notifies the reader that the focus is shifting from effects in Thailand to effects in India. It's just there for transitory purposes. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- "20,000 homes" – nbsp...
- Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- "100,000 people" ^
- Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
hf24 14:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
American Cream Draft
- Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I've been slowly working on this article, on an unusually-colored American draft horse breed, for the past couple of years. It's been through GAN (it's currently a GA) and a great PR by Ruhrfisch. Although it's a bit shorter than my usual FA candidates, I think it's complete, and I have incorporated all sources I've been able to find about the breed. Although I am a Wikicup competitor, this article will not be used to claim points, as most of the work was done prior to 2012. Thanks in advance for any and all comments! Dana boomer (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- "It is known for its cream color and amber eyes, produced by the champagne gene; the gene, when combined with a chestnut base color, creates the cream color known as "gold champagne".": I'm a little confused. Does this say the same thing (or close enough)? "It is known for its amber eyes and for its "gold champagne" color, a cream shade produced by the "champagne" gene combined with a chestnut base color." - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Almost, but not quite, but I see the awkwardness problem. Hmmm ... Both traits are because of the champagne gene, and the cream color is mimicked by other genes (very similar to palomino, except it's produced by a completely different mechanism). The amber eyes can be seen on any of the champagne shades, the cream color is the gold champagne variant based on the horse genetically having an underlying chestnut coat.. Hmmm. What does everyone think of "It is known for its cream color, known as "gold champagne," produced by the champagne gene acting upon a chestnut base color, and its amber eyes, also characteristic of the champagne gene." ??? I'll change it, but I won't complain if you change it back. --Montanabw
- Hey Montana. Giants, any thoughts here? - Dank (push to talk) 01:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Almost, but not quite, but I see the awkwardness problem. Hmmm ... Both traits are because of the champagne gene, and the cream color is mimicked by other genes (very similar to palomino, except it's produced by a completely different mechanism). The amber eyes can be seen on any of the champagne shades, the cream color is the gold champagne variant based on the horse genetically having an underlying chestnut coat.. Hmmm. What does everyone think of "It is known for its cream color, known as "gold champagne," produced by the champagne gene acting upon a chestnut base color, and its amber eyes, also characteristic of the champagne gene." ??? I'll change it, but I won't complain if you change it back. --Montanabw
-
- "Around 1935, however,": What does the "however" mean here? What's in opposition to what?
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the support - I don't usually see you on biology articles :) I appreciate the copyediting (my prose needs all the help it can get) and believe I have addressed both of the comments above. On the first, I replaced the existing text with your proposed wording; on the second, the "however" was meant to contrast the upswing in linebreeding with the previous discussion on a lack of buyers during the Depression - I have clarified this. Please let me know if you find anything else, and thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Looks great, my pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 21:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support - I don't usually see you on biology articles :) I appreciate the copyediting (my prose needs all the help it can get) and believe I have addressed both of the comments above. On the first, I replaced the existing text with your proposed wording; on the second, the "however" was meant to contrast the upswing in linebreeding with the previous discussion on a lack of buyers during the Depression - I have clarified this. Please let me know if you find anything else, and thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments –
- Junctional Epidermolysis Bullosa: If the last two words aren't capitalized as part of an official title, the sub-section heading shouldn't have them capitalized. If they are, that should be reflected in the text.
- I see "mid-20th century" in the lead and "mid 20th century" in the body. These should be made consistent in regards to the hyphenation; I'd include them, but that preference isn't strong, and it's more important that they be handled similarly.
- 1990s to the present: "and as of 2006 there is breeding program...". Needs "a" before "breeding".
- Refs 12 and 20 could use the PDF designations that ref 2 has. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, Giants! I think I have addressed all of your comments. Please let me know if there is anything else. Dana boomer (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Compare formatting on FN 10 vs 14
-
- I'm probably being completely blind, but I can't see any difference in the formatting between these two. :( Dana boomer (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- FN 11: is this a shortened journal name?
- Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
- Be consistent in how you notate multi-author works. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thanks Nikki :) I can't find the problem in your first point, could you please explain further? I believe I have addressed the final three points - please let me know if I missed anything. Dana boomer (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Bulgaria
- Nominator(s): - ☣Tourbillon A ? 12:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe all the relevant issues of the December nomination have been addressed. The article has been copyedited by the GoCE. Hopefully this will receive objective and constructive comments, as I believe the article is ready for FA status. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 12:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Random drive-by comments I probably won't post a review, but I'd like to make the following comments:
- The arty photo of 'The Black Sea coast near Chernomorets' has very little encyclopedic value. It's a nice photo, but doesn't show anything of interest.
- The MiG-29 fighters in the 'Foreign relations and military' section aren't flying in a 'combat formation': fighter aircraft generally maintain a fair distance apart during combat operations. This is an airshow-style formation flight.
- "Bulgaria remained free of foreign deployments on its territory until 2001" - unnecessary as it's later stated that this was the first time combat forces were stationed in Bulgaria since World War II. 'Remained free' is rather POV-ish.
- "In 2006 Foreign Policy magazine listed Bezmer Air Base as one of the six most important overseas facilities used by the USAF." - what does the USAF use it for?
- The tense of the last two paras in the 'Foreign relations and military' swaps around a few times. The para also would benefit from a stronger focus on the Bulgarian military - at present it seems to emphasise foreign defence relations.
- What are the green circles in the map of 'Bulgaria (orange) and its largest export partners'?
- Most of the first para in the 'Second Bulgarian Empire' section is unreferenced, as is "refugees who put additional strain on the already ruined national economy." a bit later in the article. Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Replaced photo.
- Changed image description of the jets, left out just "Mikoyan MiG-29 fighters"
- Removed redundant wording
- The Bezmer Air Base doesn't serve a significant purpose now, but the magazine claims it would be one of the principal supply and troop transfer airfields for an eventual war in the Middle East. Currently it's used for joint training and parachute/SpecOps drills.
- Green circles represent the percentage of Bulgaria's total exports. Clarified it in image description
- Sourced the first one,
I thought the second one is a logical consequence of any war but I'll look for a source on it. Found source. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 09:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
-
Elias Abraham Rosenberg
- Nominator(s): Mark Arsten (talk) & Livit⇑Eh?/What?
Since we recently brought the article about the first Catholic missionary to Hawaii here, I decided to nominate the article about the first Jewish "missionary" to Hawaii, as well. Elias Abraham Rosenberg went from a humble peddler to royal adviser in a very short time, using only his charming personality and ability to predict the future. Sourcing this article was pretty tricky, but with help from some of our expert researchers, enough sources were found to write the article. It's been peer reviewed by a few editors and thoroughly flogged by copyeditors, so we believe it now meets the featured article criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments by Fuhghettaboutit I may add more but for the moment:
- Lead
-
"While working as a peddler, he encountered legal problems selling lottery tickets." I don't think this quite captures the detail from the text that he was illegally selling lottery tickets.This lead sentence, He traveled to Hawaii, where upon his arrival he claimed to be, and performed as, a fortune teller. reads awkwardly to me. "Upon his arrival" feels redundant when we were just told he traveled there. I think it's the proximity in the same sentence. Also, there's something abrupt about the shift from San Francisco to Hawaii with no lead in language to frame it, like a date of travel. Maybe add a bit more detail from the text and break into two sentences: "In 1886 Rosenberg embarked for Hawaii, possibly on a whaler, arriving in Oahu some time before December 1886. After his arrival he claimed to be, and began performing as, a fortune teller.
On the issue of adding more detail to the lead, I think you can summarize a bit more of the article and split into two paragraphs, which feels right for the size of the article.
San Francisco section
-
"He is believed to have been born in 1810 in Russia, and later may have lived in Australia and England." I think you should do away with "later". We know that if he lived in Australia and England, but was born in Russia, his birth preceded living in other places.This incident may have led to his move to Hawaii" I'm not sure "this incident", which speaks of a single incident, works well to refer to his attracting attention from the police. Maybe start with "These problems..." (or something better!)
--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Ok, I took care of the first two in the lead and the first in San Francisco. Do you think "These obstacles" would work in place of "This incident"? I guess the lead is fairly short, I'll try to add some to it tomorrow. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, not really, though I haven't thought of a replacement. These obstacles doesn't work I don't think. It's so concrete, while attention from police is nebulous. Let me mull on it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I expanded the lead a bit, hopefully to your satisfaction. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Great job on the lead expansion. I think it reads much better now and feels more balanced with the two paragraphs. I'm fine with "problems/troubles". I looked through the rest and found only a few minor things which I changed myself, hopefully not to your dissatisfaction. I wanted to ask one more thing: In the sentence ending "...the power of the Hawaiian monarch" Should this be monarchy? An interesting article and well done. I am now happy to support.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for all your help with this article! I made the last fix you mentioned (your other edits are unobjectionable). Mark Arsten (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Great job on the lead expansion. I think it reads much better now and feels more balanced with the two paragraphs. I'm fine with "problems/troubles". I looked through the rest and found only a few minor things which I changed myself, hopefully not to your dissatisfaction. I wanted to ask one more thing: In the sentence ending "...the power of the Hawaiian monarch" Should this be monarchy? An interesting article and well done. I am now happy to support.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I expanded the lead a bit, hopefully to your satisfaction. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm, not really, though I haven't thought of a replacement. These obstacles doesn't work I don't think. It's so concrete, while attention from police is nebulous. Let me mull on it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I took care of the first two in the lead and the first in San Francisco. Do you think "These obstacles" would work in place of "This incident"? I guess the lead is fairly short, I'll try to add some to it tomorrow. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Support - I had my say at the peer review. It's a well-written—albeit short—article about an interesting figure. Well done. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 06:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the support, and your erudite comments at the Peer review. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Support with comments by Cassianto I agree. Lead maybe a bit short, but don't let that ruin a good article. Some small points...
-
Could we have a link to "peddler" in the lede?There are a few meanings for "soothsayer". Which was is it? A blue link here might be good to determine which kind of soothsaying he was active in."In March, April, and May, Rosenberg was paid $100 each month..." Do we need to list the months? I think saying "Between March and May, Rosenberg was paid $300..." Also it maybe good to mention a year here too as the last time it is mentioned is at the start of the first paragraph. I found myself reading it and having to stop to remind myself of the year.Stray period between refs midway through "Return to San Francisco and death"Rosenberg left Hawaii on June 7...(year?)
No further points and an interesting little article to read. Congrats! -- Cassianto (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the support and comments, I think I've fixed the things you pointed out. Having to go back to figure out dates is one of my pet peeves, so I won't argue with you there. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Support Just one issue: "ornate and well-crafted Torah[8] and yad" How is a Torah well-crafted? You might want to put (Torah pointer) after yad.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the support. I didn't think of that about the Torah, I've tweaked the sentence to avoid it. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW you can definitely speak of a Torah scroll being well crafted. Each Sefer Torah is handwritten by a scribe, of which there are very few, following a very strict process. Its incredibly labor intensive and the copying must be done perfectly. There's craftsmanship both in the calligraphy and also in the various accessories (crown, breastplate, etc). GabrielF (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting, that's a good point. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW you can definitely speak of a Torah scroll being well crafted. Each Sefer Torah is handwritten by a scribe, of which there are very few, following a very strict process. Its incredibly labor intensive and the copying must be done perfectly. There's craftsmanship both in the calligraphy and also in the various accessories (crown, breastplate, etc). GabrielF (talk) 03:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support. I didn't think of that about the Torah, I've tweaked the sentence to avoid it. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Support. I was an interesting article to read. Ruslik_Zero 15:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the copyedits and support. It was an interesting article to write! I hope a Hollywood producer will read the article and make a film about it, I'm thinking The Rock as Kalākaua. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- I took "(Torah pointer)" back out. Parenthetical clarifications make wikilinks cry. If you insist that this be clarified here, I'll do it in 10 words with some em-dashes. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 18:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Support with nit-picks: I commented extensively in the first peer review and the article has improved enormously from an already very high standard since then. I have a few small issues but I am happy to support assuming there are no problems with images or sourcing. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Rosenberg apparently encouraged the King to revive traditional Hawaiian religion": I think "apparently" is a little weak here.
- Also, I'm not sure this idea of revival comes across sufficiently in the main body. Presumably it is the part referring to his use of prophets, but the lead suggests something stronger (maybe this is strong and I'm missing it!). Otherwise it gives the impression that Rosenberg was almost solely responsible for this change and by implication, the subsequent troubles he encountered.
- Nit-picky and ignore me by all means, but I wonder if "He is the first known Jew to have visited Hawaii" may be better as "the first Jew known to have visited Hawaii"?
- "Rosenberg was present at a birthday celebration for King Kalākaua at ʻIolani Palace in November 1886." While relevant, this fact appears to be slightly tacked onto the start of the paragraph. It may be better placed after mentioning the king's trust of Rosenberg in the same paragraph, or even after earlier mentioning his first audience.
- "In late January, the King appointed Rosenberg as a customs appraiser in Honolulu,[9] however the appointment was controversial": However does not work here; better to start a new sentence after Honolulu, or replace "however" with "although" or similar.
- Do we know why he was initially fired from his customs job?
- "At this point, Rosenberg reported to Archibald Scott Cleghorn": Reported is ambiguous here. Does this mean that his "superior" was Cleghorn by this stage, bypassing the head of customs, or that following the resignation, Rosenberg went for a one-off meeting with Cleghorn (i.e. about the resignation)?
- "The next week, the King made a payment of $100 to a local jeweler, but it is not known whether it was for the gifts given to Rosenberg." Apparently unsourced sentence at the end of a paragraph.
- I'm not sure why note g is added on to information about a 2008 article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support and comments, here and at the peer review. I think I took care of them all--it's not known for sure why he was fired from his customs job. There is speculation that the head of customs found Rosenberg to be too lazy, but I'm not sure there's enough sourcing to put that in the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments I commented on the article's peer review, and am happy to see that it's now been nominated for FA status. I think that the article is almost at FA class, but have the following suggestions:
- "who became an adviser to King Kalākaua of Hawaii near the end of Kalākaua's reign" - is there a way to avoid repeating 'Kalākaua' twice in the one sentences (would "who became an adviser to King Kalākaua of Hawaii near the end of his reign" work? - no-one is going to get confused and think that Rosenberg was the king in this context)
- "After his arrival he claimed to be, and began performing as, a fortune teller" - this is a bit awkward (especially the passive 'began performing as')
- It would be helpful to explain what the King's authority was at the time Rosenberg was in Hawaii (eg, was he a powerful figure, or constrained by political factors?)
- I'd suggest noting in the text that William DeWitt Alexander was writing in 1896, as this kind of view is rather jarring to modern sensibilities
- As a cosmetic issue, the placement of the citations in the notes section at the end of the text in each section rather than as endnotes like the rest of the article is a bit unusual. I'm comfortable with this, but you may want to standarise on all-endnote citations. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments, I think I've taken care of all but the notes citations. Someone who was pretty experienced with templates told me to do it that way, I'm not sure what his reasoning was though. He's retired now, so I can't ask him. I'll ping someone about it and see what they think then get back to you and Brian about it. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I talked to a smart guy and thought about it some. With the current system I'm using, you click on a letter to get to the explanatory note, then click the citation in the explanatory note and you go right to to the bibliography, if I change it, you'll have to click to get to the explanatory notes, click to get to the references, and then click to get to the bibliography. I think the way that I have it now is easier on the reader. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Support My comments are now addressed. As I said above, the referencing style for the notes doesn't really bother me, though it is a bit unconventional. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for your support and peer review! Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment Oppose: I am sorry if I appear negative, but as five supports have been registered, I fear my concerns may be overlooked unless I emphasise them in this way. While the article undoubtedly has merits (originality of topic not the least), there are at present significant problems to be addressed before it is ready for promotion:-
- Probably the most important of these is the inadequacy of the lead. It lacks the essential declarative statement in the opening sentence, explaining why the subject is notable and defining his chief characteristics. Merely saying that he was "was a Russian Jew who became an adviser to King Kalākaua of Hawaii" is bland and uninteresting; what is significant is the unconventional nature of his advisory role and the hints of the charlatan in Rosenberg. Without such information highlighted, I can see no reason why I would wish to read the article. I suggest that the first paragraph is rewritten to capture at least the sleazy flavour of Rosenberg's role and thereby give readers the desire to read a little further.
- Much of the prose is fractured by the close-knit citing of individual phrases, almost of individual words. Thus we have sentences like: "He began to teach the King basic Hebrew,[1][15] and gave him an ornate Torah[8] and yad[11][c] (Torah pointer) that Rosenberg had brought with him to Hawaii.[1]" That sort of thing is difficult and irritating to read. In this case, there is no need to cite [1] twice within the same sentence; is there really no single source that covers the gifts of both the Torah and the yad? Why is it necessary to double-cite the straightforward information that Rosenberg taught the king Hebrew? There are many other instances where some revision of the citations would make the article altogether easier to read.
- There are several issues of style, grammar and clarity in the prose:-
-
- Rosenberg is defined as a Russian Jew in the lead, but the text says merely that he "is believed to have been born in 1810 in Russia". This implies a degree of doubt about his birthplce and nationality.
- "The advertisement has been speculated to be a hoax..." Adverisements are not "speculated"; there may be speculation about them. Thus: "There has been speculation that the advertisement was a hoax..."
- "He also claimed to have found references to Hawaii in ancient Hebrew texts, a claim that encouraged..." Clunky repetition
- "The King had previously sought instruction from several people he regarded as prophets and had established a society dedicated to this cause." Not clear what "cause" refers to.
- "No-show job"; I have never seen this expression in a formal article - it reads like slang. The formal term is sinecure. The link to the rubbishy unreferenced No-show job stub needs to be replaced.
- "Kalākaua's efforts to revive traditional Hawaiian religious beliefs may have helped convince foreign residents that action should be taken against the King, leading to the June 1887 Constitution, which forcibly stripped him of many of his autocratic powers." That makes very odd reading; it implies that "foreign residents", whoever they were, rather than the native population, had power to take action against the king. Was that the case? If so, at least a phrase or two of explanation should be added. Otherwise you need to rephrase to make the meaning clear. Also, the word "forcibly" is redundant; a Constitution is a matter of law.
- Links to other web pages are normally placed within an External links section; I believe that MOS stipulates this, so the "external images" link probably needs repositioning.
- Why are the citations within the "notes" in a different format from the in-line citations within the main text?
I will be happy to reconsider my oppose when these points have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- No need to apologize, I knew the risks when I nominated this :) I'll get to work on your comments, some will be easier than others. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, did some work on it today, did most of them and took a first shot at a couple. I'll take another look at the lead and the people who deposed the King, those were the only two I wasn't confident in my fixes. (See my reply to Nick-D about citation styles.) Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- @Brian: {{External media}} recommends the template be placed as one would place a regular image. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I think we've resolved everything you mentioned. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
In general you have answered my main concerns and I have struck the oppose. In particular I think the lead is much improved. A few minor quibbles:
- (Not raised before) The capitalisation of "King" except as part of a formal naming is questionable. Thus "King Kalakuara" is OK, but otherwise it should be "the king" not "the King"
- Perhaps refer to Rosenberg's religion before merely stating that he was the first Jew known to have visited Hawaii; a brief mention in the preceding section, maybe?
- The citations within the notes are still formatted differently from those in the text - is there a reason? Brianboulton (talk) 10:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, king has been downcased and I mentioned that he was a Jew in the first section. With the current system I'm using, you click on a letter to get to the explanatory note, then click the citation in the explanatory note and you go right to to the bibliography, if I change it, you'll have to click to get to the explanatory notes, click to get to the references, and then click to get to the bibliography. Basically it's just a little easier this way, I think. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comments from Crisco 1492
- Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk page
- Support -- Interesting read. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Note -- Aside from the matter of Brian's comments, looks like we still need an image check. I think we can waive the source spotcheck given Mark's second-most-recent nom had one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Might as well do the image check. File:Kingdavidkalakaua dust.jpg tagged (PD-US), although proof of previous publication (or lack of) is
necessarypreferable for determining the proper license;if unpublished, per the Hirtle chart it would not be PD until next year.File:Iolani Palace in 1885.jpg has a tagging issue: How could a photograph by an unknown author definitely be PD-100?If unpublished, this will not be PD until 2016.Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Scratched support from above due to image issues. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, but for anonymous works the copyright term is 120 years from the date of creation, i.e. it expired in 2002 and 2005, respectively. Ruslik_Zero 09:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- You're right; can't believe I subtracted 130. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Scratched my bad math. Iolani Palace still needs the proper template Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Ok, changed the template on the Iolani Palace image. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, but for anonymous works the copyright term is 120 years from the date of creation, i.e. it expired in 2002 and 2005, respectively. Ruslik_Zero 09:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Might as well do the image check. File:Kingdavidkalakaua dust.jpg tagged (PD-US), although proof of previous publication (or lack of) is
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that, after a GA nomination and two peer reviews (albeit, the second didn't have much interaction), the article meets the standards for FAC. Cracker Barrel is one of the more famous representations of Southern United States style and cooking and has long been known as one of the largest restaurant chains to come out of the Southern US. I worked on this article with WWB Too, who is my co-nominator, where he did most of the article text and finding the references and I did most of the formatting, fixing references, and the other technical stuff.
Note for transparency: I and WWB Too are members of Wikiproject Cooperation and he was paid in the past to improve this article. He has been completely straightforward about all of this and followed Wikipedia's guidelines to the letter. He was not involved in working on the controversies section in the article and removed himself from talk page discussion on that section.
Request: For the purposes of this FAC, as I don't want to have all of the improvements requested by reviewers to fall on me, I would like to request that WWB Too be allowed to edit the article directly for the purposes of implementing the changes and improvements that the reviewers to this FAC ask for. I don't feel like there should be any issues in this request (hopefully). SilverserenC 21:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Co-nominator here. This is my first time at FAC and I'm aware that the review process could be tough, so I'm intrigued to help see what I can do to give it the best shot at passing the test. As Silver notes, in 2011 I was engaged by Cracker Barrel to improve this article, and I did so by proposing new material for disinterested volunteer editors to implement. The project for Cracker Barrel has since ended, but it is probably still fair to consider that I have a COI with the topic, and I will primarily focus on providing information from research. I defer to others' views with regard to Silver's request that I be permitted to edit the mainspace. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comments. Some general comments:
- In article the terms "restaurant" and "store" are used interchangeably. This confusing at places. I think you should consistently use one term.
- In the 'New markets and refocus' section: In addition to the Corner Market stores, .... Sorry but I do not know what these Corner Market stores are. Please, explain.
- In the next section: The number of combined restaurants and stores owned by Cracker Barrel approximately doubled between 1997 and 2000, to over 420 locations. However in the previous section I read: By September 1997, Cracker Barrel had 314 restaurants .... 314*2≠420.
- In the 'Business model and partnerships' section the first two sentences duplicate what was said in the previous section 'Restaurants'.
- More to follow. Ruslik_Zero 17:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Will address and fix your other points in a little bit. But two questions:
- 1) In relation to the request above, is it okay if WWB Too directly edits the article? Because your questions are focusing more on the things he would know how to fix.
- 2) Do you think it would be better to use restaurant then, rather than store? I was also thinking we could use restaurant in an overarching manner and then also when discussing food, but use store when discussing the store part of the place. Though I do see how that could get confusing.
- Let me know. SilverserenC 17:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Restaurant vs. store is an interesting challenge. The fact is, each location contains both a store and a restaurant. In writing this originally, I sometimes used the different terms as synecdoche (part representing the whole) in order to avoid repetition. Perhaps it would be better to figure out which instance each is the primary subject, however I expect that this could read to overuse of location. Thoughts? WWB Too (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Comments by Jim I could feel my arteries hardening just reading this. I'm a Brit, so there may be things I pick up which are obvious in the US, but not necessarily to your global audience. Generally pretty good, but some niggles. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
-
US or U.S. — both occur in the lead alone
- I can see from the text that racial discrimination in the US is illegal as well as immoral, but that's not clear with the discrimination against women or gays. Can you clarify whether such discrimination is actually illegal in the States, as it would be, for example, in most of Europe?
biscuit — now, I'm pretty sure this isn't what I dunk in my tea. Link or gloss perhaps?
-
- I linked it to Biscuit (bread). You can keep your British cookie things. :P SilverserenC 21:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- In addition to the Corner Market stores — What? Not mentioned previously, no indication of what they are. They appear here and slink silently away a few sentences later
salsa — I assume not the dance, link or gloss please
-
- Linked it to Salsa (sauce). SilverserenC 21:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
wake of controversies including charges of racial discrimination and controversy over its policy of firing gay employees — too many controversies
*Cracker Barrel is a Southern themed chain of restaurants and retail stores that serves traditional Southern comfort food often described as "down-home" country cooking, and sells gift items including toys and woodcrafts — does this really need four references? if so, can you conflate them so only one appears here.Nashville — link at first occurence
Cracker Barrel employees, funded by the chain's employees. — too many employees
- are turnip tops actually edible?
-
- Yes. As the turnip article says, "Turnip leaves are sometimes eaten as "turnip greens" ("turnip tops" in the UK), and they resemble mustard greens in flavor. Turnip greens are a common side dish in southeastern US cooking, primarily during late fall and winter." SilverserenC 21:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- I'm going to leave the Corner market stuff to WWB. But as for sexual discrimination, it's a tricky legal field. There's a few laws that apply that you can invoke, but they're more general discrimination laws. I don't know if there's stuff specifically for sexual discrimination. Considering many places still don't follow the requirements of the Equal Pay act anyways. So i'm not quite sure how to clarify that in the article other than what it is, which is sexual harassment. SilverserenC 21:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Although I'll leave to others the discussion of how to handle discrimination topics, I can offer three sources noting that the discrimination was not illegal (at least at the time).
-
-
-
-
-
-
- From a Detroit News article currently used in the article (<ref name=Price/>) there is this passage:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Summerville was crushed but summoned the strength to speak out publicly. She helped put a human face on anti-gay job bias for millions of Americans who, like Summerville, were shocked to learn that Cracker Barrel's action was perfectly legal. (Thirteen states now outlaw anti-gay job bias, up from two at the start of 1991.)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- And from Nation's Restaurant News (<ref name=Hayes/>), this:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Cracker Barrel's human-resources vice president, William Bridges, said the company checked with legal counsel to make certain its actions did not violate existing state or federal regulations.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- "None of the states in which we operate has laws protecting employees on the basis of sexual preference, nor are there any federal statutes that do so," Bridges explained.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- And a New York Times article I didn't use (however, just in case: <ref name=Noble>{{cite news |title=Gay Group Asks Accord In Job Dispute last1=Presley Noble |first1=Barbara |url=http://www.nytimes.com/1992/11/25/business/company-news-gay-group-asks-accord-in-job-dispute.html |newspaper=The New York Times |date=November 25, 1992 |accessdate=April 2, 2012}}</ref>) explains the legal situation well:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Cracker Barrel created a controversy early last year when it said it would no longer "employ individuals whose sexual preferences fail to demonstrate normal heterosexual values." It subsequently dismissed several employees for being homosexual. Gay men and lesbians are not protected by anti-discrimination laws in any of the states where Cracker Barrel operates.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- OK, I'll be away for a couple of days, but no rush. Now, what are "mustard greens"...... (;
-
-
-
-
- Likewise, I'll leave the discrimination stuff to Silver. As for the Corner Markets: an earlier version had more information about them, and the article still notes in the following paragraph that their operation ceased three years later. Considering the New markets and refocus heading, it makes sense to include their existence; I suggest replacing the beginning of the second graf with the following:
-
-
-
-
-
-
- In 1994, Cracker Barrel tested a [[Take-out|carry-out]] only store, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Corner Market, in suburban residential neighborhoods.<ref name=Moritz/> In addition, Cracker Barrel expanded...
-
-
-
Hey, just a procedural request: please don't use graphical templates like {{dyktick}}, they slow down what is already a huge WP:FAC main page (the same advice is stated there as well). ClayClayClay 06:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Compare formatting on FNs 2 and 5, 1 vs 20
Nitpicking, but be consistent in whether or not there's a period after retrieval date
Use a consistent date format
FN 69: formatting.Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Fixed (quote marks were doubled). Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- That, and the formatting of the website name isn't consistent with other web refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
-
John Francis Jackson
Back to our regularly scheduled program of RAAF officers, I present "Old John" Jackson, so nicknamed because at 34 he was considered almost ancient by fighter-pilot standards. He achieved notability not just as an ace but as the commanding officer of No. 75 Squadron in the Battle of Port Moresby in 1942. He probably didn't even have to take this assignment, he just wanted to defend Australia when things were looking particularly grim. He was also independently wealthy, yet there was still something of the country bumpkin about him -- witness his Crocodile Dundee moment in the Alexandria hotel... ;-) At Moresby he proved an inspiration to his inexperienced squadron, a warrior who, in the words of a journalist Osmar White, "had done more than conquer fear--he had killed it".
The article has been through GA and MilHist A-Class Reviews. I've also taken the liberty of listing this as a potential TFA for 28 April, the 70th anniversary of Jackson's death in combat, pending a successful (and relatively speedy) outcome here -- thanks in advance for your reviews! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Heh, I've just remembered that Harry Chauvel is almost certainly going to be scheduled for TFA on 25 April (Anzac Day for the non-Australians), and we can hardly expect WP to run two Aussie military men within three days of each other, so that last point is kinda moot... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Be consistent in whether you include dates as part of shortened titles
- Be consistent in use of "Retrieved" vs "Retrieved on"
- Why is 51 formatted completely differently to all other citations to newspaper articles?
- File:P02704.026MemoryLane1942.jpg: do the licensing tags given cover the photo, the memorial, or both? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment: In the 'Early career' section we have "That August, he joined the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Reserve, or Citizen Air Force." (Bolding mine). Is there any chance you can expand on what is meant by the word "or"? Was/is this a colloquial term, an alternate official name for the RAAF Reserve, what the RAAF Reserve was actually called back then, ... ??? I clicked the RAAF link and couldn't find any additional information. Cheers, Ben (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Ben. CAF appears to have been an alternate official term -- I could alter "or" to "also known as" or "also called" if that's works better. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at John_Francis_Jackson#South West Pacific. I'd link to my edits, if I had made any. - Dank (push to talk) 14:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments:
- Did some copyediting; revert what you don't like.
- "...squadron commander of World War II." Is that preposition an Australian English thing? It sounds odd to my Canadian ear - "during" would seem more appropriate - but it may be a dialectical thing.
- "...before posting to the Middle East in November 1940." Similar here: in Canada, we'd treat him as the object, rather than the subject, of "to post", but I gather that's a regional thing as well?
- "Jackson made two stafing passes..." Should this be "strafing"?
Subject to the above, support on all criteria except 1(c) (thorough and representative survey) and 2(c). Steve Smith (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments – Purely nit-picks; this is a nice article.
Not sure if the full date of death needs to be repeated in the lead.- Fair enough.
Early career: "and also had interests in engineering and financial concerns." Minor, but the "also" is a bit of redundancy that can safely be removed without affecting the meaning.- Agreed.
South West Pacific: Period and space need to be removed before reference 40.- Thanks for spotting that one!
- Remove the external link from the publisher of reference 5. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not too fussed either way here but I gathered the standard was to use an external link for the main page of an online source unless a WP article on the entity was available. Also if we drop the link for here I assume you'd be suggesting the same for citation 35? In any case, tks for review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Haven't heard that this is a standard, but it's possible that I've missed it since I don't work with military-related articles. Does anyone know if that is the case? Giants2008 (Talk) 01:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not too fussed either way here but I gathered the standard was to use an external link for the main page of an online source unless a WP article on the entity was available. Also if we drop the link for here I assume you'd be suggesting the same for citation 35? In any case, tks for review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Assassination of William McKinley
I am nominating this for featured article because... It meets the criteria, in my view, which I hope others will agree to. I hope I have captured a little bit of 1901 in addition to covering the assassination, a world where you could have a fair with a Triumphal Bridge, and a straight face. A spoiler: someone dies (two, in fact).Wehwalt (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments:
- Are the two panoramas really necessary? The loading of the second image takes lot of time. The article will lose nothing if they are removed.
- Images are good --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for reviewing the images. I think that, in general, we should take advantage of what resources are available to us to give the reader the maximum amount of understanding that we can. This article throws a lot of place names at the reader that he can't really understand because they all vanished when the fair closed and they disassembled the building. I would prefer to keep them, but let's see what people think during the course of this FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Sources and images - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Missing subtitle on McElroy book
- Olcott: link provided gives only "William McKinley" as title
- Why use both mdy and dmy in references?
- X in Temple of Music image is quite difficult to see at that size
- File:McKinley_last_photo.jpg needs US PD tag, and is a page number available?
- File:Temple_of_Music_postcard.jpg needs US PD tag
- File:Mark_Hanna_at_Milburn_Mansion.jpg, File:McKinley_death_Milburn.jpg: page number? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Support - I reviewed the article recently in a Peer Revew. The nominator addressed all my concerns at that time, and I support it for FA status. --Noleander (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - As per Redtigerxyz, I don't think the panoramic images at the bottom add any useful information. Supplemental information is good, but they would belong better at Pan-American Exposition and Temple of Music, those who are interested will click through. I also think File:Artist PA fair.png is badly pixellated, especially in comparison to File:Flickr - …trialsanderrors - Pan-American Exposition, Buffalo, 1901.jpg. - hahnchen 20:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support - read this one through and found it to be really engaging and deserving of the FA star. Great job! – Connormah (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, Connormah, good seeing you. Hope all is well at Commons?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:26, 29 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) 16:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please go through adding second commas to dates and geographic names. It's tedious for me to do it every time, and it takes no longer to do it right than to do it wrong. See WT:Checklist for support for second commas in modern style guides. (The problem, of course, is that nothing succeeds like excess, and the journalistic writing our culture is awash in constantly drops commas whether it makes any sense to do so or not. As each comma rule dies, the style guides amend their guidance ... but they haven't caved on this one, yet.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- I've added the ones I saw. If you see more, and are not inclined to change them yourself, please give me some idea of where you saw them so as to avoid eyestrain on my part.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the first sentence in the lead and the first sentence in the second section are wrong. I stopped there. - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- The missing space before 1901?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yep. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't see any more besides the ones I already changed, but I will be on the outlook for any more. Thank you for your efforts.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. The intention here isn't to get cranky (though sometimes I succeed in that), the intention is to be realistic about my limits. I often venture outside Milhist at FAC, but when I do, I have more to do ... I'm not as familiar with the subject matter, and I'm not as familiar with what the nominator or wikiproject does and doesn't do well, so there's more to think about. So, I don't mean to be rude asking more from nominators of non-Milhist articles ... I just know from experience that if I don't, then it gets to be too much of a burden, and I stop. - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- I didn't see any more besides the ones I already changed, but I will be on the outlook for any more. Thank you for your efforts.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yep. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- The missing space before 1901?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the first sentence in the lead and the first sentence in the second section are wrong. I stopped there. - Dank (push to talk) 17:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've added the ones I saw. If you see more, and are not inclined to change them yourself, please give me some idea of where you saw them so as to avoid eyestrain on my part.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- There's more to do here than I'm going to have time to do. What's worse ... it's not that bad :) So I don't feel right opposing or making demands, but it's more than I want to tackle. For instance, just in the lead:
- The first three sentences: "The assassination of William McKinley ... The President of the United States, William McKinley ... President McKinley ...": repetition. This is one where I wouldn't repeat the page title in the first sentence, I might say, "William McKinley, President of the United States, was assassinated ...", then go with "he" or "McKinley" after that as needed. "Exposition" can be dropped from one of the two first sentences, too.
- "ordinary citizens": This is a phrase that makes perfect sense to politicians, in the same way that "lower classes" is a phrase that makes perfect sense to the upper classes, but not so much to the lower classes. I'd go with "the public at a reception".
- "when he was fatally wounded by two shots from the gun of Leon Czolgosz, an anarchist.": Tighter would be: when Leon Czolgosz, an anarchist, shot him twice. (We don't need "fatally" since we find out he died in the next 3 words.)
- "In the wake of the hard times following the economic Panic of 1893, in which he lost his job, Czolgosz ...": It's not a hard and fast rule, but it's best to avoid two complex introductory phrases, in part because it increases the odds the reader will get lost ... and this reader is lost. Did Czolgosz lose his job in the Panic, or in the hard times following the Panic, or in the wake of those hard times? The "wake" of an event trails the event, so we're talking about some time after the hard times here.
- "Influenced by a speech": Many grammarians grumble that they can't figure out what the word "influenced" means in general. I'm not sure what it means here.
- "Czolgosz decided to kill McKinley, believing ...": I may have missed it, but I don't see in the text below that the decision was an immediate reaction to Goldman's speech. Also, I talk about "decide" a little bit at WP:Checklist#mindreading ... the question is whether the sources are sure that that's what was in his head, and whether we need to say that, or whether it can be reasonably inferred by the reader if you just say what he did. There's also the question of credibility; defendants on trial for murder are not likely to be objective sources of information on their mental state, when that mental state has a bearing on whether they're executed or not.
- "After attempting to reach McKinley ...": "reach" more often means "communicate with"; the readers have to back up when they realize it doesn't mean that here. Not a serious problem, but Garner's, etc., call this a garden path.
- "Western New York": I would probably lowercase "western"; someone correct me if I'm wrong.
- "a turn for the worse": I don't worry about cliches unless a writer overdoes them, and you don't. My contract probably says I have to point them out, though.
- "infection within him": I don't know what this is saying; I wouldn't say for instance "the liver within him", I'd say "his liver". Are you saying "an infection", or does "within" suggest something about the location of the infection?
- "His health quickly deteriorated and he died early the next morning;": The death is a sufficient sign of deteriorating health, I think; we don't need the first part, unless you want to say something more specific about what was happening.
- Having said all that ... I think the lead flows well and includes more or less what I'd like to see. - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Very cogent and thank you. I've made changes to the lede to address your point. No doubt other reviewers will comment regarding the prose as well. I appreciate your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Very cogent and thank you. I've made changes to the lede to address your point. No doubt other reviewers will comment regarding the prose as well. I appreciate your comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
SupportComment, leaning to support: I learned a great deal from the McKinley biographical article, to which I gave a detailed peer review, and I found this equally fascinating; I knew the generalities of the assassination but not the particulars, and it is a pleasure to see the story so well told. I didn't peer review this, so I am leaving on the article's talkpage a series of quibbles which you are invited to address. Also, I have a few general issues to raise here:
- What, if anything, is the point of noting the geographic co-ordinates? I suspect this is a relic of a one-time obsession whereby every WP article recording an event was thus adorned, but I cannot see any purpose in it.
- I think McKinley's presidential status should be given in the initial declarative sentence: "William McKinley, 25th president of the United States, was assassinated on September 6, 1901, inside the Temple of Music on the grounds of the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York. The president was shaking hands..." (In any event there is a stray comma after the word "President")
- I notice inconsistency in capitalisation of "President" in the lead.
- I can't help feeling that the Leech quote that ends the article has lost an important connecting phrase in the ellipsis. As presented, the first part of the quotation has America looking backward, "turned from the challenge and the strangeness of the future"; then, suddenly, it is setting sail "on the stormy voyage of the twentieth century". Unless something is inserted between, the two halves of the quote seem contradictory.
- I don't see much value in the See also link, and I thought anyway that dedicated See also sections were now considered infra dig at FAC.
I'm sure these and the minor points on the talkpage can be quickly addressed, at which point I will be happy to support.Brianboulton (talk) 17:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for your review, and for your perseverance. I've done all those thinks, or in some cases another editor did, for which I thank him. I've done my best with the Leech quote, which I think is worth keeping.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent job on the Leech quote. All other issues properly addressed (we'll probably always differ on the practicalities of comma deployment), and I have upgraded to full support. After your coup with the 1896 speech recording in the McKinley article I was hoping for something equally sensational here – shuffles of feet, shots, screams etc – but I suppose ther are limits even to your resourcefulness. Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review, and for your perseverance. I've done all those thinks, or in some cases another editor did, for which I thank him. I've done my best with the Leech quote, which I think is worth keeping.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Dan Leno
We are nominating this for featured article because we have expanded this biography article using all of the major sources about this subject, and we believe that it now satisfies the criteria for Feature Articles. The article has completed a peer review and was promoted to Good Article. The subject, Dan Leno, was a leading music hall comedian who was also a notable actor in Victorian burlesque and pantomime. We hope that you enjoy reading this article as much as we have enjoyed writing it, and we look forward to all comments and suggestions. -- Cassianto (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support - the article is well written, thoroughly and comprehensively sourced and meets all the criteria for FA status. Jack1956 (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support. Declaration of interest: I have made 14 contributions to the article, mostly on minor matter of prose. I also helped peer review the article, when such small queries as I raised were dealt with to my satisfaction. A few points relating to material added since then (or that I missed at the time – apologies if so). They are all minor, and do not affect my support.
-
- Lead
-
- Family background and early life
-
- Early career
-
- 1880s
-
- "The site is now the Lyceum Theatre" – two points here. The site isn't the Lyceum; and the statement is apt to become out of date. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Precise language. Something like "The Lyceum Theatre was built on the site in 18xx"
-
-
- "he and Lydia moved" – name not pronoun preferable at first mention in a paragraph
-
-
- Pantomime
-
- Later career
-
-
- "their son, Prince George and his wife, Princess Mary" – Better to refer to them by their titles (created earlier that month), the Prince and Princess of Wales; Leno himself did so in your quote below.
-
- This change was made in response to a previous comment that we should clarify who is meant for modern and/or foreign readers who are not up on this. I am now changing it to "their son George and his wife, Mary, the Prince and Princess of Wales. Does that cover all bases? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Charity and fundraising
- The article is comprehensive, thoroughly referenced, copiously illustrated (laptop users with wide screens will find occasional sandwiching of text between images) and well balanced in its treatment of the subject. – Tim riley (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Why italicize article name in ODNB entry?
- FN 12: page?
- FN 32: formatting. Also, publisher?
- Compare formatting of FNs 9 and 73. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- I peer reviewed this a couple months back, and was impressed by the quality then. I've started reading through, and am again struck by the article's quality. I've made a couple minor copyedits, feel free to revert. A few small questions:
- I'm curious why you used "clog dancing" vs "clogging"?
-
- I'm led to believe that "clogging" is an American term and "Clog dancing" is British. See here for a comparison. I can change if I'm wrong. Ss what do you think? -- Cassianto (talk)
- "Leno and Danvers formed a close relationship." Did they form the close relationship before or after Danvers joined the act?
- "Leno's clog dancing had become so good that he won the world championship". Was this in an age group or overall?
-
-
- I think that "world championship very clearly indicates that it was "overall". The addition of the word "overall" was awkward and did not add anything, so I deleted it. If the contest had a been an "age group" contest, then we would have had to say so, but I think this is better as is. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- "paying sixpence to see young Leno star in" I'm not sure about describing him as "young Leno" again here. He would have been 23, correct?
- "three of Leno's best known songs that depicted life". Should "best known" be hyphenated here?
- Alright, it's getting late here, I'll be back again tomorrow. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, back again. Fixes from last time look good to me.
- "The pantomime was a triumph, with theatres reporting record attendance." I'd suggest" "The pantomime was a triumph: theatres reported record attendance."
- There are fairly long quotes at the end of the "Pantomime" and "Later career" sections, perhaps block quotes.
-
- I took a look at these. They are both less than three lines. It is borderline as to whether they should be block quoted. Cassianto, if it looks better to you to use block quotes, and does not seem to interfere with the nearby images, feel free to go ahead. I previewed it with block quotes and prefer it without, but I don't feel strongly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not a big deal, but in the mid paragraph of "Later career" you start two sentences in a row with "Leno".
- There are a couple fairly short sentences in the last paragraph, not sure if there's a good solution though.
- Well, I can honestly say this was a pleasure to read, and I'm thankful for the work the nominators put into it. I'm now happy to Support its promotion to featured status. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments Support from Lobo. I'm leaning to support this lovely article, which I read through with ease and pleasure, but I have a couple of points:
- I feel like we need a little bit more about the significance of the Grand Order of Water Rats. It is seen as important enough to come in the introductory statements of the lead, but I doubt many people will know what it is (I had to look at the article) and why this was such a significant appointment. When I first read that sentence in the lead, I was sort of thinking "...so what?" Do you definitely think it was an important enough role to be mentioned so early on? It doesn't even get much attention in the article.
- Might be a good idea to mention in the lead that he started his career primarily as a dancer?
-
- Yes, definitely we should mention the clog dancing in the Lead. Done. Cassianto, is it true that he was "primarily" a clog dancer, even into the 1870s? When did his comic acting and singing became as important as the dancing? -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Just to clarify - Leno was an active clog dancer into at least the early 1870s where he won the belt. According to sources, Leno clog danced professionally until about 1875. Between then and 1885 it was the era of comedy sketches which incorporated dance (unknown if clog) with music hall and pantomime coming in the late 1880s and 1890s. I would say the importance of the acting and comedy commenced around the time he moved to London. -- Cassianto (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure the "List of Dan Leno performances" should be linked to as the "main article", since you arguably get more information on this page. I think "see also" would be better.
- His marriage is currently written about twice. I feel like it could quite easily be removed from the 1880s section, since it didn't seem to have any impact on his career at the time. Either way, I don't think it should get a full on description twice.
Leno was certainly an interesting chap, thank you for your work on the article. --Lobo (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Changes to the article have been made which I'm happy with, and I have switched to a full support. I think the new opening is a big improvement (although perhaps there should still be some mention of his charity work later in the lead?), thanks for that. There's still a bit of repetition re the marriage, but I understand now that there is a need to mention it both times. Yep, no complaints left from me. :) --Lobo (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
-
Delegate note -- Progressing well, still needs image review and source spotcheck by the look of it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Leno4.jpg: source given is British - when was this image published in the US? Current licensing tag may be incorrect, depending on answer. What is its copyright status in the UK? Same applies to File:Dan_Leno.jpg
- UK works with the PD-1923 tag should also have a tag indicating their status in the UK. The solution used by File:Leno_magazine.jpg is a good one
- File:Augustus_Harris.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (album)
I am nominating this for featured article because I created the article back in 2009, brought it to GA status, and now feel that it meets the FA criteria. The article is relatively short but I believe that it is a comprehensive account of an interesting storybook album. Pyrrhus16 11:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- FN 3: page(s)? Volume/issue number?
- FN 6: is this the online or print version? Missing some details here
- Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books or not
- Is there not a better source for release date than Box Office Mojo? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Added
- It was an online ref that went dead. I've now changed the ref to a book source.
- Removed the one location to make all book refs consistent.
- Changed ref to an article from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Thanks for your comments, Pyrrhus16 18:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Bankers' Toadies incident
- Nominator(s): Steve Smith (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
This is my first time here in a while, and I'm nominating an article on which most of the work was done a couple of years ago. It's short, but I believe it's comprehensive; about the only area that could be significantly expanded from reliable secondary sources if the background to the incident, and I've deliberately kept that fairly short to avoid just repeating material found in other articles. I also happen to believe that it's interesting, which makes it a pleasant change from most of the drek I submit. It's received good article and peer reviews, both of which significantly informed the article's content.
The obvious sourcing question is about my use of the Alberta Online Encyclopedia. It was published by the Alberta Heritage Community Foundation (though it's now been taken over by the University of Alberta, the pages that I'm citing don't yet seem to be online at the U of A's version), which partners with a wide variety of academic and archival institutions. While where possible I have preferred work by named, academic sources, I believe that the AOE is suitable as a source for the purposes for which I have used it. Steve Smith (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Additional point: I note that the linkchecker claims that the link to the audio of Unwin's account of the incident is dead; I have just confirmed that it is not. Steve Smith (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Welcome back! Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review.
- References should be after Notes
-
- Done.
- Don't italicize archive dates
-
- That's the template - I'll raise the possibility of changing it on the template talk page.
- Check for minor glitches like doubled periods
-
- Fixed the one instance of that. Had a quick scan and didn't see any other issues.
- Why link Toronto twice in References but not link Edmonton at all? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Because Toronto is a World Class City, and Edmonton is a clapboard outhouse. Steve Smith (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Ficus obliqua
I am nominating this for featured article because it got a thorough GA review (thanks J Milburn and Guettarda) and I think it's about as comprehensive as possible, and the equal in prose of other FAs I've done. Have at it. This is a wikicup nomination. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment - Well, you should double check that prose claim :P There's an error in the opening sentence, haha. No worries though, honest mistake. Also, you might want to revise usage of restrictive vs non-restrictive clauses throughout. I'll try reviewing this exhaustively as soon as possible. (: Auree ★★ 01:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Be consistent in use of "Retrieved on" vs "Retrieved"
- Be consistent in when you provide state for AU locations, and whether these are abbreviated
- Don't repeat cited sources in External links
- Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
- Use a consistent date formatting
- Always use endashes for ranges. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 25 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, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support
Commentsfrom Jim A few quibbles of course Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC) - I don't think we link countries, not even Australia
- Western Australia should either be lower case W if it's geographical, or linked to the state at the first occurrence (like Queensland) if that's what it means.
- Northern Territory and Brisbane need links
- Pacific Islands (x2) Not clear why "island" is capitalised. Note that the Pacific Island article (not linked) is internally inconsistent with regard to both capitalisation and definition.
- Distribution is a bit vague to say the least; we are told Pacific Islands, but only Tonga is mentioned. Does it occur on Hawaii? Easter Island? I appreciate that you may not be willing or able to list every island, but even Fiji and New Zealand don't get a mention.
- I have found getting details on Pacific Island distribution generally tricky to say the least. The source says only "throughout pacific islands" which is very frustrating. It definitely doesn't grow in NZ but I haven't seen a source which specifically states that.
I'l try and find some more sources for occurrences to give a better idea.found some more details which lists the islands I already know but is good to delineate. However I can only reiterate what the sources say. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have found getting details on Pacific Island distribution generally tricky to say the least. The source says only "throughout pacific islands" which is very frustrating. It definitely doesn't grow in NZ but I haven't seen a source which specifically states that.
- Buttress, fig wasp — link in lead?
- fruit ripen x 2 — I can see that this is grammatical, but it would read easier if one or other of the words gained an "s"
- although peak in autumn and winter — is there a word missing?
- flowers aligning an internal cavity — is aligning the right word here, can't visualised what is meant?
- Victorian — link required to avoid ambiguity
- Preferring high nutrient soils with high water content — too high
- Watling, Dick (2003). A Guide to the Birds of Fiji and Western Polynesia. Suva, Fiji: Environmental Consultants. p. 122. ISBN 982-9030-04-0. Many-coloured recorded as particularly fond of this fig. The pigeon's range in western Polynesia includes Fiji, Tonga, and both Samoas, if that helps.
- You make this tree sound quite innocuous, shouldn't strangler fig appear somewhere?
annoyingly strangler fig is listed as a disambig page, which if it has a description, probably shouldn't be. Will maybe do some rejigging and then link.bit easter eggy but linked in ecology section. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- amenities planting there — "there" may be redundant, shouldn't it be "amenity planting"?
-
-
- Cas, I'm not far off supporting, but I don't think the range is correct. I had a look around, and found this, this and this which suggest that the correct range, other than Australasia, includes eastern Indonesia and the south west Pacific (not all Pacific islands). This is consistent with the lack of info from islands further north or east than western Polynesia. Unrelated, I found some religious stuff. I'd like you to review these sources and see if you need to tweak. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, nice finds - missed the range on the Flora of Oz page which encapsulates it well (Sulawesi is west of the Moluccas). Fixed up now. I reffed p. 203 of that religious one. Frustrating as there are some pages missing from my googleview but obliqua is mostly mentioned only in passing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
-
-
Images are fine. All Wikipedian/Flickr-user created, licensing checks out. J Milburn (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Support A few quick thoughts from J Milburn. Delegates, I was a GA reviewer.
- "into dryer habitat" Can "habitat" be used like that?
- It may be worth noting how Ficus brachypoda can be differentiated from this species; they are clearly similar. Is it just the range?
- A range map would be helpful, but I appreciate that these are not always possible
- yeah this is a problem on two counts - the scaling would be tricky, having the east coast of Australia but spanning out to Sulawesi in one direction and out into the Pacific the other, but more trickily I am not sure about the range in the Moluccas, Sulawesi or in New Guinea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- "The habitat is warm temperate to moist subtropical rainforest as well as littoral rainforest." Could do with a restructure
- "the Geometer Moth species (Scopula epigypsa)" Remove the brackets?
- "its small leaves and trunk's propensity to thicken,[30] give it attributes optimal for a tree 10–80 cm (4–32 in) in height" odd comma use.
- "Barlow's specimen from Brisbane won a prize at the Bonsai Clubs International competition in 2006" His only specimen?
I also made a few edits- revert if need be. J Milburn (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Oxford United F.C.
I am nominating this for featured article because it has gone through many changes since both of the previous failed nominations some two and a half years ago. Has just been taken to Peer Review (although with very little response), so hopefully there should not be any major issues with the article. Any questions please drop a message on my talk page. Eddie6705 (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Source comments –
- What makes http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/ (reference 10) a reliable source? I've never seen this proved reliable at FAC before, and it has come up several times.
- I will work on trying to remove all mentions of the ref.
- If it helps, the website of English Premier League club Aston Villa F.C. credits the images of their kit down the years to HistoricalKits. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Dave Moor, the guy behind the site, has also had at least one book on football kits published by a mainstream publisher -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- If it helps, the website of English Premier League club Aston Villa F.C. credits the images of their kit down the years to HistoricalKits. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- I will work on trying to remove all mentions of the ref.
What makes http://www.oxkits.co.uk/ (ref 32) reliable?- Reference has been replaced.
- Same question for http://www.footballcrests.com/ (ref 71)
- Each club was contacted by the website to ask for their permission for the information to be shown on the site. As a result, most of the information is provided by the club. In the case of Oxford United, the information was provided by Chris Williams, who is the website & programme editor at Oxford.
- Is Tony Kempster (refs 89 and 90) some kind of recognized authority, or is this some fan site?
- This question was asked and resonded to here.
- Ref 76 could use a page number. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comments having a read-through - will jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Bottom bit of para 1 of First Division and cup success section needs inline citations.
-
- Lower part of para 2 in Financial problems section needs inline citations.
-
- There are some other uncited sentences at the end of paragraphs.
- Casliber, i have added citations to the areas highlghted and another section where i thought it was needed.Eddie6705 (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Good - the other thing I am concerned about is having books in Further reading sections, which leaves me wondering if they are important enough to list there then should they be used as references. I have The Soccer Tribe - was there something pertinent to Oxford you wanted in that I can look up...actually jogging my memory there is some stuff on songs IIRC.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- If there is anything in the book about kits or the history of the kits then that would be great. Apart from that nothing else springs to mind. Unfortunately i dont have a copy of any of the books listed in further reading, so i wouldn't be able to reference from any of them. Eddie6705 (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Good - the other thing I am concerned about is having books in Further reading sections, which leaves me wondering if they are important enough to list there then should they be used as references. I have The Soccer Tribe - was there something pertinent to Oxford you wanted in that I can look up...actually jogging my memory there is some stuff on songs IIRC.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Casliber, i have added citations to the areas highlghted and another section where i thought it was needed.Eddie6705 (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- There are some other uncited sentences at the end of paragraphs.
Ahalya
- Nominator(s): Redtigerxyz Talk 17:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Ahalya is a paradoxical figure in Hindu myth, venerated and condemned and who has become famous in legend due to her seduction by the king of the gods. The article returns to FAC, after two months of several constructive edits and comments (PR and talk) by various editors (in order of appearance): User:Mark Arsten, User:Saravask, User:Indian Chronicles, User:Rothorpe, User:Alarbus, User:Allens and User:Accedie. IMO, Ahalya is ready for another FAC as the improvements in the last two months have addressed the prose and reference related concerns in the last nomination. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support
CommentsA scholarly piece of work on a topic of which I know little. I'll go through in more detail later, but just a couple of comments for now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
-
Today is not the right day for pleasure." Ahalya protests, maintaining that she imagines Gautama to be Indra as they have sex and that a woman should be a stone, forgoing all thought of pleasure. That night, when Ahalya longs for conjugal pleasure — too much "pleasure"?- Reworded.
It's not clear to me why Buddhist Thailand should have a version of this- I'm not sure what is the point of the Zeus legend at the end. There are similar tales in Roman, Celtic and Arthurian legend, and unless there is a direct link between the Indian and Greek versions it seems arbitrary to pick this one.
- Scholars have linked Ahalya and Alceme (but not any of the other counterparts).
- Thanks for your comments. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- (Zeus reply) That's not clear from your text, is it worth adding a footnote to clarify why you have selected this particular tale? Final comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- It is scholars like Söhnen and Doniger who relate (select) and contrast Alceme with Ahalya, the Greek Zeus is often compared to the Hindu Indra in other contexts too. The stories may have influenced each other. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- I tend to agree with Allens that "repercussions" reads better than "consequences"
-
- Hints of a relationship with Indra in the Brahmanas — bit clunky as a heading, seems more like a summary, wouldn't Brahmanas do?
-
- How about "Hints of a relationship with Indra"??--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'd suggest wikilinking mediaeval, petrification, iconographic, benediction, cyclonic and neurologist.
-
- mediaeval: no proper article available that talks about Hindu/India in mediaeval times. mediaeval India is a stub. petrification is about the scientific process, not this supernatural one. Benediction, like the Foot washing article (which I wanted to link) are about Christian concepts (not Hindu). Linked others. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- The spelling of mediaeval looks old-fashioned even to me, as a Brit of a certain age, but it's obviously not wrong, so your call.
- Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore (x2). He may be a great man, but we only need to be told he's a Nobel laurate once, I think.
- "Marxist critic" If it's a factual/generally accepted description, you don't need quote marks. If it is a quotation, it should be attributed and followed immediately by a reference.
-
- Done rest.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- I note that there are content-related issues below, but for my part I'm happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the support.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment
Oppose for nowThe nominator characterizes the issues of the first FAC as those of prose. This is incorrect. The main issue was that the source material had been inadequately digested and was consequently inadequately integrated. Errors of coherence abounded. No amount of corralling of well-meaning and capable copy-editors can resolve that problem. (I'm traveling and don't have much time, and certainly little time to respond, so the delegates may treat my oppose as a comment.) Here are some issues in the first paragraph of the lead: - "is described in Hindu mythology as the wife of the sage Gautama"
- It is possible that she is indeed described as "the wife of the sage Gautama," but in the one early translation of the Ramayana that I checked, her first mention is not a description, but rather an allusion. Thus when Rama asks:
"'O reverend lord, I long to know
What hermit dwelt here long ago.'
Then to the prince his holy guide,
Most eloquent of men, replied : ...
This was the grove—most lovely then—
Of Gautam, O thou best of men.
Like heaven itself, most honoured by
The Gods who dwell above the sky.
Here with Ahalya at his side
His fervid task the ascetic plied."
It is more likely that she is presented/is depicted/alluded to/appears in Hindu mythology as the wife of Gautama.- This seems to be an extract from Bala Kanda, where Vishvamitra describes Ahalya's tale. Most scriptures do not allude to her as the sage's wife, but describe her tale. Reworded. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- It is possible that she is indeed described as "the wife of the sage Gautama," but in the one early translation of the Ramayana that I checked, her first mention is not a description, but rather an allusion. Thus when Rama asks:
- as the wife of the sage Gautama
- As before, the author is adamant about making an obscure point about the Hindu sage Gautama Maharishi being the original Gautama, even though the link Gautama pipes to Gautama Buddha, who too is a sage, and likely a better known one. By insisting on "as the wife of the sage [[Gautama Maharishi|Gautama]]" instead of "the wife of a sage called Gautama" or "the wife of a Hindu sage Gautama" or "the wife of the sage Gautama Maharishi", the author ends up confusing an average reader.
- Done. Anyway, "Gautama" is a patronymic of the Buddha/Sakyas, which refers to this Gautama. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- As before, the author is adamant about making an obscure point about the Hindu sage Gautama Maharishi being the original Gautama, even though the link Gautama pipes to Gautama Buddha, who too is a sage, and likely a better known one. By insisting on "as the wife of the sage [[Gautama Maharishi|Gautama]]" instead of "the wife of a sage called Gautama" or "the wife of a Hindu sage Gautama" or "the wife of the sage Gautama Maharishi", the author ends up confusing an average reader.
- Ahalya's seduction by Indra, the king of the gods, and its consequences form the central narrative of her story in all scriptural sources for her life.
- "and its consequences" It is more likely that these are repercussions, since some of them are remote effects, happening thousands of years later.
- After being told Ahalya is a figure of Hindu mythology, we are told about sources in scripture. An average reader might not make the connection that "mythology" and "scripture" are one and the same here. Why does "scripture" need to be mentioned?
- We haven't been told the story yet, but yet are being told about "central narratives."
- The act results in a curse being placed on her by Gautama and her subsequent liberation by Rama, an avatar of the god Vishnu.
- Do you mean "and in her subsequent ...?"
- If you are not going to tell us what the curse is, it is better to say "and in the lifting of the curse by Rama" and not "liberation." I can think of some curses (e.g. Adam, because he hearkened unto the voice of his wife, was cursed to eat bread in the sweat of his brow.) whose lifting is not exactly liberation (at least not from some perspectives).
- I have still not figured out why "an avatar of god Vishnu" is needed this early in the article, when Rama is better known to an average Wikipedia reader than Vishnu.
-
-
- (edit conflict) Removed and reorganized. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Ahalya is extolled as the first of the panchakanya ("five virgins"), archetypes of female chastity whose names are believed to dispel sin if recited.
- The reader is given no clue about why the meager details provided thus far have any remote connection with "virginity," "chastity," and the dispelling of sin. Either don't mention this or at least first hint at a meaningful connection.
- And if not recited? (Don't put the conditional at the end.)
- This is as meaningful as it gets in Hinduism. Hindus believe virgins/chaste women help dispel sin.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- The revised version looks ok, to me, but I would suggest possibly clarifying who extols Ahalya, something like, "In Hinduism, Ahalya is extolled as..." or maybe "In traditional Hinduism...". Mark Arsten (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- This is as meaningful as it gets in Hinduism. Hindus believe virgins/chaste women help dispel sin.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- While her loyalty to her husband and her undaunted acceptance of the curse and gender norms is praised by some, others condemn her as an adulteress and a fallen woman.
- We have still not been told the story, what meaning does "undaunted acceptance" have then? This is not an abstract for journal article written for an insider crowd. It is the lead of an article in an encyclopedia.
- Gender norms? What gender norms?
- Semantically incorrect opposition for a "while" clause. The proper opposition would be something like, "While her loyalty ... is praised by some, it is condemned by others as feebly feminine etc" OR "While some praise her loyalty to her husband, others condemn her adultery."
The author needs to explain the source material in accessible and coherent language. As it stands, the article has many of the same weaknesses as the first FAC version. If the author is planning to ask other copy-editors to work on the article, they in turn will need to ask more often, "What does this mean in simple language?" Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm... in simple language :-}, are you asking for the lead material to be rearranged so that the story is first and then the importance is discussed? Allens (talk | contribs) 17:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) with Allens: Thanks for your comments. I have addressed the issues in the lead. Please elaborate other issues in the article. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Most of Fowler&fowler's suggested wording changes to the lead seem Ok, but I disagree about mythology vs scripture. The terms certainly seem to be used correctly to me, just how ignorant do we expect the "average reader" to be? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
CommentsSupported, see below I supported this last time, and read over the article and helped a bit with the copyediting in the mean time. Overall it looks pretty good, a few comments:- The second paragraph of "Hints of a relationship with Indra" is a little confusing to me, though part of it is all the Sanskrit (?) words, but specifically where you have "although Kaushika (interpreted as equivalent to Gautama) is present in the story". It prompts the question who interprets it that way? You mention Söhnen-Thieme in the next sentence, maybe some note about whether this is the general consensus might be helpful if there's a good source for it.
- This seems to be the general scholarly interpretation. Both Feller and Söhnen-Thieme say the same. The ref for whole para are 22 (Feller 2004, pp. 132–5.), 23 (Söhnen 1991, p. 73) [Söhnen is now publishes as Söhnen-Thieme]. No other Ahalya-specific references cover the Brahmanas in detail. Added 1 more ref. Please let me know how can I simplify the section more.--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Same thing with "(regarded as a later addition to the epic)" in the next section "regarded by most scholars" might be a better way to say it.
- This is an [almost - if there exists that opposes this] unanimous general scholarly thought. The last Book of the Ramayana (not only the Ahalya episode) is widely regarded as a later addition. I have never come any book says that last Book was part of the original. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- "In the Uttar Kanda, Indra rapes Ahalya." Having a short sentence like this in between longer ones doesn't seem to flow very well to me.
- Reworded. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Ahalya, engrossed in worshipping the gods, rejects him, considering it inappropriate to have sex at the cost of neglecting the gods." Is there a good way to avoid the repetition of "the gods" here?
- Reworded. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- "When Brahma creates Ahalya as the most beautiful being, she falls in love with Indra and longs for him, but Brahma grants her to Gautama. Even after Ahalya's marriage, the lovers continue to meet in Gautama's absence." Some more explanation might be helpful, you say they continue to meet but it isn't really clear to in the previous sentence that they met and were lovers. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Reworded. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Made it down to "Modern renditions", looking good thus far. I made a few teaks, feel free to revert.
- One thing I saw, in the "Other variants" section you mention Chirakari, he's explained further down, but a little more explanation of who he is here would help. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Gautama orders his son Chirakari to behead his "polluted" mother" For the moment, this is enough IMO as the focus is Gautama's reaction.
Thanks for your comments and your edits. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, fixes look good to me, I'll think about that last one and try to finish reading over the article soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- "contemporary writers focus on Ahalya.[53] Ahalya has been examined in a new light by several modern writers..." Is there a good way to tighten this up (and maybe avoid the ...Ahalya. Ahayla...)?
- Reorganized.
- Maybe include some dates in the third paragraph of "Modern renditions". Also, part of me thinks it should be the first or second paragraph in that section.
- Done
- Try to be consistent about whether "Explanatory notes" (letters) come before or after "Citations" (numbers).
- Done
- "S. Sivasekaram's 1980 Tamil poem Ahalikai questions Ahalya's life with regard to the stone metaphor that appears in the story:" Reads a bit awkward to me.
- Reworded. Is it better?
- "The character of Ahalya played by Kamala Kotnis in the 1949 movie Sati Ahalya ("chaste Ahalya") was described as still relevant" Maybe add in-text attribution of who said this.
- Done.
- "the practice of retelling the classical Ahalya–Indra tale in a contemporary setting is not new." Is there a better way to say this than "not new"?
- Can't think of one.
- "After death, they reunite in their next birth." A little more explanation might be helpful here.
- Linked reincarnation. In scholarly literature, "Next birth" is the term used for the life, one is reborn as.
- Do we know what "Vellala" derives from?
- Source does not have any info about it.
- "Bathing in the tirtha is said to bring pleasure with the celestial nymphs." I'm not quite clear what you're saying here.
- If one bathes in the tirtha, he will enjoy pleasure with the nymphs.
- The two sentences in the second to last paragraph seem thrown together, is there a better place to put them?
- Both are related to Ahalya as a symbol of exploitation of women.
- Maybe note in the last paragraph that scholars have made this link, if nothing else it would help fend of complaints about OR.
- Alright, this is looking good, not too many issues I could spot. Definitely a difficult task to structure all this information, but I think you've basically succeeded. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actioned most of your concerns. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, fixes look good, I am now happy to Support this article's promotion to featured status. Also, good job to the nominator for sticking with this for so long, researching and writing this must have been a herculean effort. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actioned most of your concerns. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the support and your edits to the article. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a need to link languages like Punjabi and Tamil in the article? Secret of success (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. IMO, linked language articles inform the reader about the details about Indic language: where it is spoken/used and by whom. A Western reader may not know the geographical scope of Punjabi or Tamil. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Then, isn't it sufficient to link them once in the article? In some sections, they are not at all linked, while they are done so in the others. I believe uniformity is supposed to be a necessity here. Secret of success (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have added links and cross-checked that languages are linked only once and at first instance. Indra and Rama links were linked twice. I have removed the links.--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Then, isn't it sufficient to link them once in the article? In some sections, they are not at all linked, while they are done so in the others. I believe uniformity is supposed to be a necessity here. Secret of success (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. IMO, linked language articles inform the reader about the details about Indic language: where it is spoken/used and by whom. A Western reader may not know the geographical scope of Punjabi or Tamil. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Right then, I'm rendering my opinion as Support. The article is comprehensive, fully referenced and satisfies all the points of the FA critera. Even the minor issues which were raised have been addressed well. With regards, Secret of success (talk) 06:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
This article still appears to need an image review and a source spotcheck. Ucucha (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
May Revolution
- Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because it is a key event in the history of Argentina, and I have worked a lot with it. I worked first with Argentine books, as those made the most comprehensive study of this topic (not surprising), but I checked some books in English as well. I have also trimmed down some parts to related articles, but trying to keep this as an article that could be understood on its own, having in mind that most readers from outside Argentina or even South America are unlikely to have even a clue on who were this people or the events described.
All the issues pointed during the previous nominations were addressed by then. This article has been promoted to A-Class by the Military History wikiproject. Cambalachero (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments by North8000 Not a thorough review of any criteria, just comments. A well written, very informative, very encyclopedic article. Two minor suggestions. The 3rd sentence in the second paragraph of the lead is very confusing. "Loss" to who? Seems to say that the uprising caused loss of territory to its side, but an uprising doesn't have territory to start with. Suggest clarification. Also it goes into details about the Primera Junta without introducing it with a sentence that simply states what it is. Suggest adding that sentence. Overall, nice work! North8000 (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, yes, the Spanish uprising (which I clarified) was indeed controlling sectors of the country, lost during the Napoleonic advance. I shouldn't go into more detail, as long as the info is correct and possible to understand on its own, as the peninsular war is a background topic, not "the" topic of this article. Cambalachero (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments by Eisfbnore
- Lead
-
- "The Supreme Junta retreated to Cadiz and dissolved itself, being replaced by the Council of Regency of Spain and the Indies." – I don't very much like the participial construction in this sentence; I'd try "..., and was replaced by" (see WP:PLUSING).
- "Viceroy Cisneros tried to conceal the news in order to maintain the political status quo, but a group of criollo lawyers and military officials organized an open cabildo (an extraordinary meeting of notables of the city) on May 22 to decide the future of the Viceroyalty" – 'in order to' is an unnecessarily verbose formulation; try 'to' instead.
- "However, this caused a great deal of popular unrest" – 'a great deal' is a touch informal; perhaps try "However, this caused much popular unrest".
- Causes section
-
- "With the overthrow and execution of King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette, that revolution brought to an end centuries of monarchy" – a more logical English phrase order would be "With the overthrow and execution of King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette, that revolution brought centuries of monarchy to an end".
- "Books from the United States found their way into the Spanish colonies through Caracas, due to the proximity of Venezuela to the United States and the West Indies." – swap the adjectival 'due to' for the adverbial 'owing to', as its antecedent is not the verb 'to be'.
- Prelude section
-
- I have no quibbles regarding this section
More to come. Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 16:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Done Cambalachero (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- May week section
-
- "The May Week was the period of time in Buenos Aires beginning with the confirmation of the fall of the Supreme Central Junta and ending with the dismissal of Cisneros and the establishment of the Primera Junta" – Disagree you may, but I would honestly challenge you to remove every third gerund-participle construction in the article. Please try it; swap 'beginning' for 'which began' and 'ending' with 'ended' and you'll see the prose certainly be improved. The same goes for the next sentence – "On May 14, 1810, the British war schooner HMS Mistletoe arrived at Buenos Aires from Gibraltar with European newspapers reporting the dissolution of the Supreme Central Junta the previous January." – WP:PLUSING explicitly recommends against present participles after nouns.
-
- "Leiva left the Cabildo and Belgrano, representing the crowd, requested a definitive commitment" – Alas, I'm too thick to understand what this sentence is trying to tell me. Are there words missing?
Eisfbnore (下さいて話し) 11:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Done: I changed most "-ing" verbs with other variants. Cambalachero (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
-
Comment: I'm not comfortable copyediting this one ... again and again, I keep wondering how often the Spanish phrases turn up in English sources, and how familiar English-speakers are with the words, concepts, geography and history. I don't have a good sense of any of this. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm aware that this is an obscure topic in English literature, and none of the people mentioned is likely known by readers. That issue has been adressed before, and all the people mentioned has descriptions of their office or role in the event. Readers may not know, for example, who are Cisneros or Cornelio Saavedra, but being told that they are the viceroy or the commander of the army, they know enough to understand the article. If you noticed something that needs further explanations say so, otherwise, this is a non-actionable complain. Cambalachero (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not complaining, I'm saying I don't know what I need to know to do a copyeditor's job here. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments by Wilhelmina Will:
- Introduction: After familiarizing myself with the FA criteria, I examined the intro, and as far as I can see, it checks out. The image in the infobox is validly licensed and used appropriately, the infobox itself is well-structured, and the intro is very informative for a quick summarizing read - I also doubt that it is overly detailed, considering the length of the article. ;) I'm afraid I'll have to review the sections of this article a bit sporadically, as I have many things to do both in Wikipedia and out, but I'll review the first of the body sections as soon as possible. Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. Take the time you need, there are more or less two or three weeks to get reviews before FACs are closed. Just try, if possible, to make some review before that. Cambalachero (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
This nomination needs more reviews. All things said so far have been adressed. Cambalachero (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Support Comments from Noleander (prose only)
- Better word: " was the disintegration of the territories ..." - word "disintegration" needs to be defined/explained here. Some readers mat think it means extermination. Or replace it with a more precise word that is not as ambiguous.
- Need time context: "The Council of Regency, the Royal Audiencia of Buenos Aires and the peninsulars opposed the new situation.[156] The Royal Audiencia secretly ..." - What day/week is this happening? in general, every section beginning should mention a date.
- Better word: "The rioters were led ..." - Rioters may not be right, since that implies violence, vandalism, out-of-doors. Maybe protestors? Or demonstrators?
- Better word: " on whether this was genuine or not." "Sincere" may be better than genuine.
- "The May Revolution declared loyalty to Ferdinand VII of Spain." - Is the "May Revolution" an person/group or an event? Only persons/groups can declare loyalty.
- Link: need to link first occurrence of word "junta" by itself.
- Web site: I dont think the web site belongs in the InfoBox. I'd move it to the "External LInks" section. A URL in the infoBox should only be used for the official site of the organization/company, which in this case, there is none.
- Leaning towards support: the article appears very detailed & comprehensive; and the prose is generally very good. I'm not at all familiar with the topic, but it does not seem to have any POV issues. It would be nice if a Latin American historian could give a vote of confidence.
End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Done. I mentioned in the first paragraph of the "Aftermath" section that the secret swore of allegiance and exile took place a moth later, but have in mind that the section is a summary of events that took place in a period of several years after the event itself of the article (as it would be expected from an "Aftermath" section). If I mentioned the dates of everything in there, it would double the section size and become harder to read. It is correct that "rioter" implies more violence than "demonstrator", but that's precisely why I used the word. When we say "demonstrators" we don't think in armed men or in people that actually overrun the buildings next to the protest, so the word may give a ligther idea of the situation than it really was. I agree that the link seemed somewhat out of place in an infobox about a historical event, but there's a field for it, and I thought I had to fill it; I moved it to the external links. Thanks for the review Cambalachero (talk) 23:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
SMS Ostfriesland
Another German battleship, this vessel is probably best known for being sunk by Billy Mitchell's bombers off the Virginia Capes in 1921. I wrote this article in January 2011, when it also passed a GA review, and it passed a MILHIST ACR in August (see here). I think the article is at or near FA quality, and I look forward to working with reviewers during the nomination. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments. - Dank (push to talk)
- "Fürstin of Innhausen und Knyphausen": This would be easier to read, and would be transparent to Germans as well, as "Princess of Innhausen and Knyphausen". I don't care one way or the other if you add a translation in the footnotes.
- "Kapitän zur See": MisterBee suggested we set up a page giving best practices for using German in ship articles, and that would be great ... and any general principles that you guys agree on will probably be fine with me. I think German works a little better untranslated than other languages, because it's so close to English. (We should also probably have a page somewhere explaining that German is a little easier for English-speakers to read than it appears at first glance, as long as you know that 5 out of 6 words in English running text tend to originate from German, with some letters transposed and some morphed ... so in Kapitän zur See, the t and i transposed, and K morphed to C, z to t, u to o, and e to a, all common morphs. zur is a contraction of zu der.) Some German is also quite common in English sources on WWI and WWII. Still, I think we should always look for ways to quickly and unobtrusively make the meaning clear to English-speakers and German-speakers at the same time, and try to avoid 20-letter words with 15 consonants when possible :) - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. I don't think there's "too much German" here, my only request is that ship people get together and come up with some general guidelines on using German in ship articles. I recently mentioned that I'm cutting back on copyediting and supporting, but it would just be rude not to support on prose when I've already reviewed and supported this article before. - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments
- Is the Princess notable in her own right? And do we have an article on her title? If so link them.
- Not that I know - we don't have an article for her or her title, as far as I know.
- Consider adding a drawing or picture that illustrates the hexagonal turret arrangement.
- I tracked down a linedrawing in the 1922 Britannica.
- Torpedo diameter conversion differs between infobox and main body.
- Horsepower is missing from main body.
- How thick was her barbette armor?
- Link keel.
- Ostfriesland and the rest of I Squadron were sortied Delete the helping verb.
- It would probably be a good idea to start the individual battle squadron articles, even if they're only stubs. That way people can figure out their hybrid name a bit more easily if you provide the original German name in the stub.
- Probably worth clarifying that Slava was a predreadnought.
- Isn't it already?
- What does this mean? The German battlecruisers were steaming to starboard, while the British ships steamed to port.
- The German line was steaming in the middle, between the British and German battlecruiser squadrons.
- Typo alert: and killed then entire 857-man crew
- Might be worth clarifying that Osfriedland was stationary when attacked by Mitchell's boys.
- Images are good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Be consistent in whether ranges are abbreviated or not
- Check for consistency in notation of books published in NYC. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment by MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs)
- Sorry for asking but regarding Kaiserschießpreis and Friedrich der Grosse, isn't that inconsistent usage of the ß (Eszett)? MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Some of your other aricles use a footnote to explain what Ersatz means. I think this is very helpful and should be considered here too. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
John Sherman Cooper
Since my next Kentucky governor FAC is still undergoing an A-class review, I bring you U.S. Senator John Sherman Cooper. The son of a local political family, Cooper held some minor offices and ran unsuccessfully for governor in 1939. Later, he served under George Patton in World War II, earning the Bronze Star Medal for reorganizing the Bavarian judicial system. He served two partial terms in the Senate before being appointed Ambassador to India by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. During the Cold War, he tried to steer the new Indian state away from Communism. After his third partial term in the Senate, he was finally elected to a full term in 1960. He became one of only a few Republican voices in the Senate that opposed escalation of the Vietnam War. His final act of public service was as Ambassador to East Germany in the mid-1970s.
This article successfully underwent both a GA review and a MILHIST A-class review. I look forward to responding to comments as quickly as possible. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 20:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support I thought that this article was of FA class when I commented on its A class review and am happy to see that it's been nominated; great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments. Some of these are explained at WP:Checklist. - Dank (push to talk)
- "to the time": I'd go with "up to that time".
- "a partial term the Senate": a partial term in the Senate
- "recently-independent": recently independent
- "Newly-elected": Newly elected
- "advocating for": usually a transitive verb
- "He died in a Washington, D.C. retirement home on February 21, 1991 ...": a two-fer. See WP:Checklist#second comma.
- "of the seven children born to": of seven children born to
- "who were active in": active in
- "worked delivering newspapers, in railroad yards, and his father's coal mines": See WP:Checklist#series
- "that the could not": that he could not - Dank (push to talk) 03:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed all these. I know you will have more. Always appreciate your thorough reviews. May not be on-wiki this weekend to respond to comments. Will hopefully be watching the Cats play their way to a second straight Final Four. :) Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- See you there. - Dank (push to talk) 13:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Tough break for the Heels with Marshall's wrist. Before all that, I indeed had a Cats and Heels title game. Not sure they can do it without Marshall, but you guys were fortunate to get Ohio as your first game without him. Good luck to you folks as well (for the next 3 games, anyway!) Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- See you there. - Dank (push to talk) 13:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed all these. I know you will have more. Always appreciate your thorough reviews. May not be on-wiki this weekend to respond to comments. Will hopefully be watching the Cats play their way to a second straight Final Four. :) Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:37, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- "and was formerly the law partner": Better is "and had been the law partner" or "and the former law partner".
- "Lexington circuit court judge and former Congressman King Swope": Some readers find this easier to parse: "King Swope, a Lexington circuit court judge and former congressman"
- "Even though at 41 years old, he was well above the draft age,": Look for opportunities to remove forms of "to be" and synonyms per WP:Checklist#conciseness. "Even though well above the draft age at 41 years old,"
- "an immediately-offered officer's commission": sounds more Germanic than English to me
- "Patton ordered ordered": a no-no.
- "hotly-contested": search for "ly-" throughout
- "Washington, D.C. proved": Check for second commas throughout. Use "Washington, D.C.," or "Washington D.C." since those still have more support in relevant style guides, although I admit second commas are waning, certainly in journalistic prose.
- "war surplus material": material or materiel?
- "veterans injured as prisoner of war": prisoners
- "In the area of organized labor, he opposed bans on industrywide collective bargaining ...": More common is "He opposed bans on industrywide collective bargaining for organized labor ..."
- "vocally opposing ... and resisted ...": vocally opposing ... and resisting
- "At the end of his partial term in the Senate, he had voted with the Republicans just 51% of the time – the lowest average of any member of the party. Despite his party independence, Cooper headed the Kentucky delegation to the 1948 Republican National Convention.": Although he had voted with the Republicans just 51% of the time during his partial term – the lowest average of any member of the party – Cooper headed the Kentucky delegation to the 1948 Republican National Convention.
- "that created North Atlantic Treaty Organization": that created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
- "cautioning that "Many ... ": cautioning that "many ..., or cautioning, "Many ...
- "U.S.-India relations": At FAC, U.S.–India relations
- "file a formal protest to": file a formal protest with
- "the largest sale of surplus agricultural products by the United States to any country to that time in history": I'd go with: "the largest sale ever of surplus agricultural products by the United States to any country". Bad suggestion on my part, I fixed it.
- So far so good
Except as above.My comments cover two-thirds of the article, down to John Sherman Cooper#Later service in the Senate, and this is all I have time to do on this one. I've asked for help finishing up at WT:MHC#FACs that need copyediting attention. - Dank (push to talk) 15:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)- Should all be addressed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, all addressed. - Dank (push to talk) 21:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Should all be addressed. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- No citations to Senate Historical Office biography
- Watch for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
- Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
- File:John_Sherman_Cooper_bust.jpg: what is the copyright status of the bust? The US does not have freedom of panorama for sculpture
- Not sure. I didn't know that a 2D representation of a 3D sculpture would have the same copyright status as the sculpture itself. The sculpter died in 1998, and the bust was installed in the capitol in 1987. None of these indicate any kind of PD status on account of age. That's all I know about it. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- File:Dwight_D._Eisenhower,_official_Presidential_portrait.jpg: source link is dead
- File:JohnShermanCooper.jpg is tagged as lacking author and date info. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, which seldom gives that info. I've looked for another image that I can provide that information for, but surprisingly, for someone who was so active for so long at the federal level, there isn't much. The few that are at Commons are all either from a good distance or from the side. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 18:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Giraffe
- Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Giving this another try. It came close last time but had paraphasing issues which have now been corrected. LittleJerry (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This article still has an open peer review. Per step one of the FAC instructions, this should be closed before nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- I thought that I did close it. LittleJerry (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- I closed it. There is a step you have to take on the PR page itself also. --Laser brain (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC
- I thought that I did close it. LittleJerry (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support on prose and comprehensiveness - pending source checks for paraphrasing or veering away from sources. I've looked at this article quite a few times that I don't feel up to spot-checking sources Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, just so you know, I listed my biggest paraphasing concerns here. Laserbrain tought that they were good enough. LittleJerry (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
From the lead section, paragraph 1: "The giraffe is noted for its extremely long neck and legs and prominent horns." Is it really noted for "prominent horns"? I could see that statement applied to the rhinoceros, but not the giraffe.Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
From the lead section, paragraph 2: "They prefer areas with plenty of acacia trees, which are important food sources, and can browse at heights that most other herbivores cannot reach." I don't think that the word "most" is required.Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Males establish social hierarchies through "neckings"." Is "necking" a countable noun, with the plural "neckings"?Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Fixed. But you already reviewed the article. LittleJerry (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- From "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", "G. c. angolensis": "One genetic study on Smoky giraffes suggests that the northern Namib Desert and Etosha National Park populations form a distinct subspecies." What are "Smoky giraffes"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- I have no idea what you mean. It does not declare Namibian giraffes a seperate subspecies, the title states "Genetic structure of two populations of the Namibian giraffe, Giraffa camelopardalis angolensis [some subspecific name as Angolan giraffe]". Why on earth would I leave the reference without a sentence for it to source? LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- I mean that in the Wikipedia article, placement of G. c. angolensis in the "subspecies" section implicitly implies that it is a distinct subspecies. Therefore saying "this study shows that G. c. angolensis is a subspecies" is redundant. Most of the other subspecies use Pellow as the reference. G. c. angolensis does not. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- No the study suggests that certain populations of the Namibian giraffe may belong to their own subspecies. Not that the Namibian giraffe is its own subspecies. LittleJerry (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- I mean that in the Wikipedia article, placement of G. c. angolensis in the "subspecies" section implicitly implies that it is a distinct subspecies. Therefore saying "this study shows that G. c. angolensis is a subspecies" is redundant. Most of the other subspecies use Pellow as the reference. G. c. angolensis does not. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have no idea what you mean. It does not declare Namibian giraffes a seperate subspecies, the title states "Genetic structure of two populations of the Namibian giraffe, Giraffa camelopardalis angolensis [some subspecific name as Angolan giraffe]". Why on earth would I leave the reference without a sentence for it to source? LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
-
From "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", is it really necessary to add the disclosure "based on ISIS records" with every subspecies zoo population? An in-line citation is included for every statement.Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- From "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", last paragraph: "Although giraffes from these populations interbreed freely in captivity, suggesting that they are subspecific populations, a 2007 study published in BMC Biology has suggested that there may be at least six species of giraffe that are reproductively isolated and do not interbreed." The paragraph is already referenced to the BMC article. Perhaps delete "a 2007 study published in BMC Biology has suggested that"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Changed. the first part is not sourced to the study. 17:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- The text now reads "A 2007 study published in BMC Biology has suggested that at least six of of these subspecies—the West African, Rothchild's, reticulated, Maasai, Angolan and South African giraffes—may in fact be separate species as they are reproductively isolated and do not interbreed, even though no natural obstacles, such as mountain ranges or impassable rivers, block their mutual access." I'm not convinced that this is the appropriate conclusion from the reference. I would appreciate other comments about this, especially from anyone with expert knowledge and/or affiliation with WikiProject Mammals. (In WikiProject Medicine, this type of article would be considered a primary source.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Changed. the first part is not sourced to the study. 17:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Fine, changed it. LittleJerry (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
From "Appearance and anatomy", paragraph 1: "Giraffes are capable of seeing in color." Perhaps "Giraffes have color vision"?Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Not done. Thats too close to the source. Can we please not focus on minor things like this? LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please don't become frustrated. The FA standard is deliberately high and I am trying to help you achieve it here.
- The word "capable" implies that the giraffe can choose to do this. How about "Giraffes see in color"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Not done. Thats too close to the source. Can we please not focus on minor things like this? LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
From "Appearance and anatomy", paragraph 2: "There are at least eleven main aromatic chemicals in the fur." Does "aromatic" in this context refer to "aromaticity"?Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- I guess. This line was here before I came on to build the article to GA. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
From "Appearance and anatomy", subsection "Neck", paragraph 2: "The point of articulation between the cervical and thoracic vertebrae of giraffes is shifted to lie between the first and second thoracic vertebrae (T1 and T2), rather than between the seventh cervical vertebra (C7) and T1, as in most other ruminants." In most other ruminants, is the main articulation between T1 and T2 or between C7 and T1?Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- C7 and T1 for other ruminants. It says so clearly. LittleJerry (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- The textbook "Mammal Anatomy: An Illustrated Guide" by Marshall Cavendish has quite a bit more info available about the giraffe's anatomy. I can go about adding this, if you think it would be helpful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- No thanks. I got rid of it as a source because of too many errors in it. We have enought RS. LittleJerry (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's a shame. There is a lot of anatomical information in Mammal Anatomy that could be added. The only error that I found was the description of the recurrent laryngeal nerve, which is commonly misunderstood in the literature. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I think the article covers all the major anatomical features. LittleJerry (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- No thanks. I got rid of it as a source because of too many errors in it. We have enought RS. LittleJerry (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Information in "Mammal Anatomy" that is not currently in the article:-
Hooves: up to 6 inches across in males; up to 4 inches across in femalesUnlike okapi, the hooves do not have scent glands- Neck vertebrae have opisthocoelous joints
Each cervical vertebra is over 11 inches long- Unusually small brain, 1.5 pounds, possibly to reduce the energy required to perfuse it
High heart rate: 150 beats/minuteOesophageal muscles are strong to allow regurgitation (rumination) of foodLike other ruminants, the giraffe's stomach has four chambersSmall liver- No gall bladder
Intestines are up to 280 feet longBorn feet firstMales reach sexual maturity at seven years, females at four years
Errors in "Mammal Anatomy":-
- Diagram shows pink tongue
- Left recurrent laryngeal nerve
- Rapid respiratory rate
Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- In particular, the last sentence of the "Internal systems" subsection: "The digestive system of the giraffe has a smaller ratio of small to large intestine than that of domestic cattle." seems to have been tacked on to the end of the paragraph about the cardiovascular system. The info in Mammal Anatomy could be used to expand the gastrointestinal text, and used to create a new paragraph. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- From "Appearance and anatomy", subsection "Internal systems", paragraph 1: "These factors increase the resistance to airflow which gives the animal a slow respiratory rate." I removed the comment about respiratory rate, but you re-inserted it. Mitchell's introduction presents conflicting information in preceding literature. However the study itself goes on to say "these data confirm that allometric respiratory rates for mammals in general and giraffes are similar. The average resting RR that we calculated for the giraffes of the range of body masses in our sample was 10.1 ± 1.5 b.p.m (range 8.3 for the largest giraffe and 14.6 for the smallest)." Also, during exertion, the giraffe's respiratory rate increases while the tidal volume does not. Interestingly, Mammal Anatomy quotes a high respiratory rate. [Disclosure: I am a pulmonologist] Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Birthing and parental care", paragraph 1: "both amniotic sac and umbilical cord usually break when the newborn falls to the ground." Surely the amniotic sac breaks before the newborn falls? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Some of that information was there before but I learned though personal contact with Mitchell that it was wrong. (e. g. the brain, respiratory rate). The other stuff you mentioned (gall bladder ect) is minor as it was also true of other herbivores. I only included stuff unique to the giraffe. "Oesophageal muscles are strong to allow regurgitation (rumination) of food", of course it would! Its a ruminant! I've judged the Mammal anatomy book to be a low quality source. It doesn't even give an author, just the Marshall Cavendish Corporation. LittleJerry (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- I've have found some of the other information in the other sources. I added in the information on the glands, feet-first birth, hoof size intestine length and sexual maturity. Skinner and Smithers (1990) give the giraffe heart beat rate as 85±15 beats per minute. I don't know how to translate that. LittleJerry (talk) 02:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Thank you for adding the new information.
-
-
-
- The giraffe's oesophageal muscles are unusually strong, more so than other ruminants, because of the height of the neck that food must be raised.
-
Older nominations
Psilocybe aztecorum
Psilocybe aztecorum is a psychedelic mushroom known only from central Mexico, where it has been used in spiritual and divinatory ceremonies by indigenous peoples for a long time. I've improved the article to the best of my abilities, and am hoping for further suggestions and comments. Thanks for reading, Sasata (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sasata. 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)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- All foreign-language sources should be noted as such
- FN 15 is a huge page range - any way to narrow it? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Images are goods
- "Mandalas on his kneecaps ... " I am not sure if the term "Mandala" (Hindu/Buddhist) should be used in this context for an Aztec god. Something like "circular patterns" should be used. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- WP:OVERLINK: spores, variety have linked numerous times in "Taxonomy and nomenclature". Check the article throughout. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
-
typically in meadows or open, grassy forests with Hartweg's Pine.- hmmm, "with" seems funny when associating a tiny mushroom with a big tree. If we can't say "underneath" then maybe "associated with". More of a style query and not a deal-breaker by any means.
-
Named for its association with the Aztecs,- dunno, I'd slightly prefer "Aztec people" here for a first mention. Just sounds a tad more formal. Again not a dealbreaker and happy to yield of consensus sees otherwise.
-
The variety P. aztecorum var. bonetii differs has smaller spores than the main variety,- grammar fix needed
-
- Gastón Guzmán emended - dang, not thrilled about seeing two bluelinks next to each other but I can't think of an alternative......
-
approximately cylindrical- I must say "approximately" sounds funny with a non-numeric adjective. My inclination would be to use "roughly" or "more or less" or somesuch.
-
- ...
Guzmán reported the presence of the psilocybin, but not psilocin in the variety bonartii- why the "but" here?
- ...
-
- ...maintain close relationships with psychoactive mushrooms - I generally think of maintaining close relationships with people or some abstract concept like "nature". I'm thinking maybe "maintain/retain familiarity/expertise/knowledge with psychoactive mushrooms" or something similar
Overall, looking good as usual. Pretty straightforward fixes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support and comments. Makes me think of the 60s, usual high standard, a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- the following technical terms are not linked at the first occurrence, if at all — spore, mycologist, fibrillose, emeritus.
- "lookalike" seems a bit informal to me, but your call
Support. Very happy to see this here, and it's good to see an expansion of the religious use section. A few thoughts, but note that I am supporting either way. (Delegates- I was the GAC reviewer.) J Milburn (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- "but this synonymy is not confirmed by either of the taxonomical databases MycoBank or Index Fungorum." I can't put my finger on why, but this doesn't seem right.
-
- How about " ... this putative synonymy, however, is not indicated by either of the taxonomic databases MycoBank or Index Fungorum."? Sasata (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- It's "either of the taxonomic databases MycoBank or Index Fungorum." I think it really has to be "is confirmed by neither MycoBank nor Index Fungorum" or "is not confirmed by taxonomic databases MycoBank and Index Fungorum". Perhaps even "is confirmed by neither MycoBank nor Index Fungorum, both respected taxonomic databases". The worst thing is, I can't actually say why what you've written doesn't sound right; to my ears, it just seems wrong. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- "asymmetrical (mango-shaped)" "asymmetrical" does not mean "mango shaped", which this seems to imply
- "Xochipilli (illustration)" Is this MoS valid? Strikes me as an unwarranted self-reference
- Comments:
:*"In 1958, Swiss chemist Albert Hofmann reported a concentration of 0.02% psilocybin and no psilocin, but this analysis was performed on two-year-old specimens" Psilocin isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article and as far as I can tell by reading it, the substance has no relevance concerning this plant. So, why mention it at all?
-
-
- Psilocybin and psilocin often occur together in psychoactive mushrooms, so it's common to report concentrations of both. But I think you're correct about relevance here, so I've removed its mention. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Ok, I wasn't aware of that and I doubt most readers will be. I wouldn't object to it being re-inserted as long as there's a very brief explanation of why psilocin is worthy of mention.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
-
:*The article twice mentions that the Aztecs used these mushrooms. Is there any more specific information on how they used it? Or is it the same as the way it's used now by people in Oaxaca?--Carabinieri (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Good point; I've now added "These mushrooms, considered holy sacraments by the Aztecs, were consumed during spiritual and divinatory rituals to induce hallucinatory visions." to make it explicit. Unfortunately, the remaining historical records don't allow us to say much more than that. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Looks good.--Carabinieri (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
-
Air raids on Japan
This is a big article on an important topic. It covers the air raids which were conducted by the United States Army Air Forces and Navy and (to a much lesser extent) British Royal Navy against the Japanese home islands throughout World War II. These raids, which included the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the firebombing of virtually all of Japan's larger cities, killed between 241,000 and 900,000 people and were one of the main factors which influenced the national government to surrender.
I've developed this article with contributions from many other editors over the last year (most notably, User:Cla68, User:Binksternet and User:Jim Sweeney). It was peer reviewed last April, assessed as GA class in September and passed a Military History Wikiproject A class review in January. The article has since been further expanded and copy edited (including a pre-FAC copy edit from User:Dank over the last few days), and I think that it may now meet the FA criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 04:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Search throughout for "with" + noun + "being" and look for ways to rephrase. (Garner's has good advice on this at "Absolute construction". Bottom line: that construction becomes less common in print every year, and it's clearer if you either use a semicolon, or state what the connection is between the two halves of the sentence.) The article flows nicely and covers a lot of relevant material. - Dank (push to talk) 13:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I've just run through the article and removed many instances of 'being' as they were unnecessary. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comments Generally looks very thorough.
- Lede "...and killed over 241,000 people" and later: "Estimates of the number of Japanese killed during the air attacks range from 241,000 to 900,000." The table way down gives 9 different figures, of which this is the lowest, with 300,000 the next lowest. With such a large gap, and no discussion in the article as to why this lowest figure might be the most credible, I think the range should be conveyed in the lede. The infobox has "Estimates vary between 241,000 and 900,000 killed" but personally in the lede I'd say something like " Estimates of the number of Japanese killed during the air attacks range from 241,000 to 900,000, but most are in the range 300-350,000." Something like that. Whether that should be in the 1st or 3rd para I'm not sure, but it just needs to be in one.
- The second para, much the longest, concentrates on where the attacks came from, and is probably too detailed, and rather congested. It lacks any overview sentence. Here and later throwing in some of the distances involved would help the reader's understanding. Much other stuff is not in the lead.
- "the Attack on Pearl Harbor" - capital A?
- "Japanese Government" - capital G? Also some "Army"s.
- "it was believed that Soviet Union aircraft based in the country's far east posed the greatest threat" - "Soviet" is the adjective, and, though logic obviously dictates that "the country" is the SU, it rather trips the reader. Better:"... it was believed that Soviet aircraft based in the Russian Far East posed the greatest threat". - that should be linked anyway.
- "In an operation conducted primarily to raise morale in the United States, 16 B-25 Mitchell medium bombers were embarked aboard the aircraft carrier USS Hornet which carried them from San Francisco to within range of Japan." All that is needed (unless you say what the range actually was) "is "In an operation conducted primarily to raise morale in the United States, 16 B-25 Mitchell medium bombers were carried from San Francisco to within range of Japan on the aircraft carrier USS Hornet." Does SF need a link?
- "This was the single most effective strategic air attack of the Pacific War.[151]" with one source - maybe "has been described as..."
- "the much greater vulnerability of Japanese cities to incendiary bombs" is mentioned right at the end, but it is never spelt out why Japanese housing & traditional buildings were so much more vulnerable to firebombing in particular - namely that they were largely built of wood and pretty tightly-packed. This should go in much earlier.
- Reading through I thought the early sections lacked flow, then things improved apart from some very clogged listy sections just detailing raids.
- I've had a go at improving the first sections (I'm presuming that you meant the material in the 'background' section at is seemed the most 'jumpy', but please correct me if you meant more than just this). I agree that the paragraphs listing the raids on minor cities towards the end of the article are a bit clunky, but I couldn't see any way around this: the alternatives used in histories of this part of the bombing campaign are to either very briefly pass over these raids or use a huge table (like the one at Strategic bombing during World War II#United States strategic bombing of Japan, but with extra columns for dates and the forces involved). Neither approach seemed satisfactory or in line with the relevant Wikipedia guidelines, and I think that covering all the raids in this way provides a feel for the huge scale of these operations. That said, any suggestions for how to improve the presentation of this material would be much appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Were there Allied policies to avoid major historic sites like Kyoto, which I think was never bombed? Were they trying to hit or to miss the Imperial Palace in Tokyo?
- I don't think there are total figures for the numbers of Allied planes and aircrew or personnel involved.
- I couldn't find any total figures for the scale of the Japanese and Allied forces (and I looked everywhere for them). Given the scale, duration and complexity of this campaign, it would be very difficult for anyone to calculate overall number of participants. I'll add in some more snapshot figures though. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to review the article. I've responded to some of your comments, and will work on the rest. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support subject to anything significant in others' comments. I've reviewed the changes but not reread it, so I'm not sure how much flow has improved; I understand the problems here. Other comments above resolved. A fine detailed piece of work. Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Support Comments -- I strongly suspect that I promised to review this when it got to FAC after I missed out on commenting when it was at MilHist A-Class Review, so here I am... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Don't think it's considered necessary anymore to link countries, e.g. India and China in the lead. Linking World War II is also a bit redundant when you're linking everything from Pacific War down...
- The first American Volunteer Group (the "Flying Tigers") began operations as part of the Chinese Air Force in late 1941 using fighter aircraft -- we should be able to name the type of fighter; Curtiss P-40s weren't they?
- In a similar vein, ...diverted elsewhere in Asia following the attack on Pearl Harbor begs the question where in Asia...
Made it to Operation Matterhorn before stopping for the night -- looking forward to continuing tomorrow... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Resuming, belatedly... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- The Japanese military began transferring fighter aircraft to the home islands from China and the Pacific in early 1944 in anticipation of B-29 raids -- Just curious (and pedantic, as you'd expect!) but does the source explicitly say the Japanese were expecting B-29 raids or just bomber raids in general? I ask because I wonder if the Japanese were aware of the B-29 before it entered service...
- XX Bomber Command lost 125 B-29s during all of its operations from bases in India and China, though only 29 were destroyed by Japanese forces -- I think that large a ratio of non-combat to combat losses needs some elucidation, either by progressively noting the mounting losses earlier in the section or explaining the big figure at the end, since it seems to pop out of nowhere (by all means point out if I missed something).
- LeMay also had most of the B-29s' defensive guns removed so they could carry more bombs -- Might be worth briefly elaborating on why fewer guns allows more bombs; since most of the B-29's guns were in remote-controlled turrets, I assume it was just the weight of the guns being saved, not gunners, or did the turrets go too?
- Done. All the references talk about the 'guns being removed' or similar and don't go into greater detail (which would probably be excessive for this article anyway). I presume that the modifications weren't drastic as the aircraft needed to be re-armed again (eg, I suspect that the guns, ammunition and gunners were removed, but the turrets and fire control equipment remained in the aircraft). Nick-D (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- The start of this firebombing campaign was delayed as XXI Bomber Command was used to attack airfields in southern Japan... -- I don't quite get what this is doing under the Destruction of Japan's main cities subsection when the previous subsection began The first firebombing attack in this campaign was carried out against Tokyo on the night of 9/10 March -- Why wasn't this delay mentioned earlier? It's as though the destruction of the main cities is a separate campaign...
- To give a very long answer to a short question (though it might help explain why the article is structured the way it is): the historiography of XXI Bomber Command's operations consistently breaks them into a series of campaigns: 1) the (mainly) precision bombing effort under Hansell and LeMay's early raids 2) LeMay's initial major firebombing raids on Tokyo and other cities 3) an interlude where the B-29s mainly went after airfields 4) the sustained firebombing of the main cities 5) (to quote the relevant chapter title of the USAAF official history) "the all-out B-29 attack" where the bombers systematically destroyed smaller cities while mounting a smaller number of precision bombing and minelaying attacks 6) the atomic bombing raids and final attacks (not coincidentally, this is the structure used in the USAAF official history, which remains the main work on the strategic bombing campaign). This paragraph refers to stage 3). I've tweaked the wording at the start of this para to make it clearer though. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Only limited attacks on Japanese cities were conducted while the Battle of Okinawa continued. A night precision bombing raid was flown against the Nakajima engine factory in Tokyo... -- I don't care too much about an occasional passive sentence but two in a row's a bit much... ;-)
- Sixteen multi-city incendiary attacks were conducted by the end of the war (an average of two per week) covering 58 cities -- Not sure of the expression here, do I assume it means 16 attacks had been conducted by war's end?
- You have a mix of caps and non-caps for "the task force"...
Up to Raids from Iwo Jima and Okinawa -- more later... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Last round -- in addition to further copyediting, just a couple of relatively minor points...
- Under Raids from Iwo Jima and Okinawa, when you say ...aircraft being held in reserve to attack the Allied invasion force, I assume you're referring to the planned Allied invasion of Japan. If so, I think "...aircraft being held in reserve to repel the expected Allied invasion" or some such would work better.
- Given that this is discussing the actions of US aircraft, I think that this is OK; the Allies were deadly serious about invading Japan and were making serious preparations for this at the time of the Japanese surrender. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- As I say, not a big deal, but just want to make sure my reasoning was clear -- it's not that the Allies weren't serious about the invasion, rather that when you plonk the term in like that it may appear that you're referring to an invasion that did happen. Also, in this sentence you're explaining things from the Japanese perspective (what they were doing with their aircraft) so it made sense to me to treat the invasion from their perspective too, i.e. they were anticipating it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Given that this is discussing the actions of US aircraft, I think that this is OK; the Allies were deadly serious about invading Japan and were making serious preparations for this at the time of the Japanese surrender. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- On this day B-29s dropped three million leaflets on Japanese cities, claiming that atomic bombs would be used to destroy all the country's military resources unless the Emperor ended the war. -- This was a bluff, wasn't it? If I remember the story, the US had few if any bombs in reserve when it made this threat -- if so, think it's a tidbit worth mentioning.
I'm taking as read the reference/image checks Nikki's made below, and I know that Nick's last FAC (Battle of Arawe) underwent a source spotcheck that uncovered little of concern. Based on my own review I'm happy with the prose, structure, and level of detail, so am ready to support -- well done producing this major article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for your review and changes to the article Ian. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Why only include one author for Coles 1951 and Tanaka 2009?
- Fixed
- FN 213: formatting
- Be consistent in whether you cite reprinted works using the original or reprint date
- FN 243 and 248 could each refer to two bibliographic listings
- Why is the Commons link in the References section?
- In the Dear and Foot entry, why is "editors" included in the wikilink?
- Check formatting of quotes within quotes
- They all look OK to me - could you please point out the ones which need to be fixed? Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I thought there were two instances, but now it's just Frank 2005. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I think that this is unavoidable though: the chapter title in the book includes quote marks, and the coding for the chapter section of Cite:book also adds them. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's an allowable to change the chapter title's quotes to single quotes for readability – see [4] for instance. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I think that this is unavoidable though: the chapter title in the book includes quote marks, and the coding for the chapter section of Cite:book also adds them. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- I thought there were two instances, but now it's just Frank 2005. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- They all look OK to me - could you please point out the ones which need to be fixed? Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods, whether initials are spaced or unspaced, etc
- Be consistent in whether you provide publishers and locations for journals/magazines
- Hadley: why country here but county for other UK locations?
- File:Areas_of_principal_Japanese_cities_destoyed_by_US_bombing.jpg: source link appears to be broken
- File:Tokyo_air_raid_memorial.JPG: does Japan have freedom of panorama that would allow this usage? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- That's a very good question. According to the guidance on Commons, it depends on whether it's considered an 'artistic work' (in which case it can't be used) or a building (in which case it's OK). The structure is a fairly solid memorial located in a public park which includes chambers inside of it accessible by a door, so it's in a grey zone. As it wasn't built as an art work and incorporates many features of a building, I think it's OK, but if someone wants to correct me that would be good (due disclosure: I took the photo, so I'm a) familiar with the characteristics and location of the memorial and b) probably a bit biased). I think that I've now responded to all your comments (albeit with a question to one of them). Thanks for taking the time to do such a careful check. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments
- Why are only the losses of the 20th Air Force mentioned in the Infobox?
- That's a very good point; I'll add in the losses of the other USAAF units and Japanese air units. I've looked everywhere for the losses of the Allied naval units in raids against Japan but haven't been able to find them unfortunately (which makes me suspect that they may never have been tabulated). Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Is it possible to name the main participating air units, like 20th Air Force, and their commanders in the infobox?
Given that there were lots of commanders (for instance on the US side alone there were Wolfe, Hansell, LeMay, Halsey, Spruance and whoever commended the 7th and 13th Air Forces as well as Arnold not to mention the commander of the British Pacific Fleet) and the Japanese command structure was almost as as complex, I think that it would be unwieldy and unhelpful for readers. As an example of the complexity, there was no overall commander of the air campaign on either side, and both the Allies and Japanese significantly changed their command structures on several occasions during the campaign. I normally fill out the infobox, but unfortunately doing so here is impractical. I've identified the various leaders and units involved in the article where relevant. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I would like to see the points Casus and Aftermath of the infobox filled but just realized that they are not included in the english version of the infobox, so forget about this.
Cheers --Bomzibar (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- You mention both, the IJAAF and the IJNAF quite early in the article and in the later chapter Japanese military response that they were both placed unter the command of the Air General Army. As this is quite special for the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces, maybe it should be mentioned that both japanese Air Forces were seperated in command and that the competition between Army and Navy often hampered the efforts for a joint command.
- With the Commanders it would be possible to name the main commanders at a specific date, 1 August 1945 or somewhen else.
- That's probably the best approach, but it's still problematic as there was no 'typical' date which can be selected given that the command structures changed so much. I really think that listing commanders would do more harm than good as it would confuse readers. I've identified all the key figures in the article, as well as the main changes to the Allied and Japanese command structures. Nick-D (talk) 06:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
--Bomzibar (talk) 12:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've started reading through, it will probably take me a while to finish, but it looks pretty good thus far. I made some small copyedits, feel free to revert. One small comment, I noticed some inconsistent comma use: "In July 1942 the commander of the American Volunteer Group" vs "In early 1942, forces allocated". Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Twelve of the 61 Superfortresses that reached the target area" I think you should write sixty one out here, per WP:NUMERAL. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- My apologies to the nominator, but I don't believe that I will be able to finish my review. I've read from the beginning of the article to the end of the "Attacks from China" subsection--and everything I've read is clearly FA quality. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
HMS Vanguard (23)
- Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Vanguard was the last battleship built by the British and the last to be laid down anywhere in the world. Completed after the end of World War II, she had a short career before falling victim to budget cut in the late 1950s. The article completed a MilHist A-class review in December and I've tweaked it subsequently to clarify a few things.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments. - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- "after the end of the war": after the war
- "The British had enough guns and gun turrets in storage that would allow": ... to allow
- "The Lion-class battleship design was modified to suit the different main armament to save time": I don't follow
- Is it a little clearer now?
- I tweaked it; I hope I understood your meaning. - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Is it a little clearer now?
- "In addition, her design was revised several times, even after construction had begun, to reflect war experience and these changes prevented her from being completed during the war.": In general, two independent clauses are joined by a comma unless the two clauses are relatively short and straightforward. There's a lot of leeway for personal style on this, but the wiggle room doesn't extend this far; a comma is needed after "experience".
- "King George's growing ill health": "ill health" is tough to modify; "growing" might be okay, but I'd drop it
- How about "declining health" instead?
- Sure. - Dank (push to talk)
- How about "declining health" instead?
- "constraint of": constraint on
- "was the limited capacity available to build large-calibre guns": would "was the availability of large-calibre guns" be wrong?
- It was really a question of the capacity and time required. Clarified a little, I hope.
- "Using four twin 15-inch (380 mm) mountings in storage offered": Does this mean "Four pre-existing twin 15-inch (380 mm) mountings offered"? If so, that might be easier to parse.
- Good idea.
- "⅓ of a knot": not everyone will go for this; some will want a conversion.
- "The flat transom stern was retained ... This made Vanguard the only British battleship built with a transom stern.": I may be missing something here ... it's not clear to me how it was "retained" if this was the only battleship that had it. What previous ship did this ship inherit that stern from? - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- The Lions, as mentioned in the previous sentence.
- Okay, so I'm not following "This made Vanguard the only British battleship built with a transom stern." - Dank (push to talk)
- The Lions were never built, which clarification has been added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, so I'm not following "This made Vanguard the only British battleship built with a transom stern." - Dank (push to talk)
- The Lions, as mentioned in the previous sentence.
- "of the class, being almost 50 feet (15.2 m) longer and displaced": of the class, almost 50 feet (15.2 m) longer, and displaced
- "Some 2,200 long tons (2,200 t) of this was because Vanguard was overweight.": Per WP:Checklist#cause, be careful about causality, which seems to go in the other direction here.
- OK, what would you suggest then? She was larger as designed, but, in addition, was overweight.
- I'm suggesting avoiding causality words unless there's causality. That is, being overweight didn't cause her to gain a lot of tonnage; if anything, it's the other way around. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, how does it read now?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm suggesting avoiding causality words unless there's causality. That is, being overweight didn't cause her to gain a lot of tonnage; if anything, it's the other way around. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- OK, what would you suggest then? She was larger as designed, but, in addition, was overweight.
- "seaboat": Not in Cambridge Dictionaries or M-W as one word ... I'll check SOED if you like.
- Split
- "Vanguard was well regarded as a good seaboat, able to keep an even keel in rough seas. This was due to the large flare applied to the bows after experience with her predecessors, the King George V-class ships. The latter had been built with almost no sheer to the main deck forwards to allow 'A' turret to fire straight forward at zero elevation, resulting in a poor seaboat that took a lot of water over the bows.": This would flow better in chronological order ... the King George V-class ships did it this way, so it was done differently with different results on Vanguard.
- Rewritten.
- "exposed surfaces": I wouldn't think asbestos insulation would be on every surface, so I'm not sure what "exposed" means here. Hot surfaces?
- Clarified.
- "The ship was provided with a powder-handling room above the shell room to mimic the arrangement that turret's hoists were designed to handle and another set of hoists moved the propellant charges from the magazines to the powder-handling room." Comma needed between the two long independent clauses.
- "a 80-pound": an 80-pound
- "her main, secondary and the tertiary guns": See WP:Checklist#series
- "in all except for 'A' turret": a little better is: in all turrets except 'A'
Except as above, so far so good. I got down more than halfway, to HMS_Vanguard_(23)#Protection. These are my edits. If someone else can finish it up, I'll come have a look, and hopefully support.- Dank (push to talk) 03:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)- "The thickness ... was 2.5 inches (64 mm) in thickness.": repetition
- "sub-divide": subdivide
Except as above, so far so good.My comments cover two-thirds of the article, down to HMS_Vanguard_(23)#Career, and this is all I have time to do on this one. I've asked for help finishing up at WT:MHC#FACs that need copyediting attention. - Dank (push to talk) 00:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)- All done, thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- So far so good. Your changes all look good, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- File:HMS_Vanguard_(1946).jpg: source link returns 404 error
- Pity, excellent image, but replaced.
- FN 45: journal name should be italicized, author format should match other sources
- Be consistent in how multi-author sources are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks for finding the nits.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Question: Perhaps I just didn't see it in the article, but what was the requirement that this battleship was intended to fulfill or threat it was intended to counter, i.e. why was this battleship built, what was the justification that was given for spending the immense amount of money to build it, and under which naval expansion plan, budget year, or armament program was it part of? Cla68 (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- That was laid out in the first paragraph of the Design and description section, although I've added that she was built under the 1940 Emergency War Programme.
Comments A quick look due to lack of time, but the following struck me:
- growing ill health - reads oddly to me, would prefer 'declining' or 'deteriorating'
- Good idea.
- transom stern - the significance of this feature is mentioned, but not illustrated. Are there any good photographs that might be used to illustrate this feature?
- Not in any free photos.
- Got one for you -- look at the September 1952 image here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- I rarely remember to check the NHHC website for American photos of British ships. Thanks, Ed. Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Got one for you -- look at the September 1952 image here. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not in any free photos.
- fuel supply was increased to 4,850 long tons - how large an increase was this? --IxK85 (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Added. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Support Comments: I've done some copy editing work to follow on from Dank's work. I looked at the Career section only in this regard. Please check that you are happy with my edits and change as you see fit. I noticed a couple of minor points that I couldn't resolve:
- inconsistent dates: In the infobox: "Commissioned: 9 August 1946", but Career section: "not commissioned until 28 March 1946";
- This is a little tricky. McCart says that the White Ensign was first hoisted on 28 March, while the ship was still fitting out, but that the formal commissioning ceremony, with Princess Elizabeth in attendance, was on 12 May. I've standardized everything the latter date. Interestingly enough the ship was not formally accepted from the builder until 9 August, after the completion of her sea trials, which must be where that date in the infobox came from.
- the 7 June 1960 decommissioning is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the body of the article;
- Fixed.
- inconsistent: in the infobox: "Sold for scrap 1960". In the lead: "Vanguard was sold for scrap in late 1959"; in the Career section: "She was subsequently sold to the Iron and Steel Corporation of Great Britain for £560,000 in 1960" (this one is probably my fault, due to my copy edit - for this I apologise - but I'd be obliged if you would adjust whatever needs adjusting to rectify). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching these nits. The exact date of sale isn't given in any of my sources, but I presume that it had to be after she was decomissioned, so I've dropped all references to the date and just gone with the commencement of scrapping.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Edmund Sharpe
- Nominator(s): Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because it is the biography of an under-recognised 19th-century polymath who IMO deserves to be better known. The main source for the article is a self-published work currently available only as a CD. The credentials of the author and the reasons for its non-publication elsewhere are explained on the article's talk page. The article has been peer-reviewed and copyedited, and throughout the process I have been working closely with the author of the main source. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Support (by Carcharoth (talk) - initial comments at 13:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC), updated to support at 00:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC) following discussion below)
Article looks very good. Version reviewed is here. A few comments. May say more later.
- I've read through both the 2004 ODNB (Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) article (by F. M. O'Donoghue, rev. Geoffrey K. Brandwood) and the 1897 DNB (Dictionary of National Biography) article by F. M. O'Donoghue. The publication date of the latter can be confirmed by accessing the ODNB's DNB archive (link in the menu sidebar on the ODNB entry, I incorrectly said 1885 in my edit summary). I also added a template in the external links that provides access to the wikisource copy of that DNB entry. That is a bit clunky, so feel free to remove that if you don't want that there.
What I do think is needed is some way of explicitly noting that Sharpe was well-known enough to be given an entry in the 19th-century work, the DNB. Not everyone realises when looking at the sources that the 2004 ODNB entry is an update of the earlier 1897 entry, and that F. M. O'Donoghue is Freeman Marius O'Donoghue, Assistant Keeper in the Department of Prints and Drawings at the British Museum (this is detailed here). Is there a way to make clear that earlier (initial?) scholarship on Sharpe was published in 1897, not starting in 2004 as the current bibliographic list implies? This might be best done by explaining what 'F. M. O'Donoghue, rev. Geoffrey K. Brandwood' means (i.e. make clear that F. M. O'Donoghue is a 19th-century author and Geoffrey K. Brandwood is a 21st-century author).
-
- I've added the date (1897) to the ref, plus a sentence to the Appraisal section about the 1897 article plus its author. I have made a reference to Wikisource, and assume this is OK. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- The ODNB entry includes in its sources 'private information (2004) [John M. Hughes]', which accounts for the article statement (in the bibliography) 'is credited as a source for the article on Sharpe in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography'.
A minor quibble: the note on the Hughes source says 'Brandwood, Geoff', when Brandwood is elsewhere named as Geoffrey K. Brandwood. Even if Brandwood is named slightly differently by the two different publications (ODNB and the English Heritage publication), I think the naming should be consistent in the article.
-
- Standardised. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've read the talk page note on the Hughes source, and I have no problems with that being used as a source. There may be an option in the citation templates to actually put 'format=CD' or 'format=digital', but that is quibbling as the note makes that all clear. What I would suggest, when the English Heritage book is published, is to include that as a source here, as that will help establish Hughes' credentials as a published (in print) author on this topic (I'm sure you intended doing this anyway, but thought it worth mentioning).
-
- That I certainly intend to do.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Lead: "setting himself up" - the phrasing is slightly awkward, is there a need for 'himself'? Could this be phrased differently? The first mention of Edward Paley in the lead doesn't say who he is. The final sentence (on the trips to France) is a bit of a damp squib and leaves things hanging. I'm used to biographical leads ending with death and place of burial and some concluding legacy statement. The lead does omit mention of large parts of Sharpe's life (there is nothing on his early life, for example). If a paragraph or couple of sentences were added to the lead to make it more of a summary, and to bring it to a natural conclusion, it would be better.
-
- I've expanded and slightly rewritten the lead. Does this now cover the article adequately? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- The lead is now sufficiently comprehensive, but I would suggest getting it copyedited if you think that would help make it even better. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- The copyediting has already been done (while I slept!). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Early life:
"his mother moved to Lancaster with her family, where Martha later resumed her teaching career" - switching from 'mother' to 'Martha' in the same sentence could cause some confusion. I had to go back a few sentences and check that his mother was called Martha and is the same person being referred to twice here. There might be a way to rephrase this to avoid this. Maybe: "his mother moved with her family to Lancaster, where she later resumed her teaching career"? Also, you mention the death of Sharpe's father - do you know when his mother died?
-
- Fixed Martha -> she. Father's death was of course vitally important to Sharpe's life: it fixed the town of his practice, gave him contact to Whewell, etc. Not sure when mother died, and I doubt that it is of much consequence to this article. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
There are a couple of instances in the 'Early life' section and elsewhere where use of 'Edmund Sharpe' vs 'Edmund' vs 'Sharpe' could be tidied up. "Edmund Sharpe was initially educated by his parents" - the Sharpe can be dropped there. And later in the article: "In 1863 he was joined by Edmund Sharpe as a partner" - the Edmund can be dropped there, surely?
-
- Fixed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Architect:
"Writing to William Whewell just before Christmas 1835" - this shift back to 1835 after a potted history of his architectural practice is a bit abrupt. Looking back at the early life section, is it possible to make clear whether this letter was just after he had returned home from his three years abroad? It also seems to repeat, or return to the earlier sentence: "Edmund returned home to Lancaster late in 1835, having by then decided to become an architect.". Is it not better to combine the two sentences somehow? Maybe mention the letter with the earlier sentence, and then refer to the letter again when explaining his early work on churches.You give dates for his four earliest churches, but no dates for the six churches he designed for the Commission (though you give one set of dates later). Were these all built in the same period?
-
- Rewritten the two sentences. Added dates for the churches. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Architectural historian:
When you first mention people like Ruskin and Rickman, it might be best to say who they are. I vaguely know who they are, but those not familiar with architecture and architectural history will either just register it as a name and nothing more, or will be constantly leaving this article to briefly read other ones, which is fine to a certain extent, but gets wearying after a while.
-
- Added a few words of description. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
About the correspondence in The Builder, who calls it "serious controversy and debate"? If that is the phrasing used by the source, it might be better used as a quote. - Rephrased and changed "serious" to "bitter", adding a ref. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
George Gilbert Scott can be wikilinked. In the same paragraph, the list of his other works can be preceded by a colon. Also architectural terracotta might be a better link than terracotta (not sure if this has been considered and rejected, but thought it worth pointing out). - Done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Added a few words of description. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
There are three instances where the phrase (or one similar to it) "John Hughes, Sharpe's biographer" is used. It might be best to use this only once and just say "Hughes" for the other instances. Or drop the second repetition and retain the third return to the full phrasing that is used in the 'Appraisal' section?
-
- Fixed. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that the age at death for the subject of biographical articles is usually either in the infobox (there is a template that calculates it for you), or (in the absence of an infobox) in the article, or in both. Here, it is in neither.
-
- Thanks to another editor for fixing that. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Re-reading the ODNB and DNB entries, I see that the following bits are not in the Wikipedia article or appear to be inconsistent with it: (i) From the ODNB entry: "In 1859 he was appointed JP for Lancashire, and for Denbighshire"; (ii) From the ODNB entry: "he became a fellow in 1848" (of the RIBA); (iii) From the ODNB entry: "the most famous works are a pair of all-terracotta Gothic churches at Lever Bridge, Bolton (1842–5), commissioned by his father-in-law" - however, the Wikipedia article currently only mentions his brother-in-law (naming him as John Fletcher, which is consistent with the ODNB which states that his wife was the sister of John Fletcher) - what's the story there? Were the "pot" churches commissioned by the brother-in-law or the father-in-law? (iv) From the DNB entry: "He then became a pupil of John Rickman". I presume this is not John Rickman, but as there is already a mention of someone with the same surname (Thomas Rickman), and this John Rickman is not mentioned in the ODNB entry, I found it intriguing (if it helps, the Dictionary of Scottish Architects entry says Sharpe was "articled to Thomas Rickman in 1836").
-
- (i) Added.
- (ii) Rephrased to include this.
- (iii) Definitely, according to Hughes, the use of terracotta was suggested by the (future) brother-in-law. And "commissioned" may not be accurate either; an article in the Builder states that he was "the chief promoter and the largest subscriber" Hughes, p.247); not sure that that is the same.
- (iv) Definitely not "John". Sharpe did visit Thomas Rickman for a few days in 1832 (towards the end of his university life) and corresponded with him later. He may have been "acting as a research assistant" while on the Continent (Hughes, p.70), but Hughes states "there is no evidence to suggest that Sharpe spent more time with Rickman, or served any kind of formal apprenticeship with him". (p. 69). And by 1836 Sharpe was already running his own practice. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- The changes and explanations here look fine, but I would suggest doing something to ensure against other editors in future trying to change it to 'father-in-law' and trying to add something about an apprenticeship with Rickman, as the sources out there do conflict on these points and later editors may not read this FAC. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- I have added material about Rickman, along the lines I stated above. Re brother/father-in-law, I intend to leave that and sort it out if the occasion arises (maybe on the talk page). --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I've got as far as 'Railway developer and engineer'. I'll come back to the rest later. Carcharoth (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC) Couple of extra comments added above. 02:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC) Continuing from the above:
- Railway developer and engineer:
"The eventual outcome of the conflict" - is it possible to give the year he was dismissed from the contract? In the 'North Wales' subsection, you mention that he had moved to Geneva by 1868, but fail to mention here that between then and Lancaster he had been living with his family in North Wales, in Betws-y-Coed. The reader only finds this out later, in the 'Personal and family life' section, but it needs to be mentioned here first, really. Also, you mention his family here, but you don't tell the reader until the 'Personal and family life' section that he has got married and had children (this is part of the problem of handling biographical chronology while doing thematic sections). Finally, in the 'Abroad' section, are the Swiss and French tramway/railways still extant?
-
- 1. I've added the date (1839). 2. Rewritten to include the move to N Wales. 3. According to Trams in Geneva, there are still tramways to Carouge and Chêne-Bougeries. presumably along the same routes. There is still a railway between Perpignon and Prades[5]. I am not confident that these are the same as Sharp's lines, so have not made any comment in the article. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Civic life and sanitary reform:
You say he was a "visitor to the national schools" - we have the article National school (England and Wales), is that what is meant here? What is missing in this section is how long he was mayor for, and whether this was an honorary title passed around the councillors, or something more political (that might be harder to source). The tour by Owen sounds interesting - was this an official tour, and what was Owen's role (I believe he was Hunterian Professor at the Royal College of Surgeons of England at the time)?
-
- 1.National schools linked as you suggest. 2. Small expansion abut the term and the role. 3. Owen did indeed hold that post at the time. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Personal and family life:
The article said earlier that Edward Graham Paley became his brother-in-law - was this through marriage of Paley to a sister of Sharpe? I don't see any mention of Sharpe having brothers or sisters? The other brother-in-law mentioned is John Fletcher, through Sharpe's marriage to Elizabeth Fletcher. Also, the exact year of the family moving to Geneva is hinted at ("seven years" in North Wales from 1856, "about three years" in Geneva before arriving back in Lancaster in 1866) but not given explicitly. Was it 1863, or is this uncertain? It is possible to link Chêne-Bougeries, but it is not really relevant so I'd agree with it being left unlinked here.
-
- 1. Paley married Sharpe's sister Frances in 1851; I've added this at the end of the Lancaster practice section, where it seems to fit the best. 2. Date of move to Geneva done (above). 3. Chêne-Bougeries linked. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Other interests: While looking into the history of the Lancaster Rowing Club, I noticed that Sharpe is stated there to be living on the river ("Sharpe lived in one of the largest riverside houses at Halton Hall"), and the name of the district is the same as that later mentioned in connection with one of his sons (Edmund (junior) "later became Lord of the Manor of Halton"). As you've gone into some detail about where he lived at various times, I wondered if you wanted to include that detail as well?
The final paragraph of this section, about the visit from Queen Victoria and the foundry works: is this not more logically placed in the 'Civic life and sanitary reform' section?
-
- 1. In the Lancaster Rowing Club article the mention of Halton Hall is unreferenced. It is certainly not in The Social History of British Rowing used as a reference in the article. Hughes has full details of Sharpe's residences; Halton Hall is not one of them, so if correct it must refer to his son, Edmund. 2. I've moved the Queen's visit as you suggest, but not the ownership of the foundry — neither civic nor sanitary! --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- The rowing material is here. No idea how reliable that is. Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- According to Hughes (p.533) Edmund junior took out a seven year lease on Halton Hall in 1882, after his father's death. But I will double-check directly with Hughes. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Hughes has confirmed that it WAS Edmund junior. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Appraisal:
I know I pointed out who the author of the 1897 DNB entry was, but I'm not sure that there is a need to name his profession in that much detail in the article text - that new sentence could stop at 'Dictionary of National Biography'. If you want to name O'Donoghue, maybe quote him when he says Sharpe "was an enthusiastic and profound student of mediaeval architecture"? That would complement the quotes from Hughes and Price.
-
- Done. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Photos of the memorial plaques would be nice, if possible, though the current standard of illustration for this article is easily good enough for FA (though I'm talking here about the relevance of the images, not the permissions and licensing).
-
- Will bear in mind. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Couple of publication name quibbles. Should it be The Builder rather than the Builder? And The Architect, and possibly other publication names as well? One more quibble, from the 'Other interests' section: "which had been opened in 1782" - is the word 'been' strictly needed there?
-
- 1. I was "confused" by Hughes, who omits the definite article throughout. I found a facsimile of The Builder that includes it in the title. I have assumed the same for The Architect and The Ecclesiologist" and changed them. 2. "been" deleted. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- It is possible to look up the names of these magazines in library catalogues. From what I found, the definite article was indeed part of the names. You did miss one: Building News - I believe by the time the obituary of Sharpe was published, this was known as The Building News and Engineering Journal, but it seems that the shortened form of the name was common. Search in this book for this quote: "[The Building News] commenced in 1855, becoming The Building News and Architectural Review in 1860, and The Building News and Engineering Journal in 1863. Eventually in 1926 it amalgamated with The Architect to become The Architect and Building News." Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Most of the above comments are minor. I see some changes have already been made based on these suggestions. I'm not too fussed whether changes are made or not. It should be clear which ones are more critical than others. I'll check back later today or in a few days, have another read through, and likely support at that point. All-in-all, a very nice article and a pleasure to read and review. I particularly enjoyed the hint at an idyllic seven years in North Wales with his young family (reminded me of The Railway Children!) and the rather startling story of his youngest son in Africa (though the listing of his descendants in that article does seem to go a bit far, whoever has been doing that). Fascinating, and very much a 'Renaissance Man'. Carcharoth (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've struck through most of the points above, and have now supported. The remaining quibbles, summarising them down here, are: possible copyedit of the lead, the rowing material, the remaining architecture magazine name, and buttressing the article against changes where other sources give a different account (i.e. consider whether the article needs to point out the source discrepancies for the father-in-law and Rickman points). Carcharoth (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support (subject to image and sources clearance): I gave this article a detailed peer review. I am satisfied with Peter's responses and with the work that has gone into the article since. That is not to say that the article couldn't be tweaked and made even better, but that is true of pretty well all articles. Unless something major arises at this FAC, which I consider doubtful, I think the article will make a graceful adornment to the FA corpus. Brianboulton (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comments I made the following comments at the peer review (struck out where dealt with): "I've added a bit on how his scheme for Gothic architecture differed from Rickman's. For FAC I would expect more on this.
The linking seems to fall off towards the end - eg when he moves abroad. Was he "conservative" or "Conservative/Tory"?More analysis of a couple of typical churches would be welcome. Were all his churches C of E? He seems to have had relatively Low Church views, something of a contrast with many Gothic Revivalists, something that might be mentioned. Can anything of his personality be detected beneath Victorian politeness? The main source would ideally be supplemented by parallel refs to other, if shorter sources. I'm ok with it, but others might not be. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)"
- a little more has been added on the first point, but it does not really nail where the differences with Rickman lie in the Gothic. Since the ref for this gives 16 pages in the main source, and Rickman's book is online, I imagine the material is there. All Rickman's periods have articles: "Norman architecture" "Early English Period", "Decorated Period" and "Perpendicular Period", which should be linked here (even if already linked, imo). It should be clear, with examples of buildings, where Sharpe's extra periods ("Transitional", plus 1 Gothic) sit. The links don't seem too bad now, though Grand Theatre, Lancaster was missing (added). Prince of Wales should go to the individual not the title. I'd still like to see more stylistic analysis of a couple of key church buildings, especially as none of the articles on the individual churches seem to have this (as opposed to descriptions of the architecture). The article has improved generally, especially from Malleus' copyedit, and apart from these points I'm ready to support. Johnbod (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for linking Grand Theatre, Lancaster. I have dealt with the Prince of Wales, and linked Rickman's four periods (they are not separate articles, but sections of English Gothic architecture). All Sharpe's churches are recorded in List of architectural works by Edmund Sharpe, all have linked articles, and all are C of E. I have no idea about his churchmanship and have found nothing about that in the sources. He was so active in many spheres of life, but there is little or nothing recorded about his religious life (other than, of course, his church building). And I regret to say that I know nothing about his "Victorian politeness".
- For the other points, I need help. The relevant chapters in Rickman's book run to 70 pages of detailed descriptions of various parts of churches — windows, doors, roofs, fonts, etc. I do not have the skill or knowledge to compare and contrast this with Sharpe's periods. Even if I had, are not the books primary sources (I may be wrong)? If so, "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation" WP:PRIMARY. I have not found any such secondary source.
- As stated in my addition to the Appraisal section, there is no such thing as a typical Sharpe church, nor am I able to identify "key" churches. I do not have the skill to carry out a stylistic analysis, and I haven't found a source providing it.
- So, if the last two points are necessary to achieve FA, I should be grateful for further advice. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- I was hoping the 16 pages in the main source used as a reference would cover the Rickman points, and indeed most of the others. They are fairly basic points. I will take a look myself if I have time. If Rickman describes the chancel of Foo Abbey as in one of his styles, and Sharpe as in one of his, I don't see saying so is misusing primary sources or "interpretation". Johnbod (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- So far as I can see, they don't. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 19:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I was hoping the 16 pages in the main source used as a reference would cover the Rickman points, and indeed most of the others. They are fairly basic points. I will take a look myself if I have time. If Rickman describes the chancel of Foo Abbey as in one of his styles, and Sharpe as in one of his, I don't see saying so is misusing primary sources or "interpretation". Johnbod (talk) 11:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose Sorry, I don't think it passes comprehensiveness in that case. What I'm asking really is not excessive in the case of someone who is mainly remembered as an architect and architectural historian. Sharpe's very short book seems admirably clear, and has a full list of dates for his periods on page 8, with a full page list of parts of specific buildings exemplifying them after each chapter. If you really can't get the Sharpe/Rickman differences from that and Rickman, or other sources, then perhaps you shouldn't be trying for FAC on architectural subjects. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- I'll have a go. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've had a go; hope this is suitable. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'll have a go. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- Images checked --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- File:Edwin Sharpe.jpg: Date should be date of photograph, not upload. Applicable for many other images. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- All dates amended. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- File:Edwin Sharpe.jpg: Date should be date of photograph, not upload. Applicable for many other images. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Steamtown, USA
I am nominating this for featured article because...I feel it exemplifies the very best of Wikipedia. I respond very quickly to criticism or questions, but please keep your wording kind. This is the the second time I have nominated this article for FA. The first time was in September, 2010. I withdrew the nomination because of image issues which I believe are resolved. Ishtar456 (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support
Oppose. The lead does not satisfy WP:LEAD. The leading section is a summary of the article. It should not contain anything not mentioned in the main text. Please, expand the main text with the information that is summarized in the lead. Ruslik_Zero 11:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Response I honestly believed that the lead was a reflection of the article. You tasked me to outline the entire thing here. While doing so I found there was, in fact, a section of the history that was missing. The problem occurred because my research went well beyond the history of Steamtown in Vermont and overlapped with its formation into Steamtown National Historic Site. I ended up dividing the history that I wrote between the two articles and neglected to leave some important parts in this article. I neglected to acknowledge that the two would have to overlap. It was actually an easy fix. I entreat you to view the changes I have made to the article and also check out the outline and I think that you will see that the lead now is a summary of the article. Thanks--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
"When it was retired in 1953, having been replaced with diesel power, No. 15 was put into well-protected storage until it was purchased by F. Nelson Blount in 1959." - source? DONE"This locomotive was on static display for some time in the 1990s at Valley Railroad in Essex, Connecticut, but as of July 2010, it is awaiting restoration in a storage facility" - source? DONE.For newspaper sources, newspaper name should be italicized and article title should notUse consistent punctuation for footnotesFN 11: page(s)? Well, I don't know, and I don't have the book, but I found the fact in an obituary and added the citation. Do I scrap the book reference because I do not know the page? I hate to scrap a book for an obit., but like I say, it has the fact.Be consistent in how page numbers are notated"Steam Locomotive dot Com" is not the correct publisher nameFN 37: publisher?What makes this a high-quality reliable source?I actually found it to be a very reliable source. Becuase of the nature of the subject (not something that would be on the cover of Newsweek) I felt that relying on RR enthusiasts, like this one, to prove the most up-to-date info. When I am done with all the citations, I will look into finding some other sources, but I think of this one as a gem.never mind, I had it backed up with a newspaper article. I put it in the external links section. This? this is a messed up link, have not had a chance to fix it yet, but will soon.Don't notate titles in all-capsBe consistent in whether you provide locations for books and newspapers or not
Oppose for now pending citation cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Response: Thank you for taking the time to do this source review. All of these issues will be addressed (one way or another), hopefully this evening.--Ishtar456 (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I did not quite make it tonight. I have cleaned up (and accessed) all the citations up to 35. I have 14 more to go. I took out one of the locomotives because the citations were all books with no pages. Some day I hope to fix it, but I took it out for now. I stated in the article that this was probably not going to definitive. I plan to have all the issues address late on March 14. --Ishtar456 (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have gone through every single citation and used the citation tool (which I did not have when I wrote this) to re-write them. Every single online source has been accessed in the last two days. Some of the details have been updated. I had to ditch two locomotives due to citation issues. I do not think that there are currently any issues with sources at this point. Thanks.--Ishtar456 (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've struck my oppose and will take a close re-look at sourcing in the morning. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have gone through every single citation and used the citation tool (which I did not have when I wrote this) to re-write them. Every single online source has been accessed in the last two days. Some of the details have been updated. I had to ditch two locomotives due to citation issues. I do not think that there are currently any issues with sources at this point. Thanks.--Ishtar456 (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I did not quite make it tonight. I have cleaned up (and accessed) all the citations up to 35. I have 14 more to go. I took out one of the locomotives because the citations were all books with no pages. Some day I hope to fix it, but I took it out for now. I stated in the article that this was probably not going to definitive. I plan to have all the issues address late on March 14. --Ishtar456 (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Response: Thank you for taking the time to do this source review. All of these issues will be addressed (one way or another), hopefully this evening.--Ishtar456 (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I returned one the the locomotives that I pulled earlier. I have straightened out the citation problems it had.--Ishtar456 (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Updated source review
- FN 5, 12, 47: page(s)? If you don't have pages because you're not citing the original, indicate what work this was quoted/excerpted/cited in
-
- 12 has been removed and two other citations now cover the facts cited.
- 5 and 47 are newspapers that no longer link. The news template does not allow for a page. If I put the page number in these two, will I then be inconsistent because the dozens of other newspapers I used that still have links also do not have page numbers? I have them-I put them in originally, but the citation tool does not allow for pages in newspapers.
-
-
- {{cite news}}? It should allow pages, at least according to its documentation. If you're using RefToolbar (there are several citation tools, not sure which you're referring to above), you may need to show extra parameters to see it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
-
FN 3: publisher/work? DoneUse dashes for ranges I have dashes in the ranges, don't I?
-
- Hmm, thought you hadn't but can't find anything now. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods I found and removed one case.
-
- There are a few others -
ex. FN 47.They're caused by a template glitch. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
-
Still there.Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- There are a few others -
- Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books or not I corrected the one case I found.
- Be consistent in how you notate the publisher of Age of Steam Roundhouse - you've got several variations I found only one variation and changed it.
-
FN 31 vs 34? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
-
31 vs 33 vs 34?Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
FN 44: formatting.Done Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)- Okay, a few other formatting things seem to have gone wonky - for example
FN 33.Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you again for taking the time to do this. I fixed wonky #33. I also went back and restored all the page numbers for all the newspapers (including the two offline). There were some cases in which the newspaper article was transcribed into a webpage (like #4), so no pages were available. In those cases I cited them as if websites. I hope now that you can say there are no source problems so that maybe the rest of the review can proceed. --Ishtar456 (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. I'm not sure how, but you seem to have
doubled ISBNs on some refs, ex FN 43. 43 also has locations where other books do not, and page notation is wrong.Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)- I know how I did the double ISBNs-all taken care of. I am staring at number 43 and I do not see the location. I know I took the city name out of one of them a while ago, because I could not find the city for the other. I am not seeing a city name now. And I do not know what is wrong with page 78. What do you mean? I might be ready to throw in the towel. Thanks for your patience.--Ishtar456 (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I guess I thought Hinckley was part of the name of the publisher. It is gone now. I guess that means way back when there were only two books there and the other one said London, I was all set, but I removed it per your review. I have added a few books since and left off the cities because I thought I had none for that one so now I am starting to feel like I am going in circles. I really do not see what is wrong with the page. I hope this long source review does not discourage anyone from actually looking at the content of the article. --Ishtar456 (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- While the source formatting is not perfect, I see no reason why this review cannot proceed as normal. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I guess I thought Hinckley was part of the name of the publisher. It is gone now. I guess that means way back when there were only two books there and the other one said London, I was all set, but I removed it per your review. I have added a few books since and left off the cities because I thought I had none for that one so now I am starting to feel like I am going in circles. I really do not see what is wrong with the page. I hope this long source review does not discourage anyone from actually looking at the content of the article. --Ishtar456 (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- I know how I did the double ISBNs-all taken care of. I am staring at number 43 and I do not see the location. I know I took the city name out of one of them a while ago, because I could not find the city for the other. I am not seeing a city name now. And I do not know what is wrong with page 78. What do you mean? I might be ready to throw in the towel. Thanks for your patience.--Ishtar456 (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Image Review Images check out OK, although I wonder why the blurry 1974-era pictures are being used. Are there no better ones available of those particular locomotives?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Oh, how I agree with you. I used to have some really beautiful photos on this article, but even though I had the photographer's permission (vie email) I somehow screwed up the licensing. The photographer emailed me about a year ago and said that he would upload them himself, but I never heard from him again. So I am using the old Instamatics that I took when I was 11. I have since become more suave and I now send the link to the commons when I make such requests, that is how I got the great photo of CPR 1246. I had to make requests to about 12 different photographer to get that and not all the engines were as frequently photographed at that one. The infobox photo, that I took, has already been on the mainpage on DYK. Right now, I either have to use my ok photos or have none at all (for those engines) I rather have them there. I rather all the photos on the article were taken at the VT location, but I have stooped to using some from the current site.--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough, though I'm a bit surprised that more aren't available considering the large number of rail fans out there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- There certainly are a number out there, on rail fan pages, but to use them without permission would be "fair use" and I'm not going there again...--Ishtar456 (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- And quite rightly, but I'm just surprised that they haven't uploaded their pics onto Commons, or at least Flickr.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- At least 80 photos are out there. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- And quite rightly, but I'm just surprised that they haven't uploaded their pics onto Commons, or at least Flickr.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- There certainly are a number out there, on rail fan pages, but to use them without permission would be "fair use" and I'm not going there again...--Ishtar456 (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Fair enough, though I'm a bit surprised that more aren't available considering the large number of rail fans out there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, how I agree with you. I used to have some really beautiful photos on this article, but even though I had the photographer's permission (vie email) I somehow screwed up the licensing. The photographer emailed me about a year ago and said that he would upload them himself, but I never heard from him again. So I am using the old Instamatics that I took when I was 11. I have since become more suave and I now send the link to the commons when I make such requests, that is how I got the great photo of CPR 1246. I had to make requests to about 12 different photographer to get that and not all the engines were as frequently photographed at that one. The infobox photo, that I took, has already been on the mainpage on DYK. Right now, I either have to use my ok photos or have none at all (for those engines) I rather have them there. I rather all the photos on the article were taken at the VT location, but I have stooped to using some from the current site.--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
It regards to the photos on Flickr: They were taken at the Scranton location. For this article, if I think that VT pics would be better. There are a lot out there (much more than 80) but they are not in public domain. There is not anything on Flickr that I could not get from the government site, but I don't want the article to be too heavy with Scranton photos. I continue to pursue VT. images. And I also don't think my photos are that bad. Besides, not all the engines are even at Scranton. Most of my photos are of engines that were sold. --Ishtar456 (talk) 10:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't care at which location the photo was taken provided that it's of the machine at the time that it was owned by Steamtown or its successor. Why isn't there any history of the Shay pictured in the infobox? Are there any other missing locomotives owned, past or present, by Steamtown? And be consistent in how you caption the pictures; ca. or Ca.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not think that there could ever be a definitive list of everything that was ever owned by Steamtown. Different pieces came an went at different stages of the history (as the article explains). The most recent trend is to repatriate pieces to their original region or country and sometimes replace them with pieces from the Scranton area. Although that is not for them to do, since the ones that run the best are Canadian. The list on this article is certainly not definitive, but more of a sampling. But you have a point about the shay. I will fix the CA.s right now.--Ishtar456 (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Image update, I was just about to call it a night when I got an email from a photographer with 5 new images for the article. Enjoy.--Ishtar456 (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Update: I have added some wonderful new photos. I have added the history of the Shay. And I restored some text that was edited out (several hundred edits ago) that explained that the list was not exhaustive. The person who deleted it thought that the wording was not encyclopedic (wish they had mentioned that to me instead of just deleting it, because I did not see that it was gone and it was important). I have re-worded it. I am not quite sure if there are any source issues at this point. I feel I have responded to everything that has been pointed out to me. I am hoping this review progresses.--Ishtar456 (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Good, you might consider writing a comprehensive list of locomotives owned by Steamtown and linking back to the main article. But that's a later project.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Image update, I was just about to call it a night when I got an email from a photographer with 5 new images for the article. Enjoy.--Ishtar456 (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support
Commentson prose and comprehensiveness (spotcheck not done) I've begun reading through and will make straightforward copyedits as I go. Please revert me if I inadvertently guff the meaning. I'll jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs)
-
Blount used No. 15 first for static display at Pleasure Island, - should that be "a static display"?
-
wikilink "flue" and "culvert"
-
Big Boy has remained out-of-doors since its arrival at Scranton, where it is still on display as of March, 2013 - 2013???
-
The oldest locomotive ever operated in the United States in the Steamtown collection, it is the "oldest genuine Union Pacific in existence and the only Union Pacific 4-4-0 in existence". - could be rewritten and de-quoted. The first senetnce makes it sound like it was oldest locomotive ever operated in the United States and it happens to be in the steamtown collection...?Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)- I fixed those issues and struck them out here.--Ishtar456 (talk) 09:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- So, as far as I can see, the lead is ok, the images are okay, I am pretty sure the citations are ok, and the prose is good. What next?--Ishtar456 (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment, Some minor suggestions. Niagara Don't give up the ship 02:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- Could a metric conversion for board feet be added?
- Referring to the photo of the Meadow River Lumber Shay in the infobox might be considered a self-reference to avoid as the term "infobox" is unique to Wikipedia.
- There's a category on Commons that probably could be linked to in the article.
Santa Maria de Ovila
- Nominator(s): Binksternet (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a tragic story of architectural pillage, a famously acquisitive American millionaire taking a Spanish monastery out of its native country. The article came up recently at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Santa Maria de Ovila/archive1. Unfortunately, real life intervened for me and I did not get all the way through the points that were brought up. Since then I have addressed the points and I feel like the article is ready to progress forward. Binksternet (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Binksternet. 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, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments. It is an interesting article, but it has a number of problems:
- In the 'Foundation' section does 'church' and 'chapel' mean the same building? If so then a consistent terminology should be used. In addition, does this church have a name?
- In 'Removal to California' section the sentence in parentheses '(In 1954, it was re-assembled in Florida as a tourist attraction which was later made the St. Bernard de Clairvaux Church' is unclear to me. Does it mean that the monastery in Florida was made into a church? This does not make sense.
- Can the next section 'Spanish ruins' be rewritten in an orderly fashion? Now it has duplicative sentences like There are crumbling walls, yards, double arches of the Renaissance-era cloister, and part of the Gothic roof of the church turned into a garage and storage which duplicates the next paragraph. Or the first sentence of the second paragraph mentions 'nave', which is again is mentioned in the fourth sentence.
- In 'Wyntoon' section several sentences repeat what has been already said about dismantling the monastery. Can this duplication be removed?
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Its upper floor was built as a dormitory 27 by 90 feet (8.2 by 27 m) with a long barrel vaulted ceiling. There are crumbling walls, yards, double arches of the Renaissance-era cloister, and part of the Gothic roof of the church turned into a garage and storage." - source?
- What is the purpose of your bibliography section? These sources don't seem to be cited in the article
- Bibliography entries should use same format as footnotes
- Aache or AACHE Ediciones?
- Publisher for Serrano 2001? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Binksternet replies
- The chapel/church question is: they are the same. I streamlined the article by using 'church'.
- Yes, the Florida reconstruction of the Spanish monastery St. Bernard de Clairvaux was later used by a church group, and thus became a church.
- I will work to eliminate duplicate and redundant ideas.
- The Spanish ruins information comes from the Spanish sources. I will pore through them to determine which one supports the church turned into a garage, etc.
- The Bibliography section is vestigial, left over from my initial porting of text from Monasterio de Santa María de Óvila, the Spanish Wikipedia version. I added to it, making it a list of major works about the topic. I can push the entries up into the article as references if required, or I can turn the section into "Further reading", or a combination.
- It's AACHE, of course. Corrected.
- I added the publisher to Serrano 2001. Binksternet (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
- I copyedited] about half of the article quickly, throwing up some less than optimal phrasing and missing links, not all of which I changed (& of course I hope I did not get anything wrong). I think a more thorough copy-edit is needed.
- It's bound to be complicated, but I was left somewhat unclear as to what we now have left in the various locations. For example what does/will the New Trappists chapter house consist of? Medieval details built into modern walls and foundations? Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments from FayeDizard
Wyntoon *'because his fortunes were too far reduced, with too many projects to fund and the Great Depression shrinking his cash flow significantly' - feels a bit overloaded - maybe just one of the three reasons? * 'the Bernard Maybeck-designed fantasy chalet burned down in 1929.' - it's not obvious to me that the chalet is the one being replaced, maybe a bit of rearrangement... *'wished' -> 'wanted' *'a heroic scale.' - for me, this does not sound massively encyclopaedic maybe just a 'large' scale... maybe if you can quote the heroic it would suit...
Golden Gate Park
'The museum plan was estimated to cost $500,000 but that amount was not available. Morgan eagerly drew up restrained and conservative plans for the museum, this project being more in her personal style than the fantasy of Wyntoon. She prepared several layouts for the city to approve, the final one having a different arrangement of the buildings than in Spain.' - I can't find this in source [3] - can you give me a bit of direction?Maybe not the wikilinking of the hammer? But largely up to you...
University of San Francisco
'In 1964–1965,' -> 'Between 1964–1965,''It was in March 1931 that Hearst had agreed to purchase this church portal ' - maybe rephrase to 'Hearst had agreed to purchase this church portal in 1931'- Not sure what the significant of the university being a Jesuit university is? Maybe expand... <edit>Need to think about this a bit</edit>
Abbey of New Clairvaux
"On September 15, 1955—his first day in California—arriving by airplane to serve in Vina, California, at Our Lady of New Clairvaux, Trappists of the order known as Cistercians of the Strict Observance,[26] his superior drove him through Golden Gate Park where they stopped to see the stones sitting among the weeds. " feels like a long sentence that could do with a bit of adjustment for readability."From time to time in subsequent years, Davis inspected the stones to see that they were faring poorly, subject to weather and vandalism." -vandalism isn't mentioned in the source (various other causes are... and you could probably argue the point...)I'm not convinced it's relevant that Margaret Burke has a doctorate - maybe make more clear in the text?'mounted a website' - I think 'launched' would be a better word.- 'he had several truckloads of stones delivered, but they were returned because of ownership questions.' - I think this is a really interesting bit of the article, but it feels a little glossed over - I'd really like to see the ownership questions part referenced individually (sounds a bit like he went and nicked them in the middle of the night...) <edit> this has (I think) been removed, was it not supported or has something odd happened?</edit>
- more generally I have some unease about the structure of some of the fragments of prose - so 'the stones began to be fitted together', 'The strength of the building is doubled',
'"west of the Rockies", referring to the Rocky Mountains' - my instinct here is to drop the 'referring to the Rocky Mountains' and wikilink 'Rockies' but I've got no idea how that fits with MOS conventions.'arriving by airplane' I think we can reasonably say 'flying' here.'Davis made two further requests for the chapter house stones, in 1983 and 1987, but was unsuccessful in obtaining them' - how about 'Davis made two unsuccessful requests for the chapter house stones, in 1983 and 1987''and the city was stimulated into action' I tend towards dropping this - I think it detracts from the important stuff around it.
Second lot of replies
Lede looks lovely...
- 'Catholic institutions in land' - would be make sense to me as 'Catholic institutions on land' but I'm not sure either way...
- 'The abbey, the monastic quarters, the cloister and the church were built over three decades' is this the three decades following 1181 or just a set period of time? it's not clear that those parts were started with the rest of the building in 1181...
- 'renewed attack by the Moors.' I'm not too worried about this, but the sentance appears to suggest that the 'moors' would renew their attack on the monastery rather than the general area....Subscript text
- I'd drop 'cut very neatly' because detracts a little from the surrounding text...
- 'Because of its prosperity and the repeated expansion projects, Santa María de Óvila contained examples of every Spanish religious architectural style used from 1200 to 1600.[5] Still, even at its height, Óvila remained one of the smallest Cistercian monasteries in the region of Castile.[4]' I'm not a massive fan of the structure here... maybe a bit of a reword? The 'still, even at' feels a bit unencyclopeidic and the part about the architectural style feels like it might want a quote - so maybe something along the lines of 'Despite it's small size (Óvila remained one of the smallest Cistercian monasteries in the region), John Smith has stated that "Santa María de Óvila contained examples of every Spanish religious architectural style used from 1200 to 1600".[5]'?
- I'd drop 'changes to the areas surrounding Santa María de Óvila initiated a slow decline. '
- I'd also drop 'precarious'
- " The monastery's land holdings passed one by one into the hands' this implies that the monastery lost all the lands - would it be more correct to say 'Many of the monastery's land holdings passed into the hands'?
- 'The precarious situation of the monastery was worsened in the 18th century by a fire which destroyed part of the monastery during the War of the Spanish Succession.[8]' Settling dates twice - how about 'The precarious situation of the monastery was worsened during the War of the Spanish Succession by a fire that destroyed part of the monastery.[8]
- 'Other valuables such as books and historic documents were stolen and sold.' I think it would be nice if this sentence could have it's own citation, even if it is also cited by [5].
- 'The cartulary of the monastery, a thick manuscript holding copies of royal privileges granted to the monastery in the Middle Ages, went to a private owner.' it's not clear if this is part of the auction or a separate thing...
- I'd drop 'handsome' although I'm aware that very much lessens the impact of the sentence...
- I'd be inclined to move the description of the church shape from 'Spanish ruins' up to where the article describes building work, it feels a little odd to precisely describe what was left after 10,000 stones were removed...
- ' 'long barrel-vaulted' doesn't mean much to me - can you link it to a particular style of architecture?
- I'm not following why 'worth about 900 grams of gold' is relevant? I think I must be missing something…
- The sentence structure of 'Seeking to resell the buildings, Beloso invited Arthur Byne to look at them. Byne was an art agent living in Madrid; his biggest client was American newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst.' is a little bit uncomfortable, but I'm afraid I don't have much in the way of better idea… maybe switch '; his' for 'whose' and drop the 'Seeking to resell the buildings'…
- For Hearst, Byne had previously bought a Spanish monastery in 1925, the monastery of Santa María la Real de Sacramenia which was dismantled, crated and shipped to New York where it was stored in a warehouse in the Bronx.[11]' I would rewrite to 'Byne had previously bought the monastery of Santa María la Real de Sacramenia in 1925 for Hearst, which was dismantled, crated and shipped to New York where it was stored in a warehouse in the Bronx.[11]' and if you want to reduce it a bit more, maybe even… 'In 1925 Byne had bought the monastery of Santa María la Real de Sacramenia for Hearst; it was dismantled and shipped to New York where it was stored in a warehouse.[11]'
- I'd drop 'In 1930, Byne was working to satisfy a request from Hearst for another Spanish monastery; Beloso's buildings looked very promising.'
- I'm not sure if 'a price roughly equivalent to $1.3 million in today's currency' should be cited - couldn't find anything in MOS that covered how wiki likes us to deal with 'in today's prices' questions…
- I'd drop 'spur' and 'steel' in the sentence 'To move all the stones, Byne and Steilberg had a spur road built to the Tagus, and a barge attached to a fixed steel cable was assigned to ferry stones across'
- Done. Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Can we merge the sentences 'Men pushed the small rail cars along the narrow gauge tracks. Cranes lifted stones onto and off the ferry at both sides of the river. '?
- 'as truck after truck full of 700-year-old stones rumbled through Valencia to the docks' I'd drop as unencyclopedic…
- I changed this bit to "as trucks hauled 700-year-old stones through Valencia to the docks." Okay like that? Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I would change 'Byne's lawyer persuaded the Minister of Labor to allow the work to continue—the minister understood that the illegal project employed more than a hundred men and put money into the severely depressed economy' to 'Byne's lawyer persuaded the Minister of Labor to allow the work to continue on the grounds that the project employed more than a hundred men and put money into the severely depressed economy'
- Done. Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Binksternet replies
- There are a couple of suggestions here that go against MOS. One is to use the wording "Between 1964–1965" which is deprecated at WP:ENDASH. Another is to place a wikilink inside a direct quote which is deprecated at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Linking. The latter guide implies there are several possibilities for my formulation:
- Existing: the oldest building in America "west of the Rockies", referring to the Rocky Mountains
- Possible footnote: the oldest building in America "west of the Rockies"<ref>Note: "West of the Rockies" refers to the Rocky Mountains.</ref>
- Possible summary: the oldest building in America west of the Rocky Mountains
- Possible editorial insert: the oldest building in America "west of the [Rocky Mountains]"
I will go with the simplest, the summary style solution. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- I straightened out the bit in 1982 where some stones were trucked to Vina and then back to San Francisco. In searching for more detail I came across a fine new source from a paper in Chico that's local to the monks: Chico News & Review.
- I think keeping the word "Jesuit" is useful to describe the university, so Catholic or other people who are concerned about religious aspects of the stones will know the context of the old portal's current home.
- Regarding the point that it is unclear whether there are medieval details built into modern walls and foundations in the rebuilding chapter house in Vina, I don't know exactly. I think it is a mixture of old stones and new stones cut to replace the missing ones. In Spain, the chapter house walls were solid stone. I am guessing that the California version will have some of the Spanish stone cut away on the interior face to make room for steel reinforcement rods and such. The last stone was put in place on December 7, 2011, but the whole thing is not quite finished. I am waiting for a detailed description in architectural journals following completion. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Still to be done: reduce repetitious text. Binksternet (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Been working on the suggestions, implemented a few. Binksternet (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Image Review Images are good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Question about Bibliography
What is the consensus here about the existence of the bibliography section below the reference section? The books and articles in the bibliography stand out as the best works that devote the most attention to the subject, but they can all be pushed upward into the reference section to make the bibliography disappear if needed. Nikkimaria questioned its existence, which is why I'm asking for people's thoughts. Compare this with the only other two articles that I championed for FA status: Port Chicago disaster has a similar layout but the sections are "Notes" (for cites) and "References" (for major books and articles); whereas the biography article Henry Edwards (entomologist) has a level 2 "References" section broken up into level 3 headings of "Notes" and "Bibliography". Other FA articles on the subject of architecture vary in style of reference sections and lists of sources: Millennium Park has level 2 "Notes" and "References" sections; Egyptian temple has level 2 "Notes and citations", "Works cited" and "Further reading" sections; Buckingham Palace has level 2 "Notes" and "References" which function exactly like Santa Maria de Ovila's "References" and "Bibliography". Should I rename the sections to match Buckingham Palace and Millennium Park? Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I like the two level format myself, but you've set it up differently than I do. I generally use the notes only for page citations; you've got full citations that I'd place in the Bibliography so I'm not sure that there's really any purpose to that section. And to be precise, Nikkimaria questioned the existence of the bibliography section because she didn't see any citations to any of the books there in the notes section. They are there, but they don't stand out among the full length citations.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have just changed the article as I suggested above. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
- Nominator(s): kelapstick(bainuu) 00:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the Featured Article Criteria. I think it is well written (although I am not in the habit of calling myself, or my writing, brilliant), and covers the topic well. I have looked for media to include, and alwyas come up short, even in my request to the United States Army Corps of Engineers for some PD images. kelapstick(bainuu) 00:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments:
- 'Tailing[s]' needs to be linked; I would say it is by no means a term familiar to general readers.
- Tailings is linked in the lead.
- 'resulting in the floor elevation of the lake to rise by 50 ft (15 m).' reads slightly awkwardly. Perhaps: 'causing a rise of 50 ft in the floor elevation of the lake'?
- It is awkward, I changed it to "causing the floor elevation of the lake to rise 50 ft (15 m)." It's a little less wordy than both.
- No citations for the third paragraph in Background; are there statements here whose validity might be disputed?
- They were souced with the same reference as in the following paragraph, but should have had a reference at the end of the paragraph, it's done now.
- The lede does not discuss any material from "Subsequent Developments".
- I'm having a think about how to do this...
- Expanded the lead (lede) section to discuss the sub dev section.
- I'm having a think about how to do this...
- MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Newspaper names should be italicized
- Done.
- Use a consistent date format
- Done. I thought I had (DMY), but I hadn't, so I switched it all to MDY (US topic, use US dating).
- Be consistent in whether you use "AP" or "Associated Press"
- Done - opted for full spelling
- This source gives a publication date of June 22, but you say May 23 - why?
- Stupidity on my part? Only reason I can think of, It's fixed.
- Single pages should use "p."; "pp." is for multiple pages
- Yes they should be, when I used the handy template tool at the top to add it, it used the field "pages" rather than "page", it's fixed now, and I know to check that in the future :).
- Don't need retrieval date for convenience links to print-based sources like Google Books
- Removed, it had came up when I did the "check links" prior to nominating it, so I added then.
- Isn't this the same as the version in the Seattle Times? It lists the same author and title
- Yes they have the same author and title, and cover a lot of the same information, but they were written a day apart, and don't say the exact same thing. For example. the Seattle Times does not list the reaction of Sarah Palin. However, all the material that was sourced by the SPI can be sourced with The Guardian, however not vise versa. I
am replacinghave replaced all the SPI references with TG.
- Yes they have the same author and title, and cover a lot of the same information, but they were written a day apart, and don't say the exact same thing. For example. the Seattle Times does not list the reaction of Sarah Palin. However, all the material that was sourced by the SPI can be sourced with The Guardian, however not vise versa. I
While the sources used seem reliable, there are only 6 of them. What steps have you taken to look for additional material? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- The last "big look" I did was when during the GA review in December last year, there is nothing new coming out of the decision, and I didn't find it referenced as precidence in any other cases (the question I was asked at GA). I have also looked on the EPA and the USACE websites for pictures to include, but haven't found anything. I have found the EPA Record of Decision and the USACE Notice of Application for Permit.--kelapstick(bainuu) 22:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have access to any of those.--kelapstick(bainuu) 05:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Comprehensiveness concerns: Comparing with FA United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Missing:
- Details of Opinion
- Details of Concurrence
- Advocates
- Arguments and counter-arguments etc.
I found the same and other info by a google search: OyezLII[6][7][8]--Redtigerxyz Talk 18:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments from Noleander
- Follow up? - "In March 2009 the Clean Water Protection Act was brought before ...." - Need to say what happened to that 2009 proposal. It was 3 yrs ago: did the law pass?
- Wording - "... is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in favor of Coeur Alaska's permit to dump mine waste in a lake...." - Sounds like the court favored the _permit_, when the court was probably favoring the mining company.
- More detail? - Since it was a 6-3 split decision, the reader probably wants a bit more detail on the (a) arguments of the majority; & (b) arguments of the minority. Also, include a couple of key quotes (if there are any) from the majority.
- Precedent? - What later SCOTUS cases, if any, relied on this case?
- Map? - Since this case about a lake, it would be appropriate to include a geographic locator box in the article, showing where the Lower Slate Lake is; and where the mine is.
End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Battle of Radzymin (1920)
I started an extensive re-write back in October (from this stub). The re-write got out of hand and the article ended up being a GA and an A-class article. It has had extensive copyedits for GA and A-class already (big thank you to Adamdaley, Piotrus, Demiurge1000, AustralianRupert and Vecrumba). During the previous (failed) FAC User:Nikkimaria raised some concerns about some of the pictures in the article and incompatibility of 1920s Polish copyright legislation and modern American laws. To avoid further problems I simply removed those pictures altogether. I believe the article is ready for FAC now. //Halibutt 01:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support per my previous comments. Also, I don't believe that the images in question, dating to 1920, are copyrighted anyway. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 01:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Note: Archived on 26 February; was consent fom delegates given for this quick renomination? Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ueh, I feel more bureaucracy creeping in. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- No idea what are you talking about. There were not enough voters in the preceding FAC. If the idea behind coping with WP's backlog is to wait a couple of months between renominations which noone attends anyway, then feel free to take this attempt down. //Halibutt 21:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest you read the the FAC page: "If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions." This is not bureacracy "creeping in", it's been the rule for ages. You may well qualify for exemption, who knows? But you should try and work within the rules, and be a little less aggressive while you're about it. Brianboulton (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- The only issue raised was the pics. I removed the pics thus resolving the issue. If we have to wait for two weeks for this or that reason - fine with me. Not that I understood what would that give us. //Halibutt 14:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Replying on your talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- The only issue raised was the pics. I removed the pics thus resolving the issue. If we have to wait for two weeks for this or that reason - fine with me. Not that I understood what would that give us. //Halibutt 14:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest you read the the FAC page: "If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions." This is not bureacracy "creeping in", it's been the rule for ages. You may well qualify for exemption, who knows? But you should try and work within the rules, and be a little less aggressive while you're about it. Brianboulton (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- No idea what are you talking about. There were not enough voters in the preceding FAC. If the idea behind coping with WP's backlog is to wait a couple of months between renominations which noone attends anyway, then feel free to take this attempt down. //Halibutt 21:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ueh, I feel more bureaucracy creeping in. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments. WP:Checklist will explain some of these. - Dank (push to talk)
- Done "Polish-Soviet War": en-dash per WP:DASH and per that article. Check throughout; use a dash when the meaning is "to" or "between". (WP is a bit idiosyncratic on this.)
- Not sure "north-east", "defences", etc. aren't American English, but the date format (August 13) seems to be.
- Done "in the area around": near
- Done "counter-offensive": counteroffensive (per Cambridge Dictionaries, for instance)
- "the battle was one of the key parts of what later became known as the Battle of Warsaw.": I don't know what that means.
- Probably, "a key part" or
"one of the parts""one part" would be better here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Probably, "a key part" or
- Done "Latinik, and part": Latinik and by part
- Not sure"The army consisted of four understrength infantry divisions: the 8th, 11th, and 15th Infantry Divisions": repetition. "The army consisted of the understrength 8th, 11th, and 15th Infantry Divisions"
- Done "modern engineering equipment, making crossing them difficult.": modern engineering equipment for the river crossings
- Not sure"This also inhibited": what inhibited?
- Done "lay in ruin": "lay in ruins" is more common
- Done "WWI": write it out. "First World War" is more commonly used in BritEng articles.
- Done "where Narew flows": where the Narew flows. - Dank (push to talk) 04:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done "a line of World War I Russian and German trenches located west of Radzymin, neglected since their construction in 1915.": a line of World War I trenches west of Radzymin, neglected since their construction by Russians and Germans in 1915.
- Done "three Polish infantry divisions: 11th": ... the 11th
- Done "(Bug river – Leśniakowizna), 8th (Leśniakowizna-Okuniew) and 15th (Okuniew-Vistula River).": (from the Bug River to Leśniakowizna), 8th (Leśniakowizna to Okuniew) and 15th (Okuniew to the Vistula River).
- Done "newly-arrived": newly arrived
- Done "achieved ... to force rear echelons": achieved ... putting rear echelons
- Done "the front-line service": front-line service
- Done "that is to say soldiers": or soldiers
- Not sure "came not from the east, as expected, but from the north-east. Warsaw was to be assaulted from the east by the 16th Red Army.": I'm not following ... what happened when?
- Not done "14th Red Army ... It was then": Sometimes you use "it" for units, sometimes "they". Be consistent.
- Done A technical point: replace '" by {{' "}} so that it displays correctly.
- Done "counter-attack": counterattack
- Done "News of the defeat at Radzymin reached Warsaw the same day. It caused panic among both the government and the ordinary people.": News of the defeat at Radzymin reached Warsaw the same day, causing panic among both the government and the ordinary people.
- Done "the Prime Minister Wincenty Witos": Prime Minister Wincenty Witos
- Done "future Pope Pius XI": the future Pope Pius XI
- Done "General Haller, in his dispatch ..., called": More common is "In General Haller's dispatch ..., he called" or "General Haller's dispatch ... called".
- Done "Commander-in-chief Józef Piłsudski": it's usually "Commander-in-Chief" in AmEng; not sure about BritEng
- Done "The loss of Radzymin also caused ...": See WP:Checklist#cause; use a less absolute word than "cause".
- Done "Rozwadowski, and member of the French Military Mission to Poland General Maxime Weygand, even suggested ...": Rozwadowski and General Maxime Weygand, a member of the French Military Mission to Poland, even suggested ...
- Done "a euphoric, but fantastic, report": "fantastic" doesn't usually mean "the stuff of fantasy" these days.
- I got down about halfway, to Battle_of_Radzymin_(1920)#August 14. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- WHo added the templates? Please remove them; see WP:FAC instructions (they create errors in the archives). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- I fixed most of the issues you raised above. In the case of two I'm not sure.
-
- As to Gen. Haller's dispatch above, would "In General Haller's dispatch of 01:00 hours the same night he called the Polish defeat (...)" be ok?
- Yes, the text as it stands now is fine. - Dank (push to talk)
- As to WP:Checklist#cause, would "The loss of Radzymin also forced ..." be ok?
- As long as the source makes it clear that he had no realistic choice. - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- As to Gen. Haller's dispatch above, would "In General Haller's dispatch of 01:00 hours the same night he called the Polish defeat (...)" be ok?
-
- As to those marked as either not done or "not sure":
-
- AmE vs. BE - the article is and should be in BE. However, the WP:DATE states clearly that both formats are fine and doesn't mention anything of one being used in BE articles and the other in AmE articles. Is it really necessary to change all the dates?
- See WP:STRONGNAT, which is a section of WP:DATE (also called WP:MOSNUM). - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Your suggestion to change "The army consisted of four understrength infantry divisions: the 8th, 11th, and 15th Infantry Divisions" into "The army consisted of the understrength 8th, 11th, and 15th Infantry Divisions" would change the meaning. All three were understrength, whereas your wording could suggest that only the 8th was. I simply changed that part to "The army consisted of four understrength infantry divisions: the 8th, 11th, and 15th". Would that do?
- Yes.
- "This also inhibited" This in this context refers to the sentence immediately before this one. Namely: the lack of engineering equipment. Any idea how to word that?
- In that case, I recommend changing "The Red Army lacked modern engineering equipment for the river crossings. ¶ This also inhibited ..." to: "The Red Army's lack of modern engineering equipment for the river crossings inhibited ..."
- As to your "what happened when?" remark above - I don't understand what is your problem with the sentence. It doesn't mention what happened when at all, and it wasn't meant to. It merely explains that the Poles expected the attack from the East and the Russians also generally wanted to attack from the east, yet the first fights started to the north-east.
- What you're saying here is clearer than the way you phrase it there (which is why copyeditors ask questions ... often, the way people respond when challenged is easier to follow).
- It and they when referring to units. I use "they" consistently when speaking about "forces" and it when speaking about a particular unit. Is that an error?
- AmE vs. BE - the article is and should be in BE. However, the WP:DATE states clearly that both formats are fine and doesn't mention anything of one being used in BE articles and the other in AmE articles. Is it really necessary to change all the dates?
-
-
- I can't find a problem at the moment. - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- As to date format, I don't believe a battle between Poland and Russia is a topic "with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country", as the page you cited says. Neither UK nor US or any other English-speaking country has any "strong national ties" to this topic. As far as I know those countries have no ties whatsoever to this topic, be them strong or weak. Or is there something I'm missing here?
- As to "The loss of Radzymin also caused/forced..." - the source uses the word "zmusił", which is most often translated as either "forced" or "caused". However, in Polish it has slightly different meaning than in English as it doesn't necessarily mean that there was no alternative. There always are alternatives in war after all. Not sure how to word that.
- All the other issues solved. Please check if the recent changes make the article any better. //Halibutt 08:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I generally try to keep my time on FACs under two hours, and I'm over that now. Hopefully someone else will check the changes and finish the copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Too bad, I was hoping for your support once we're finish with this 7th round of CE :) Whom should I poke to continue what you started? All copyeditors I know already did CE this article... //Halibutt 19:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'll post a request at WT:MHC. - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Too bad, I was hoping for your support once we're finish with this 7th round of CE :) Whom should I poke to continue what you started? All copyeditors I know already did CE this article... //Halibutt 19:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I generally try to keep my time on FACs under two hours, and I'm over that now. Hopefully someone else will check the changes and finish the copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I finished it up, except that the last sentence is unclear and needs rewriting, without the word "recent" per WP:DATED: "There is a yearly re-enactment of the battle on August 15, organised in Ossów and Radzymin since 1998, in recent years organised by various re-enactment groups and a local powiat administration." - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- I made an attempt to reword that sentence. Is that better? Feel free to change it back if it doesn't. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- That's better, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- No worries. Thanks for your work on the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- That's better, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I made an attempt to reword that sentence. Is that better? Feel free to change it back if it doesn't. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Support: I made a couple of minor tweaks. Please check that you are happy with my edits. I have the following comments for review:
- I reviewed this at ACR and it has improved since then;
- minor nitpick, some of the Notes end with full stops and others don't;
- at one point you use the term "First World War", but elsewhere you've used "World War I". Either is fine, but it should probably be consistent;
- the duplicate link checker tool identifies a number of instances of terms that might be considered to be overlinked: 11th Infantry Division (Poland), World War I, Modlin Fortress, Lesniakowizna, Torun. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Done, done and done :) As to duplicate links, I already checked that thoroughly with AWB. The reason some links are overlinked (3 instances at most, 2 in most cases) is that they appear both in the article, infobox and/or tables within the text. Hence I believe it is better to leave all 2 or 3 instances linked than to leave unlinked name in the infobox and linked in the main body. //Halibutt 22:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- No worries. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done, done and done :) As to duplicate links, I already checked that thoroughly with AWB. The reason some links are overlinked (3 instances at most, 2 in most cases) is that they appear both in the article, infobox and/or tables within the text. Hence I believe it is better to leave all 2 or 3 instances linked than to leave unlinked name in the infobox and linked in the main body. //Halibutt 22:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Have all image issues been resolved? And has a spotcheck of the sources been done? Ucucha (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- All images people had trouble with were removed from the article altogether. Not sure about the spotcheck. //Halibutt 00:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Iraq War in Anbar Province
I have been working on this article on and off for the past two years. It has been Peer Reviewed and achieved GA Status. I believe I have addressed, or made good faith attempts to address, all concerns about it so far. The biggest problem I can see is that I believe its length has dissuaded a lot of editors from taking a hard look at it, so don't hold back! :) Palm_Dogg (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Used
strikeouton corrections that I've made. Obviously feel free to remove them if you don't believe I've adequately addressed them ;) Palm_Dogg (talk) 00:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment Shouldn't the title be Iraq War in the Anbar Province. P. S. Burton (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Even though I've heard a lot of people refer to it as "Al Anbar", ("Al" being Arabic for "The") I've never heard of the definite article being used with Anbar Province in English. You could make a plausible case for renaming it Iraq War in Al Anbar Province. Palm_Dogg (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comments by Simon Burchell (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
-
In the into "...secure the Western Euphrates River" - is the Western Euphrates a separate river (in which case it should be wikilinked as such), if not then it should be "western Euphrates"."stability and advisory role" - these two don't go well together.Stability is a noun, while advisory is an adjective. Perhaps "stabilizing and advisory" or something better.In "Background" western-most; surely this should be westernmost.The terrain outside of the Euphrates area is overwhelmingly desert. - which desert does this belong to?In "Invasion of Iraq" - the first Coalition Forces; I think it should be either Coalition forces or coalition forces, depending on whether the coalition is capitalised throughout or not. In any case the capital "F" looks out of place.In "Summer of 2003" - Major Matthew Schram became the first American killed in Anbar Province since the invasion - I think after the invasion or following the invasion would read better.- In "Fall of 2003" - I ran "shootdown" through a couple of online dictionaries without success - but the Oxford dictionary returned a hyphenated "shoot-down". I'm a Brit, so I wouldn't know if "shootdown" is accepted US usage, but the online dictionaries would suggest not.
-
- Interesting, I think "shootdown" may be accepted in American English, Wiktionary has an entry with a citation to the New York Times. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Hmm. Not sure one instance in a newspaper is enough to establish it as the correct spelling. Simon Burchell (talk) 13:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- More to follow, from 2004 onwards, but generally looks very good so far. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
In "First Battle of Fallujah" you have both "cease-fire" and "cease fire" - all instances should be checked and changed to "ceasefire".In "Insurgency in 2004": the insurgency was still viewed by Iraqi as legitimate - something not quite right there. "Iraqis"? "many Iraqis"?The insurgents would never conveniently massed before the overwhelming firepower of the US for the rest of the Anbar campaign. Again, something wrong here; this needs to be rephrased.The official Marine Corps history claims that the battle was not decisive, because most of the insurgent leadership and non-local insurgents had managed to flee before the battle - try to rephrase this so as not to use "battle" twice in the same sentence. I would suggest "insurgents had managed to flee beforehand"In "Winter of 2005": more up-armored - I don't understand what this means - does it mean "more heavily armoured", or does it mean armour mounted higher up on the vehicle? Either way it needs to be clarified.In "Securing western Anbar": including Akihiko Saito. - why is he singled out for naming? A short phrase to tell us something about him would be good.
- More to follow, 2006 onwards. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
In "Haditha killings": failing to properly initially report - this is somewhat clumsy and should be rephrased.In "Second Battle of Ramadi": The first outpost was built in July 2006; not only did it bring former insurgent territory under American control, but the insurgents also lost many men attacking them. - seems to mix up singular and plural; is this talking about one outpost or all of them?In "Awakening movement" there is a photo of Sheikh Abdul Sattar Abu Risha - the accompanying text mentions sheikh Sittar - is this the same person? If so his name is spelt wrong somewhere...Check your captions throughout. Captions that are not complete sentences/paragraphs of text shouldn't end with a full stop.
-
- I've gone through the captions myself, as best I can. In retrospect, perhaps I'm not the best person for that particular job (I always get caught out myself) - so apologies in advance if anyone else comes along and asks for them to be changed again... Simon Burchell (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
In "The Surge": in what became known as The Surge. - I'm not sure about the capitalisation there, it looks strange.
-
"The Surge" is both the official and unofficial designation for the increase in military personnel in 2007. For example, this official Marine Corps document refers to the "Iraqi Surge" as the official campaign name for all military activity in Iraq between Jan 2007 and Dec 2008. Palm_Dogg (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
-
I'm really wondering about the capital "T" in The, maybe the Surge would be better; or "The Surge" in inverted commas. Simon Burchell (talk) 23:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- I've dropped in a couple of convert templates to give metric as well as imperial units, please check that all units of measurement have conversions throughout the article.
- In general metric and imperial units are used indiscriminately - square miles in one place and square kilometers in another - when all conversions are in place, make sure that either imperial/metric are consistantly displayed in the same order (you can use disp=flip in the convert template to reverse the display order).
I've seen an instance of Haditha Triad (without inverted commas) and one of "Haditha Triad" (with inverted commas) - choose one or the other and stick with it.- 120 mm mortar shells and two 100-pound chlorine tanks - switching between metric and imperial in the same sentence, but I don't know anything about post-medieval ammunition terminology and don't know whether conversion templates are appropriate here, so I'll just point it out so someone who knows better than me can pick it up.
-
- The US military uses the metric system for some things and the imperial for others. It's weird, but I think there's a template somewhere to switch between the two. Palm_Dogg (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Try {{Template:Convert}} - I already dropped a couple in as examples, but Template:Convert has a full list of syntax.
In "MRAPs": The original MRAP they would design, the Cougar, was initially fielded... - the tenses seem to be all over the place here - perhaps "The original MRAP they had designed..."In "Operation 'Alljah'": - They uncovered several mass graves with over 100 victims left behind by AQI - this is rather ambiguous, is that over 100 victims in each grave or over 100 victims in total. Please rephrase it to make it clearer.In "America declares victory" - "21,000 Anbaris on police roles" - is that a direct quote? Otherwise in police roles. If it is a direct quote, perhaps it could use a (sic).
- Enough for now. 2008 onwards to follow. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
In "Human rights abuses": Both sides committed human rights abuses in Anbar Province and civilians were often caught between the two sides - rephrase this to avoid using "sides" twice - maybe "...were often caught in the middle."In "Insurgent abuses": found several mass graves near Lake Tharthar with over 100 victims. - same problem as another instance above; this has ambiguous phrasing. Did each grave contain over 100, or was the total of all graves over 100? Please rephrase.References - Reference no.2 had a footnote that should be separated into the footnotes section. Otherwise I haven't checked the references through and will leave that for someone else.
- Your previous changes look fine. On the whole the article is in good shape. I have one concern over neutrality: your {{rquote}}s are unbalanced; you have 1 quote from an Iraqi student near the beginning, in the rest of the article there are 6 quotes from US sources. I'm not asking that they be removed - I quite like them where they are, but the inclusion of more Iraqi commentary would balance the article up considerably - there must be some comments from Iraqi diplomats/spokesmen/officials/police/public that would be suitable, even oposition statements. There is a partial quote in the Drawdown section with an Iraqi saying "total destruction... you just came in, destroyed, and left."; moving this to an rquote would be a good start.
-
- LOL! My peer edit review said I had too MANY quotes (14), so I cut them down to the smallest number possible. How many Iraqi quotes do you think I need? Palm_Dogg (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Well, enough to balance it out, I suppose quantity is a matter of taste - but equal numbers of both would be excellent. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- On the whole an interesting read. Well done on producing such a comprehensive article. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Support Thanks for the changes - it all looks good to me, bearing in mind I didn't review referencing or images. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't generally have external links in main article- In order for your shortened citations to link correctly, you'll need to add |ref=harv to your bibliography entries and use the last-first rather than author format (sorry, didn't check all of them the first time)
- Ping...Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done! Palm_Dogg (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
FN 15 appears to be the same as one of the bibliography entries, but the title is slightly differentAvoid repeating full bibliographic info in footnotes for sources that appear in the bibliography - use shortened citations consistently
Be consistent in whether shortened citations use author-date or title
-
-
Ex FN 82. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
-
Check alphabetization of bibliography
-
Not following. Authors are in there alphabetically; when the same author, they're in order chronologically or by volume number. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
-
Why is McWilliams after Michaels? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books- Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
Not fixed 00:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)- OK, I think I got them. Let me know if that also applies to co-authors. Palm_Dogg (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- It applies to co-authors inasmuch as you should be consistent - coauthors can be first-last if you prefer, but then all of them should be - and right now they're not. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Palm_Dogg (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Not done. Compare for example FNs 138 and 143. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- OK, that should be the last of them! Palm_Dogg (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- In general, citation formatting and consistency needs extensive cleanup
- See below for more. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Dead links (example) need fixing
-
Running the checker again, but I'm able to see your example. Could it be a browser issue? Palm_Dogg (talk)- OK, that should do it. Palm_Dogg (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This?
-
- Leatherneck Magazine is a semi-official magazine published by direct affiliates of the Marine Corps. Have made that more clear in the citation. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Mir Bahmanyar, the author of SuaSponte.com, is a published author who has written seven books on modern warfare and US Special Forces. Palm_Dogg (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - while I recognize the massive amount of work that must have gone into this article, citations need extensive cleanup. Many are inconsistent and some are incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Please ping me when the sourcing issues have been dealt with to Nikki's satisfaction, and I'll be happy to have a look at the prose. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
More on sourcing - see also a few yet unaddressed above. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't notate either authors or titles in all-caps- Check for consistency in italicization and wikilinking
-
- Ex. FN 223 vs 18. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
What is Unk?FN 31: linked source gives a lot more citation details than you doRanges should consistently use endashesCheck for titling consistency - for example, The Boston Globe or just Boston Globe? Time or Time Magazine? etc
-
- Ex. FN 225 vs 344. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Palm_Dogg (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Don't italicize publishers
-
- Done. Palm_Dogg (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ex. FN 287. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Should I be using a different template other than Template:Cite news? It does that automatically. Palm_Dogg (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Er, no it doesn't, unless you're using the wrong parameters. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
FN 67: AFPS is the agency, not the work or the publisherBe consistent in whether you provide retrieval dates for online newspapersCheck for glitches like doubled periodsFN 119: publisher, page?FN 125: formatting- Why do some of your citations list archive dates as not applicable or unknown?
-
- I didn't know them, but was getting error messages when I tried to post the citation template without them; I just threw in today's date. Palm_Dogg (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, but usually they're provided as part of the archiving, either in the archive interface or in the URL. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done. Palm_Dogg (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
"pp." should be used for multiple pages, "p." for singleFN 168: April of what year?- Where is North County?
-
- North County Times. San Diego, CA, which is also where Camp Pendleton is located. Palm_Dogg (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
FN 269: formattingFN 245: formatting
-
- Done. Palm_Dogg (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- For Template:Cite press release, the formatting is consistent with the template and the other uses in the article. It does look different from the normal news citations. Palm_Dogg (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Be consistent in when you provide locations for newspapers, and how these are formattedFN 312: issue, page?FN 153: publisher?
- Be consistent in whether agencies are spelled out or abbreviated
Don't need complete page count for books in bibliography- Check for naming consistency - for example, Vintage Books or just Vintage? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Update - sources mostly good. There are a few remaining with issues: FN 101, 298 vs 30, 163, 167 (needs pages), 233, 130 vs 252, 40 vs 270, 328, 330 vs 331. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
- 329 needs publisher and then we should be good to go as far as sourcing is concerned (although I didn't do spotchecks). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Added publisher for 329. Palm_Dogg (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Added publisher for 329. Palm_Dogg (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments. - Dank (push to talk)
- Regarding the first sentence, WP:LEAD says: "Do not place a link within the bolded title, even if that seems to provide a graceful way to link to an appropriate context-setting topic. Bolded links look neither like bolded text nor ordinary links, and appear jarring."
- "many in and around the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi, part of an area known as the Sunni Triangle": See WP:Checklist#conciseness. "many in the Sunni Triangle around the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi"
- "Sunni–dominated": Sunni-dominated
- "U.S.", "US": See WP:Checklist#consistency
- "over two more years": technically right but not usually written that way; probably better would be "through at least (date)" or "through (date)"
- "total country's landmass": country's total land mass (usually, "landmass" is something else)
- "Temperatures ranged": Temperatures range
- "Statistics from the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) estimated the population in 2003 at 1,230,169 ...": The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) put the population in 2003 at around 1,230,000 (unless the sources indicate that they didn't buy their own statistics). There's disagreement on whether a number with 7 significant digits should be called an "estimate"; it's probably safer either to approximate or not to call it an "estimate".
- "95% of the population are ... 95% of the population lives ..." : Per WP:ORDINAL, Chicago, etc., either move numerals away from the front of the sentence, or write them out. And be consistent (here at least) on whether "95%" is singular or plural. Also, "lives" is present tense, so it raises questions about when this applies, since you're using past tense before and after.
- "from the Dulaimi Tribe, making it the only province ...": See WP:Checklist#dangler. Remove "it", or move it closer to what it's referring to.
- "conditions in Anbar were extremely favorable towards an insurgency": Would "conditions in Anbar favored an insurgency" be wrong?
-
-
- Copyeditors regard "extremely" with extreme prejudice, and it's "favorable for", not "towards" ... but tighter is "favored". - Dank (push to talk) 22:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- "may not have felt defeated.": I'm not positive what this means ... maybe that they felt that their province was still effectively autonomous? It's better to talk about conditions on the ground than feelings. (That is, "felt that" is a little informal but okay, but "felt defeated" not so much; See WP:Checklist#mindreading.)
-
- Following the invasion, the general consensus in the US was that we had defeated the Sunni population and would have a free hand in remaking Iraq. However, almost all the fighting was in the Kurdish-Shia areas of the country, meaning most of the Sunni areas (including Anbar) didn't actually see any fighting; most of them didn't see any Americans until the invasion was over, so instead of a war-weary populace ready for peace, the Anbaris were actually primed for a fight. Not sure how to phrase that. Palm_Dogg (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to be more careful about how the word "insurgent" is used; I guess the answer is to follow your sources. M-W defines it: "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially: a rebel not recognized as a belligerent". So, if you buy the idea that the US and various provisional governments were the "established government" in Anbar at every point after the fall of Baghdad, and that opposition was never organized, then of course all the rebels fighting us would have been "insurgents" ... but this article says the opposite. Alternatively, you could just say that "insurgent" as used in the Iraq War meant "anyone targeting the US or allied provisional governments" (whether organized or not, and whether we constituted the civil authority in that region or not). If truth is the first casualty of war, language is the second. - Dank (push to talk) 21:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- I'm obviously biased in this regard. I've avoided the Orwellian-sounding "Anti-Iraqi Forces" that the US military used for most of the war, as well as "terrorists" or "rebels", and limited "AQI" only to specific actions or members of the group. Am obviously open to suggestions. Palm_Dogg (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- "summer 2002": See WP:SEASON (which I disagree with btw ... just doing my job)
- "preparing the groundwork for future resistance": Would "preparing for future resistance" be wrong?
- Oppose. Okay that's just through the first section, so there's more here than one guy can do. Maybe someone else will jump in and finish up, or maybe it would be a good idea to run this through Milhist's A-class review for some copyediting help. - Dank (push to talk) 21:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- All of the above has been dealt with except "statistics" and "felt defeated". Adding some discussion or clarification on "insurgent" was just a suggestion. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- For statistics, I rounded the number up to 1.2 million. For 'felt defeated', I'm open to suggestions. Palm_Dogg (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Right, I suggest not saying "statistics" or "felt defeated". When you say "X has statistics that ...", it raises the question whether that's actually X's position, or whether they're waffling. I made a specific suggestion above; of course you're free to say it any way you like. On "felt defeated", my suggestion is not to tell us what was in their heads, because we don't know. Say something similar to the reply you gave me above. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Made specific changes you requested. Palm_Dogg (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- That works. Direct quotes need attribution in-text; I added it (to Thomas E. Ricks (journalist) ... does he go by "Thomas Ricks"?) Also ... I see Nikki is copyediting, so I may be able to finish this one up after all. - Dank (push to talk) 22:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Tom Ricks", but I fixed it. Thanks again for your help! Palm_Dogg (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Sure thing. I'd like to see this one make it, I may do some research on the 82nd in Fayetteville this summer. I've put in a request for help at WT:MIL#Iraq War in Anbar Province. - Dank (push to talk) 01:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Tom Ricks", but I fixed it. Thanks again for your help! Palm_Dogg (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- That works. Direct quotes need attribution in-text; I added it (to Thomas E. Ricks (journalist) ... does he go by "Thomas Ricks"?) Also ... I see Nikki is copyediting, so I may be able to finish this one up after all. - Dank (push to talk) 22:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Made specific changes you requested. Palm_Dogg (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Right, I suggest not saying "statistics" or "felt defeated". When you say "X has statistics that ...", it raises the question whether that's actually X's position, or whether they're waffling. I made a specific suggestion above; of course you're free to say it any way you like. On "felt defeated", my suggestion is not to tell us what was in their heads, because we don't know. Say something similar to the reply you gave me above. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Just FYI, it's been hard to attract editors dedicated to copyediting to FAC, so I'm guessing this one isn't going to make it at FAC without going through Milhist's A-class review first (but would be happy to be proved wrong). In the next subsection after I stopped, just two problems: The Pentagon -> the Pentagon (per M-W and others), and "an economy of force" -> an "economy of force" (unless the "an" is an inseparable part of the expression, which would be odd). - Dank (push to talk) 15:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Image review
- Check caption on AO image
- What's with the strange linking for infobox flags? Some link to the entities they represent, some to image description page, and a couple not at all
- Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods, and those that aren't shouldn't
-
-
- First part's done, second part isn't. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Some of your alts seem to be redundant to captions
-
- I was told that every caption needed one. If not, I'll happily remove them. Palm_Dogg (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Wikipedia:ALT#Captions_and_nearby_text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- "How to Win in Anbar" needs to be slightly bigger to be legible, and is causing sandwiching with the following pull-quote on my (small) screen. Also, do you happen to know what kind of drug cocktail inspired that creation?
-
- Tried expanding it and shifting the quote over; let me know if it works. For your reading pleasure, the full brief is here. Palm_Dogg (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- ...I have no words for that. But the placement is better now. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's difficult to tell what the first 2007 image actually shows - any way to fix that?
-
- It shows a US helicopter being struck by a missile and bursting into flames. I would honestly rather just upload the video, but don't know if it's PD. This brings up an issue I had: are insurgent pictures and videos PD? I really don't want to just be limited to US military images, but no one's been able to give me a straight answer on this one. Palm_Dogg (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, I don't suppose insurgents are too worried about clarifying the licensing of their work...perhaps ask over at WP:MCQ? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Check grammar on "Coalition abuses" image caption
- Source link for File:National_Park_Service_9-11_Statue_of_Liberty_and_WTC_fire.jpg returns 404 error. Same with File:Fallujah_2004.JPG, File:Ramadi_august_2006_patrol.jpg, File:Army_mil-2007-05-11-085013.jpg, File:Multi_National_Force_-_West.jpg. File:3rd_Battalion,_3rd_Marines_-_Haqlaniyah.jpg and File:AO_Atlanta_2004.png have some other type of error
-
- Not using the first (I think that was the default graphic for Portal:Terrorism). Updated all others. Palm_Dogg (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Are using the first - portal graphics count. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- On what source or data set were File:IraqAlAnbar.png and File:Al-Anbar_map.svg based?
-
- I don't know, but they match this official CIA map. Also, File:IraqAlAnbar.png is part of the "Cities of Al Anbar" template, not the article. Palm_Dogg (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- File:Cougar_Hit_By_IED.jpg: what's the original source of this image?
- File:NickBergandFiveMen.JPG: the tag you're using requires that you explain why the image is significant, not the event it depicts - amend the FUR to include that info.
Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Rationale (FUR = fair-use rationale). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Okay, so now you have three different copyright tags on here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Okay, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Comments:Reference currently #171, from arlingtoncemetary, does not appear to be an appropriately scholarly source. Does #172 cover the same ground? It should be removed or replaced, I think. Also the external links need a look to format them or otherwise tidy them up a bit. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment I'm not going to perform a full review, but would like to comment on the MRAP section. I have two large concerns with this and one smaller concern:
- The wording is a bit confusing: in the first sentence the Marines "developed a technological breakthrough" through MRAPs. However, in the second sentence the MRAP was "designed by a small team at Force Protection Inc". In the fourth sentence we're back to the Marines designing the MRAP.
- The above also basically credits the development of the MRAP concept (if not also the design of the actual vehicles) to the USMC. This isn't at all correct: MRAP-type vehicles had been in service for decades before this, and I think that the Rhodesian or Apartheid-era South African Defence Force were actually the first to deploy this type of vehicle back in the late 1970s.
- It was revealed last year that a very large scale, but hugely secretive, program of deploying electronic jammers was very important to countering IEDs in Iraq. As such, the figures attributing the drop in casualties to MRAPs alone are unlikely to be accurate. I'm not sure what the availability of sources on this topic is yet; my source is Wired magazine's Danger Room blog (which is a reliable source). Nick-D (talk) 09:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Have mentioned the JIEDDO in the 2005 section on IEDs, but I found nothing that talked about Anbar Province. My sources specifically talk about the impact MRAPs had in Anbar Province. I'm not going to lie, though, I'm not a big fan of the JIEDDO program - I think it helped on the margins (especially with remote-control IEDs), but did nothing to address victim-operated or command-wire IEDs. And obviously neither program was as effective as the Awakening movement, which removed most of the trigger-men. Palm_Dogg (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Chrisye
- Nominator(s): Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all the criteria. I have invested a significant amount of time and money into the expansion of this article and the results have paid off well. Chrisye, although he did not have an international career, is one of the most famous singers in Indonesia. Over thirty years he released 21 studio albums and collaborated on one that Rolling Stone Indonesia called the best Indonesian album of all time. I'd like to thank everyone who took a look at this, including Drmies, Mark Arsten, and Malleus Fatuorum who copyedited, and Brianboulton and Ruhrfisch who conducted a peer review. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Also, I have digital copies of the Kompas references if required. They are in Indonesian, however. I am also hoping that this is TFA for the 5 year anniversary of his death (30 March 2012) so expediency would be appreciated. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment I found 3 references that have harv errors (using Ucucha's script): 64, 71, and 76. Also, some of the news and web sources don't have a work or publisher defined, and that is problematic for verification. ClayClayClay 04:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Fixed the harv errors for sure. Pretty sure I got all the missing work / publisher parameters. Diff Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Resolved comments by Mark Arsten (talk) moved to talk at 01:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Alright, looks like they've been taken care of. Thanks to the quick responses of Crisco and Malleus, I'm now ready to Support this article's promotion to featured status. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thanks a lot! Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
-
Comment: Since I partly peer-reviewed this last month (Ruhrfisch did much more), the article has had considerable work, including an extensive copyedit. However, I still find some of the prose unsatisfacory. Here are a few examples from the "Band member and early projects" section:-
- "In mid-1975, with several weeks left on his contract, his parents called him from Jakarta..." The grammar is wrong; you need to rephrase, e.g.: "In mid-1975, when his contract still had several weeks to run, his parents called him from Jakarta..."
-
- Sound good
- "Unable to return to Jakarta immediately, he was easily distracted." I don't understand "easily". I take it to mean that he was distracted from his music and performed badly, but this needs to be clarified.
-
- Clarified
- "Chrisye refused" is a bit abrupt, with no explanation given
-
- Double checked the source, reason added
- "Pramaqua Records approached Chrisye and offered him an album" I assume you mean they offered him a contract to produce an album.
-
- Right
- "He attempted unsuccessfully to buy all the stock and effectively prevent its release, but because the general public considered the album a sequel to Badai Pasti Berlalu, the sales were poor." I'm having difficulty working this sentence out. I would rephrase: "After his unsuccessful attempt to buy up all the stock, the album was released, but because the general public considered it a sequel to Badai Pasti Berlalu, the sales were poor."
-
- Sounds good.
Another more general point is that from time to time, irrelevant detail seems to creep in. I am thinking of sentences such as "The funeral was marred by the presence of pickpockets, one of whom was captured but released without charge." Also, the "Personal life" section looks threadbare, with some fairly inconsequential anecdotes and little else. I am not sure of the usefulness of the section. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Pickpockets removed. The anecdotes in the personal life section are to illustrate that he was perceived as living simply and trying not to let his stardom get to his head. If a more direct statement is preferred, I'll do so. Thanks for the review! Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Anyone? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments I peer reviewed this and was aksed to comment on the FAC. Like Brianboulton, I find the article improved since then, but still see some rough prose and other issues. Some examples (not a complete list) follow:
- awkward Chrisye and Joris learned to play by accompanying their father's records and songs recorded from the radio, and were unable to read music.[7][8] perhaps something more like Chrisye and Joris, who were unable to read music, learned to play by accompanying their father's records and songs recorded from the radio.[7][8] or even just Chrisye and Joris learned to play by accompanying their father's records and songs recorded from the radio, as they were unable to read music.[7][8]
-
- I like that second one. Worked in.
- He eventually fell ill over a period of several months, during which time the rest of the band left for New York.[13] unclear - was he ill for several months? Did it take several months for him to become ill? Did it take the band several months to go to New York?
-
- Changed to "for"
- What is the subject of this sentence? Often rehearsing late into the night, the indie project mixed Western rock and Balinese gamelan and was produced collaboratively.[1][18] The band rehearsed, but the project is the album they produced
- Awkward and sentence probably should be split The song was recorded in Irama Mas Studio in Pluit, North Jakarta[22] and included on an album with the other contest winners; originally the ninth track, it was rearranged into the lead position to increase the album's marketability after the original format sold poorly.
-
- Reordered and split
- I brought this up at the peer review as it seems to contradict itself. First they record the soundtrack over 2 months, then we are told that it only took 21 days (less than a full month). Then there is the confusion we read that records a film's soundtrack, but then we elarn that the soundtrack alreay exists and won an award, then we are told that someone has hired CHrisye to record [a cover of?] the soundtrack [or vocals for an existing soundtrack?] That same year, Chrisye and several artists including Djarot and Jockie recorded the soundtrack for Badai Pasti Berlalu over two months.[27] After the soundtrack won a Citra Award at the 1978 Indonesian Film Festival, Irama Mas studios approached the group to do a soundtrack album for a flat fee.[27] With Chrisye and Berlian Hutauruk on vocals, the soundtrack was rerecorded in album form in Pluit over 21 days.[27][28]
-
- Soundtrack - Two months ; rerecorded soundtrack - 21 days. The sources don't state why, but the soundtrack wasn't lifted directly from the film. He recorded both the original (for the film) and the album. I think it's clear enough there, but I welcome alternate phrasings.
- Watch WP:OVERLINKing - Badai Pasti Berlalu is linked twice in two paragraphs
-
- One is the album, one is the film (same title)
- Be consistent on the little things - is Badai Pasti Berlalu italicized or not?
- Fixed
- I do not speak Bahasa Indonesian, but I am pretty sure these do not both translate to the same thing in English "1978 – Sabda Alam (Nature's Order)" and " 1979 – Percik Pesona (Nature's Order)" (copy and paste error perhaps?)
-
- Fixed
- Overall the article seems comprehensive, but I do think it odd that he took a new name on conversion to Islam (from Christian to Chrismansyah), but the meaning is never explained.
Sorry it took me so long to review this, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Not explicitly stated in the source, but the name Christian is a Christian name, which would go against his new religion. Think of Cat Stevens changing his name to Yusuf Islam, with the original name more explicitly Christian. Thanks for the review! Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Rainilaiarivony
Vital Article (level 4). Meet Rainilaiarivony, Prime Minister of Madagascar for 31 years (1864-95) in the run-up to French colonization and the only Malagasy biography to be classified as a Vital Article. He lived through a period of rapid modernization: as a child his father amputated his fingers to ward off an ill fate, but by the end of his career he oversaw a well-organized modern state with a British-trained army and the most advanced school system in Sub-Saharan Africa. The article has passed GA and I believe it meets the FA criteria. Thank you for reviewing and offering your comments. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Seem to be relying rather heavily on a single biography - what steps have you taken to look for a wider variety of sources?
-
There are only two biographies on RainilaiarivonyThe biography I used is the only one that exists for Rainilaiarivony. (The other book that looks like a biography, "La prédiction, ou, La vie de Rainilaiarivony", is actually a work of fiction based on his life.) The "Rainilaiarivony, un homme d'etat malgache" biography is mainly used as a source for details in the period of his life when Rainilaiarivony was not Prime Minister (childhood, family life details, exile details). All the secondary sources I've found on Rainilaiarivony mainly discuss his tenure as Prime Minister, with a sentence or two to mention his exile and his military career. My understanding is we are encouraged to avoid primary sources, which are just about the only other place I could have found detailed information about these other periods of his life. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Primary sources are a mixed bag... Personally, I recommend finding the best secondary sources to build the bulk of the article around, and then use primary sources (depending on their age and other factors) to help fill in the gaps. Also, if primary sources with new details were published after the secondary sources, often their content is worth mentioning. – Maky « talk » 06:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- The primary sources I've found primarily discussed his time as Prime Minister but didn't add more helpful detail (in light of the scope of the article as it's written currently). Much more detailed info is available on the reforms he made as Prime Minister if a summary style is not what we need here. But for the other periods of his life (except perhaps during his exile, which lasted only months) I've found conflicting information in the primary sources. For example, one of them said only one finger was amputated. So I thought it best to rely on a biography that did that research and compared all the primary sources the author could find (including many in archives overseas that I can't access) to do the synthesis and present the most correct information for these periods. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Karthala Éditions or Editions Karthala or Karthala Editions? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support
Commentsfrom Jim an interesting article, no major problems, but some nitpicks. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- I made these changes], please check (some cosmetic, a couple of typos).
- I thought this was article was somewhat underlinked, can you check if any further wikilinks would assist your readers?
- There are three occurrences of "promoted" and two of "power" in the first paragraph of the lead, can you vary a bit?
- With a few pennies he invested... — reads a little oddly, can it be rephrased?
- Valiant and strategic — pov?
- Upon learning of the death of this respected figure — We are some way from the subject of this sentence, I think you need to repeat the name.
Hi Jim, and thanks for taking the time to comment here. I always appreciate your input. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- No further concerns, changed to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Support Comments by Maky
I performed the GAN review (treating it as a FAC), so my comments will focus comprehensiveness and a source check. I have recently acquired two books about Madagascar's history, one of which is cited (source review) and one that is not (comprehensiveness check). First the comprehensiveness check:
My source is:
- Randrianja, S.; Ellis, S. (2009). Madagascar: A Short History. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-70418-0.
Here's what I found:
On page 141, it says "[Rainilaiarivony] built a massive palace on the top of the rugged crest that dominates Antananarivo, alongside the royal palace, symbolizing the nature of a power that had become bicephalous." I do not see anything in the article suggesting he was responsible for the building of the Andafiavaratra Palace.
-
- You're right - I will add something about the construction of the palace. He didn't build it, of course - it was one of the LMS Missionaries (William Pool I believe), who built it on his command. Prior to that he had small wooden offices near the palace. I can also add something more about his houses, property and wealth, which were extensive. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is needed, but on page 148 it reads, "...the prime minister succeeded in imposing his authority throughout a period of reforms that inspired great enthusiasm among Protestant missionaries, at least until his government ran out of steam in the 1880s. In many ways, the establishment of a Christian government in 1869 was the centrepiece of Rainilaiarivony's tenure." It goes on to talk about a few things his government did. Rather than put too much of this copyrighted material on here, I'll email it to you, if you want. Just email me through Wiki and I'll reply with a clear photo of the pages for you to read. Again, some of it may already be covered.
-
- I do mention the Protestant/English influence evident in his reforms, but let me know if you think it needs to be expanded. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Only as noted below in the newly added point. Also, if all the sources agree that "the establishment of a Christian government in 1869 was the centrepiece of Rainilaiarivony's tenure", then explicitly stating something to that effect might be good. If, however, it seems like a biased statement by Christian historians and is not universally agreed upon, then what you have done is fine. – Maky « talk » 22:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- I can't agree that the conversion of the court was the "centerpiece" of his 30-year reign. He accomplished so much, in so many areas - although many Europeans looking in from the outside at the time certainly thought the conversion was his most important accomplishment. I'd prefer to leave it as-is and let the readers decide what was the most important or interesting of his achievements. Lemurbaby (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- You are right that it is not for us to decide what is and is not most important, but if the sources largely agree with these stated assessments, it it worth mentioning that historians (either by name or a general category) generally agree that it's a highlight of his career. But in this case, it's probably not necessary. – Maky « talk » 04:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
On page 152, there is talk of the Malagasy government being forced to pay the French government 10 million francs based on a 1885 treaty. Basically they had to take out a loan they couldn't pay, so "Prime Minister Rainilaiarivony instituted a special form of forced labour that consisted in panning for gold in the country's rivers, which was unpopular in the extreme..." Again, I can photograph the page and send it.
On page 130, it talks about the loan and it's affects regarding the "haemorrhage of coin from Madagascar, as the government was obliged to pay France an indeminity of 240,000 silver piastres for cancellation of the disastrous Lambert charter." After more details, it talks about Rainilaiarivony's personal fortune. Again, I can take a photo for the finer details, if needed.
-
- The discussion about the Lambert Charter is included in the "end of the monarchy" section. I didn't include the detail about the sum of money to be paid to Lambert's heirs, but perhaps it is important to include it in light of the financial hardship and political ramifications it had. I'll put something in here shortly. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
On page 276, it reads: "He installed Protestantism as the official state religion by converting, together with Queen Ranavalona II, in 1869." I don't think the article says that he made Protestantism the official state religion.
-
- The first paragraph on Acts as Prime Minister does discuss the conversion of the court, although I didn't use the terminology Brown selected ("state religion"). It's not quite accurate - people were free to practice whatever they wished, and Madagascar could hardly be called a Christian state. The conversions remained largely limited to the court, upper classes and certain communities within the highlands for decades after 1869. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
As for the other book I have, A History of Madagascar by Brown, it appears have I have a different version than yours. The ISBN, publisher, page count, and date are all different. Also, I couldn't find the material for the one citation you use in there (anywhere). Moreover, I'm not sure what I can say in regards to this book as a new source, mostly because the stuff that covers Rainilaiarivony's reign is probably 50 pages long, and dives into a bunch of policy, religion, and general stuff going on in the country at the time. I've been trying to read it, but trying to reconcile it with the article is only causing confusion and a massive headache. But for the most part, everything seems to check out... although if you are still in the U.S., it might be wise to see if you can pick up a copy of the book. There may be some material in there on his policies that might merit inclusion in the article. – Maky « talk » 03:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
In one of my two sources, the Christian conversion of the monarchy had other effects on the country, including a massive public conversion that upset many of the Protestant missionaries. Apparently once the Queen and Prime Minister converted, much of the public felt compelled to follow the example of their rulers, which the missionaries didn't care for since they felt that the people were adopting the faith for the wrong reasons. Although most of the island nation is Christian, as you noted in the article Madagascar, the many people incorporate the old belief system with Christianity. Shouldn't this be briefly included in the article due to the impact? If needed, I can provide the quote and page number. – Maky « talk » 21:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- I've added some discussion now about the conversion rates, the reasons for people's adoption of the new religion, and the nominal nature of the island's Christianization. I don't want to get into the missionaries' attitudes about how the conversion was going since that detail would be better included in a "history of Christianity in Madagascar" article that I"m planning to put together eventually here. I also added more detail about the other reforms he brought about, to keep that section in balance. Lemurbaby (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- The changes you've made are perfect. I know it seems redundant, but there's nothing wrong with including these brief summaries when they're relevant to the subject's reforms and policies. If anything, you can add a {{Further}} link to the section to suggest additional reading of the articles you eventually create/enhance. But don't omit details because you plan to cover them elsewhere. Remember, FAC is partly about being comprehensive. – Maky « talk » 04:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments Tending to Support: Great article but some minor issues/queries. I have made some minor changes, feel free to revert. I have read only up to end of the "Military career" section. Will complete review in a day or two. Completed the read.--Redtigerxyz Talk 10:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Rainilaiarivony's mother is not named. Then there is "The February 1852 death of Prime Minister Rainiharo (the father) left the queen without her consort" so
- was Rainilaiarivony Ranavalona I's son or may be stepson? Confused.
- when Rainiharo is introduced in "Early life", his relationship as Consort also needs to be added.
- Infobox: Add Command-in-chief tenure, religion field
--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- I've now included the name of Rainilaiarivony's mother. The text now clarifies that his father Rainiharo became PM five years after Rainilaiarivony's birth, and that he became the consort to the queen but retained his first wife (polygamy was allowed but not the norm). By modern Western standards you could say Rainilaiarivony was Ranavalona I's stepson (although it's not clear what if any ceremony was performed to formalize the union between Rainiharo and Ranavalona that might equate marriage) - but that's a misnomer, since in Merina society at the time these unions came together and fell apart without having any legal ramifications or familial obligations on the part of non-blood relatives. It was more common for these connections to be formalized through an "adoption" of the child in question, and I've seen no sources that claim Ranavalona adopted Rainilaiarivony or any of Rainiharo's children after taking him as consort. Regarding the inclusion of a religion field in the infobox, I think it may be best to omit it. Rainilaiarivony's conversion was largely political at the time. I've seen some sources claim he was actually atheist, although others have said he asked for a priest to absolve him and hear his genuine conversion upon his death bed. For most or even all of his life he certainly adhered to traditional Malagasy spirituality (as most, including professed Christians, continue to do there today). Given the ambiguity around his actual religious views, it seems best to leave that part out.Lemurbaby (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- A small section of religious beliefs may be necessary
-
- I've noted that the PM's biographers believe his conversion was primarily political and may not have reflected a genuine shift in beliefs until late in life if ever. The section in his biography that discusses this also emphasizes how difficult it is to actually know what another person's religious beliefs really are, whether on the basis of words or actions. I think that's a fair point. He may have established the Court Church but certainly didn't make a huge show of being a Christian and regularly reiterated to fellow Malagasy (even students in the theological schools) that they had freedom of conscience and didn't need to convert to Christianity just because the Queen had. Lemurbaby (talk) 07:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Power transitions and remarriage: Ranavalona II -> III is not noted. The queen in "Deposition and exile" appears to be II, but she is in fact III. The fact that Rainilaiarivony may be have murdered Ranavalona III' husband, is needed too.
- "Radilifera, the Prime Minister's son," Rainilaiarivony' unmentioned son suddenly appears. Should be noted earlier in family"
-
- "Ra" just means "sir" or "Madam" - he was mentioned as Dilifera in the family section but for the sake of consistency I've changed it now to Radilifera.
- Did he father any children with the Queens?
-
- Apparently not, but I will try to find a reference that states this explicitly.
- Any monuments/remembrance/legacy in contemporary Madagascar?
-
- None that I'm aware of beyond his tomb at Isotry and the Andafiavaratra Palace. At the tomb there is a small plaque for him that simply states his name, his role as Prime Minister and Commander in Chief, and the fact that he was awarded the Legion of Honor. I will try to find the detail on the Legion of Honor to include it in the article and can include the detail about the plaque at Isotry. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
--Redtigerxyz Talk 10:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- I think I've responded to all your points now, Redtigerxyz. Thank you for all your comments - they've helped to strengthen the article. Lemurbaby (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support, but just fix this "The Prime Minister regretted this necessity and was deeply saddened by it and the consequent souring of his relationships with Rasoanalina and their children after the divorce". No verb. May be split. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support by Ruhrfisch. I was asked to review this and find that it meets the FA criteria.
Whileit is well written,I have a few quibbles that do not detract from my support (but should be addressed).The caption is "Palace of the Prime Minister, Antananarivo" but the article refers to it as "the Andafiavaratra Palace" - the caption should make clear these are the same
-
Protestant places of worship are almost always called churches, so temple seems odd here The Christianization of the court and the establishment of the independent royal Protestant temple on the palace grounds prompted the wide-scale conversion of hundreds of thousands of Malagasy.
-
LMS in LMS missionaries needs to be explained / spelled out
-
Missing punctuation and word? Beginning in 1872, Rainilaiarivony worked to modernize the army with the assistance of a British military instructor[, who] was hired to recruit, train and manage its soldiers.[27]
-
A bit awkward and unclear The following year a mandatory five-year military service was introduced ... To whom did this apply? I expected something more like The following year a mandatory five-year term of military service for all men aged 18 to 25 was introduced ... (just making up details)
Nicely done, image review to follow Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Image review The article has 5 images, three of which are clearly free. I do wonder about File:Prime Minister Rainilaiarivony of Madagascar inspecting troops.jpg and File:Rainilaiarivony funeral PS.jpg - is there any indication as to when they were published originally? While they are free in the UK (where they are located now), I think their original publication data is needed. I looked in books published prior to 1923 and could not find either (though I did find the lead image and added that info to its file). If they were not published before, then the photographer of File:Prime Minister Rainilaiarivony of Madagascar inspecting troops.jpg died in 1918 and has been dead well over 70 years, so that should be OK. File:Rainilaiarivony funeral PS.jpg is from 1900 and its author is unknown, so I do not see how it can be asserted that its author has been dead 100 years. I think both would be OK under a fair use claim if need be. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Augustinian theodicy
I created this article in September 2011 and I think it is now ready to be considered. It was peer reviewed in Sepetmber, became a Good Article in December and was peer reviewed again at the start of this month. It has also received a copy edit from Accedie and was briefly reviewed recently by Quadell at his talk page. I now feel that it is ready for a Featured Article nomination, and am happy to make any necessary changes suggested. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note: No dead links, WebCited the four external links. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Excellent, I've wanted to participate in a philosophical FAC for a while! Good work on nominating this. I've got a few suggestions, which probably aren't necessary changes (nor, of course, are they sufficient ).
- Firstly, the grammar of the name. I haven't read the original sources, but the article currently talks of Augustinian theodicy (and the partnering article on Irenaean theodicy) in gramatically the same way one refers to, say, "Christian theology" or "French cheese". Except there's some inconsistency. In the first paragraph of the 'Outline' section, Hick is referred to differently from in the paragraph in the sub-section of Outline entitled 'Evidential problem of evil'. In this, it is referred to as "The Augustinian theodicy". A minor quibble, perhaps, but stylistically it reads a bit strangely and inconsistently. It is perhaps slightly odd, as the philosopher in me wants to say, "well, what is this thing exactly?" A theodicy is basically an argument, so perhaps, strictly logically it ought to be Augustine's theodicy, like, oh, Wittgenstein's private language argument or the Gettier problem. Perhaps they do things differently in theology, I don't know. Don't let me bully you in to my preference, go with what the sources say.
- "Augustinian theodicy was first identified by John Hick" - I'm not sure identified is the right word here. As an argument, the first person we know identified the Augustinian theodicy was hopefully St Augustine. What exactly did Hick do? Clearly reconstruct the argument and identify it to Augustine? (In much the same way various arguments have been reconstructed in the form of, say, the form of modal logic and read back into the literature.)
- "Augustinian theodicy can be distinguished by its attempt to maintain the goodness of God despite the occurrence of evil in the world" → distinguished from what?
- "Evidence of evil therefore calls into question God's nature of existence" → This could perhaps be better phrased. It doesn't call into question the nature of God's existence. I'm not sure what that means. The evidential problem of evil challenges theists to accept either that God doesn't exist or that the thing they call God doesn't all his divine attributes. If you are willing to concede some divine attributes, then you don't need to concede on existence; conceding to the evidential problem of evil doesn't necessarily require you to question the nature of God's existence—the atheist can say "well, if God exists, then he has the relevant attributes that theists say he has, but given the evidential problem of evil, I don't believe God exists because the evidence of evil makes me call into question the compatibility of those attributes." Omitting the words "nature of" might do it, but that doesn't really nail it, does it? You could say something like "Evidence of evil therefore calls into question God's existence or God's nature", but that's a bit clumsy.
- The discussion of Calvin in the lead might be a bit too much: noting that Calvin's view of soteriology differs from St Augustine isn't necessary for understanding the theodicy and probably ought to be omitted from the lead, even if it is an interesting thing to discuss later in the article.
- "Scientific implications" → good name for the section? Not sure. It's really a scientifically-derived critique rather than a discussion of the scientific implications.
- Is Augustinian theodicy taken up a plausible theodicy by non-Christian philosophers/theologians? To say that something is a Christian theodicy has two possible meanings: either that it is a theodicy only available to Christians (perhaps if a theodicy appealed specifically to specific doctrines of Christian faith) or that it has been primarily used by Christians. Often the Islamic philosophers reuse and extend philosophical arguments from those who went before: it'd be interesting to know if there is any development of Augustine's theodicy in the Islamic world.
- There are some philosophical texts that are pretty well-respected on the problem of evil that are missing, but I don't know if that's because they are duplicating other sources. The work of MM Adams for one. Howard-Snyder's "The Evidential Problem of Evil". There's probably some other contemporary philosophical work that the article might be missing, but theodicy isn't my area of interest.
- In the section on Plantinga, it might be useful to cite Plantinga directly and perhaps some of the contemporary literature on Plantinga's FWD even if Plantinga's FWD isn't a theodicy but a defense against the logical problem of evil. (My personal biases might be showing here: my Ph.D is on Plantinga's later work.)
- In the references section, Michael Tooley's Stanford Encyclopedia article is included twice as separate references.
- Otherwise the references look at first glance to be pretty good.
Hope that helps. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments, Tom. I'll reply in the order that you gave them.
- Fixed - it now consistently uses 'the Augustinian theodicy'.
- Reworded identification & added a little extra to clarify.
- Clarified.
- That was a mistake in the first place - it was supposed to be God's nature or existence; I've fixed that.
- Renamed the section.
- I had looked for non-Christian views and had found little. I will have another look and tell you what I find.
- Thank you for the sources - I will have a look and include anything which can better source what's already there.
- I'll have a look for something directly from Plantinga.
- Tooley is referenced twice because the two references point to different sections on the page. What would you recommend here?
- As I said, thank you very much for your comments. I'll get back to you on the last few things ASAP. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I still cannot find any non-Christian views; it seems to me that this is a Christian-only theodicy. Islam theology has alternative interpretations of The Fall, but nothing specifically related to Augustine's interpretation; most Jewish theodicy seems to be post-Holocaust, and Maimonides had little to do with Augustine, from what I can gather. I have found Howard-Snyder's work and used it and have directed referenced Plantinga, as you suggested. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I noticed this at FAC and took a look. One thing instantly stands out to me: the lead looks disproportionately big for the article. The whole page is 3,000 words, but the lead alone is 500 of them. So a 500 word lead for 2,500 words of text is 1/5 of the size! I find it hard to believe the lead needs to be so long..? --Lobo (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks - I'll have a look at shortening it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:41, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, I've condensed the second two paragraphs of the lead, which were making it so long. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Brief comment: I notice "Hell" is capitalised throughout, but "heaven" isn't. Since the two are opposites, shouldn't both be capitalised (or not)? Auree ★★ 02:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- You're right - I have capitalised Heaven where it occurs. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- FN 5 and similar: why omit Russell?
- Green 2010 or 2011?
- Generally encyclopedias, even if online, are italicized
- Be consistent in whether Augustine's works are cited to Augustine of Hippo or simply Augustine
- FN 41: page(s)?
- Murphy & Ellis or Ellis & Murphy?
- No citations to Bush 1991, Engel 2007. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Support Comment on prose, no comment on comprehensiveness:
- The lead is quite good. One query: "those who choose the salvation of Jesus Christ" Is "choose" the optimal choice of words here? It seems a bit odd in this context.
- "The Augustinian theodicy was first distinguished as a form of theodicy by John Hick in Evil and the God of Love, written in 1966, in which he classified Augustine's theodicy and its subsequent developments as Augustinian." Not sure, but would it be better to put "Augustinian" between quotation marks, as it's introduced as a certain classification.
- "Hick distinguished between Augustinian-style theodicy, which is based on free will, and Irenaean theodicy, which sees God as responsible for evil but justified because of its benefits." "Augustine-style" theodicy yet simply "Irenaean" theodicy?
- "The evil nature of human will is attributed to original sin, with the Augustinian theologians arguing that the sin of Adam and Even corrupted the will of human beings." With + noun + -ing constructions are generally depreciated: suggest "The evil nature of human will is attributed to original sin; Augustinian theologians argue that the sin of Adam and Even corrupted the will of human beings."
- "based on the writing of Saint Paul, as well as his interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis." Whose interpretation? Saint Paul's or Augustine's? Needs clarification
- "Aquinas believed that evil is only acceptable because of the good that comes from it, and that it can only be justified when the occurrence of the good required the occurrence of the evil." required → requires? Also, you could lose the first "only".
- "He argued that God's grace is irresistible and will consequently be accepted and persevered in by those he chooses to bestow with it." "persevered in by"? Also, you could lose the "consequently" here.
- "Italian theologian Francesco Antonio Zaccaria criticised Augustine's conception of evil." "Conception"? Should that be "concept"?
- "does everything within his power to bring about good" "bring about" seems like informal wording.
- "He went on to propose that, even in a world where humans have significant free will, their actions may be predictable enough that God would be unable to create a world in which a significantly free agent would do something unpredictable." Could benefit from some tweaking for brevity and clarity.
- "By simply arguing that the coexistence of God and evil are logically possible, Platinga did not present a theodicy, but a defence. He did not attempt to demonstrate that his proposition is true or plausible, just that it is logically possible. Consequently, Plantinga's argument is an answer to the logical problem of evil, whereas Augustine's attempt to show that the existence of God remains probable is a response to the evidential problem of evil with which he dealt." This reads as editorial opinion to me... needs attribution.
- I've made some (mostly minor) edits myself, please check.
- Watch out for redundancies such as "therefore", "moreover", "consequently", "subsequently", and "thus": most of these are no more than cumbersome supplements to the text and are generally unneeded. I removed some but others remain. Auree ★★ 17:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- I've changed "choose" to "choose to accept".
- I've put quotation marks around the second mention of Augustinian, where it is a direct quote.
- I've changed "Augustinian-style" to "Augustinian".
- I've made the change you suggest.
- Swapped the two round to remove ambiguity.
- Fixed.
- Removed "consequently" and changed the order of the sentence.
- Done.
- Changed to "achieve".
- Rephrased for brevity.
- Reworded to attribute the opinion to the source.
- Your changes look ok, thank you.
- I've removed the redundancies I could find.
- Thanks for your comments. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Your changes are great, thanks. This was a very interesting and educational read to me, but I know very little about the subject matter. As such I'm afraid I cannot go beyond reviewing the prose -- which, in my opinion, now meets the FA criterion, so I'll switch to support on that. Nice work and good luck! Auree ★★ 17:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comments: Alright, I've been meaning to review this for a while, have finally started reading it. I took a couple classes on Augustine back in my college days so I have a passing familiarity with him, but otherwise I'll be focusing mostly on prose. The article is pretty well written.
- I suggest breaking up the first sentence of the third paragraph of the lead into two sentences.
- You might want to note that Hick and Plantinga are contemporary philosophers.
- Is the John Hick mentioned here the John Hick we have an article on? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Just a preference, but I'd avoid {{Quote}} in favor of a regular quote in the prose (the City of God quote).
- Any notable differences between Augustine's theodicy in Confessions and City of God (seeing they were written a decade or so apart)?
- General prose comment: if you can make it flow, it's usually better to use the "X's Y" construction instead of "the Y of X".
- "Aquinas supported Augustine's view that evil is a privation of goodness, maintaining that evil is a real privation, intrinsically found in good." What is meant by "real privation" here?
- "and that it can only be justified when the occurrence of the good requires the occurrence of the evil." Could this be clarified a bit?
- Try to standardize how you write centuries: "Thomas Aquinas, a 13th century scholastic philosopher", "John Calvin, a 16th-century French theologian", "vividly depicted in this 12th-century painting", and "and by eighteenth century theologian Francesco Antonio Zaccaria". Mark Arsten (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the last sentence of the John Calvin section is really needed.
- "Fortunatus proposed that Augustine was reducing the scope of evil only to what is committed by humans, though he finally conceded the debate, as he admitted that he could not defend his views on the origin of evil." This is based on Augustine's recollection though, right? Might want to note that.
- Might want to note time periods in the reception section.
- I see you go right from Fortunatus to Zaccaria, I take it there were no notable responses in the intervening time?
- "Schleiermacher and Hick argued that the world's perfection lies in its capacity for human development." Is there a better word to use than "capacity" here?
- Overall the article seems to be very well researched, I'm curious if you think Reinhold Niebuhr's take on Augustine's theodicy might be a good addition though [9]. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for your review Mark; I have made all of the changes you recommended. I have searched quite extensively for responses to Augustine in that time period but can find none. This may be because, as his theodicy was generally accepted and formed Cathloic doctrine up until Hick's objection in 1966, there has simply not been a great deal of criticism. If there is anything I have missed that you can point me to, I will add it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose that explanation for the gap makes sense. Alright, I'm satisfied with your changes and am now content to Support this article's promotion to featured status. Good job! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review Mark; I have made all of the changes you recommended. I have searched quite extensively for responses to Augustine in that time period but can find none. This may be because, as his theodicy was generally accepted and formed Cathloic doctrine up until Hick's objection in 1966, there has simply not been a great deal of criticism. If there is anything I have missed that you can point me to, I will add it. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Note - Just to let people know, I am away from between from the 17th to the 22nd March and will be unable to respond to any feedback regarding this nomintion until then. Once I am back, I will of course address any issues people have raised in my absence. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 22:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Rwanda
I am nominating this for featured article. The last nomination, in June 2011, failed due to lack of consensus and a few actionable objections. Since the start of the last FAC I have addressed these issues raised:
- Fixed formatting issues in the links
- Removed or clarified dubiously licensed media
- Reduced the length of the lead
- Reduced the length of the history section and also reduced the perceived overweight on the 1990-present period
- Modified the text in the lead and demographics concerning Hutu/Tutsi/Twa, to try to clarify the categorisation — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Well done in bringing this article back to FAC. Can I just briefly comment on a couple of details in the infobox? You include two items: "Gini (2003) 41.1 (medium)" and "HDI (2011) 0.429 (166th)". Neither of these measures are mentioned in the text and the first is not cited anywhere. In my view, if these are important measures they should be introduced and explained in the text, otherwise they should be omitted. And if included the sources must be cited. The present links from the infobox on Gini and HDI are of little use, as they go to articles which in my view very few readers will want to take time to read and understand. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- I just spot-checked several articles on other developing countries, and Gini and HDI are included in the infobox on all of them. These measures are also not discussed in the body of the article in the examples I looked at. They're very important measures and anyone who's involved in international development knows what they are. Your statement that the average reader may not be interested enough to find out what they mean could be applied to probably 99% of the information on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean we take it out. It should be available in the case that people wish to educate themselves. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- OK, but if as you say these are "very important measures", why are they not discussed in the text? Please remember that this is a general encyclopedia article, not something written just for those involved in international development. You cannot simply disregard the bulk of the encyclopedia's readers. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Nobody's talking about disregarding the bulk of the readers. This seems to be a question of precedent. Like I said, I haven't seen the Gini or HDI routinely discussed in other articles on developing countries, and I don't really know what more can be said in the body of the article without either simply repeating the number or going into an explanation of what these indices mean (which is what the linking is for). Many of the points contained in the text box are not discussed in the text. It's meant to be a brief collection of important information where elaboration is more or less unnecessary. Calling code number, what side people drive on etc. What would you want to see in the body of the article related to the HDI or Gini beyond simply restating the figures, and without providing an inevitably lengthy definition of the indices? Lemurbaby (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- I would expect to see a brief explanation of what GNI indicates, and how the Rwanda measure relates to those of other developing countries. Likewise for HDI, though that is a little clearer given that you have added a ranking. Nothing elaborate is required, but basic identification of terms should not require the use of links. The fact that other articles don't do this is to their detriment and is not an advisable precedent. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done - the HDI is now mentioned in the text (History section) in connection with its rise through the 2000s. And I have decided to remove the Gini as (a) I can't see an appropriate place to slot it into the main body of the article, (b) the figure cited was very old and (c) Gini is just one measure (to do with inequality) that might be of interest when studying a country's statistics; in my opinion child mortality, life expectancy, percentage living in poverty etc. are all equally interesting figures but we don't mention those in the infobox. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- I would expect to see a brief explanation of what GNI indicates, and how the Rwanda measure relates to those of other developing countries. Likewise for HDI, though that is a little clearer given that you have added a ranking. Nothing elaborate is required, but basic identification of terms should not require the use of links. The fact that other articles don't do this is to their detriment and is not an advisable precedent. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
OpposeThis is in pretty good shape, but the article is missing a section that is in most other FA level articles on countries (such as Australia), some of it seems to put an unduly positive spin on the country and I have concerns over sourcing. In particular:The article doesn't have equivalent sections on 'Foreign relations and military'- Foreign relations is subsumed within the section on Politics and Government, and I find it appropriately covered for the summary style of a country article. I agree that something should be briefly mentioned about the military. If there are main articles on military or foreign relations in Rwanda, these could be linked at the top of the section. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates#Sections, Foreign relations and military is not a required section for a country article. This reflects the best consensus that could be reached following a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Templates. Also, Cameroon, an FA which I used as a loose template for Rwanda does not have FR/M. As Lemurbaby says Foreign relations is somewhat covered by Politics. I could add a sentence or two about Military if you think that's important, but not convinced it merits more than that. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Foreign relations is subsumed within the section on Politics and Government, and I find it appropriately covered for the summary style of a country article. I agree that something should be briefly mentioned about the military. If there are main articles on military or foreign relations in Rwanda, these could be linked at the top of the section. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The history section doesn't mention Rwanda's central role throughout the war in Congo during the 1990s and 2000s (aka the 'Great War of Africa'), and this is brushed over in the 'Politics and government' section."the country's Human Development Index grew by 3.3%, the largest increase of any country" - is this meaningful? Given the results of the genocide, I imagine that its HDI would have been very low to start with, so it's probably not difficult to grow quickly.- This is meaningful, as Rwanda has been consistently growing more rapidly than most other countries in the entire world (the genocide was 17 years ago so it's no longer just about recovering from that). I'd recommend helping put the country's economic strength into perspective by including some info related to the EDPRS progress report that was just released, showing Rwanda not only continues to be one of the best performing countries in Africa, but has also reduced inequalities in wealth distribution over the past 10 years (really exceptional). Read this. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Done - I have included poverty and child mortality reduction stats from that survey. Let me know if this suits. — Amakuru (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Looks good, though it would be helpful to say what the child mortality rate is now (eg, is high?) Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- (Done) Hmm... on looking at the actual report (rather than the report of the report), I can't see any actual figures for the child mortality so not sure where the 41% came from - all the report says is that the level is now "about the same as Kenya" which is hardly very scientific! I have now referenced the poverty figures to the actual report, and changed the mortality to use UN statistics between 2000 and 2009, which show a somewhat more modest but still significant reduction of around 38% (suggesting the 41% figure is probably not even correct). Thanks and let me know if this suits — Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Looks good, though it would be helpful to say what the child mortality rate is now (eg, is high?) Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done - I have included poverty and child mortality reduction stats from that survey. Let me know if this suits. — Amakuru (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- This is meaningful, as Rwanda has been consistently growing more rapidly than most other countries in the entire world (the genocide was 17 years ago so it's no longer just about recovering from that). I'd recommend helping put the country's economic strength into perspective by including some info related to the EDPRS progress report that was just released, showing Rwanda not only continues to be one of the best performing countries in Africa, but has also reduced inequalities in wealth distribution over the past 10 years (really exceptional). Read this. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems a bit of a stretch to say that what's apparently the 66th least corrupt out of 180 countries "has low corruption levels". Transparency International ranks Rwanda's corruption at 4.0 on a scale where 0 is the most corrupt and 10 the least.- This can be corrected by putting it into context: "Low corruption levels relative to most other African countries" - and then retaining all the same stats to let people draw their own conclusions about what they suggest for Rwanda's corruption levels relative to the larger world. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
"The constitution provides for an Ombudsman, whose duties include prevention and fighting of corruption." - this is referenced directly to the constitition. Does this position actually exist in practice, and is it effective?- The reference to the sentence after that links to a BBC article talking about the man appointed as Ombudsman, so it exists. How effective they are would be difficult to say objectively - I think the way Amakuru has written it by simply stating facts without including assessments of that kind is appropriately objective. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's an eight year old news story. Does the position still exist? Has the requirement that politicians declare their wealth it talked about being introduced actually been obeyed in practice since then? Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes it does. they have a facebook page, and a website here. Corruption really isn't a major issue in Rwanda, unlike most other African countries. It's remarkably easy to get things done in this country. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's an eight year old news story. Does the position still exist? Has the requirement that politicians declare their wealth it talked about being introduced actually been obeyed in practice since then? Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- The reference to the sentence after that links to a BBC article talking about the man appointed as Ombudsman, so it exists. How effective they are would be difficult to say objectively - I think the way Amakuru has written it by simply stating facts without including assessments of that kind is appropriately objective. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
"The economy has since strengthened, with per-capita GDP (PPP) estimated at $1,284 in 2011,[3] compared with $416 in 1994" - is this adjusted for inflation?The unequivocal statement that "The press is tightly restricted and newspapers routinely self-censor to avoid government reprisals." seems ill at ease with the earlier statements that the anti-democratic nature of the government is merely 'alleged' and 'claimed' by various NGOs. It would be better to just state that Rwanda is a limited (at best) democracy rather than present these as being merely criticisms. I believe that a number of foreign governments have also criticised the Rwandan government in recent years, so the NGOs aren't alone.- I can't agree with you here. That would be "taking sides" in a contentious debate. It's important that the neutrality of the encyclopedia be preserved. There are plenty of reasons the Rwandan government gives for restricting the press and other typical features of democracy. Restriction of press does not necessarily mean the government is anti-democratic. Democratization in a country like this is a process and given the potentially lethal consequences of allowing freedom of speech and total political liberty (as the Rwandan experience clearly demonstrates), being cautious about when and how to open those doors may reflect more prudence than any intrinsically anti-democratic sentiment. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- The article doesn't present this as being a debate: quite the opposite in fact. There's lots of material stating as fact that Rwanda is a democracy with all kinds of functioning institutions, and the material arguing that this isn't quite the case is presented as only being 'claims'. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Whether Rwanda has a democratic system of government (in the political science sense of the term) is not debatable, since that is the form of government established by the constitution. It does have all kinds of functioning institutions, as well. (Is there a particular reason why you might think it doesn't?) The debate I'm referring to is over whether the government should open up control of the media and political opposition. It's correct to present critiques (and praise) as claims as long as objective and credible statistics are not available to back them up. I don't know whether the debate here should be presented in any more detail than Amakuru has already done, by indicating at several points the type of critiques made by outside parties. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Human Rights Watch is pretty scathing of Rwanda's democratic credentials: [10] (eg, "the government failed to fulfill its professed commitment to democracy" due to the suppression of the political opposition prior to the presidential election). This is a more recent source that what was quoted from HRW in the article, and presents a much stronger set of criticisms than what's attributed to the organisation. I note that Amnesty International has raised similar concerns: [11], and Freedom House rates Rwanda as 'not free': [12]. As such, I'm moving to a full oppose due to my concerns about the article's neutrality and problems with sourcing. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Amakuru mentioned some of these criticisms in the article, so I don't understand why you feel it is non-neutral. What specifically would you expect to see (i.e. what can Amakuru correct) so that you no longer have these concerns about neutrality and sourcing? Lemurbaby (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- The article should state what the actual status of the country's political system is rather than just describe the theoretical constitutional arrangements while presenting the reality as being 'claims' from NGOs (for instance, the article states that "Rwanda is a presidential unitary republic, based upon a multi-party system", while the above reports make it clear that opposition political parties are being actively suppressed by the government). There appears to be a gap between theory and practice here which the article isn't picking up. I think that the sourcing issues are pretty clear (more up to date sources need to be used, the problems with the following material need to be fixed and the travel guides need to be replaced with something more reliable). This article isn't ready for FA status at present I'm afraid, and I really don't say that lightly as it does have a lot to recommend it and it's obvious that a lot of effort has gone into it, so I hope that the above isn't coming across as being too harsh (I know from personal experience how tough it is to write FA level articles on 'big' topics, especially those concerning non-English speaking developing countries). Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nick, thanks for your detailed comments and for taking the time to look the article over. I would like to make a few points in defence of the way things are structured at present.
- Firstly, AFAIK the constitutional arrangements are not just theoretical, they really are what exists on the ground. The institutions and provisions of the 2003 constitutions are all there, from the Parliament and the Supreme Court through to the anti-corruption ombudsman. And unlike the mock institutions of a true dictatorship, they do the jobs they are slated to do: in terms of the *practicalities* of how government functions in Rwanda, and what citizens can expect of the government, they are exactly as stated. Therefore it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to detail these institutions in the article and present their existence as verified fact.
- Regarding the HRW and other reports, it is quite correct to give those the time of day, because they are there, they are part of the lexicon of Rwanda, there may be some truth in then, and we should make the reader aware of what those reports say. However, if the article is to remain NPOV, it *cannot* present those as facts, because they are strictly allegations. An alternative view and some inconsistencies in HRW's own line is presented in this article from a Ugandan newspaper.[13] Also, and slightly separate from the question of whether things are free and fair, is the question of whether the government really is the one wanted by the people. In most dictatorships that would be a definite no. But in Rwanda it's not so clear. For example, in this Guardian piece it opines that Kagame "Kagame could win this presidential election without campaigning". So, if that is to be believed, the most favoured person won the election and democracy prevailed.
- Anyway, the bottom line for me is that if the article comes across as non-neutral then that is certainly unintentional (I personally am extremely agnostic on the question of whether democracy really prevails in Rwanda and am no closer to an answer even after many years living there; interestingly when I once showed the article to a Rwandan he was horrified at the perceived bias *against* the government). And if you and others feel that more article space should be given to detailing the allegations of the human rights organisations, conditions applied to sentences such as the multi-party one etc, or some kind of more rigorous presentation of the "debate" then I would be happy to try to work those in. What I would not support is statements saying categorically that the institutions don't work or that the country is an out-and-out dictatorship because that really would be presenting just one side of the debate. Thanks again — Amakuru (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think that we're going to have to disagree then, I'm afraid. Those organisations are among the real heavyweights of the NGO world, and they all say basically the same thing in regards to the suppression of the political opposition in recent years, so it's well beyond 'allegations'. My suggested approach is that you describe the theoretical structure of the country's political structure alongside a discussion of what things are like on the ground. This would be in line with the approach used in the the (very) broadly comparable FAs Belarus, Cameroon and Chad. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Oh well, thanks for your reply and I will certainly take your comments on board and see (in the next week or two) if the politics section can be structured in a way that addresses your concerns. Where there are sources presenting evidence of the theory not meeting the practice I will make sure they get the time of day simultaneous with the description of the theory, for example on the multi-party point. Whether this is enough to satisfy your objections I have no idea, but hopefully it will be a useful exercise anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nick-D, have you found any evidence in the reports you cite that refute Amakuru's statement "constitutional arrangements are not just theoretical, they really are what exists on the ground. The institutions and provisions of the 2003 constitutions are all there, from the Parliament and the Supreme Court through to the anti-corruption ombudsman. And unlike the mock institutions of a true dictatorship, they do the jobs they are slated to do: in terms of the *practicalities* of how government functions in Rwanda, and what citizens can expect of the government, they are exactly as stated"? As someone who lives here, speaks with Rwandese people on a daily basis, follows Rwandan news and interacts with various bodies of Rwandan government to do my job, I find Amakuru has summed up the reality of government here perfectly. Rwanda is considered a gem in Africa for its exemplary transparency, efficacy and relatively low corruption. If you've found claims to the contrary I would love to read them. If not, it would be helpful to hone in on what the real issue is. Right now I see you talk about the (entire) article lacking neutrality when as far as I can tell the issue is just in the political section. And within the political section the main issue I see you bringing up is the concerns that NGOs and governments have about the Rwandan government's silencing of opposition figures. Democracy as a form of government and freedom of speech do not have to go hand in hand the way they do in the American vision of democracy as a larger social concept. People vote, the elections are considered fairly transparent, people are generally satisfied with who's in power (as Amakuru said, Kagame is very popular because he's getting things done). There is a growing sense of frustration in Kigali at least regarding limits on freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean the country does not have a functioning multi-party democracy (some of the candidates elected belong to other parties than the RPF, though they may not be considered "opposition" parties). Local opinion about the silencing of opposition figures is mixed; most often these people are removed from the political scene by jailing them because they frame their political platform in terms of ethnicity, which is illegal here now (something like "promoting genocide ideology"). For its part, the position of the government here is that the NGOs and foreign governments that are pressuring it to allow more freedom of speech (i.e. to talk about these historic "ethnic"/caste divisions and, especially, to use them as a basis for political campaigning) are failing to understand that this could open a can of worms that could spark another bout of violence. The government also raises the point that such criticism coming from Western sources that failed to take any action to protect the genocide victims 18 years ago comes across as highly hypocritical. So if this kind of information is going to be included in greater detail in the article, I think it would need to include both sides in specific regard to the limits on freedom of speech and government opposition - the NGOs'/foreign governments' concerns, and the Rwandese government's justification for their actions. Do you agree that a short paragraph touching on these points would be adequate to address your concerns? Do you agree that the article adequately and appropriately covers the structure of government and reflects reality on the ground in terms of functioning (politically) democratic institutions, which allow multi-party competition (but may limit "opposition" groups)? Especially if the issue of opposition groups is discussed in the new paragraph concerning the debate around freedom of speech and political opposition? I'm trying to get to the specifics of the content you'd like to see added and addressed to feel satisfied with the neutrality of the article. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- My basic concern is that the politics section states that Rwanda's system of government is "based upon a multi-party system." when this isn't actually true based on the assessments of leading monitoring organisations I provided links to. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Nick, just to say that I certainly intend to provide more clarity on the multi-party point, citing the views of HRW as well as the RW government's views on the matter. I intend to get this done within the next week, along with the other points raised, so hoping the FAC will remain open for long enough for you to have another look at it. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm happy to say that the changes to this section over the last few days look very good to me and that my comments here are now fully addressed. The new material is even handed and nicely written - great work. A few of my other comments are yet to be addressed though: I'll strike the others to make them clearer. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Nick, just to say that I certainly intend to provide more clarity on the multi-party point, citing the views of HRW as well as the RW government's views on the matter. I intend to get this done within the next week, along with the other points raised, so hoping the FAC will remain open for long enough for you to have another look at it. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- My basic concern is that the politics section states that Rwanda's system of government is "based upon a multi-party system." when this isn't actually true based on the assessments of leading monitoring organisations I provided links to. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Nick-D, have you found any evidence in the reports you cite that refute Amakuru's statement "constitutional arrangements are not just theoretical, they really are what exists on the ground. The institutions and provisions of the 2003 constitutions are all there, from the Parliament and the Supreme Court through to the anti-corruption ombudsman. And unlike the mock institutions of a true dictatorship, they do the jobs they are slated to do: in terms of the *practicalities* of how government functions in Rwanda, and what citizens can expect of the government, they are exactly as stated"? As someone who lives here, speaks with Rwandese people on a daily basis, follows Rwandan news and interacts with various bodies of Rwandan government to do my job, I find Amakuru has summed up the reality of government here perfectly. Rwanda is considered a gem in Africa for its exemplary transparency, efficacy and relatively low corruption. If you've found claims to the contrary I would love to read them. If not, it would be helpful to hone in on what the real issue is. Right now I see you talk about the (entire) article lacking neutrality when as far as I can tell the issue is just in the political section. And within the political section the main issue I see you bringing up is the concerns that NGOs and governments have about the Rwandan government's silencing of opposition figures. Democracy as a form of government and freedom of speech do not have to go hand in hand the way they do in the American vision of democracy as a larger social concept. People vote, the elections are considered fairly transparent, people are generally satisfied with who's in power (as Amakuru said, Kagame is very popular because he's getting things done). There is a growing sense of frustration in Kigali at least regarding limits on freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean the country does not have a functioning multi-party democracy (some of the candidates elected belong to other parties than the RPF, though they may not be considered "opposition" parties). Local opinion about the silencing of opposition figures is mixed; most often these people are removed from the political scene by jailing them because they frame their political platform in terms of ethnicity, which is illegal here now (something like "promoting genocide ideology"). For its part, the position of the government here is that the NGOs and foreign governments that are pressuring it to allow more freedom of speech (i.e. to talk about these historic "ethnic"/caste divisions and, especially, to use them as a basis for political campaigning) are failing to understand that this could open a can of worms that could spark another bout of violence. The government also raises the point that such criticism coming from Western sources that failed to take any action to protect the genocide victims 18 years ago comes across as highly hypocritical. So if this kind of information is going to be included in greater detail in the article, I think it would need to include both sides in specific regard to the limits on freedom of speech and government opposition - the NGOs'/foreign governments' concerns, and the Rwandese government's justification for their actions. Do you agree that a short paragraph touching on these points would be adequate to address your concerns? Do you agree that the article adequately and appropriately covers the structure of government and reflects reality on the ground in terms of functioning (politically) democratic institutions, which allow multi-party competition (but may limit "opposition" groups)? Especially if the issue of opposition groups is discussed in the new paragraph concerning the debate around freedom of speech and political opposition? I'm trying to get to the specifics of the content you'd like to see added and addressed to feel satisfied with the neutrality of the article. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oh well, thanks for your reply and I will certainly take your comments on board and see (in the next week or two) if the politics section can be structured in a way that addresses your concerns. Where there are sources presenting evidence of the theory not meeting the practice I will make sure they get the time of day simultaneous with the description of the theory, for example on the multi-party point. Whether this is enough to satisfy your objections I have no idea, but hopefully it will be a useful exercise anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Nick, thanks for your detailed comments and for taking the time to look the article over. I would like to make a few points in defence of the way things are structured at present.
- The article should state what the actual status of the country's political system is rather than just describe the theoretical constitutional arrangements while presenting the reality as being 'claims' from NGOs (for instance, the article states that "Rwanda is a presidential unitary republic, based upon a multi-party system", while the above reports make it clear that opposition political parties are being actively suppressed by the government). There appears to be a gap between theory and practice here which the article isn't picking up. I think that the sourcing issues are pretty clear (more up to date sources need to be used, the problems with the following material need to be fixed and the travel guides need to be replaced with something more reliable). This article isn't ready for FA status at present I'm afraid, and I really don't say that lightly as it does have a lot to recommend it and it's obvious that a lot of effort has gone into it, so I hope that the above isn't coming across as being too harsh (I know from personal experience how tough it is to write FA level articles on 'big' topics, especially those concerning non-English speaking developing countries). Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Amakuru mentioned some of these criticisms in the article, so I don't understand why you feel it is non-neutral. What specifically would you expect to see (i.e. what can Amakuru correct) so that you no longer have these concerns about neutrality and sourcing? Lemurbaby (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Human Rights Watch is pretty scathing of Rwanda's democratic credentials: [10] (eg, "the government failed to fulfill its professed commitment to democracy" due to the suppression of the political opposition prior to the presidential election). This is a more recent source that what was quoted from HRW in the article, and presents a much stronger set of criticisms than what's attributed to the organisation. I note that Amnesty International has raised similar concerns: [11], and Freedom House rates Rwanda as 'not free': [12]. As such, I'm moving to a full oppose due to my concerns about the article's neutrality and problems with sourcing. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Whether Rwanda has a democratic system of government (in the political science sense of the term) is not debatable, since that is the form of government established by the constitution. It does have all kinds of functioning institutions, as well. (Is there a particular reason why you might think it doesn't?) The debate I'm referring to is over whether the government should open up control of the media and political opposition. It's correct to present critiques (and praise) as claims as long as objective and credible statistics are not available to back them up. I don't know whether the debate here should be presented in any more detail than Amakuru has already done, by indicating at several points the type of critiques made by outside parties. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- The article doesn't present this as being a debate: quite the opposite in fact. There's lots of material stating as fact that Rwanda is a democracy with all kinds of functioning institutions, and the material arguing that this isn't quite the case is presented as only being 'claims'. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I can't agree with you here. That would be "taking sides" in a contentious debate. It's important that the neutrality of the encyclopedia be preserved. There are plenty of reasons the Rwandan government gives for restricting the press and other typical features of democracy. Restriction of press does not necessarily mean the government is anti-democratic. Democratization in a country like this is a process and given the potentially lethal consequences of allowing freedom of speech and total political liberty (as the Rwandan experience clearly demonstrates), being cautious about when and how to open those doors may reflect more prudence than any intrinsically anti-democratic sentiment. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- Are more recent figures for income earned from tourism available than those from 2008?
- The source for the statement that "Despite the Genocide, the country is increasingly perceived internationally as a safe destination; 980,577 people visited the country in 2008, up from 826,374 in 2007" doesn't state that the country is seen as being a safe destination (though I believe that this is true).
- It also notes that only 4.9 percent of this travel was actually holiday tourism (a reduction on the level the year before) and business travel was the most common reason people visited the country, so this material doesn't fit well in a discussion of tourism in Rwanda.
- True, although actually according to the definition mentioned at Tourism (and cited to the World Tourism Organization), business and family visitors still fall under the tourist definition. And the source document being used for this clearly refers to them as tourists as well. Anyway, to try to clarify this point I have included the comment about holidaymakers contributing 43% of revenue despite being only 9% (as of 2011) of the numbers. I have also included the fact that 16% of visitors are from outside Africa. Let me know how that sits with you. thanks — Amakuru (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- OK, that works. However, the lead says "Tourism is a fast-growing sector and is now the country's leading foreign exchange earner, the most popular activity being the tracking of mountain gorillas." which seems incorrect given that business is by far the most common activity. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- True, although actually according to the definition mentioned at Tourism (and cited to the World Tourism Organization), business and family visitors still fall under the tourist definition. And the source document being used for this clearly refers to them as tourists as well. Anyway, to try to clarify this point I have included the comment about holidaymakers contributing 43% of revenue despite being only 9% (as of 2011) of the numbers. I have also included the fact that 16% of visitors are from outside Africa. Let me know how that sits with you. thanks — Amakuru (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- The statement that "Rural to urban migration, which was very low before 1994, now stands at 4.2% per year." needs a reference.
- Done - I'm not actually sure where the figure came from (that part was written a couple of years ago), but I have found alternative stats and sources. Interestingly the proportion of urban dwellers has gone down slightly in the past 5 years, having previously risen a lot. The rural population is growing faster than the urban anyway though, so the actual urban numbers are still rising slightly. — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- The new statement that "Urbanization|Rural to urban migration]], which was previously very, became swignificant after 1994." is referenced to something published in 1995, which obviously doesn't support the implication that this has been a long-running trend. Also, there's a missing word and a spelling mistake in this sentence. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Oops... I have now dropped the sentence about a rural-urban migration increase altogether as none of the sources state the fact unequivocally. This: [14] comments on the matter, but speculates that it might be to do with economic development as well; and that rural fertility rates are also very high, which muddies the water. I have left the urban population statistics (rise from 6% to 16%) in place, so people can draw their own conclusions from the hard facts. As ever, let me know if this suits, or if there's anything else you'd like me to say. — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- The new statement that "Urbanization|Rural to urban migration]], which was previously very, became swignificant after 1994." is referenced to something published in 1995, which obviously doesn't support the implication that this has been a long-running trend. Also, there's a missing word and a spelling mistake in this sentence. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done - I'm not actually sure where the figure came from (that part was written a couple of years ago), but I have found alternative stats and sources. Interestingly the proportion of urban dwellers has gone down slightly in the past 5 years, having previously risen a lot. The rural population is growing faster than the urban anyway though, so the actual urban numbers are still rising slightly. — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the heavy reliance on travel guides for sourcing (particularly Briggs & Booth 2006)Nick-D (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)- The problem with a topic like Rwanda (and I think you're aware of this, as you alluded to it above), is that compared with topics relating to "Western" countries there is very little published material regarding it. Furthermore, what published material there is is overwhelmingly regarding the 1994 Genocide, with far less on other aspects of the country. As someone who has spent some time living in the country, I know many facts that are not written down in any internationally verifiable location. Obviously my knowledge of these facts alone, being essentially original research, cannot permit them to enter Wikipedia. Per WP:V, that makes them true facts but not verifiable facts. However, when those facts also appear in a travel guide, written by someone with knowledge of the country, and published by a reputable publisher, that should give them the sufficient level of verifiability required.
- I have not seen a guideline on Wikipedia that printed travel guides should not be used as sources, and when it comes down to it they are probably at least as accurate as newspaper articles published in the New York Times etc, which are explicitly permitted as sources.
- Having said all the above, I will certainly have another look at the Briggs/Booth refs and see if any of them might be source-able elsewhere. If so then great, but if not, I wouldn't support removing material that is of use in gaining a complete understanding of the country, just because the only way to verify it is through the travel guide. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I appreciate that sourcing will be limited for this topic, and allowances do need to be made . Travel guides are problematic as sources for FA level articles as they're not (and obviously don't aspire to be) scholarly-type works, and probably weren't fact checked before going to press. I note that you've managed to get the number of references to the travel guide down a lot, but it should be possible to make further replacements (for instance, reference 52 on the constitution). Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- I take your point about reliability and fact checking, and we should set a high bar, although a counterargument would be that the vast majority of sources used across WP are non-scholarly in nature. I particular, newspaper articles, which are explicitly allowed if they are from a reputable paper, are probably no more fact checked than a guidebook, likely less so as once written they tend to stand unedited for ever, whereas guidebooks update themselves revision by revision as reader feedback comes to light.
- Anyway, re the reduction of the Briggs/Booth refs, that is a work in progress - I did the History section last night, but then it was getting kind of late so I shut down the 'puter without looking at others further down the article. Hopefully will do more on that tonight. — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I appreciate that sourcing will be limited for this topic, and allowances do need to be made . Travel guides are problematic as sources for FA level articles as they're not (and obviously don't aspire to be) scholarly-type works, and probably weren't fact checked before going to press. I note that you've managed to get the number of references to the travel guide down a lot, but it should be possible to make further replacements (for instance, reference 52 on the constitution). Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support My comments are now all addressed. Full credit to Amakuru for the very positive way they've worked through these issues. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support,
if the outstanding issues Nick-D raised above are addressed.I'm living in Rwanda currently and working in development here, so I can speak to the accuracy, scope and neutrality of the article, which is very well-written. Nibiza, Amakuru! Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- As an aside, Amakuru, you might want to try some of these resources to help clarify in the article some of the points that Nick-D has raised: the 2010 CPIA for governance, transparency and budget management; the 2012 MCA scorecard for control of corruption and institutional effectiveness; the DFID FRA from June 2011 for fiduciary responsibility. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support, with the note that of course Nick-D's concerns are valid and should be dealt with. The structure is good, although I would suggest the single paragraph climate subsection is simply included in Geography and that the two paragraph media and communications section is included under infrastructure. Short sections are ugly! This is a concise article, which still covers a wide range of points. CMD (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support
Commentsreading through now. Hopefully Nick-D will strike through issues he sees as resolved as discussion can be tricky to follow.I'll jot notes below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
-
Some plant species are endemic to Akagera- this is true of many places. A number (of plant species) would be good here.
-
The people of Rwanda form one ethnic group, the Banyarwanda, who have a shared language and cultural heritage dating back to the pre-colonial Kingdom of Rwanda.- this sentence is mostly superfluous, as the one ethnic group has been discussed in hte preceding section. In fact, I don't think the article loses anything by dropping it altogether.
-
Human rights organisations claim that the government suppresses...- one thing you can do here is list the organisations, which prevents the reader mentally generalising one way or the other. Exactness has its merits :)
-
I see the discussion above on whether a foreign relations section is needed - I'm not sure but I think a little expanding (a few sentences) would be good - a word or two on relations with Burundi are appropriate to include I think. Also relationships with DRC - does this mean skirmishes? Is the border closed? Anything that gives the reader a better idea here is good. Also if there have been refugees from Uganda it might be worth a word on their relations.- Done - I have added some extra detail on the country's relationships with France and also with Uganda and updated the DRC to indicate improved relations. I don't know if anything else needs to be added. I'm slightly worried that it might start looking like a list rather than prose if one mentions the relations with every country, not to mention that each case would probably merit several sentences on its own. Let me know how it sits with you now. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Overall, looks pretty good otherwise WRT prose. I've not spotchecked the sources though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
- Copyediting - technically we are still in the "last Ice Age", so link de-piped.
- "cattle clientship " needs explaining, especially if there's no link.
- "uburetwa, a system of Hutu forced labour..." ideally rephrase to clarify if the Hutu were forced or forcing, or both.
- more later. Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Support from Cryptic C62. I worked extensively with Amakuru to improve the clarity and accessibility of the prose, so I am a bit biased in that regard. Some other quick nitpick checks, which have all been addressed:
- (good) No one- or two-sentence paragraphs
- (good) Image captions are correctly punctuated
- (good) Correct use of en dashes
- (good) Wikilink density looks reasonably consistent
- (done) The lead does not appear to summarize any material from the Administrative divisions section. This can be remedied by inserting a snippet, or by making the aforementioned section into a subsection of Politics and government or Geography.
- (done) There needs to be a consistent format when introducing non-English words: either italicize all of them or italicize none of them. Personally, I would prefer to see them all italicized. The Culture section is in particular need of attention on this point.
- (done) Similarly, there needs to be a consistent format for percentages: either 55% or 55 %, but not both. I prefer the unspaced variety. The Demographics section needs help on this point.
As always, thanks for all the effort that you've put into this so far! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Delegate's comments - Is the image review from the previous FAC still valid, i.e. no changes? And, have spotchecks been done? Graham Colm (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- Images are good
- Redtigerxyz: I see someone has inserted a cropped version of the US government public domain photo of Habyarimana: File:Juvénal Habyarimana (1980).jpg. Presumably that is still acceptable, license wise, is it? — Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comments Few Harv notations need fixing. Ref 60, 61, 154 do not corresponding links in "References" this version.--Redtigerxyz Talk 04:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed - I have resolved the three links you mention. When you say "Few Harv notations need fixing" was it those three that you were referring to? Or is there an issue with the notation somewhere? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Issue is fixed. One more observation. BBC News (III) is not used,then why have it? --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Delegate's comment - Spotchecks of the sources, for verification and close paraphrasing, are still needed. Graham Colm (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- I see you struck this one out on the FAC talk page, is it still needed? ClayClayClay 20:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yes it is. Sorry I'm an idiot. :( Graham Colm (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Spotcheck of reliable sources:
- Note: the ref numbers below refer to this version of the article. — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Nos. 11, 22, 24, 25, 161, 169, 173 (Prunier); 53, 59, 63, 64, 66, 91 (CJCR) okay
No. 54 (CJCR) should be separated: presidential elections is on p. 25, while prime ministerial stuff is on p. 29.No. 68, 71, 74 (CJCR) (pp. 148, 142, and 182, respectively) have page numbers outside of the range of the 55-page document.- Regarding CJCR references in general: Some of the text cited to these references resembles close paraphrasing; you should go through and try to rewrite the information to alleviate this concern.
- Do you have an example of a problem case? The problem is that most of the CJCR points are short single phrases, for example each of the list of powers of the President comes from one article detailing those powers. It seems hard to avoid close paraphrasing in that instance as you're pretty much just saying what the power is. Happy to have a go at rewording, or to change bits to quotations but not sure which to change at this stage. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
No. 21 (Prunier) page numbers (currently pp. 14-15) should be pp. 13-14 (I'd assume, as I found all the other information from this source on the listed page numbers).No. 29 (Pottier): I cannot find this on the given page (p. 11), nor while searching around; maybe somewhere in pp. 110-119?- No. 168 (Prunier) the source very weakly supports the information:
- Article: "Rwanda has been a unified state since pre-colonial times with only one ethnic group, the Banyarwanda..."
- Source: "If war acted as a kind of 'social coagulant' where Tutsi, Hutu and Twa, although still unequal, were nevertheless first and foremost Banyarwanda facing a common enemy..."
- Note: This is such a minor point, so forgive me, but the book seems to be saying here that the three groups come together in times of war, not that they are all part of a central ethnic group, per se. I'm sure there are better sources for this information.
Notes/References sections errors:
No. 139: should include a year per #137, 119, 50.Briggs and Booth 2010, RDB IV: both are not used in the article and should be removed from this section (pointed out by Ucucha's HarvErrors script).
The majority of the information I checked seems to be cited correctly, but I am concerned that the CJCR information wasn't taken care of well enough, as there are close paraphrasing issues and citations to page numbers that don't exist. ClayClayClay 09:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- The minor errors have for the most part been dealt with, excepting Graham's additional findings below. Sorry for not recognizing that one article that didn't have a year. Also, thanks for putting the old revision up at the top. ClayClayClay 18:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Clay, there are other errors; Ref. 65 gives page 19 of the CJCR as the source for information that is on page 18. These errors may seem trivial, but they should not occur in a Featured Article. Graham Colm (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed, I hope - I'm wondering if there was an issue with rendering here. I'm think the page numbers of a .doc file are not necessarily set in stone, and I have definitely seen them appear differently between Word and OpenOffice.org in the past. I have therefore changed all CJCR refs from page based to location based, detailing the specific article of the constitution in which the fact appears. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Bastion (video game)
Back again, this time with the indie video game darling of 2011! Bastion is a GA, been copyedited by me several times over the past month, has its refs archived, has image rationales and alt text, and overall feels up to the level of my other video game FAs. Thanks for reviewing and showing me how wrong (or right) I am! --PresN 19:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: PresN. 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, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Comments: I read through the article a few weeks back and thought it was pretty complete/well written. I have a few comments and suggestions on the prose though:
- There is a lot of "the game" in the first couple paragraphs, if you can think of a good way to cut a couple out that might be a good idea.
- "a team of seven people split between a house in Los Angeles and New York." I'd suggest "split between houses in..." here.
- In the Gameplay section you start two consecutive sentences with "Levels", I suggest rephrasing there.
- "the shrine lets the player choose idols of the gods to mock, causing the enemies to become stronger while giving increased experience points and currency." Who receives the currency that is given here? (I assume the player, but it might be good to clarify.)
- "destroying a certain number of objects with it within a given time" I'd suggest avoiding the "with it within" if you can think of a good way to avoid it. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Responses:
- Wow, I really did, didn't I. Done.
- Dropped the "house" bit from the lead- the idea was 5 in a house in LA, while Korb and Cunningham lived and worked in NYC. Spelled out in the dev section.
- Done.
- Done.
- Done.
--PresN 22:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, fixes look good. I made a few more copyedits. Here're a few more comments:
- Do you think "courses designed to test the player's skills with the weapons" would be an improvement over "courses designed to test the player's abilities at using the weapons"?
- "sets off for the titular Bastion, where everyone was supposed to go in troubled times." Should this be "was" or "is"?
- "who had worked for the Caelondians in building a weapon intended to destroy the Ura completely to prevent another war." This feels a bit wordy to me, trying to think of a good way to tighten it.
- "The original idea was based around the idea..." I suggest rephrasing to remove the "idea... idea" here.
- "a way to provide background details and depth to the world without having the player read long strings of text" Maybe "requiring" or something more specific than "having" here.
- "A playable version of the game was debuted at the" Do we need the "was" here? (I honestly don't know.)
- " A playable version of the game was debuted at the September 2010 Penny Arcade Expo, where it was well received, and after a strong showing at the March 2011 Game Developers Conference, Warner Bros. signed on to publish and distribute the game." I suggest splitting this into two sentences. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Yes, done.
- Is sounds wrong to my ear, possibly because the "everyone" in question is dead, and so are past tense.
- Tried chopping the sentence in half.
- Idea->premise
- Used requiring
- "debuted" makes the game the actor, while "was debuted" makes the dev team the implicit actor; I'd prefer to leave it as "was"
- Done.
--PresN 20:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Alright, thanks for clearing those up for me. I'll try to remember that one about debuted for future reference. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Ok, these are the last of the notes I made about the article, made a few more copyedits:
- ""Build" features the voice of Ashley Barrett, "Mother" that of Korb, and "Set Sail" of both." Is there a good way to rephrase the last part? It sounds a bit awkward, but it could just be me.
- "The musical style of the soundtrack has been described by Korb as "acoustic frontier trip hop"." This may be an MOS linking violation.
- Watch out for the overuse of "while". I just noticed it twice in this sentence: "Each structure serves a different purpose; for example, the distillery lets the player select upgrades, while the shrine lets the player choose idols of the gods to mock, causing the enemies to become stronger while giving the player increased experience points and currency."
- "Bastion was released to a strong reception. The game sold over 500,000 copies during 2011, 200,000 of which were for the Xbox Live Arcade.[37][38] Bastion received generally strong reviews." It almost feels to me like you're trying to fit two different topic sentences in one paragraph here, maybe try to combine them? Maybe something like: "Bastion was released to strong sales and critical reviews."?
- "The game has won several awards, beginning prior to publication." is "beginning" dangling here? I read it a couple times and I'm not sure.
- Leaning to support, will probably read through the article again just to be sure I didn't miss anything. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Rephrased.
- It is, delinked.
- Hmm, "highlight all" definitely shows a bunch of "while" clumps. Replaced about half of them- something for me to watch out for in the future.
- Done.
- Reworked to avoid the issue.
--PresN 21:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Wow, you're quick with the fixes! Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- I'm back again, a few more comments:
- "and went on to win and be nominated for awards at the 2011 Independent Games Festival and Electronic Entertainment Expo prior to release." This sentence has been bothering me a bit. Could it be clarified here whether it was nominated and awards won at both or was nominated at one and won at the other?
- Just noticed that in the first paragraph of Gameplay you start three sentences in a row with "The player". Also you use "the player" a lot in that section, though I guess it would be hard not to. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Levels contain many different environment types, including cities, forests, and bogs." Do you think bog is uncommon enough to be linked, or should that stay unlinked?
- "At any point in the game, the player can choose between at most two regular levels." I'm not sure about the "at most two" phrase, perhaps "one or two" would be better?
- "Rucks' narration while the Kid travels reveals that he had previously told Zia that the Bastion had the ability to somehow fix the Calamity" Who does "he" refer to here? Mark Arsten (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- "They also wanted to forgo a map system, and felt that having the ground come up to the player allowed them to easily see without a map where they had been or not been in a level." I'm having a bit of trouble understanding this, it might just be me though.
- "To avoid slowing the pace of the action-oriented gameplay, they had the narrator mainly speak in short, evocative phrases, with long pauses between speaking parts." I'd avoid "they" here, probably better to state "the team" or something.
- "An early version of the game was shown at the March 2010 Game Developers Conference, to little acclaim. A playable version of the game was debuted at the September 2010 Penny Arcade Expo, where it was well received." Maybe note that the first version was unplayable?
- "Of the presentation elements, the story was the least praised; though several reviewers such as Noble enjoyed it, saying that it "just gets better the further you delve into it," Ryan Scott of GameSpy termed it a "just-sorta-there plot" and Greg Miller said that it "could have been better" and never "hooked" him." This is a sorta long sentence, I suggest breaking it up.
- "and Scott called it enjoyable, though not challenging." Just checking, is this a paraphrase or did you forget to put quotation marks?
- A few sentences in the last couple paragraphs are pretty long, but that may just be a preference issue on my part.
- Alright, I think that's the last of my comments. I'm poised to support pending the resolution of these last few comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Done.
- Removed the repetition; not much I can do about "the player" appearing all over.
- I'd leave it unlinked.
- Done.
- Reworked.
- The pronouns were a bit ambiguous, reworked.
- Done.
- Sure, done.
- Broken up.
- Quotes for two of the words; he used the words enjoyable and challenging in the review, but not that phrase.
- There's nothing there I'm bothered about, but if anyone else also feels that they're too long I'll go ahead and rearrange things.
- --PresN 23:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Alright, all the issues I could find have been resolved and I'm happy to Support this article's promotion. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
-
- Comment - I think the resolution of File:Bastion screenshot.png is too high at 960x540, particularly in a lossless png format. And yet, the image size on the article is too small at default preferences (220px wide) and I can hardly make out any detail. I also think you can pick out a better screenshot, showing more enemies, action and colour. The narration was by far the most well received and original part of the game, it would be useful to have an audio snippet. I'm not sure how well this would work without the accompanying action, I'm not sure about whether our non-free guidelines rules out video, but even voice alone would convey the tone of the game and story. - hahnchen 23:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Support I reviewed it at GAN and now believe it meets the FA criteria. Regards.--♫GoP♫TCN 11:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Don't need to bracket ellipses unless there's another ellipsis in the original source
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source? this? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- Removed all brackets from quotes that did not contain ellipsis in the first place.
- The Giant Bomb piece is written by Jeff Gerstmann, founder of the site and former editorial director of GameSpot, and the videos themselves feature him and the game developers themselves. IndieGames.com is the indie game news outlet of UBM TechWeb, which runs Gamasutra, Game Developer magazine, and the Game Developers Conference/Independent Games Festival. --PresN 01:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Axem Titanium (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC) |
---|
*Comments: Overall a good read for a game I've never played (though I'd like to). Some thoughts:
|
- Support, all my issues are addressed. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Support Comments from Noleander
- Readers will want to know what the price was ... I don't see the price in the article. Even if the price varied, at least give a price range, for the US or UK markets.
- More precise wording? - "At any point in the game, the player can choose between one or two regular levels. " - I presume that this choice is not made at any point in the game, but rather whenever a level is completed, the player has two choices of the next level? Probably should be reworded to be clearer.
- Pronounciation: "Caelondia" - Readers may want to know if that is sounded K or S.
- Wording: "The idea of a narrator was added early in the game's development ..." - Could delete the words "idea of a".
- More on fan opinions? - This game was, apparently, a big hit. Yet the Reception section seems very sterile; certainly the official reviews deserve prominent discussion ... but can some other data be adde that gives the reader a feeling for the enthusiasm of the fan base? I know that WP:V limits what material can be added, but if there was a huge/faithful/loyal following, can that be indicated somehow? Perhaps calls for a sequel, etc.
- Overall, a fine article, will support once the above are addressed.
End Noleander comments --Noleander (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Begin PresN responses:
- Per WPVG guidelines, derived from Wikipedia is not a directory: Sales catalogs, prices should not be included for video games unless they were notable- in this case, $15 at launch, it was basically on par with other indie games of its caliber and reviewers didn't take note or exception to it.
- Reworded, how's that?
- Well, today I learned how to do the IPA template. Done- it's say-lon-dee-uh/seɪˈlɒndiə.
- Done.
- I'd love to, but there's not much I can do, I'm afraid- it's a perennial issue in VG article development. Fan opinions are inherently non-notable, unless a journalist comments on them- forum comments and Reddit threads can't really be cited, and things like user review scores tend to be based on a vocal minority, either up or down. In this particular case, it would be that most people liked the game, thought the narrator was a great idea and the music really good, but there's no RS supporting that. Review scores and awards are all we've got- sadly enough I'm lucky to even have some sales numbers for the game, as that's fairly uncommon.
- Thanks for reviewing!
End PresN responses. --PresN 20:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Delegate notes
- As the nominator had a spotcheck from Nikki in another FAC last year, I think we can forego one in this nom.
- I notice some discussion on images but has anyone checked all media licensing (and is prepared to sign off on same)?
- Best to end each paragraph with a citation; that's missing from the first paragraph in Gameplay -- pls action. Same for one paragraph in Plot -- although plots in novel and film articles are not usually cited, since you've done it in this article you might want to take care of that one too, for internal consistency. Cheers Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Images (although Axem Titanium already said a bit about them) The two non-free images are good, used correctly and described adequately on their file pages. The two CC BY 2.0 images are tagged correctly as such and are also used correctly in the article. ClayClayClay 19:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Werner Hartenstein
- Nominator(s): MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Triggered by the BBC mini series "The Sinking of the Laconia" I started investigating the life of Werner Hartenstein. I believe to have come very close to making this article featured. Please help me improve the article further. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Consistency review of sources
- Be consistent in how you notate foreign-language sources—esp. where you place the "(in German)" notice; before or after pub. & loc. details
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Be consistent in how you notate multiple editors: with an ampersand, a semicolon or an "and"
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
- Be consistent in how you notate pub years: with brackets between the title and the author or with a comma after the publisher
- done except for the last one. I can't get {{Cite book}} to render the year in the right place. Suggestions? MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
--Eisfbnore talk 14:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
-
- I think you'll find the problem with the "cite book" is that no author fields have been filled in. If you put in the first/last fields that you have used in the others, or even "|author=Anon." then the year will go to the right place. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Image review
- Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- File:Werner_Hartenstein_with_KC.jpg: "unique historic image" template doesn't seem to work here
- Converted to {{Non-free fair use in}}. Is this appropriate? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- File:Pedernales_sinking.jpg needs a more complete FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I update the replaceability tag MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I think "was involved in the Laconia incident" is too vague. I would prefer the sentence to explain what he did in the Laconia incident. DrKiernan (talk) 08:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per discussions at WT:MHC#Werner Hartenstein and WT:FAC#Copyediting question. MisterBee is one of our top contributors at Milhist and I very much enjoy his articles, and I'm a Germanophile myself, but I can't support. The preponderance of German words and difficult concepts for the general reader goes beyond anything I've seen in printed English-language encyclopedias (on any subject) and goes beyond what the best style guides recommend. If you'd like to keep the article the way it is, MisterBee, I have no problem with that ... I don't make usually make the calls at A-class, and Wikipedia is a big place, with room for many viewpoints and many kinds of articles. But not at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 12:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- No problem but I would like a bit more guidance from the reviewers. Do you suggest to replace Reichsmarine and Kriegsmarine with German Navy even though the affiliation was with two different types of government? Do you want me to remove humanistische Staatsgymnasium even though highschool reflects a different school system. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's much better now, thanks, striking my oppose. I'm going to do some tweaking before I support. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Support My vote is for the German. It provides a much better account, and promotes a better, more detailed understanding of the subject. "High school" would not be a proper translation, and not only would information be lost, but misunderstandings might be introduced. Ideally, humanistische Staatsgymnasium would have its own article. I would support the argument for a general article on World War II; but realistically, is a general reader likely to be seeking information on a specific U-Boat captain? I would argue that the reader will be of a more specialised kind, and pitching the article a a higher level is quite appropriate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Comments
- I'm fairly certain that the Vichy warships Gloire and Annamite were never unarmed. I think that your source is confused.
- Okay, I checked again it says that they were unarmed but it makes no difference to remove the word "unarmed" done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Link to VP-53.
- To what article do you want me to make the link? There is no article (I think) MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete the "of": motor boat Letitia Porter on board of Koenjit
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- The translations of Seekadett do not agree between the promotion list and the main body. I suspect that the translation in the list is incorrect.
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know how the Kriegsmarine worked, but Fähnrich in the Heer was an officer candidate's rank.
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Unless Leutnant and Leutnant zur See are different ranks in the Kriegsmarine, delete the at sea portion of the translation.
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Note -- Before this wraps up we'd better have a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. If any of the above reviewers would like to perform this task, pls do so, otherwise will list request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comments:
-
- Generally, this article appears to be written in British English. However, it uses the word "ton". I always thought "tonne" was the British spelling (for the unit as opposed to "a ton of homework").
-
- Hm good question. If I'm not mistaken the word "ton" is exclusively transcluded by the {{GRT}} template in this article. I had a look at the template and also at other ship artilces such as HMS Hood (51) and the spelling is always "ton". Please advise MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Hartenstein was born in Plauen in the Vogtland of the Kingdom of Saxony on 27 February 1908" makes it sound like Saxony was independent country at the time. I would suggest adding something to the effect that it was part of the German Empire.
-
- done MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not really comfortable with the translation notes. I feel like you should be certain enough that you're translating those terms correctly not to need those notes. Also, in many cases (Korvettenkapitän, Wehrmachtsbericht, e.g.) you've included both the German term and the English translation in the text. I would suggest eliminating the notes by either including both terms in the text or just using the English term.
-
- This is an ongoing debate and every reviewer seems to have a different opinion on this topic. I am very certain that the translation is correct. Some reviewers advise against adding too much German into the flow of the text and others focus on semantic correctness of the translations. The format I chose here has been accepted on the Ernst Lindemann article as well as on some of German ship articles of WWI. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- "At the outbreak of World War II, Hartenstein continued to command torpedo boats." The article doesn't really say he'd been commanding them before. Or does being first watch officer mean that one is the commander?
-
- I reworded it slightly. He took command of his first torpedo boat in 1938, so prior to WWII. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- "in deputize" I've never seen that expression. Are you sure it's common? As far as I know, "deputize" is only a verb.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Reworded to "Deputy commander" MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Atlantis: The Lost Empire
- Nominator(s): DrNegative (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I am once again nominating this for featured article. Since the last FAC nom it has undergone more improvements, another peer review, and another copy-edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. I believe the source and image review from the last attempt still applies as these were not changed. Thanks for your input in advance. DrNegative (talk) 14:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments: It should be understood that the recent peer review only dealt with the lead and plot sections. After an intial readthrough of the article I have several issues :-
- The plot section contains a hidden note pointing out that the plot summary at present considerably exceeds the 400 to 700 wordlength guideline of WP:FILM.
- I added that note myself to deter IP's from constantly adding to it after every trim I make. As you can see, they seem to ignore it. The word guideline is a case by case basis for films, but I will try to trim it down further. It seems that every time I do, either an IP will add to it, or a reviewer will say it isn't thorough enough. DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I made some trims to the Plot. DrNegative (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know when Jules Verne's book was first published under the translated title A Journey to the Center of the Earth, with the AmEng spelling. Unless it was indeed in 1864, it would be more accurate to replace the year in the text with a note: "first published in 1864 as Voyage au centre de la Terre".
- Added note clarifying. DrNegative (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I understand that the article has been copyedited, but there are some odd sentences. For example:-
- "The character of Molière was originally intended to be professorial, but..." Professional in what sense?
- I put professorial in quotation marks as it was quoted from the director from source #43, dictionary meaning: relating to, or characteristic of a professor. I am unsure what you are implying here. Do you feel I should paraphrase or did you misunderstand it? DrNegative (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like my misreading of "professorial"; sorry, please ignore this. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I put professorial in quotation marks as it was quoted from the director from source #43, dictionary meaning: relating to, or characteristic of a professor. I am unsure what you are implying here. Do you feel I should paraphrase or did you misunderstand it? DrNegative (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Later: "The directors felt that a wide-screen image was crucial for the nostalgia evoked by the film's action-adventure setting." Can you explain what this means?
- They were implying the film as a throwback to films like Raiders of the Lost Ark and others of that genre which used CinemaScope. Do you fell that I should make it more clear and mention these examples? DrNegative (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe something like: "The directors felt that a wide-screen image was crucial, as a nostalgic reference to old action-adventure films presented in the Cinemascope format" – and give an example if you wish. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, fixed. DrNegative (talk) 02:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe something like: "The directors felt that a wide-screen image was crucial, as a nostalgic reference to old action-adventure films presented in the Cinemascope format" – and give an example if you wish. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- They were implying the film as a throwback to films like Raiders of the Lost Ark and others of that genre which used CinemaScope. Do you fell that I should make it more clear and mention these examples? DrNegative (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Later still, "Like Howard, Rydstrom employed different sounds for the two cultures." What "two cultures"? The term has not previously been used. (These three are examples only)
- Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- "The character of Molière was originally intended to be professorial, but..." Professional in what sense?
- There is a tendency to overdetailing, particularly evident at the beginning of the "Writing" section. Why is it relevant to know that Whedon worked on Toy Story? Why is the very vague wording "about three to four months, plus or minus a few weeks" useful information? Towards the end of the same section we are even informed that Trousdale used spiral-bound notebooks – why is that significant?
- Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have not carried out a sources review, but three quick points:
- I wonder if the star displays are necessary; is this some convention in film articles?
- Film articles have used, and at times still use the star ratings when citing a film critic who uses them. It gives a scope of the critic's actual grade regardless of the prose covering him/her within the article. If it is a problem I can remove them though. DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Also, what makes ReelViews.net a reliable source?
- I would like to quote myself from the previous FAC in regards to your comment: "This is a site owned and maintained by notable web-critic James Berardinelli. Along with his site, he has also had books published which featured his site reviews. Notable film critic Roger Ebert has wrote his book forwards and considers him "the best of the Web-based critics." Rotten Tomatoes also considers him a "Top Critic", a title which they reserve for only the most notable film critics around the world." DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- The link in ref 80 returns "page not found"
- Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder if the star displays are necessary; is this some convention in film articles?
- Images: There are three non-free images. I don't honestly think that the sketch of Milo and Kida can really be said to vital to readers' understanding. I would accept the other two.
- I strongly disagree with you here. I have stated within the 'purpose of use' of the image description as to why I have included it within the article. That being so the reader can identify the unique character design employed within the film, which was heavily influenced by Mignola'a personal style. It displays the hands and faces where Mignola's influences are most prominent. It also gives context to the tidbit from Milo's lead animator and his inspirations for Milo's final design. Finally, instead of including a film-still, I chose production artwork, which qualifies as fair-use more so than a film-still, as it would not in any way, or in a much lesser way, tarnish the original commercial purpose of the film. DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, be ready to defend your decision if others raise the point. Brianboulton (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree with you here. I have stated within the 'purpose of use' of the image description as to why I have included it within the article. That being so the reader can identify the unique character design employed within the film, which was heavily influenced by Mignola'a personal style. It displays the hands and faces where Mignola's influences are most prominent. It also gives context to the tidbit from Milo's lead animator and his inspirations for Milo's final design. Finally, instead of including a film-still, I chose production artwork, which qualifies as fair-use more so than a film-still, as it would not in any way, or in a much lesser way, tarnish the original commercial purpose of the film. DrNegative (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not an expert as far as film articles go, but in terms of its general structure and approach this looks reasonably promising. Brianboulton (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Support: My comments were handled in the PR; good luck! ResMar 22:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Comments on prose (from Steve T • C): I see this article has had numerous copyedits, including one from the GOCE; I don't know if it's a by-product of having too many editors' playing with the text, but a review of the lead section alone reveals some issues; I haven't gone beyond this section, but if representative of the rest of the text, it would indicate that the article needs more work before gaining the star:
- Overlinking: common English words and phrases should not be linked; the sea of blue is often unavoidable in the lead, but linking terms such as ensemble cast, musical film, adventure film, linguist, film score, target audience, direct-to-video and cult film will only reduce the impact of the higher-value links around them. Also, and I may be wrong on this point, but I don't believe it's usual to put anchor links in the lead to sections of the same article, such as Atlantis: The Lost Empire#Related works; the table of contents is situated right below, and the lead is meant as a summary of the entire article in any case, so the question arises as to why you're linking one and not the others.
- I cut down a lot of links and removed the anchor. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Do you really need to name so many castmembers? The long list renders the sentence snakelike and exhausting. Do you think it would be a good idea to keep it just to the leads, or at least trim those with very minor roles?
- Trimmed the cast list to the main characters and most notable stars. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Atlantis was noted for adopting the distinctive visual style of comic book creator Mike Mignola."—I'm not sure "noted" works, or even conveys your intended meaning; "notable" might be better, given that Mignola worked on the film, though its use can be lazy. What exactly are you trying to say?
- Changed it to "notable". DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- The use of the word "produced" in the first and second sentences is jarring—not because of the repetition, but because of the (near) homonymy: while strongly related, they are slightly different concepts (the job of a film producer and the more straightforward "made by").
- I rewrote those sentences a tad taking your suggestions into account. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- "... while James Newton Howard (composer for Disney's 2000 animated feature Dinosaur) ..."—does the parenthetical have any relevance? It's quite odd.
- Point taken, removed the parenthetical. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Distributed by Walt Disney Pictures, the film performed modestly at the box office and received mixed reviews from critics. With a budget of $100 million, Atlantis earned $186 million in worldwide box-office revenue, $84 million of which was earned in the United States and Canada. Some critics praised it as a unique departure from typical Disney animated features, while others felt the unclear target audience and the absence of songs hurt its premise."—this part begins with a statement summarising the box office performance, then the critical reaction, before returning to discuss the box office in more detail and finally doing the same with the reviews. This approach hurts the flow of the piece, and feels conspicuously structured; do you think it would be better to rephrase to present a more linear telling (and remove some redundancies from the prose to boot)? The following is just a suggestion; it isn't the best writing in the world, but you get the idea:
"Distributed by Walt Disney Pictures, Atlantis performed modestly at the box office. Budgeted at $100 million, the film grossed $186 million worldwide, $84 million of which was earned in North America. The film received mixed reviews from critics; some praised it as a unique departure from typical Disney animated features, while others ..."
- I moved the sentence to follow the box office statement as suggested and rewrote it a tad. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- While we're at it: "... felt the unclear target audience and the absence of songs hurt its premise."—I can't parse this. How can these things hurt the premise?
- Tweaked sentence, more to the point now in my opinion. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Again, these issues are just what I picked up from a quick scan of the lead, which at this stage should be the most finely-honed of any section in the article. It's the first that your readers will see, and if it's clunky or difficult to read, it may discourage them from continuing. When you've fixed these, I strongly advise going through the rest of the article to look for similar. From what I can tell, it's a well-researched and comprehensive piece; it'd be a shame if the lack of polish on the prose were to let that promise down. Good luck, Steve T • C 23:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the comments and your valuable input Steve. I'll continue scanning it over for any tweaks. DrNegative (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Lobo comments Support. This is a very thorough article, congratulations on a fine effort. I do however have some comments and a couple of issues, that for me would need to be addressed before supporting.
- "Development of the film began after the directors and producer finished The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)" could be made more concise > "..began after production had finished on..." ?
- Tweaked. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm a bit confused by the section on "Cast > Milo James Thatch". It says that the character was based on Okrand, but then Pomeroy is quoted as saying it was like a "self portrait"?
- Removed "self-portrait" statement. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Randy Haycock, stated that Summer was very "intimidating" when he first met her; that indicated how he wanted Kida to look and act on screen when she meets Milo". I'm not keen on this sentence. At the least, I think the "that" should be changed to "this". And maybe "influenced" instead of "indicated"?
- Changed. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- "and the role "fits him like a glove". Don't we need a "said" here? ("and said the role...")
- Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Burton mentioned that finding his performance as Mole was allowing the character to "leap out" of him by making funny voices". It feels like there's a word missing here too...."by allowing"? "like allowing"?
- Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- "The idea for Atlantis: The Lost Empire came about in October 1996". I find "came about" a bit casual.
- Added "came to fruition". Good? DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Disregard that. User:Apo-calypso fixed it. DrNegative (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Added "came to fruition". Good? DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Having recently completed The Hunchback of Notre Dame.[21] the producer.." We have a random full-stop here.
- Fixed. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Marc Okrand is linked in the language section, but has already been linked under cast.
- Removed wikilink. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Is there a quote available on why they decided to create their own language?
- The development section paragraph directly above it has a quote from Wise that states, "Let's get the architectural style, clothing, heritage, customs, how they would sleep, and how they would speak. So we brought people on board who would help us develop those ideas." Do you not feel that this is satisfactory or should I move it down? DrNegative (talk) 22:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- "The initial draft was 155 pages, much longer than a typical Disney film script (which usually runs 90 pages)". Is this fact covered by the next footnote?
- Yes. Are you implying that I should replicate the footnote for the prior sentence? DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- The first paragraph of "Animation" ends without a reference, which I've been told paragraphs always should.
- Replicated footnote. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- I wonder if there is really a need for the "Digital animation" subheading?
- Removed it. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- The lead currently has this sentence: "The film was released at a time when audience interest in animated films was shifting away from traditional animation toward films produced with full CGI." I don't see any mention of this is the "Animation" section? This surely influenced their decision to use CGI, and is pretty important?!
- This was in reference to the beginning paragraph of the box-office section in which there were concerns by the directors and reporters over the film's competition with Shrek. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- "The VHS edition presented the film in its original theatrical ratio with the use of anamorphic widescreen." Ref? Maybe not essential, but preferable.
- I removed the sentence for lack of a reliable source. It is not really important but will re-add later on if I manage to find one. DrNegative (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- The second video game seems to have its own article, that should be linked.
- Linked, that article was removed and re-added very recently, so I was unsure if a wikilink was appropriate. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it is appropriate to have Ebert's comment singled out in a quote box. It could influence readers' take on the film, which breaches WP:NPOV.
- Moved quote in to paragraph body. DrNegative (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- The "General response" section suggests that the film received many negative reviews. I'm afraid I don't feel that this is accurately reflected in the "reviews" section. Too much weight is given to the positive reviews.
- I added another negative review. As it stands now, the section has 4 positives, 2 mediocre, and 3 negatives. Does the weight look better? DrNegative (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the last two paragraphs could easily be given their own sub-section called "Interpretation", or something similar?
- Added sub-section "Themes and interpretations". DrNegative (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- The lead says it has become a cult film. We need some mention of this in the article.
- Added this mention to paragraph regarding Mignola in the animation section. DrNegative (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- A comment on the structure: To me, it feels a bit awkward having the home media/video games/etc stuff come before the critical response. Chronologically, it just doesn't make sense. I think these should come at the end, somehow. --Lobo (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- I reorganized the placement of those sections taking your suggestions into account. The only logical place for home-media to be is under release in my opinion. Other FA film articles also place it there. I am not sure where else to place it. DrNegative (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Replies
- Home media could just have its own section, a level 2 heading coming between 'Accolades' and 'Related works'? I personally think that would be fine. The paragraph is big enough to justify its own section. If you really don't like this idea though, I won't push for it. The main thing is that the related stuff is now at the end, that's much better.
- I made it a level 2 sub header and moved it down. DrNegative (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Development of the film began after the directors and producer finished production on The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1996)." This sentence has got longer, not more concise! I was suggesting "Development of the film began after production had finished on THoND."
- The original intent for the longer sentence was to clarify to the reader that the producers and the directors were both involved with Hunchback, and that chronologically, this film came after it in their timeline, not Disney's. But I changed it to your suggestion anyway, I guess the original intent wasn't being conveyed as I thought it would. DrNegative (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- "Burton mentioned that finding his performance as Mole by allowing the character to "leap out" of him by making funny voices while trying to "throw myself into the scene and feel like I'm in this make-believe world". This sentence has become even more unclear. It's a jumbled mess, I'm afraid. Please completely revise it.
- I split that entire statement into two sentences and rewrote a tad. DrNegative (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at the reviews section now, I can see that there is very little structure to it. You've just sort of tagged a review on the end, without really thinking about the best place to place it. I think it all needs to be a bit better organised, with clear indicators of what the film was criticised and praised for. I'm also wondering if the "General response" and "Reviews" subheadings are even needed at all? --Lobo (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- The overall structure is following alternating positive, negative, mediocre reviews. Very common is film articles with "mixed" reviews. IMO, the negative review which I added fit perfectly on the end, and captures a reviewer's feelings on the comparison/competition with Shrek (mentioned elsewhere within the article) in relation to the plot. I feel that the quotes/statements from each reviewer sum up and accurately reflect their reviews nicely, without implying that they were cherry picked. What examples/changes would you suggest? This would quite possibly be a major content change which entails a withdrawal of the FAC.
-
- The subheadings are more subjective personal taste at this point. "General response" titles the paragraph from the aggregates and CinemaScore polls, while "Reviews" focusing on the film critics. I think it could swing either way, but I'm open to suggestions. Was that a rhetorical question or are you wanting the headings removed? DrNegative (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Personally I don't think the subheadings need to be there. But again, I won't push for it. Just a suggestion for you to consider. As for the reviews paragraph, I'm not asking for any huge changes, I just think it could be better organised. Looking at other FA film articles, the "Reviews" section usually has paragraphs focusing on specific aspects. I think an excellent example for mixed reviews is in Conan_the_Barbarian_(1982_film): see how it highlights the divisive areas? Or if you just need something more simple, the very recently promoted Jaws (film) goes for a clean break of "positive" followed by "negative". This is also effective, because you can ascertain straight off what was praised and what wasn't. This article doesn't need to be exactly like these, but I just think there needs to be a bit more focus, rather than "on", "off", "on", "off". I hope I'm not being disheartening, on the whole it's an excellent article. --Lobo (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Duly noted. I'll look into it. DrNegative (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have copyedited and restructured the Reception section to a point in which I believe you were going for in your suggestion. Let me know what you think. DrNegative (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- That is looking much better! It feels so much more crafted and professional now, don't you think? I have declared a full support above. Well done. --Lobo (talk) 09:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- p.s. I'm nitpcking here, but you now have two consecutive sentences that begin "Critic X disliked the film..." I'd suggest recasting one for some variation.
- Ah yes, thanks for catching that, and for your help and suggestions. DrNegative (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have copyedited and restructured the Reception section to a point in which I believe you were going for in your suggestion. Let me know what you think. DrNegative (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Duly noted. I'll look into it. DrNegative (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- Personally I don't think the subheadings need to be there. But again, I won't push for it. Just a suggestion for you to consider. As for the reviews paragraph, I'm not asking for any huge changes, I just think it could be better organised. Looking at other FA film articles, the "Reviews" section usually has paragraphs focusing on specific aspects. I think an excellent example for mixed reviews is in Conan_the_Barbarian_(1982_film): see how it highlights the divisive areas? Or if you just need something more simple, the very recently promoted Jaws (film) goes for a clean break of "positive" followed by "negative". This is also effective, because you can ascertain straight off what was praised and what wasn't. This article doesn't need to be exactly like these, but I just think there needs to be a bit more focus, rather than "on", "off", "on", "off". I hope I'm not being disheartening, on the whole it's an excellent article. --Lobo (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
- The subheadings are more subjective personal taste at this point. "General response" titles the paragraph from the aggregates and CinemaScore polls, while "Reviews" focusing on the film critics. I think it could swing either way, but I'm open to suggestions. Was that a rhetorical question or are you wanting the headings removed? DrNegative (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
-
-
- Support - everything in the article looks good to me. However, I think there should be a recapitulation of all reviews and review aggregators (in this case, it's "mixed"). Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
- Note -- Re. nominator's comment at the top, while citation and image reviews were conducted on the last FAC for this article, I haven't seen a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of copyvio and close paraphrasing. Pls point one out if I've missed it, otherwise one will be required here. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
-
- Ah, I see the sources have been looked over but the actual spot-checks have not yet been done. Thanks for pointing that out. DrNegative (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments from Noleander
- Some footnotes are a bit ambiguous, such as "History: Creating Mythology at 5:20–5:47". These footnotes are relying on the hyperlink to take the reader down to an entry in the Bibliography "Atlantis: The Lost Empire—Supplemental Material (DVD)". The text of the footnotes, without the hyperlink, should not have any ambiguity, that is, should uniquely identify a single source in the Bibliography section. For example: change "History: Creating Mythology at 5:20–5:47" to "Supplemental material: History: Creating Mythology at 5:20–5:47". Another example: "Art Direction: Designing Atlantis at 9:50–10:02" should be "Supplemental material: Art Direction: Designing Atlantis at 9:50–10:02"
- Confusing: " Despite the film's larger format, the production team worked within a smaller frame on the same paper and equipment used for standard aspect ratio (1.66:1) Disney-animated films for budgetary reasons" - I don't understand what this paragraph is saying. Before this sentence is says they chose to use an especially large format; then the quoted sentence says they did not. Need to clarify if they used the larger format or not. If they did, why then say " the production team worked within a smaller frame"?
-
- A similar issue exists in the image caption showing the two frames: Is it true that the wider one was used in theaters, and the narrower one used on the DVD? If the wider was also used for DVD, then what is the purpose of showing the cropping?
- Wording - "Kirk Wise noted its design as a treasure map showing the path to Atlantis." - That doesn't read very well. Maybe "noted that its design was a .." or " suggested that its design could be interpreted as ...".
- Good article, leaning towards Support once the above are addressed.
End Noleander comments.