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 featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. 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. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose and Laser brain—determine 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 coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
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. The use of graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages is discouraged, including graphics such as {{done}}, {{not done}} and {{xt}}: they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives. 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 coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. 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 Table of Contents – This page: , Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks |
Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools:
|
||
Nomination procedure
Supporting and opposing
|
Contents
- 1 Nominations
- 1.1 Hi-5 (Australian band)
- 1.2 John C. Calhoun
- 1.3 An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory
- 1.4 Imelda Marcos
- 1.5 Comments by caeciliusinhorto
- 1.6 Comments by imeldific
- 1.7 Canadian National Vimy Memorial
- 1.8 Heavy metal (chemical element)
- 1.9 English Benedictine Reform
- 1.10 The Man Trap
- 1.11 Eega
- 1.12 No Me Queda Más
- 1.13 Interstate 275 (Michigan)
- 1.14 Heffernan v. City of Paterson
- 1.15 Amazing Stories Quarterly
- 1.16 F.C. United of Manchester
- 1.17 Jack Verge
- 1.18 Impala
- 2 Older nominations
- 2.1 Slug (song)
- 2.2 Mont Blanc massif
- 2.3 Peter Martyr Vermigli
- 2.4 Requiem (Reger)
- 2.5 HMS Emerald (1795)
- 2.6 Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar
- 2.7 Douglas MacArthur's escape from the Philippines
- 2.8 Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)
- 2.9 Agharta (album)
- 2.10 Antlia
- 2.11 Ladislaus I of Hungary
- 2.12 Michael Laucke
- 2.13 Emily Ratajkowski
- 2.13.1 Comments by Drmies
- 2.13.2 Comments by Numerounovedant
- 2.13.3 Review by FrB.TG
- 2.13.4 Comments by Vensatry (a quick scan)
- 2.13.5 Comments by Checkingfax
- 2.13.6 Image review
- 2.13.7 Comments by GRuban
- 2.13.8 Copy-edit by the Guild of Copy Editors
- 2.13.9 Comments from FunkyCanute
- 2.13.10 Comments from SlimVirgin
- 2.14 Wings for My Flight
- 2.15 Wrestle Kingdom 9
- 2.16 Kalki Koechlin
- 2.17 Margaret Lea Houston
- 2.18 Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman
- 2.19 Milos Raonic
- 2.20 2008 UAW-Dodge 400
- 2.21 Old Pine Church
- 2.22 Blast Corps
- 2.23 SMS Körös
- 2.24 Ben Crosby
- 2.25 CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship
- 2.26 Theodore Komnenos Doukas
- 2.27 Briarcliff Manor Public Library
- 3 Featured article reviews
- 4 Featured article removal candidates
Nominations
Hi-5 (Australian band)
This article is about the Australian children's musical group formed in 1998, which is associated with the children's television series of the same name. The brand has produced numerous television series, music albums, worldwide tours and merchandise. Hi-5 were one of Australia's highest paid entertainment entities, placing in the Business Review Weekly's annual list several times, earning an estimated A$18million in 2009. The membership has changed several times. SatDis (talk) 08:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
John C. Calhoun
- Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
This article is about... John C. Calhoun. John C. Calhoun was a South Carolina statesmen who held a number of high political offices in the early 19th century, including that of Vice President. He began his career as a modernizer who supported various programs that would increase the power of the Federal government. However, as the divide between the North and South increased, he changed course. He became a strong opponent of protective tariffs, which were harmful to the Southern economy, and a major proponent of slavery. Display name 99 (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Checkingfax
- Hi, Display name 99. I made a deep scrubbing starting here. I would suggest adding alt text to all images that could use it. I will be happy to !vote on this when the FA review process is further along. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
07:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC) - Dead links via Checklinks: None
- Bare URLs via Reflinks: None
- Disambig links: None
- Redirects: In order
- Citation bot: No issues
- Checkingfax, I do not have a good understanding of what alternative text is, nor do I know which images in the article could use it. Would you explain this more please? Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Display name 99. I would suggest reading the alt text link I provided above and also consulting with Natalie.Desautels and Graham87. Maybe they will make some other comments while they are here
Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
01:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)- @Checkingfax: Hello Display name 99. I have taken the liberty to add the first three 'alt text' captions. You will of course be able to see the 'alt text' code structure in Source view. Visually impaired persons often use a screen reader, and I like to provide information about a photo they cannot see. Since the reader reads all text, I wouldn't state what is already there. For example, since the second image is of Calhoun's wife Floride, there is no need to repeat this; so I added '|alt=oval image of young woman seated, with pinkish white frilled head bonnet and dress top, black narrow waist dress and straight dark hair parted in the middle]]. Normally I would not say 'image' or 'photo' of since, well, what else could it be; but I did want to emphasize that it is an oval image. My own taste is to provide 'alt text' which is a bit longer than recommended, and my implementation has been successful. It's a good idea to check with Graham87 for a conclusive opinion. I'm sorry my time is a bit taken right now, but if you need further help, just write. ...hope this helps. You can see all alt text at a glance here. kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 06:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Checkingfax: Hello Display name 99 I did a few more 'alt text' captions. Please feel entirely free to revert or correct in any way you see fit. I'll be very happy to answer questions, if you wish. kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 06:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Checkingfax and Display name 99: Hello Graham87 I've completed the 'alt text' for all the images in this article. I am hoping you will be able to review, as time permits. Your help and opinion is always much appreciated. Kindest regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 07:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Natalie.Desautels:Thanks, they sound good. I've added a metric conversion to one o them. Graham87 09:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Natalie.Desautels and Graham87, thank you for your help. I am pleased to say that I now have a better idea of this for the future. Display name 99 (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Natalie.Desautels:Thanks, they sound good. I've added a metric conversion to one o them. Graham87 09:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Checkingfax: Hello Display name 99. I have taken the liberty to add the first three 'alt text' captions. You will of course be able to see the 'alt text' code structure in Source view. Visually impaired persons often use a screen reader, and I like to provide information about a photo they cannot see. Since the reader reads all text, I wouldn't state what is already there. For example, since the second image is of Calhoun's wife Floride, there is no need to repeat this; so I added '|alt=oval image of young woman seated, with pinkish white frilled head bonnet and dress top, black narrow waist dress and straight dark hair parted in the middle]]. Normally I would not say 'image' or 'photo' of since, well, what else could it be; but I did want to emphasize that it is an oval image. My own taste is to provide 'alt text' which is a bit longer than recommended, and my implementation has been successful. It's a good idea to check with Graham87 for a conclusive opinion. I'm sorry my time is a bit taken right now, but if you need further help, just write. ...hope this helps. You can see all alt text at a glance here. kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 06:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Display name 99. I would suggest reading the alt text link I provided above and also consulting with Natalie.Desautels and Graham87. Maybe they will make some other comments while they are here
Comments by Wehwalt
I'm doing some detailed comments, but to start you, I'm somewhat concerned about the term "minority rights" in the lede. Wouldn't that in present-day usage be assumed to be referring to racial or ethnic minorities?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Wehwalt, I understand your concern and it has been voiced before. The fact is that Calhoun was very concerned about the idea that, as the North continued to expand in population, and if it was able to get control of the territories and outlaw slavery there, it would overwhelm and oppress the smaller and weaker Southern states. In defense of the South, Calhoun defended such practices as nullification and advocated for the expanse of slavery in order to "protect minority rights from majority rule." That becomes clear if one reads the article's body.
- I understand that "minority rights" sounds confusing to anyone trying to understand it in 21st century context. Obviously Calhoun was not concerned about protecting blacks, immigrants, etc. After a question on the talk page here, I agreed to add "in politics" to the end of the sentence. If you can think of a still better way to clarify it, please let me know. Display name 99 (talk) 11:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Well, it's an oldie, but what about "state's rights"? That would probably be up there with "slavery" if you asked people (who knew of him) for quick summaries of Calhoun. Or "sectional rights for the South"? Or possibly just expand the sentence to explain as you just did, that the minority rights spoken of are that of the (white) South. Possibly "minority rights for the South to maintain its way of life without outside interference" or some such.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Lede
- "His positions heavily influenced the South's secession from the Union in 1860–61." Since he was dead at the time, maybe "opinions" or "teachings"?
- " to serve as " "as" is probably enough. I would even delete "the seventh", which seems only put in there to hang a link you don't really need because you can get there from the infobox.
- "Calhoun had a difficult relationship with Jackson primarily because of the Nullification Crisis and the Petticoat Affair, in which Calhoun's wife humiliated Jackson's allies. " I would cast this in terms of their political differences, as that's really what caused the crisis and aggravated the affair.
- I quote two statements: "He began his political career as a nationalist, modernizer, and proponent of a strong national government and protective tariffs. By the late 1820s, his views reversed and he became a leading proponent of states' rights, limited government, nullification, and opposition to high tariffs"
and "In contrast with his previous nationalism, Calhoun vigorously supported South Carolina's right to nullify Federal tariff legislation which he believed unfairly favored the North, putting him into conflict with unionists such as Jackson."
As far as I can see, you're using the words "nationalist", "unionist" and "proponent of a strong national government" to mean the same thing. At least, that's what I'm getting when I parse this. I also note that there is considerable repetition in the lede as exemplified here, at least in my view, and the second sentence makes the reader follow a bit like a tennis match, first starting on the strong government side, then off to the other, then back again. I try to avoid that personally. But this is a long article, I think the lede can be shortened somewhat as I suggest.
Got to go, more soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you Wehwalt. I've made some changes based on your recommendations-please see. "Nationalist" and "proponent of a strong national government" basically mean the same thing. However, the word "unionist" was meant to describe anyone opposed to nullification and secession. Andrew Jackson was not really a supporter of a strong national government, and generally favored states' rights. However, he made it clear that he was staunchly opposed to nullification. That is what I meant by calling him a "unionist". Display name 99 (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Lingzhi
- I've never seen anyone use this style of ref= in the templates. It works, but how do I know what has been referenced and what hasn't? This means a lot of work for me; tomorrow I'll have to check manually. It would be much better IMO to use ref=harv in every case, so Ucucha's script could check....
-
- I looked at the harvard template and it looks like what's in place. Could you put one of them in the format/style you're referring to so we can follow and fix? Thanks. Hoppyh (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Lingzhi. If you open the page then Preview it, the system will throw any errors at the top of the page in red so you can address them. CS1 errors will already display in light green in the references section if you have the show hidden errors JavaScript installed. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
02:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- There are two Ford sources, both 1988. Normally I would say they should be 1988a and 1988b, but in this case I strongly suspect only one of the two is actually being used (probably "Republican Ideology in a Slave Society"). If that's the case,"Origins of Southern Radicalism" should be deleted....More later. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done. Your suspicion was correct. I deleted "Origins of Southern Radicalism". Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- You've got a Krannawitter 2004 and a Krannawitter 2008 but the refs just say "Kranawitter"..ok so you have "ref=Krannawitter" on one template but no ref= on the other. This works on the surface but is misleading under the hood. Why do you have two Krannawitter sources if only one is used, and...how is the reader to know which Krannawitter the body text cites? You'll say "click the blue number" but I suspect this has the potential to go wrong... yeah, this is how it goes wrong: three sources with ref=Calhoun.
-
- I agree that's weird. I removed the 2004 Krannawitter source because I couldn't find any matches for it. Please remember that I personally did not enter many of these soures in. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- You've got abcde Bartlett with no page numbers.
-
- I noticed this while attempting to improve the sources before nominating this as a FAC. Unfortunately, I have no printed copy of the work, and could not find it on Google Books. I have no idea what to do here. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Belko, William S. is not inside a template, nor is Capers Gerald M. You need to be consistent. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done. I have fixed this. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Can I get you to ditch this ref = Ford1988 and ref = Ford1994 system and just make everything ref = harv?
-
- I'm not sure what you mean. If you are indicating the 2 mentioned, absolutely. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think Lingzhi is saying that every item listed under "Sources" needs to be referred to in the article or should be removed from the list of Sources. Hoppyh (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- That makes sense. I'll remove them if I see any more. Display name 99 (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think Lingzhi is saying that every item listed under "Sources" needs to be referred to in the article or should be removed from the list of Sources. Hoppyh (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean. If you are indicating the 2 mentioned, absolutely. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- He rarely mentioned religion... although he loved to discuss the subject. Spot the contradiction. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done. The second part was actually unsourced. I took it out. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Call me a fuddy-duddy, but I am very much not a fan of dangling a lone quote thing at the end of the article: " The whole South is the grave of Calhoun" Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- I added a quote box for this. I still don't think that it looks excellent, but it does appear to be an improvement. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- I recommend incorporating the quote and author's name into the body of the Legacy section in order to remove this objection. Hoppyh (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have bad news Display name 99. template:quote box is only for pull quotes.
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
02:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)- Done. Checkingfax, I have placed it in the body of the article as suggested by Hoppyh. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Display name 99. It is a powerful quote. Now that it is in the body you can add it as a pull quote in a little quote box. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
02:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)- Thank you, but I think I would rather leave it in the body of the text. It seemed to be positioned as a pull quote before, which was what caused the concern. There are plenty of other quotes in the main body, and I think this will do fine with them. Thank you for your help. Display name 99 (talk) 03:03, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Display name 99. It is a powerful quote. Now that it is in the body you can add it as a pull quote in a little quote box. Cheers!
- Done. Checkingfax, I have placed it in the body of the article as suggested by Hoppyh. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- I added a quote box for this. I still don't think that it looks excellent, but it does appear to be an improvement. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- He is above all sectional and factious prejudices .. Historian Charles Wiltse agrees, noting, "Though he is known today primarily for his sectionalism". Spot the contradiction (being "last" doesn't negate it). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- When considered, there isn't really any contradiction. The quotation from Adams comes in 1821, when Calhoun was still recognized as a leading national figure, rather than as a representative of Southern interests. The quotation from Wiltse in some way affirms Adams's comment by claiming that Calhoun took longer than many other political leaders of his day to take a sectional position. There might be a way to make that more clear though. You may suggest something to that end. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have attempted to remove the apparent contradiction. Hoppyh (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- That looks better now. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have attempted to remove the apparent contradiction. Hoppyh (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Hoppyh (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- When considered, there isn't really any contradiction. The quotation from Adams comes in 1821, when Calhoun was still recognized as a leading national figure, rather than as a representative of Southern interests. The quotation from Wiltse in some way affirms Adams's comment by claiming that Calhoun took longer than many other political leaders of his day to take a sectional position. There might be a way to make that more clear though. You may suggest something to that end. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- "If the whole community had the same interests..." Mine eyes glazeth over. Is there really no option other than a blockquote large enough to swallow a small country town? Is there no way to break this down into its key parts, and render them more digestible to the reader? BTW, I'm consistently not a fan of blockquotes hanging at the end of a paragraph anyhow (see two items above) Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'll have some time later on. I will attempt to determine if anything can be done then. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- in the aftermath of a minority veto, when the ubiquitous demagogues betray their constituencies and abandon the concurrent majority altogether... is missing some quotation marks somewhere. Direct quote... and.. did Freehling quote there or did you...? And... stop me if I'm wrong, but... are there sorta kinda lots of direct quotes embedded in sentences w/out quotation marks up in there? I was taught the magic number is 3: more than three sequential directly quoted words means you must set it off as a quote somehow. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- I barely have a clue WTH you're talking about. Please explain more clearly. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- FWIW...the text here does look highly intellectual and does make me wonder if it needs quotation marks. Hoppyh (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hoppyh, I just copy/pasted the phrase that Lingzhi quoted, and was only able to find it written in places that seem to copy directly from Wikipedia. Once again, I do not have the text of the source available to me, and cannot find it on Google Books or jstor. As for the intellectual sound of this sentence, at least one of the primary writers of this article before I first began work on it apparently wrote with a very eloquent style. I suspect that it could just be that. Lingzhi, please identify any other specific quotes to me that you suspect are not original to Wikipedia so that I can check them. Display name 99 (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- FWIW...the text here does look highly intellectual and does make me wonder if it needs quotation marks. Hoppyh (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Lingzhi, thank you for your comments and advice on improving the article. Please see my responses above. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- I barely have a clue WTH you're talking about. Please explain more clearly. Display name 99 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- The more I look, the more inconsistent the refs get. Very tempted to Oppose because fixing this will be a nontrivial task, but will relent because FACs take plenty of time. Why are some instances of {{cite book}} & {{cite journal}} inside <ref></ref> tags inside the body text, but others are in the bibliography section? Why are some author names first middle last ("Patricia Cline Cohen") and others last comma first MI ("Belko, William S.")? What does "|author1 = Ford Jr. |author2 = Lacy K." mean? Choose one method and stick with it, preferably putting them in the bottom section. I will try to help but am feeling a little irritated. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Lingzhi, I understand the concern and I just got your message on my talk page. There is one editor who, during the GAN and FAN processes and time in between, spend time adding content to the article, some of which I opposed. His referencing style was rather sloppy and I guess I didn't do enough to fix it. I'm not sure if I'll change all the formats as you suggested, but I will try to work to keep things consistent. Display name 99 (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Display name 99. May I suggest a consultation with editor Jerome Kohl about F M L vs L, F M ? Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
02:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Display name 99. May I suggest a consultation with editor Jerome Kohl about F M L vs L, F M ? Cheers!
- Lingzhi, I understand the concern and I just got your message on my talk page. There is one editor who, during the GAN and FAN processes and time in between, spend time adding content to the article, some of which I opposed. His referencing style was rather sloppy and I guess I didn't do enough to fix it. I'm not sure if I'll change all the formats as you suggested, but I will try to work to keep things consistent. Display name 99 (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
(undent) No need to consult. Just make every damn template "|last= Smith |first= John" (or) "|last1= Smith |first1= John |last2= Jones |first2= Sam". I am still tempted to Oppose or suggest withdrawal. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Display name 99: I did a lot of work but much is left yet to be done. I will try again tomorrow. Maybe you can look at what I've done & imitate. Many problems being revealed in this process e.g. two sources for Capers but never mentioned in text; eighty sources for Wiltse but years never given, etc. More later. It is in a mess now because it is in an intermediate state, but it will get better and better. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you very much for your help Lingzhi. I'll look at it later today and see how much I can replicate. I get the idea that I'm not as good or experienced at this as you are, and I don't want to screw up something and make more work for you. However, I will do what I can. Display name 99 (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory
- Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
A short textbook published in 2010 may seem like a very odd subject for a featured article nomination, but Alasdair Cochrane's first book was actually one of the first books exploring animal ethics from the perspective of political theory, something which has created a real buzz in certain corners of academic ethics/political theory, spawning numerous books, articles, theses, special issues, edited collections and even a dedicated journal. The article is fairly short, but I hope you will agree that it is comprehensive. I must thank SlimVirgin for a GA review, and hope you will enjoy reading the article. All comments are welcome. This is probably a WikiCup nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Sainsf
Very interesting, will be commenting shortly... Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Great prose, but I had to do nitpicks ;) Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Lead
- was one for the first books I think it should be "of" and not "for".
- Fixed. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series" is linked here but not in the main article. I don't think we will have an article on this topic in the near future, and I am not a fan of redlinks in the lead. Perhaps delink it?
- Rejigged. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Background
- It is good to begin with the full name of the author (and link it) when you begin with the main article.
- Done/ Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- The Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics...Garner and Martha Nussbaum. This part belongs more to reception, the time after it was published. In this section we discuss the time before and when the book became a reality.
- Yes, I had mused on this. I have added a legacy section, which seems the appropriate place to talk about how this was an early example of the kind of work now been done. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Synopsis
- the approaches taken by five schools of political theory A natural question would be – their approaches toward what?
- Clarified. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Um, should the subheadings not be level 3, with an edit link by their side?
- They were, but I wasn't a fan of the very short sections. Do you think I should switch them back? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if meat needs a link
- Ok. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Of all the traditions considered in the book, Cochrane is most critical of feminism Should not sound like Wikipedia's opinion, better add "According to Garner..."
- I've removed this, based on SV's comment. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Can we have a few direct quotes from the book?
- Interesting; I'll muse on this. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Reception
- I think the reviews should be in the order: Garner, Cooke, Seymour, that is the order you list their names in.
- I've tried to do it a little more thematically; I don't so much like "Review 1, review 2, review 3" in reception sections. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Where do you use blockquotes and where do you not?
- 30 words isn't a bad rule of thumb; do you think I'm being inconsistent? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- the first of which was the use of the concept of justice May be link "justice" again, it is relevant here and some readers may have missed the previous link. You have similar duplicate links elsewhere.
- Done. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Other points
- A better caption for Garner's image would be "Robert Garner, pictured in 2013"
- Yes, done. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Consistent in "open access" tags?
- I think I am? There are two open access pieces cited; others may or may not be freely available, but they're not open access publications. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think the ISBNs should be hyphenated.
- I've dropped ISBNs in the refs, but I've added dashes for the release versions. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Sainsf: With thanks for your comments; I'll get to them properly tomorrow. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Support I don't find any more issues with the prose. Must make an awesome FA, just remember my suggestion about direct quotes from the book. Good luck! Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments by SlimVirgin
Hi Josh, this is very similar to the version that was promoted to GA. I wonder whether it needs to be expanded a little for FA. For example, I would like to see just a bit more explanation as to why he rejects the feminist positions as providing a basis for obligations to animals. For example:
- You write that Cochrane rejects "the idea, taken from ecofeminist theorists, that domination of women and domination of animals are both due to an ideal of domination over nature." Whose work does he cite, how would you unpack "due to an ideal of domination over nature," and how does he find their arguments lacking?
- More needs to be said to explain Adams ("Second is Carol J. Adams's argument that exaltation of meat-eating serves to oppress women") and why Cochrane rejects her arguments.
- It isn't clear what "Third is through the use of language" refers to in this context and what Cochrane is rejecting.
- Re: objectification. "Cochrane … argues that the oppression of women and animals are not necessarily linked." How does he argue that?
- The section concludes: "Of all the traditions considered in the book, Cochrane is most critical of feminism," citing Garner, but Garner doesn't say that. He writes that Cochrane is "harsher on the claims of some traditions—the feminist care ethic in particular …"
- Ok, interesting. Sainsf raised different concerns about the sentence, so I've dropped it entirely. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
SarahSV (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin: Thanks for taking the time to offer some comments; I'll reply to your suggestions properly tomorrow. As an initial reply, I'd certainly could expand the synopsis section, but I wanted to keep it brief. Do you perhaps think I should expand the coverage of all chapters, or do you think I should focus in on feminism given reviewers' comments about Cochrane's coverage? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Yes, I would say all the sections could use some clarification (not necessarily expansion). Looking at utilitarianism, for example, you would have to be familiar with the arguments to understand that section. Why is it historically important for animals, what does it mean to say it has an egalitarian nature, and why is that a strength? I think it needs to be unpacked so that readers not familiar with it will understand.
-
- There is also this: "He closes by arguing that, if the book's claims are correct, treatment of animals should be considered one of the most pressing political questions today." That was something I asked about during the GAN. It really isn't clear which of the book's claims it refers to, and why those claims would make treatment of animals one of the most pressing political questions. SarahSV (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks, this is very valuable; I'll have a rejig and see what I can do. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- There is also this: "He closes by arguing that, if the book's claims are correct, treatment of animals should be considered one of the most pressing political questions today." That was something I asked about during the GAN. It really isn't clear which of the book's claims it refers to, and why those claims would make treatment of animals one of the most pressing political questions. SarahSV (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Checkingfax
Hi, J Milburn.
- The Bibliography was throwing one CS1 hidden error but there turned out to be more like 10 cite templates that needed work with the authors and editors as seen here.
- Bullet point 15 in the Bibliography is in plain text and should be converted to a cite template.
- I did a deep clean of things as can be seen here and here.
I will be happy to review this further when the FA review is further along. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
08:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Checkingfax: Thanks for your efforts, but I'm afraid I have reverted your edits. Unless I'm missing something, you're "cleaning" things by changing my citation style, which is not something which should be done without discussion. I use citation templates to help with consistent formatting; they're not an end in themselves. If you're really concerned about my use of the templates, I'd rather just drop them altogether. (Relatedly: The plain-text reference would throw up errors if I put it into a citation template, despite the fact that "forthcoming" is the correct date, and the DOIs you tagged as dead are fine- perhaps there's something wrong with your script?) Josh Milburn (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- As a note to anyone watching, Checkingfax has reverted me again, and promised an explanation.
I am not happy with the citations at this time, but await the explanation. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)- It isn't easy to see what was changed, because Checkingfax has added whitespace under the headings, which throws the diff off. [1] SarahSV (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. The two things that are bothering me are mentioned on my talk page. (By the way, I have not yet finished dealing with your comments, Sarah; I stepped away from the article for this evening to give Checkingfax time to respond. Thanks for your patience.) Josh Milburn (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- For the sake of advancing this review, I'm willing to leave Checkingfax's changes (including the change to the article's citation style), but I am still not satisfied that his/her actions were appropriate. Conversation about this continues on my talk page, but does not need to clutter up this page. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. The two things that are bothering me are mentioned on my talk page. (By the way, I have not yet finished dealing with your comments, Sarah; I stepped away from the article for this evening to give Checkingfax time to respond. Thanks for your patience.) Josh Milburn (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- It isn't easy to see what was changed, because Checkingfax has added whitespace under the headings, which throws the diff off. [1] SarahSV (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- As a note to anyone watching, Checkingfax has reverted me again, and promised an explanation.
Support. A fascinating article, very well written and evidently comprehensive. It is a good sign that I am left with no idea where, if anywhere, the nominator's sympathies lie between the various competing theories. Very happy to support. Three exceptionally minor comments, which don't affect my support:
- Background and publication
- Mildly surprising, and not especially welcome, to see the American "advisor" instead of the English "adviser", but if that's the man's official job title so be it.
- Academic reception
- I wasn't quite sure why we have "On the other hand" before S O'Sullivan's comments. The four words led me to expect a hostile review to follow D Dombrowski's favourable one, but both are enthusiastic.
- Releases
- To avoid the possibility of WP:DATED, I'd be inclined to change "The book is available in paperback..." to "The book was published in paperback..."
That's my lot. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. The references in the version I looked at (at 13.24 today) look fine to me at first glance, and I don't imagine that if any change is needed it will be anything more than minor tweaking, to fit the nominator's preferred layout. A most stimulating read. Tim riley talk 12:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot, Tim; thoroughly appreciated. I followed Cochrane with "advisor", but it's not an official title. I've switched it. I've dropped "On the other hand", and made the change concerning "available"/"published". Josh Milburn (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Imelda Marcos
This article is about... Imelda Marcos, the former First Lady of the Philippines and current congresswoman. She is famous for her shoe collection and her marriage to former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos. During her time as First Lady, she traveled the world met with world leaders and buy artwork. She still serves the Philippines through her work in Congress. Imeldific (talk) 11:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- Should use scaling rather than fixed image sizes, per MOS:IMGSIZE
- Can you explain how the flags in Legacy meet MOS:FLAGICON?
- File:Imelda-alone.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:Marcos_Clark_Air_Base_cropped.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments by caeciliusinhorto
N.B. I commented on the previous nomination of this article, and have made some comments on the recent RFC on the talkpage.
Firstly, I am pleased to see that many of the problems I had with the article in its previous candidacy (and one that I didn't raise, but noticed) have been fixed. I haven't yet gone through the article properly, but a few comments:
The images don't appear to have any alt text, which is important for accessibility.FixedThe gBooks link to Pedrosa (2016) is broken for me. It returns "Your search - isbn:6214100834 - did not match any book results."(I haven't systematically checked the links, others may also be broken). Fixed (though NB there may still be broken links).- There are various references to books without specifying page number/chapter/anything which would help a reader find the claim which is being cited. Currently to (in order of appearance) Garcia (1969), Garcia (2016), Pedrosa (2013), Sagmayoa (1986), Kumar (2004), Pedrosa (2016). Could the pages referred to be cited?
- The citation format for the bibliography is inconsistent. Location, publisher, ISBN, and OCLC number all appear for some but not all of the items. Also, the "Lastname, firstname" order is not always respected (e.g. in Aquino et al.).
-
- Done, except for the oclc part.
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
01:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Done, except for the oclc part.
For Serin et al., the date is given as "179". Is this meant to be "1979" or something else?Fixed
There are also prose issues:
- In the lead: "Imelda Marcos was born in Manila but later moved to Tacloban prior to World War II after the death of her mother during her childhood."
- Also in the lead "The Marcos family were forced into exile, and Aquino's widow Corazon was installed as president. After her husband's death, she returned to the Philippines": make it "after her husband's death, Marcos returned", otherwise it appears that the article is referring to Corazon Aquino.
-
- Hi, Caeciliusinhorto. I believe I addressed this confusion while I was passing through. Go have a look-see. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
09:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Caeciliusinhorto. I believe I addressed this confusion while I was passing through. Go have a look-see. Cheers!
- In "Power struggle": "The location where her shoes and jewelry were destroyed and the contents stolen."
Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
On reflection, some more comments (for clarity, made after Checkingfax's endorsements of my comments).
- I'd like to see more detail, especially about Marcos' role as first lady. The article says that she was Minister for Human Settlements, but only gives very brief details about what she did in that role. The comments on her role as ambassador basically just say that she made lots of powerful friends, which I'm sure is true, but she must have done other things with greater historical significance than go out to dinner with the Nixons! Her involvement in the Libyan peace treaty, for instance, must have more to say about it than simply that it happened.
- The description of the Green revolution given in the article ("intended to address hunger by encouraging the people to plant produce in household gardens") is entirely different from the article linked. I'm not sure whether this is because the article is referring to something else also called the Green revolution, or whether the article is misunderstanding what the Green revolution was; in the first case it needs unlinking, in the second, fixing.
- How did Imelda and Ferdinand meet?
- Why is her religion in the section on early life?
Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
And some more from me:
- About sourcing
- Books published by Lulu.com are generally considered to be self-published sources, which are generally not considered reliable. Why should we consider The Great Gold Swindle reliable?
- Similarly, CreateSpace, iUniverse, and AuthorHouse are all listed as self-publishing companies. Why should we consider the books cited as published by these companies reliable?
- eBookIt.com isn't listed in that list, but appears from its website to be a self-publishing company. Again, the same question.
- About content
- The section on Legacy appears to be just a list of trivia in prose form. Has there been any discussion of her legacy in reliable sources?
- What is her legacy outside of music? Did any of her actions as first lady have lasting effects on Filipino politics, for instance?
- Why are foreign honours she was awarded as first lady in the section on her legacy?
Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Checkingfax
- Hi, Imeldific. I made several deep polishing passes starting here. I agree with everything Caeciliusinhorto said. Ping me back when the FA review process has moved further along and I will be happy to comment or !vote. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
09:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC) - I suggest adding 2 more varied images.
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
22:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Lingzhi
- Go down into the Bibliography, find the two Pedrosa sources, and click their links. Go ahead. I dare you. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Fixed.
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
22:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed.
- Are we having arguments between nominator and other significant editors? If so, please spare everyone the headache and withdraw nomination now – resolve your probs before coming here. Thanks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments by imeldific
- @Caeciliusinhorto, Lingzhi & Checkingfax, Need help on Imelda Marcos article. Imeldific (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Checkingfax. Imeldific (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Imeldific. You are welcome. Now, take each line item from Caeciliusinhorto, fix it, and mark it as Fixed. as you move down their laundry list. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
22:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)- @ Checkingfax, Pincrete just undid your edits so this is still not fixed. Imeldific (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Pincrete actually fixed Checkinfax's edit before you left this message. Pincrete could see that this edit was constructive unlike the many that preceded it which were in direct contravention of talk discussion.Pincrete (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Pincrete (with cc to Imeldific). Thank you for putting one of my two fixes back. That leaves one more to put back. Why are y'all having parallel discussions on the talk page? You need to unify. Bring your constructive comments and constructive criticism over here. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
23:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)- User:Checkingfax, I don't believe I removed the other one, if I did I will restore and apologise. I'm sorry, as far as I know the place for article discussion is the talk page, where ongoing participation of all involved editors, ongoing RfC's etc is possible. I have no objection to your specific points, however FaC is being used by Imeldific to 'sneak edit' in order to bypass the talk processes on certain key issues. Pincrete (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Pincrete (with cc to Imeldific). Thank you for putting one of my two fixes back. That leaves one more to put back. Why are y'all having parallel discussions on the talk page? You need to unify. Bring your constructive comments and constructive criticism over here. Cheers!
- Pincrete actually fixed Checkinfax's edit before you left this message. Pincrete could see that this edit was constructive unlike the many that preceded it which were in direct contravention of talk discussion.Pincrete (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- @ Checkingfax, Pincrete just undid your edits so this is still not fixed. Imeldific (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Need feedback from Caeciliusinhorto and Lingzhi. Imeldific (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Imeldific. You are welcome. Now, take each line item from Caeciliusinhorto, fix it, and mark it as Fixed. as you move down their laundry list. Cheers!
- Thank you, Checkingfax. Imeldific (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Canadian National Vimy Memorial
- Nominator(s): Labattblueboy (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
This article is about a Canadian World War I memorial in Northern France, the 80th anniversary or the unveiling is this July. This article has been previous advanced for consideration and the most recent nomination in Feb 16 was rejected largely due to concerns associated with imagery copyright.
After a couple months wait, OTRS tickets have recently been completed on the Commons for a couple of these images (File:Vimy Memorial - Foundation construction.jpg, File:Vimy Memorial - half finished statue and plaster models.jpg) which effectively confirmed that images with a status of expired are released into the public domain by Canada (with a requirement to credit). Citations are improved on another (File:VCRichardBasilBrandramJones.jpg and a the painting at the bottom of the article was confirmed as acceptable to the Commons via deletion request Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/02/22#File:Ghosts_of_Vimy_Ridge.jpeg (closed by a sysop).Labattblueboy (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments Looking really good; will read through properly and review.
At the risk of prolonging the image pain, a couple of quick thoughts:
- File:VCRichardBasilBrandramJones.jpg is justified under a UK anonymous tag. UK law requires that this is based on reasonable research into the identity; this is reflected in the wording on the copyright tag, notes that "if you wish to rely on it, please specify in the image description the research you have carried out to find who the author was." No information is currently provided, which invalidates the UK copyright tag.
-
- This image is a Gallaher cigarette card from a series of Victoria Cross winners title "Victoria Cross Heroes". This particular image comes from the 5th series. The New York Public Library record of this object is the best I've seen yet with regards to completeness (complete with electronic images of both front and back) but even they acknowledge its not perfect. The only potential author of mention is Central Press, which I've take to assume from researching (The Press Photo History Project) is Central Press Photo Ltd or London but there is no mention of an individual either as photographer or artist that completed the colouring. I researched the records of other cards in the series and got no further ahead. The only hit in the online records or the UK National Archive was [2] for a card held at the Museum of English Rural Life but with no author details available and a search of the Imperial War Museum Records[3] drew a complete blank.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- File:Vimy Ridge - Watkins memorial.JPG has a copyright tag for the photograph, but not for the owner of the underlying copyrighted text and the memorial itself. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- The Memorial is labeled as being Veterans Affairs Canada, consequently the Canadian government. I think it would be questionable whether a threshold of originality even exists here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- The memorial mainly consists of the two paragraphs of text that were photographed, though, and they carry copyright. A Canadian Government copyright tag would therefore be needed here. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- For Canada the threshold requires that a work "not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise". There is absolutely no hope of this memorial holding copyright under Canadian law. The "sweat of the brow" doctrine that exist for instance in the UK is firmly rejected in Canada as being too low of a standard for copyright.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- The photograph is of two paragraphs of text (one in French, the other English). These are subject to copyright. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- The text is firmly the "short word combinations" scope for Canada. Further this is a statement of facts which in Cnaada does not meet the requisite level of creativity for copyright.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- The photograph is of two paragraphs of text (one in French, the other English). These are subject to copyright. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- For Canada the threshold requires that a work "not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise". There is absolutely no hope of this memorial holding copyright under Canadian law. The "sweat of the brow" doctrine that exist for instance in the UK is firmly rejected in Canada as being too low of a standard for copyright.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- The memorial mainly consists of the two paragraphs of text that were photographed, though, and they carry copyright. A Canadian Government copyright tag would therefore be needed here. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- The Memorial is labeled as being Veterans Affairs Canada, consequently the Canadian government. I think it would be questionable whether a threshold of originality even exists here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Labatt, I don't agree with you about the short word combinations point; Canadian copyright law doesn't give copyright to titles, names, slogans, short word combinations etc., but the items copied here are 104 word paragraphs. While you cannot copyright a fact in Canada, expressions of a fact - for example, a paragraph of text - are certainly copyright. The material would similarly be copyright in the US where the Commons is hosted. The File:VCRichardBasilBrandramJones.jpg issue still hasn't been fixed either, - the image description hasn't been altered as per the issue raised above, rendering the UK tag invalid. Reluctantly oppose at this stage. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- The photo of the Watkins memorial isn't so central to the article to base approval/opposition on it alone. For it what I'll do is remove it from the article for now, send a formal request to Veterans Affairs Canada and if they come back with release that can be confirmed via a commons OTRS ticket. Would that be a satisfactory way forward.
- I'll copy the text to the Jones cigarette card photo. I hope that addresses that concern.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
-
Comments. As before: feel free to revert my copyediting. I enjoyed this and found it readable, but copyediting it was kind of a tough job, so I stopped reading a little more than halfway through, at Second World War. I'm hoping another reviewer will pick it up from there and make a call on supporting or opposing. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Did a little more; I made it down to Restoration and rededication. - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment - Reading the commentary at the deletion discussion for File:Ghosts_of_Vimy_Ridge.jpeg, I find the arguments against it being free far more compelling than those in favour. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- I put up a vigorous motion to delete following the last FAC and the conclusion was to keep, the conclusion having been made by a sysop. I'm not sure more could be expected in terms of a confirming review.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- The "conclusion" was that life+50 applies; if that's so, absent any other information, this can't possibly be PD in the US, because that would mean copyright expired after 1996 and thus that US copyright was restored. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- I put up a vigorous motion to delete following the last FAC and the conclusion was to keep, the conclusion having been made by a sysop. I'm not sure more could be expected in terms of a confirming review.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Curly Turkey
- King's position received unanimous support from both sides of the House and—after the Canadian federal election, 1921, there were three major parties represented. What does "both" refer to?
-
-
- both referred to government and opposition. I've simplified the text to simply state unanimous support.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- The 1997 ceremony at the memorial was attended by retired Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and at least 5000 people. Subsequent smaller-scale ceremonies were held at the memorial in 1997 and 2002.—meaning there was another memorial in '97 after BM visited? And were the 5000 Canadians?
- Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- The Mulroney ceremony should read 1992 not 1997. Correction made.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Heavy metal (chemical element)
In 1807 Humphry Davy first discovered metals (potassium, sodium) that floated on water. Scientists of the day debated if these new elements were really metals since all other metals then known were relatively heavy, and sank in water. After some consideration of the other properties of potassium and sodium, they were admitted to the metal club.
A little while later Leopold Gmelin, another chemist, distinguished between light metals and heavy metals on the basis of their density.
Fast forward 199 years to the present day and the term heavy metal seems to have become vernacularised in the language of science even though it has no widely agreed definition. Indeed, an earlier report (2002) described it as an effectively meaningless term.
This article surveys the field of heavy metal definitions including those based on chemical behaviour, sets out the many uses of heavy metals, and summarises their toxicity and their nutritional value.
Smokefoot expressed some amusing and well-intentioned reservations about 2009 and 2015 iterations of this article which prompted me to look much closer at the term and its use in the literature.
John had a pre-FAC hack, and offered some suggestions which I’ve since incorporated. A few other editors, such as YGB; Plantsurfer; and Frietjes, made improvements along the way. Sandbh (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
R8R review
I'll review the article during this week.--R8R (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
A proper review will follow soon, hopefully tomorrow, but is it not worth mentioning in the lead (or at least putting it into a note) that there is a similar term "heavy element", which refers to a different concept (high atomic number, not density)? --R8R (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Yes, this is worthwhile. I added a note in the definitions section to say that, "More generally, any element having a high density, atomic weight or atomic number may be referred to as a heavy element." I had thought that 'heavy element' referred just to elements of high atomic number but, after looking around, I see that it can also be applied to elements of high density or atomic weight. Sandbh (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Overall, this is a good article. A few comments:
- A general comment that comes to my mind (please correct me if I'm missing something) is that, rather having a single undisputed definition, the term has multiple definitons depending on context, and this would be great to underline in the text. It makes little sense to talk about "heavy metals" as of dense metals in the contexts of nuclear reactions, as densities don't make the most important thing in this context, as it makes little sense to underline high atomic number in a context of, say, producing new alloys. (Lead, for example, is a heavy metal in the context of atomic numbers as well as in the context of densities.) This could possibly interfere with the small para on the term "superheavy metals."
-
- I also note this should be underlined in the lead section. Right now, it only defines "heavy metals" as quite dense metals, and says there are some other meanings (no clue in how they differ from the first definition). See, for example, the lead section from the Polish article (as translated by Google Translate):
-
-
- Heavy metals - imprecise term for variously defined set of metals and semi- characterized by high density, often toxic properties. In various publications can meet differing significantly limits the density above which the element is considered to be a heavy metal: 3.5, 4, 4.5, 5, 6 and 7 g / cm³. There are also a number of definitions based on atomic number - eg. Metals and semi-metals having an atomic number greater than 11 ( sodium ) or 20 ( calcium ), or mass number . There are also selected based on the definitions of chemical properties, such as. The number of acceptor ( acidity Lewis ) and definitions made based on a range of applications including, for example. Usefulness in the manufacture of ammunition arms or conduit retaining ionizing radiation [1] .
-
-
- Perhaps one way to start the article mentioning the possible definitions without going into detail reserved for the corresponding section would be "Heavy metal is a term that depending on context may specify metals of great density, great atomic number/atomic mass, or specific chemical behavior (see [[#Definitons]] below), referring to metals and sometimes some metalloids."--R8R (talk) 13:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- (minor)
I can't help but notice that densities of the heaviest elements have not yet been measured, so the colored table must have a note on that. Or note the approach the German Wiki uses.
- Since the Etymology section could be named History, I think it would be great to briefly mention the emerging of the term "heavy metal"/"heavy element" in a context of nuclear reactions.
More to come later.--R8R (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I can't really judge the Uses sections without looking too closely, which I must be unable to do for now, but could you explain the general principle on which the uses to be mentioned were selected? For example, it doesn't mention two of the three uses that came to my mind: tungsten wire in light bulbs, lead--acid batteries (batteries have only been mentioned in one word, while this is the largest use of lead), and lead bullets (which are mentioned). There may be a good rationale behind this, but I'd like to know it. (I'd want to add that I can't immediately think of a good way to choose which uses are important enough to be mentioned and which aren't.)--R8R (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Done. I reorganised and supplemented the uses section so that it now refers to general uses, density-based uses, (high) atomic number reliant uses, and other uses. I'm not aware of any atomic weight based uses. I haven't said anything about W in light bulbs because this use, as I understand it, is based on the high melting point of W rather than something more specifically associated with it being a heavy metal. Same principle applies to Pb in batteries. Sandbh (talk) 12:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Lead_shielding.jpg: can you fix the auto-generated source?
- File:Laser_glass_slab.jpg: if you follow the "site policies" link from the current licensing tag, you'll find that "they consider their work potentially copyrighted" - can we clarify this status? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks. The site policies page says that Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory '("allows "non-commercial, educational, or scientific use," but other work potentially copyrighted)'. I presume our proposed use would fall within the non-commercial etc policy. Is this acceptable? Sandbh (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- No - Wikipedia does not allow non-commercial or "educational use only" licenses, except as fair use. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. The site policies page says that Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory '("allows "non-commercial, educational, or scientific use," but other work potentially copyrighted)'. I presume our proposed use would fall within the non-commercial etc policy. Is this acceptable? Sandbh (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose I am sorry, but I seriously think this article does not cover the subject matter very well. I have yet to see anybody call vanadium a heavy metal, and the article spends more time talking about vanadium and chromium than say lead, gold, mercury. No serious chemist in their right mind would call iron or zinc heavy metals. Most times I've heard the term heavy metal has been in reference to environmental and toxicity aspects so I suggest expanding a bit on that. I seriously recommend restructuring the article to focus on period 5 and 6 and try to only mention casually definitions including anything in period 4 since pretty much almost all elements up to zinc are used in biology. Nergaal (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
English Benedictine Reform
- Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The English Benedictine Reform was the most important religious movement in later Anglo-Saxon England. It was also very significant politically, artistically and for the development of the Old English language. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Mike Christie
I'll leave comments below; it might take me a couple of days to get through the article.
Do we need the longish quote from D.H. Farmer in the first paragraph of the body? The quote provides a definition and background information, and doesn't represent an opinion of Farmer's. I'd think this would be better off in Wikipedia's own words.
-
- I used the quote because I could not see how to convey the information without plagiarism, but I will have another think. Dudley Miles (talk)
-
- Now done. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
How relevant is the translation of the Rule into Old English? If the translation has no particular connection to the reform movement, I don't think it needs to be mentioned.
-
- I think it is relevant as an early achievement of the reform, but in the wrong place, so I have moved it. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
"led to increasing preference for pastoral clergy": should be "to an increasing preference, I think.
-
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Not really a FAC comment, but I was interested to see that the transfer of property went from the church to the crown; I am sure I recall someone (Wormald, I think) saying that at some relatively early date some of the A-S kings were finding that there so much had been given to the church that they had less available to grant, both to kings and nobles. I imagine the point at which this reverses is before the start of this narrative, so probably it doesn't need to be mentioned.
-
- I think it started with Alfred. There were earlier disputes over property - e.g. between Coenwulf and Wulfred - but no significant transfer of property so far as I know. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't have the sources you use for saying that Alfred deplored the decline in monasticism, but a look through the relevant chapter in Abels' Alfred the Great found this: "There is absolutely no reason to believe, however, that Alfred planned a systematic monastic reform". You don't say he did plan reform, but are you sure Alfred is worth mentioning in this context? Abels points out that Asser praises the two foundations, Athelney and Shaftesbury, but that Alfred was generally happy to take lands from the church as well as endow it.
-
- I was trying to make the point that the revival of the church and learning dates back to the end of the ninth century, but it only becomes specifically Benedictine in the middle of the tenth. I will look at whether I can make this clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Looking at it more closely, Alfred's role is controversial. I have shortened the main text and added a note. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think that's an improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at it more closely, Alfred's role is controversial. I have shortened the main text and added a note. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
I think another sentence or two on the continental reform movement would be good, either towards the end of the background section, or near the start of the early development section. You mention a disagreement between Wormald and Cubitt about where it started, but then say that links existed with Fleury Abbey, and that Louis the Pious's reforms of the 810s were studied in England, neither of which point gives any information about the reforms on the continent. Not much is needed, perhaps just a date and name or two, and a sense of when the movement began and when it gained strength.
-
- Another point I will look at further. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- I have revised the continental origin as I am not sure there is a disagreement. Wormald says that it started at Cluny, but it seems to be generally accepted that Fleury was more influential. I have added the reason that Louis the Pious was influential, but I do not think I can say more about the continental movement. I would need to get hold of sources on this, and I am not sure it is sufficiently relevant for the work it would require. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- What you've done works well, and is all I was looking for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have revised the continental origin as I am not sure there is a disagreement. Wormald says that it started at Cluny, but it seems to be generally accepted that Fleury was more influential. I have added the reason that Louis the Pious was influential, but I do not think I can say more about the continental movement. I would need to get hold of sources on this, and I am not sure it is sufficiently relevant for the work it would require. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
"where they met monks from the European reformed houses which provided the inspiration for the movement": does "movement" refer to the existing continental or nascent English reform movement?
-
- Clarified English movement.
I'd suggest switching the order of the first two sentences in the paragraph about the Regularis Concordia, in order to get Edgar's motivation followed by the result, rather than the reverse.
-
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
"who stated that he had sought advice": any reason not to shorten this to "who had sought advice"?
-
- Done. Thanks Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
"Some aristocrats founded new monasteries, such as Æthelwine, Ealdorman of East Anglia, who founded Ramsey Abbey in 969": needs to be rephrased, since Æthelwine is not a monastery.
-
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
"He did not merely attempt to revive the historical church, but improve it": suggest "He did not attempt merely to revive the historical church, but also to improve it".
-
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
'Blair describes the basic aim of the movement, both in England and on the Continent, "to establish and disseminate high liturgical, spiritual and pastoral standards".' I think you need another word or two before the quotation; perhaps "as being".
-
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The "Aftermath" section mentions the decline in bishoprics held by monks at the end of the quote from Blair, then discusses it again in the middle of the following paragraph. Can you combine these two in one place?
-
- Deleted first mention and tweaked arrangement.
Suggest replacing "in my opinion" with "..." in the quote from Nicola Robertson, as you already say this is her "view".
-
- Tweaked wording.
"music by Continental and English composers, many written hermeneutic Latin": presumably should be "written in"?
-
- Done. Thanks Mike Dudley Miles (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
-- I've completed a pass; only very minor points. I'll look through some of my sources and see if I can find anything else to say, but this looks comprehensive to me. Great work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:57, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Support. A fine article. I have a couple more comments, but these don't affect my support. As I thought, most of my sources focus on the earlier period and aren't much use here. These are all very much suggestions; no need to incorporate them unless you feel they are beneficial.
- Peter Hunter Blair, in his Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England, in discussing the effects of the reforms, says that "not least in importance [was] the training of a second generation in centres so widely scattered that much was able to survive the second Scandinavian onslaught". (p. 176, 1960 reprint of the 1956 edition, though if you have the new revised edition it would be interesting to see if a similar comment remains in the text.) That might be a point worth adding, particularly if you can combine it with Alfred's comment that on his accession in 871 there was nobody south of the Thames who could understand divine services or translate from Latin (mentioned in Lapidge's article on "Monasticism" in the Blackwell Encyclopedia). Though that might be synthesis, so perhaps not.
-
- I am doubtful on both points. On the training of a second generation, more recent histories emphasise the decline in the second generation rather than continuity. Alfred's comment is often quoted, but I thought a general reference to the ninth century decline was sufficient in the background section. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Blair also suggests that the fact that biographies of the three main protagonists were written within a few decades might have obscured the role of some of their contemporaries. He singles out Oda as a candidate and gives a paragraph of argument for the case (p. 173-4). You do mention Oda already, so it might not be necessary to expand on this.
-
- I think this is covered by a quote from Wormald in 'historiography': "The main sources for the reform are the lives of Dunstan, Oswald and Æthelwold, and this creates the risk of exaggerating the role of these three men at the expense of the many lesser-known men who contributed to the process". Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- You don't mention the "near monopoly" of monks on bishoprics till near the end of the article; Blair says that the methods of election of bishops in the Regularis Concordia "led in practice to a predominantly monastic episcopacy". Whether you pick up this point or not, it might be worth mentioning the increasing frequency of monks as bishops early in the article, before you say it declines later.
-
- Yes I missed this and will look at it. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Lapidge's article on "Monasticism" in the Blackwell Encyclopaedia, in discussing the expulsion of the secular clergy from the Old Minster, says parenthetically "thus depriving them of their wealthy benefices". I think it's a point worth making; the discussion in the article is mostly about the religious consequences, and this is a good opportunity to show other consequences of the reform.
-
- Another point often made which I will look at again. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Blair spends some time describing the influence of Ramsey (p.177), which, he says, sent monks to Winchcombe, Pershore and Evesham; and adds "It was from these areas and particularly from Evesham that late in the eleventh century monasticism was carried to the north of England and even farther afield to Denmark, but this was not until some years after the Norman Conquest." This is later than the period you're focusing on, but might go in the aftermath section.
-
- The question of whether the movement led to any missionary activity is one I never managed to clarify. In an early draft I had a quote from Farmer saying that one of its achievements was inspiring missionary activity in Scandinavia, but I deleted it as I never found any source discussing this supposed activity. I am not well informed on the post-Conquest period, but my impression is that the proselytising in the north was a Norman initiative. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks very much for your support and very helpful comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- I won't strike anything above, since my support's not contingent on any of these points. Per your comment above about not being well informed on the post-Conquest period; I'm pinging Ealdgyth, who I'm sure is well informed. Ealdgyth, any thoughts on the comments above? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for your support and very helpful comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Nikki. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments I'll certainly be supporting this impressive and enjoyable article. A few small points first:
- Eleven sentences in the piece start with "However,...", which I find a little obtrusive. Once one notices such repetitions they begin to distract one's attention from the content.
-
- I have eliminated most of them. Curious that the Oxford Thesaurus does not have one satisfactory synonym for "however", but according to an Oxford blog Fowler says that it is OK to start a sentence with "But". Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- The latest (4th) edition of Fowler says (p. 125), "The widespread public belief that But should not be used at the beginning of a sentence seems to be unshakeable. Yet it has absolutely no foundation in grammar or idiomatic usages, and examples are frequent in good literature." And I agree. Tim riley talk 09:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have eliminated most of them. Curious that the Oxford Thesaurus does not have one satisfactory synonym for "however", but according to an Oxford blog Fowler says that it is OK to start a sentence with "But". Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Early development
- Fleury Abbey on the Loire, which had great prestige because it held Saint Benedict's body, and was more conservative." – a possible ambiguity here. Was its prestige for two reasons – the saint's body and the conservatism? If not, perhaps reverse the ingredients: "Fleury Abbey on the Loire, which was more conservative, and had great prestige because it held Saint Benedict's body" or even "England's closest links were with the more conservative Fleury Abbey on the Loire, which had great prestige because..."
- Done.Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Æthelstan's cosmopolitan intellectual court" – I'd be inclined to put a comma after "cosmopolitan".
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Saints and relics
- "more prominent location in order to them more accessible" – a word missing here; I'd make it "more prominent location to make them more accessible", thereby losing the otiose "in order".
-
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Second para: Alan Thacker gets his forename on both mentions of him; once would do, I think.
-
- Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Aftermath
- I think (but am never confident when tangling with Anglo-Saxon material) that "Abbery" is a typo.
-
-
- Corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Importance of the reform movement
- The MoS bids us rationalise punctuation within quotations, and I'd change the spaced hyphens in the Ryan block quotation into spaced en-dashes.
-
-
- People are always telling me to use en-dashes, but Template:Spaced en dash does not say how to add one. Is there an ascii code for it? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'm not sure there is an ASCII code for an en-dash, but at the bottom of the WP editing page, below the Save page, Preview etc buttons is a box offering a choice of Insert, Wiki markup etc. If you have it on Insert (to which it defaults, I think) the en- and em-dashes are to its right – just click on either while your cursor is at the appropriate point of your text. I've done the necessary in the article. Tim riley talk 09:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- So is the short dash immediately right of the insert box an en-dash, and the long one an em-dash? A spaced en-dash would presumably then be with a space before and after? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- That's it exactly. The MoS calls for either en-dashes with a space either side – thus – or alternatively for em-dashes with no space—thus—on either side. Neither form is officially preferred over the other, though from casual observation I'd guess that a majority of regular nominators of FACs opt for unspaced em-dashes. I, quelle surprise!, am in the minority, if so. I'll leave a note on your talk page about how to do en- and em-dashes in Word, which you may find useful if, like me, you do a fair bit of your drafting offline before pasting into WP. Tim riley talk 11:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Legacy
-
- "appealing to pre-Conquest charters, and forging new ones if necessary" – "forging" conveys fakery to me, and unless that's what you have in mind (but perhaps it is) I'd be inclined to find another verb.
-
- Definitely fakery, and I have amended to make this clear. Medieval monks faked charters to support their claims on an industrial scale. I have not seen any figures, but I have the impression that most surviving charters are fraudulent. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
That's all I can find to quibble about. – Tim riley talk 11:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Many thanks Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Support. To my lay eye this article seems comprehensive and authoritative, and it is certainly a pleasure to read. As far as I can judge it meets all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 09:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks very much Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments
Just a few quick thoughts I'm afraid:
- I think "learnt" is a bit informal and I would certainly expect to see "learned" here – second paragraph in the lead – but maybe I'm just being old fashioned!
- Fowler (3rd ed) says that learned is usual in AmE and learnt in BrE. Tim riley talk 16:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Is that not "usual" in the sense that "learnt" is usually found not in AmE but in BrE, rather than that it's the usual form in BrE? I'm not overly fussed either way – I was taught not to use "learnt" in a formal context, but I'm also fond of breaking rules! Not that there is one ... Nortonius (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Now I look again, I think you're right, Nortonius. The current edition of Fowler expresses a mild approval of "learned" on the grounds that it is common Anglophone currency whereas "learnt" isn't. And a swift online search of the complete works of the Bard throws up only five learnts to sixty-one learneds, and there are no learnts at all in the King James Bible. I'll shut up now. Tim riley talk 13:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Is that not "usual" in the sense that "learnt" is usually found not in AmE but in BrE, rather than that it's the usual form in BrE? I'm not overly fussed either way – I was taught not to use "learnt" in a formal context, but I'm also fond of breaking rules! Not that there is one ... Nortonius (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Fowler (3rd ed) says that learned is usual in AmE and learnt in BrE. Tim riley talk 16:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- "In 963 Edgar appointed Æthelwold Bishop of Winchester": I think "as Bishop of Winchester" might be an improvement to flow.
- "[K]ings from Æthelstan onwards [were enabled] to see themselves as heirs of the Carolingian emperors": the only problem there is that none of Britain was ever part of that empire. Maybe just qualify as "spiritual heirs" or similar.
- I remember being struck by how Pauline Stafford and others saw royal enthusiasm for the reform as strongly political, besides spiritual, taking the line that reformed monasteries were engines for pro-royal, i.e. pro-Wessex, centrist propaganda. I've only scanned through very quickly and I see that line mentioned, e.g. in the longish quotation from Keynes under "Importance of the reform movement" and once or twice elsewhere, but I don't see it developed. I know you'll be working from your sources, Dudley, and I haven't kept up to date on this issue. Also I'm still too pre-occupied to go digging in sources myself, so I'm afraid I'm not being very helpful. I just wonder what you might think of it, as I once came to see the political aspect as a central strand myself.
Sorry I'm not being more helpful, maybe I'll be around more in a week or so, fingers crossed. Nortonius (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Johnbod
- Obviously most of the way there, but I had some issues.
- The lead should prepare the reader for the fact that (I think this is right) it will be a long time before anywhere north of the diocese of Worcester is mentioned. The situation in the north, or lack of it, is mentioned at the end, but was there really so little effect there? Oswald was Archbishop of York for 20 years. Durham is not mentioned at all.
- The nomination promises "It was also very significant politically, artistically and for the development of the Old English language", but there is little beyond a few anodyne comments on art and literature (and nothing on architecture, always a big monastic priority). All the references are from general/political/church historians as far as I could see. Nor are there links to what relevant articles we have - Beowulf (the MS), Cædmon manuscript (prob c. 1000, Canterbury), Old English Hexateuch (more the text) or other works of Ælfric. No doubt others.
- The one specific ref to an artistic work says "The Benedictional of St. Æthelwold, written for him by a monk called Godeman,..." and says nothing else at all about beyond it being the "outstanding work of art to have survived from this period" - for entirely unspecified reasons. This should be "scribed", as he was certainly not the author, and may well have had nothing to do with the illumination. It would be more useful to say something about the scale and style of the illumination rather than just naming the scribe.
- Dunstan actually was an artist, whose work probably survives. You might mention this, and use the famous (probable) self-portrait with Christ.
- Simon Keynes in pp. 14-15 of his Introduction to: Backhouse, Janet, Turner, D.H., and Webster, Leslie, eds.; The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art, 966–1066, 1984, British Museum Publications Ltd, ISBN 0714105325 (the key work on the art) has things to say about Edgar's purely practical motives for promoting the reform which don't seem to be said here.
- "An individual would patronise the same foundations that other family members and allies supported, but despoil the lands of houses associated with his political adversaries. Æthelwine of East Anglia and Ælfhere, Ealdorman of Mercia were the leaders of the two rival factions. Ælfhere despoiled Æthelwine's Ramsey and was an enemy of Archbishop Oswald and an ally of Bishop Æthelwold. Æthelwine, a friend of Oswald, sometimes despoiled Æthelwold's Ely." Lots of "despoiling", not a word that conveys much to the modern reader! It would be useful to give an idea of what this involved.
- "The reformers aimed to enhance the Christian character of kingship, and one aspect of this was to raise the status of the queen; Edgar's last wife, Ælfthryth, was the first king's consort to regularly witness charters as regina.[41] Æthelwold was close to Queen Ælfthryth, and supported the claim of her son Æthelred (978–1016) to be king against his elder half-brother, Edward (975–78). Dunstan supported Edward, who succeeded on Edgar's death in 975. Æthelred became king on his half-brother's murder in 978, and Æthelwold was then a powerful figure at court until his death in 984.[42]" - it's not clear where, after the first sentence, this leads us. Doesn't regina need italics or quotes, or both?
- I must say I prefer "nobles" to "aristocrats" in talking of AS matters.
- Apart from names and places there are relatively few links; I may suggest some.
- "Ealdorman Byrhtnoth of Essex gave Ely Abbey "thirty mancuses of gold, twenty pounds of silver, two gold crosses, two lace palls containing precious works of gold and gems, and two finely made gloves".[43]" - so he did, but after his death his widow also gave them a (lost) narrative hanging depicting his deeds, which is a key and much-discussed work in AS art history, which you might mention. He is also reasonably well-known as the hero of The Battle of Maldon, which you might say.
- I might have more later. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for your helpful comments. I did not find much on artistic aspects, but I will get hold of The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art in the next few days and follow up your suggestions. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- I can add bits if you would like that. I have that and:
- Thanks for your helpful comments. I did not find much on artistic aspects, but I will get hold of The Golden Age of Anglo-Saxon Art in the next few days and follow up your suggestions. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Webster, Leslie, Anglo-Saxon Art, 2012, British Museum Press, ISBN 9780714128092
- Wilson, David M.; Anglo-Saxon Art: From The Seventh Century To The Norman Conquest, Thames and Hudson (US edn. Overlook Press), 1984.
- both standard accounts, plus other stuff. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I have ordered the other two books you mention from the London Library, but I should be very grateful if you would add to the article as you of course know vastly more about Anglo-Saxon art than me, and will do a much better job of improving it. I have also ordered Insular & Anglo-Saxon art and thought in the early medieval period, edited by Colum Hourihane. The LL also has Anglo-Saxon art : a new perspective, C.R. Dodwell, but this is already out on loan. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The Man Trap
This article is about the very first episode broadcast of Star Trek: The Original Series, making it the prime candidate for the front page spot on September 8th this year to mark the 50th anniversary. So this has been worked up through GA, and has gone through a Peer Review as well as taking on-board the previous comments received during the successful FAC of "Space Seed" (which please note would be the backup if this FAC fails). Miyagawa (talk) 08:15, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support I had my say at PR and it appears to meet the FA criteria. It looks to be comprehensive and well-written. I've archived one reference. Z105space (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Checkingfax
- Images were found to be resized to 70% because of using unnamed upright parameter: I resized images to 100% by removing the upright parameter from each image containing it.
- Checked article for MoS compliance: Passed.
- Refined structure.
Looking good. Please ping me back for my !vote after review is further along. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
08:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Sarastro
Comments: Overall, this is looking good. The prose needs a little tightening, but it seems to be comprehensive overall. A few comments on the lead, with more to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- "It was the first episode of the first season to be broadcast": Why make this so convoluted? Perhaps just "It was the first episode of the show to be broadcast"?
-
- Normally I'd say "It was the first episode of the first season"; except this is an unusual case it was only the first episode to be broadcast and really the sixth episode. It's worded like that to avoid the usual drag of IP editors coming in and making the silly edit while arguing that either "The Cage" or "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (the two pilots) were the first episode. Hence the unusual broadcast wording. Miyagawa (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- So why not simply "It was the first episode of the show to be broadcast"? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Set in the 23rd century, the series follows the adventures of Captain James T. Kirk (William Shatner) and his crew aboard the Starfleet starship USS Enterprise.": I don't know if this is the standard format for Star Trek, but it doesn't quite work here. We have a sentence about the episode, then this sentence about the whole show, then a sentence again about the episode. I think the best bet might be to move "It was the first episode of the first season to be broadcast, airing on NBC on September 8, 1966. "The Man Trap" was written by George Clayton Johnson and directed by Marc Daniels" to the end of the first paragraph of the lead.
- "Johnson took on the writing duties after Roddenberry disliked Erwin's work on another plot proposal": Unless I'm missing it, I don't think we have the reason the Erwin was removed as writer in the main body.
-
- The only parts we have on it are in the first three paragraphs of writing. Essentially Roddenberry was notorious at messing his writers around, and this was simply the first occasion that he swapped out one writer for another without all that strong a reason. Personally, I think he knew he had a well known writer who wanted to be involved and so swapped out a friend so that the more famous writer had something to do. Miyagawa (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the "saviour" inclusion in the lead. It seems a little strong, to be honest. In any case, why are we using the British spelling of saviour?
- I've copy-edited the lead a little, please revert anything you don't like or that I have messed up.
- Do we need to make more of its selection as the first episode? Why was it chosen? (I took out the reference to "The Naked Time" as we don't really need that level of detail here) And should we be making clear that this was an all-new show?
- Jumping ahead a little to the Broadcast section (where we have the details about its selection), was there any publicity about the new series? If so, that could be added to this article as it would affect this episode.
-
- I've taken a look at some of it for work on other articles and bizarrely (at least for modern shows), it doesn't really discuss this episode at all. They avoided mentioning Spock where they could (or mistook him for a martian) as they thought the ears made him look the devil (one publicity photo featured him in costume but without the ears) and concentrated quite a bit on Grace Lee Whitney as Janice Rand. They used her so much, that she thought she was going to be one of the three main characters. The concentration was about explaining the premise which was still quite unusual for mainstream television (although we take science fiction for granted these days, Star Trek and Lost in Space really did re-write the rulebook and stopped science fiction from automatically being considered to be children's programming). Miyagawa (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Also, jumping ahead, it is a modern phenomenon that a first episode has a big audience which then declines for subsequent ones. Was this the case here? It might be interesting to see how the first episode fared compared to others. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Well there are two things that need to be considered here. The first is that back in 1966, there were only three channels. Star Trek, at least in the first season generally came second in the ratings from what I can see. In this particular case it came first, but that would be possible because NBC broadcast new shows a week earlier than either of their competitors. So "The Man Trap" went up against two repeats. But I can absolutely add something to discuss the following weeks' figures. Miyagawa (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- I've added a further paragraph. While it's true that the overall ratings dropped, which can be attributed to the new broadcast going up against repeats on the other two channels, the show did go on to win further timeslots. I included the ratings from the next two episodes to show the pattern. Miyagawa (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Plot: A few issues here. I've copy-edited directly but there's a few things I can't clear up. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- "The starship USS Enterprise arrives at planet M-113 for the medical exams of Professor Robert Crater (Alfred Ryder) and his wife Nancy (Jeanne Bal)": Maybe a word on why they are on that planet in the first place?
- "travel to the surface using the transporter": I don't know if this is the standard way of writing this, but would "transport to the surface" be a little tighter?
- In passing, I think "Enterprise" sounds less good than "the Enterprise", but I think the usage here is probably more correct and matches other articles.
- "and Kirk teases McCoy about his affection for Nancy Crater ten years earlier": The "and" is a bit awkward here, and does not really place this chronologically. Before the transport, during it or after it? Or just make it a sentence by itself, perhaps?
- "Nancy arrives" and "Kirk sends the dazed Darnell outside" and "Crater arrives": Arrives where? Outside where? Where are we? And where is Crater at this point? I think we need to say where the action is taking place at the beginning of the episode.
- "McCoy and Spock determine that Darnell died from having all salt drained from his body. Kirk beams back down to the planet with McCoy and two crewmen, Green (Bruce Watson) and Sturgeon (John Arndt). They spread out to search, but Crater slips away.": Too much too quickly I think. How do they determine? An examination? (And why did they not do that first?) Why does Kirk beam back down? (And would "transports" be better here?) and for what are they searching? Crater slips away from who, and how? Just a little more detail required I think.
- "Kirk and McCoy find Sturgeon's body, unaware that Green is dead too": Not sure about this. We don't actually know that Green is dead, so this is rather abrupt. How is it conveyed in the episode?
-
- Only because the creature turns up appearing as Green and later scans show only a single inhabitant (Crater) of the planet. Miyagawa (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- ""Green" roams the halls": Halls? Corridors, surely?
- "attacking several crew members": Are any killed?
- "They stun him": How?
- "out of affection": For Crater or Nancy?
- I'm a bit confused after the third paragraph of "plot" where the action is taking place. The ship or the planet?
- "so Kirk orders "McCoy" to administer truth serum": The first time I read this, I missed that this was not the real McCoy. Maybe spell it out that this was the creature. Also, where is the actual McCoy? Sarastro1 (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Writing: More copy-editing done, please feel free to revert anything. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- We are using Roddenberry's original "pitch" but we need to make it clear to whom he is pitching it. I'm also a little concerned that we are verging into OR here. As this is a primary source, we need to be very careful, and when we say "The plot featured in "The Man Trap" appeared in Gene Roddenberry's original pitch for Star Trek" we are interpreting the source. The plot in that pitch is sufficiently different to the broadcast story to make this not just a straightforward fact; in reality, only the title is the same. If we are going to go further than say that a story called The Man Trap featured in the pitch, and give an outline of that plot, we really need another source which makes this claim.
- "The story was handed to Lee Erwin": Would it be more encyclopaedic to say that Erwin was commissioned to produce a treatment (or a full script, whichever it was)
- "decided to use the 1953 science fiction novel The Syndic by Cyril M. Kornbluth as the basis for the story": It's not quite clear here who decided to use it; Johnson or Black?
- "Roddenberry felt that Johnson's treatment was wrong": Wrong how? Badly written? Not what he wanted in a story?
- I think we're still a little light on what happened to Erwin. Had he produced a script, or just the treatment? How did he take it? Why was he moved on? Did he ever write anything else for Star Trek?
-
- I've added a little more - he was paid a bonus for his treatment (I haven't seen anything that said he wrote a full script, and I'm sure that would have been leaked at some point if he had) and later wrote an episode in the third season (which I've added as a note). Miyagawa (talk) 08:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- We have now got the part about the "kill fee" (which I'd never heard of; learn something new every day!), but we already say that he was paid in full to terminate his contract. Is this duplication or two separate fees? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Two different payments. Erwin probably didn't complain too much because it seems he was paid more for his treatment not being used than if it had been... and they wondered why Star Trek kept going massively over budget. I've edited it to say that it was two separate payments. Miyagawa (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- "so the ability for the creature to make apparitions was added back into the story": Was it ever in the original story, or just in Roddenberry's pitch?
- "Stan Robertson at NBC agreed with the need for more action, and suggested to Roddenberry that they may wish to get medical advice over whether the draining of a chemical from a person would kill them instantly.": I'm not sure how seeking medical advice is going to give more action to the story.
- "the creature in "The Man Trap" could be the last of the species, comparing it to the reduction in numbers of American bison since the European colonization of the Americas, which Roddenberry found intriguing": What was he comparing? You can't compare a creature to a reduction in numbers.
- "one of which was to restore the name "The Man Trap"": Again, I'm not sure that it technically ever was called Man Trap, unless we are doing some OR on the pitch.
- "adding that "There could have been a hell of a lot more art in Star Trek if GR had kept his hands off the scripts."": This is a slightly meaningless quote. Can we clarify what he means by this?
- "might not properly understand the series off the basis of "The Man Trap"": Again, this is vague. What does he mean?
- "although he was concerned that viewers might not properly understand the series off the basis of "The Man Trap", admitting that he did not like Spock and was concerned that the character would not be understood from this one episode": This is a bit clumsy; are these two separate concerns, or the same concern expressed in two ways? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Johnson was pleased with the final episode, although he was concerned that viewers might not properly understand the series off the basis of "The Man Trap" due to differences in characterisation": Still not quite right; what differences? Between the characters in this story and in the whole series? Needs to be a bit clearer. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Break
Filming
- "predominantly shot on the bridge": Can we be more precise here? At first, I imagined we were over water! Is there a link, or can we spell it out bridge of the Enterprise?
- "and Whitney later recalled that the operator could see right up her skirt throughout the shoot and would occasionally try to get personal with her using the puppet": Not quite sure we have encyclopaedic tone here, so I think some rewording is needed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The creature:
- "Daniels had some apprehension about using a monster of the week format, asking "Do you go for cheap thrills or a more intelligent approach?", adding that they decided to "treat everything as if it were real" in order to ensure that the audience bought into it.": Is there a link for "monster of the week", and should it be in quotation marks? And this is a long sentence; the part after "adding" does nit quite fit and perhaps needs to be a separate sentence. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I just wanted to add a brief mention that I'm aware that there is a publicity photo of Kirk and the creature which would be free use right now because all the Star Trek images from that era did not have their copyright renewed. However, we only upload the ones onto Commons where we can directly evidence precisely when they were published (which is usually through someone selling them on eBay with the original documentation for it attached). We're building up some images now, although the eBay sellers have realised what we're doing and are now masking the images or avoiding uploading scans of the relevant documents. But hopefully at some point, we'll get the image for this. We certainly already got it for "Spock's Brain" so anything is possible. Miyagawa (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
-
Themes: Not too keen on this section. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- " demonstrated a mantra within the series": A mantra is a sacred phrase, so this is really not the right word here. And you can't demonstrate a mantra.
- "the original series showed that predators such as the salt vampire were considered to be a lower life form and therefore should be destroyed": How does it show that something is considered. I think I'm missing the meaning here. Either they were considered in the series, or it showed it as a fact. We can't have both.
- "the argument is presented that such creatures should not be killed; however, Geraghty felt that the writers sought to ensure that viewers did not feel any sympathy for the creature by revealing its true appearance as it died": What argument? Who is presenting it? I'm a bit lost by this. And we've just compared it to a helpless dog... This might need a rethink,
- "it undoubtedly troubled McCoy for some time after the event": I really don't think this belongs in this article.
- "David Greven, in his book Gender and Sexuality in Star Trek, compared the creature from "The Man Trap" to T'Pol's (Jolene Blalock) actions towards Captain Jonathan Archer (Scott Bakula) in the Star Trek: Enterprise episode "Twilight". He considered T'Pol to be "draining him of life force", in a similar manner to the salt vampire.": And again, in the context of this episode this is irrelevant, and meaningless to the general reader. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Driveby comment: I think it's a shame to see genuine academic analysis being removed from the article. Perhaps an effort could be made to (more) clearly state the significance of the claims for this episode. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- I've added the McCoy line back in, although in an edited form (and therefore I can add the image back too). However I've left the Star Trek: Enterprise reference off, as I take the point from Sarastro that it wasn't relevent to this article (but I'm sure it'll be welcome at the article for "Twilight"). Miyagawa (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- "A vampiric alien is a recurring idea in science fiction television series..." and the following paragraph: I'm vaguely worried by this, as it looks like synthesis; do sources about this episode make these comparisons, or is it just a fairly random list? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Leaning Support with a heavy copy-editing disclaimer: I'm pretty happy with this now, and think it meets the FA criteria. I have one point above but I've reached the end of the article and there are no other major issues other than the vampire point. I should point out though that I've copy-edited this quite heavily now, which may make my support slightly questionable; therefore I'd like to wait for a few more eyes before I switch to full support. Otherwise, I think this is a pretty comprehensive account of this episode. I'll have another look through and if no-one gets to the source review I'll look at that too. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- "the last of his kind": Did Kirk refer to the creature as male at this point?
- "he hated the work": What work?
- Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Eega
- Nominator(s): Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
This article is about Eega, a 2012 Indian bilingual film, which narrates the story of a murdered man reincarnating as a fly and avenging his death. This is my first solo attempt for FA. I thank my friends Kailash29792 and Ssven2 for helping me throughout the process. A special note of thanks to Miniapolis, copy-editor from WP:GOCE. Looking forward for constructive comments. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Note to FAC delegates: In order to avoid any resemblance to a case of WP:VOTESTACK, i hereby list the names of those editors whom i have requested to take part in the discussion; other interested editors are welcomed to comment: J Milburn, Krimuk90, Cowlibob, FrB.TG, Bede735, Jaguar, Jimfbleak, Yashthepunisher, Gareth Griffith-Jones, Vensatry, Dharmadhyaksha, Bollyjeff, Krish!, and West Virginian. Nikkimaria and SNUGGUMS were requested to conduct source and image reviews respectively. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support Had my say at the PR. Good luck! Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Yash! :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Source review by Nikkimaria
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Why are you citing the Youtube version for runtime?
- I could not find a better alternative for the same.
- Is there not a DVD version or a runtime mentioned in a review? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Generally, The Times of India mentions the runtime in its reviews. It didn't for Eega. Neither Amazon nor Flipkart did mention the runtime of the DVD version.
Thus, i am directly citing the DVD. Would that suffice?My friend found help from BBFC official website. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Generally, The Times of India mentions the runtime in its reviews. It didn't for Eega. Neither Amazon nor Flipkart did mention the runtime of the DVD version.
- Is there not a DVD version or a runtime mentioned in a review? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Be consistent in whether you use Rediff.com or just Rediff
- Fixed.
- FN100 and similar: missing italics on publication name
- International Business Times (ref. 100) is an online newspaper which has no print edition. Thus, i treated it similar to a website by not italicising it.
- Our own articles on IBT shows that it is typically italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Okay then. I've italicised all the three instances for IBT. Did it for Twitch as well. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Our own articles on IBT shows that it is typically italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Several of the Sify refs appear to be republications of other sources, of varying credibility. What makes these high-quality reliable sources, and if they are why not cite the originals? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking. Sify is listed as a reliable source in WP:ICTF and has been a part of many featured contents here, esp. lists. As per a discussion at WP:RSN, i came to know that the website mentions a note "The views expressed in the article are the author's and not of Sify.com" if something is not published or checked by the website. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, but the sources I'm talking about aren't by Sify originally, they're by other sites and are being republished. So whether Sify itself is reliable or not, that doesn't really tell us whether these other sites are. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've removed all the Sify sources which have republished the content from Telugucinema.com. Coming to Moviebuzz, i learnt from the discussion at WP:RSN that it is a part of Sify and no separate website with such name and content existed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- FN70 is from telugucinema. Do you have a link to the RSN discussion? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've removed ref no. 70 and the statement there. This is the discussion at WP:RSN regarding Sify. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. I was hoping there was a link to show the connection, as I haven't found one on the site itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I tried searching Moviebuzz on Google and managed to find it only as a topic/author at Sify. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Moviebuzz is a part of Sify that deals with the things that are going on in the industry (like how the Cinema Plus section is to The Hindu). If it were a private news/agency, it would have a website of its own like IANS, Press Trust of India (PTI) or Reuters. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for clarifying. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Moviebuzz is a part of Sify that deals with the things that are going on in the industry (like how the Cinema Plus section is to The Hindu). If it were a private news/agency, it would have a website of its own like IANS, Press Trust of India (PTI) or Reuters. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:31, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I tried searching Moviebuzz on Google and managed to find it only as a topic/author at Sify. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. I was hoping there was a link to show the connection, as I haven't found one on the site itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've removed ref no. 70 and the statement there. This is the discussion at WP:RSN regarding Sify. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- FN70 is from telugucinema. Do you have a link to the RSN discussion? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've removed all the Sify sources which have republished the content from Telugucinema.com. Coming to Moviebuzz, i learnt from the discussion at WP:RSN that it is a part of Sify and no separate website with such name and content existed. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, but the sources I'm talking about aren't by Sify originally, they're by other sites and are being republished. So whether Sify itself is reliable or not, that doesn't really tell us whether these other sites are. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Vedant
I have offered a c.e. here here and here for the "Critical Reception" section. Feel free to revert any changes you disagree with (though IMO the section is now in a better shape). I do have some concerns though -
- Certain reviews are not qualitative additions - point(s) in case: Rediff.com DNA, IANS (the last one could do much better with some commentary)
- I believe if you decide to keep the DNA review you need to expand it, and add it to the previous paragraph as it does not belong in the last para which is mostly critical of the film.
- "Sify called" - "A reviewer in Sify"?
Hope the c.e. helps. NumerounovedantTalk 13:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Numerounovedant: Thanks for the c/e and the comments. Ssven2 has managed to resolve them in my absence. Coming to the DNA review, i have merged it with the above paragraph, but i see no actual use of expanding it. Let me know if you have anything else to say. :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- That's it for me. I see that you have a couple of supports and the article underwent an extensive PR too, so I'll leave it to the rest of the editors. Good work though and Good luck with the nomination. NumerounovedantTalk 11:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support I took part in the PR and I conclude that this article is in a better shape since the last time I read through it. I think this meets the criteria, so I'll support. Well done! JAGUAR 19:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Jaguar! :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Not an area of expertise for me, but I was involved in the PR, and it reads very well now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Jimfbleak! :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support I am not an expert when it comes to writing. An article with an understandable and concise prose is worthy enough to be FA to me, which is the case here. Well done! FrB.TG (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks FrB.TG! :) Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Sarastro1
Drive-by comments: I had a quick look at the plot section, and did a quick copy-edit (and feel free to revert anything you don't like, or that I messed up). Just a few quick points on that section. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- "In a chain of events, his money is burnt to ashes": I think we need to say what the chain of events are, rather than just saying "in a chain of events"
- Added a footnote regarding this. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 08:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- "a contract affecting his professional life is rescinded due to the death": Can we clarify what this means?
- I leave this to Pavanjandhyala. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 08:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- In the film, Sudeep undertakes a construction contract which can be his fate changer. He begins the meeting on a promising note, but completely messes it thanks to his poor mental conditions worsened by the fly's acts. The meeting ends on a very bad note, and the other party plans to sue them. As his business partner is dead, that contract is rescinded and an insurance of 7 billion is claimed. I thought this detail would be too intricate and abstained from adding it. Thus, i request you to suggest me a better way to include this into the plot. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think normally we spell out units of currency on their first mention, and link them. It makes it easier for the reader in any case. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- I leave this to Pavanjandhyala. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 08:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm confused where to do so. Can you kindly mention the place where should i mention rupees? That would be a great help. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe "₹1.25 billion" in the lead (and it is sufficient to link to the ₹ I think) and "₹1.5 million" in the plot section (the first mention in the main body). I've usually seen it done like this "₹1.25 billion", although the MoS doubtless says something else! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm confused where to do so. Can you kindly mention the place where should i mention rupees? That would be a great help. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Otherwise, the article looks generally OK but I think another copy-edit might be needed in places. Also, the Origin section is a little tricky to follow for someone who is unfamiliar with the film. For example, "Rajamouli chose the concept of a man reincarnated as a fly for the script" does not really say what script we are talking about, and "For the first time in his career, Rajamouli began casting after the script was completed" is a little abrupt: I assume he usually cast before the script was done, but why not spell it out for the reader a little more? These were just two points that jumped out from a quick skim, so I think a few more eyes would be beneficial. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Tweaked the sentence. Do make sure the corrections are alright. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 08:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think there's a slight mix-up in refs. "Rajamouli revisited Eega's script, since he wanted to "try something which had never been tried by anyone", adding that comedy, horror, and romance did not suit him. He decided to make Eega a bilingual film in Telugu and Tamil languages as the script had less dialogue. Each scene with dialogue was filmed twice, once for each language" is cited to ref 11 in this version, but that does not support the given information. However, ref 10 does support it. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- The last part i.e. bilingual was sourced by ref no. 11. I've shifted ref no. 10 to the end of the sentence "...comedy, horror, and romance did not suit him". Hope that solves the issue. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@Sarastro1: Thanks for leaving some constructive comments. I await a full review from you and opine that it would help me polish the article well. :) Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Origin, scripting and casting: I've read to the end of this section now. I've made a few little tweaks, but there's nothing particularly standing out here. Just a few queries and things I'd like to know a little more about. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Daggubati Suresh Babu presented Eega with his Suresh Productions": This is a little difficult to understand, so I would suggest moving the text in the accompanying note into the main body.
- "Samantha turned down other offers to appear in it, calling her decision "well-thought out"": Do we know why she turned down other roles?
- "due to creative and scheduling conflicts": Do we know more about the creative conflicts?
- "The original version, filmed over a six-month period, cost nearly ₹110 million; Rajamouli felt that the quality of the outcome was poor and started from scratch": If I've read this right, he spent ₹110 million, decided he wasn't happy, and remounted the whole film! I think we need to know more about this, such as how much of the film had he shot, why wasn't he happy, what did the producers and cast think about this; was it his decision alone?
- The one thing missing: we don't really find out what role, if any, the production company had in all this. Presumably the film had backers of some sort or other. But maybe it's there and I've missed/misunderstood it. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
No Me Queda Más
This article is about a song recorded by American Tejano music singer Selena for her last fully recorded album before she was shot and killed a year later. This song holds very dear to me as it brings back nostalgic memories of my mother while growing up. I've made a major overhaul a few months ago and updated the article and subsequently asked the GOCE to copy-edit it. After that, I re-read the article a few times in the weeks following the c/e to make sure the article is indeed ready to be nominated at FAC. I hope you guys enjoy reading the article as much as I had writing it. Best – jona ✉ 19:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Interstate 275 (Michigan)
- Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 16:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is about a highway in Michigan, as most of my nominations are. However, this one is special. Depending on which government agency you ask, you'll get different answers at how long this one is. Additionally, it has some special history related to a cancelled northern segment that was partially revived under a different highway designation. Imzadi 1979 → 16:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets the FA criteria, even with the changes made since then. Dough4872 00:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment by Will211
Just peeking in, I was looking at sources and reference number 12 comes up with a 404 error, so that will need to be fixed. Will211|Chatter 02:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Will211: thanks for that. Archived link added, so that's good to go now. Imzadi 1979 → 03:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Heffernan v. City of Paterson
This article is about a recent US Supreme Court decision regarding First Amendment protections of public employees. The first amendment protects the rights of public employees, and the Court has previously held that being fired or demoted for political speech or political association is unconstitutional, but in this case, Heffernan was fired not for what he did but what his employer mistakenly thought he did. The Court had to answer whether public employees are protected when their employer bases their decision on factually incorrect information. In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that employees are protected in this situation. I'd also like to acknowledge Daniel Case, Neutrality, and Notecardforfree for all their efforts in getting the article to this point. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 18:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- "A line of cases going back to 1968's Pickering v. Board of Education holding that the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech permit public employees to speak out on matters of public concern, even criticizing their employers, as long as they do not do so disruptively.": Something's wrong there.
-
- As the writer of that sentence, how so? Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- Where's the verb? - Dank (push to talk) 11:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Done Actually, I ultimately decided to move those sentences to the "legal background" section, where I think they belonged (once we get to Heffernan's case, we don't need details of a precedent unless they are specifically discussed by a judge to distinguish it from the instant one). And I did some prose-tightening as well. Daniel Case (talk) 03:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Where's the verb? - Dank (push to talk) 11:28, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- As the writer of that sentence, how so? Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Section 1983", "section 1983": consistency.
- Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Amazing Stories Quarterly
- Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Amazing Stories Quarterly was a companion to the first science fiction magazine, Amazing Stories. Critical opinions differ as to its quality: "important" according to one source, with the same work being described as "turgid" by another. It's a fairly short article, but I think I've found every source that specifically talks about the magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Nikki. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Support with one caveat, namely that I wonder if it's worth splitting Publishing History and Content into separate sections -- each occupies two paragraphs, sufficient for their own sections, and it kind of pulled me up short to go through the mag's entire history from a publishing perspective, and then start again with its content. I mean it's not a killer for me, so if you want to see what other reviewers think, that's fine. Otherwise, short but sweet -- the prose (which I copyedited a bit) seems fine, and I think we get a reasonable idea of the kind of fiction published. Good to see you back. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I went ahead and split the sections; I think you're right that it reads better that way. To avoid some ugly wrapping of images I also moved the table and second image to the right and left respectively. Your copyedits look good. Thanks for the review, and the welcome back -- I've spent the last year listing five or six thousand of my books on eBay, which turned out to be very time-consuming and left me with little time for Wikipedia. I'm done now, though, and should be active again from now on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Source review -- apart from a tiny error that I fixed, couldn't spot any formatting issues, and all refs look reliable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the copyedit and support. I undid one of your changes, to the lead; since Sloane was the editor, rather than a writer, I don't think your wording quite works -- it makes it sounds as if he was writing the stories himself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies, I meant "they consider the work Sloane published in the early 1930s to be some of the best in the new genre." I've made the change. "consider" (intrans.) means "deliberate" or "reflect" in AHD and M-W.
- Great work, as always. - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Support with adequate responses to my review below. A fine article indeed! starship.paint ~ KO 12:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: Here are my comments: starship.paint ~ KO 04:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I can't help but feel that the lede is too long and thus intimidating, especially since the body is rather short.
- I've trimmed it a little; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Could I get more background on Hugo Gernsback, Bergan Mackinnon, Bernarr Macfadden in Publication history?
- There's not much more to say about Mackinnon, as far as I can find out. I could add a little more about both Gernsback and Macfadden, but it wouldn't really have anything to do with this article, and since they're linked I felt that was OK. The thing that might be added is that there are rumours that Macfadden forced Gernsback into bankruptcy because Gernsback wouldn't sell the magazines to him, but this is just a rumour. It's mentioned in the Amazing Stories article, since that's much longer and more detailed, but this is such a short article I felt it didn't fit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Could you re-state in Publication history that it was a US magazine? Where in the US was it available? Was it ever available internationally?
- I've added "U.S." to describe Amazing Stories, which is mentioned first in the text; since Amazing Stories Quarterly was a companion magazine I think that's good enough. There's no information on where it was available -- that probably means it was available more or less nationwide, but I don't have any source so I can't say that. There were no overseas editions -- many of these magazines had Canadian or British editions, but not in this case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- How about linking 50 cents so in Bibliographic details?
- I don't think so -- that's about a specific coin, and the price doesn't really relate to the coin. I do link currency when it's unfamiliar (e.g. pre-1971 UK currency) but here I don't think there's a need. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: okay, those are adequate responses above. Some further stuff, about Gernsback's policy of running a lead novel, could you provide more examples of those?
- There are a couple more already mentioned in the article -- I don't say "lead" for all of them, since there's never room for more than one novel in a magazine. I mention The Bridge of Light by Verrill, The Birth of a New Republic, by Breuer and Williamson, and White Lily, by Taine. I think that's probably enough -- the sources mention those, and although I could list others not mentioned in the sources I don't see a reason to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- @Mike Christie:there's never room for more than one novel in a magazine - I didn't know that. Does the article say that? Saying lead novel leads me to think there might be more than one novel in a magazine. starship.paint ~ KO 13:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- The article doesn't say that, and from a quick look at some sources it appears that the term is used but never defined. I could put in a note saying 'There was never more than one novel in an issue; since novels were the longest fiction in the magazine they were usually described as the "lead novel" ', but I can't really source this -- I would have to claim it didn't need sourcing. If that works for you, I can add it, but I'd have to remove it if challenged by another reviewer. Do you see an alternative? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- @Mike Christie: I would change 'lead novel' to 'novel': The first issue of Amazing Stories Quarterly was dated Winter 1928 and carried a reprint of H.G. Wells' novel, When the Sleeper Wakes. Gernsback's policy of running a novel in each issue was popular with his readership... and later in the body also ... they approved of Gernsback's policy of publishing a novel in each issue starship.paint ~ KO 03:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Done, with a slight tweak to avoid "novel" three times in two lines. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- @Mike Christie: great, I'm going to put my support above. starship.paint ~ KO 12:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Mike Christie: I would change 'lead novel' to 'novel': The first issue of Amazing Stories Quarterly was dated Winter 1928 and carried a reprint of H.G. Wells' novel, When the Sleeper Wakes. Gernsback's policy of running a novel in each issue was popular with his readership... and later in the body also ... they approved of Gernsback's policy of publishing a novel in each issue starship.paint ~ KO 03:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Mike Christie:there's never room for more than one novel in a magazine - I didn't know that. Does the article say that? Saying lead novel leads me to think there might be more than one novel in a magazine. starship.paint ~ KO 13:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Why did you choose the Winter 1930 issue as a picture? How about displaying the final original publication: Fall 1934?
- I think it's a stronger picture at thumbnail size -- the circular surround on the Fall 1934 cover makes the remaining elements of the picture pretty small. I also think the strong colour contrasts make the picture easier to appreciate at a small size. I agree there's a reason to have the first issue displayed somewhere, though it's not compulsory, but I think the argument is weaker for the final issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- There is one Canadian reprint of this magazine. Worth a mention?
- Nice find -- I didn't know about that; it's not mentioned in the other main sources. I've added it and sourced it to that page. I should mention that philsp.com is run by one person, so it might be questionable under WP:RS, but the online sf encyclopedia treats it as reliable and links to it frequently, so I think it's OK. I've contacted the SFE and suggested they add this information to their page on the magazine; if they do I'll switch the ref to their page instead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments: A nice little article, just a few points. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- "he decided to follow it up with a regularly quarterly magazine": Do we need to say "regularly", or is that implied by "quarterly"? If we need it, would it not just be "regular"?
- It would, but I agree it's not needed; cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- "though apparently the decision to discontinue the magazine was not taken until some time later": Do we really need "apparently"?
- There was never any announcement of the decision, so "apparently" was a signal that this is a deduction, rather than a direct citation. (The source makes the same deduction.) I don't think it's necessary, though, so I've cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Although readers' reactions to the Wells novel were negative": Where did these reactions come from? How did they give their "feedback"?
- The source just says "Gernsback's readers did not like the story"; it's almost certain that Bleiler is referring to the letters page in the magazine, where readers would have shared their opinions about the magazine's contents, but since he doesn't say that I would prefer not to. I do have a couple of these magazines, but they're in boxes so I can't look to see if there are quotable letters. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- "and began a competition for editorial letters from readers": What are editorial letters?
- Gernsback asked readers to send in letters containing proposed editorials on science-fictional themes; the source (Wolf & Ashley) refers to one of the winners as "another of the prize-winning editorials". I've clarified this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Is it worth giving brief details of the plots of any of the stories mentioned?
- I never know how much of this to do, since it seems hard to know when to stop. Other reviewers have suggested this for other magazine articles though, so I'll have a go at this and report back when done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- OK, done. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- I never know how much of this to do, since it seems hard to know when to stop. Other reviewers have suggested this for other magazine articles though, so I'll have a go at this and report back when done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- In the "Bibliographic details" section, we have quite a few sentences beginning "The". Sarastro1 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've eliminated one, but the paragraph is just a recitation of dry facts so I'm having trouble finding good paraphrases. Is that enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Support: All looks good to me now. Nice piece of work! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
F.C. United of Manchester
- Nominator(s): odder (talk), Delusion23 15:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is about a supporter-owned, semi-professional, non-league football club based in Manchester, England. Founded in 2005 by Manchester United fans, F.C. United currently play somewhat entertaining football at level six of the English football pyramid. Since their foundation, F.C. United have been the subject of many a newspaper articles, television programmes and a couple of books and documentaries, and are one of the most known non-league clubs in England.
I'm moving forward with this nomination hoping to get the article promoted to FA status in time for the 11th anniversary of the club's first ever match on 16 July. After a considerable amount of work I put into the article over the last few months, I feel it meets all FA criteria, and I look forward to listening to your suggestions and comments. Thanks, everyone. odder (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Cas Liber
I read this at peer review and was happy with alot of it. More comments: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- United's own ground, Broadhurst Park in north-east Manchester, opened in May 2015, ready for the 2015–16 season. - makes it sound like the 2015–16 season hasn't happened yet. Might be better as "United's own ground, Broadhurst Park in north-east Manchester, opened in May 2015 and was used for the 2015–16 season"
-
- Sentence 2 and 3 in the Formation section both begin with, "Although.."
Otherwise looks ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Cas, I've now reworded that paragraph to avoid this unfortunate repetition. I also fixed the sentence on the opening of the ground, so both issues should now be fixed. odder (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Sarastro
Comment: I hope to give this a full review, but a quick glance through at the sourcing gave me a few concerns. Here are a few sourcing questions, but this isn't an exhaustive list and there could be a few other issues. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- The book by Robert Brady appears to be self published according to Google. What makes it reliable?
- How do you know it's a self-published book? I own a copy, and I can't tell if it's been self-published or not. The book—one of only three books written specifically about F.C. United—is reliable because it was written by a member of the club's steering group (or, "steering committee", as some call it), which was the group that worked on actually creating the club, including its registration with the Football Association, hiring the manager, signing players—everything that needed to be done to get the club off the ground before the inauguaral members' meeting on 5 July 2005. When it comes to facts about F.C. United's beginnings, and in particular the events of May 2005, it doesn't come more direct than that. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- We have the Sunday Mirror as a source, which I think is questionable as a RS (see WP:PUS)
- This is a tough one, as the article was published in February 2005, and as far as I am aware is the only printed source that covered the idea suggesting the formation of F.C. United. The idea was originally proposed in an article published in Red Issue, a Manchester United fanzine, and was then subsequently reported on in that Sunday Mirror piece, which I accessed through the news database Newsbank at a library. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Hmmm, I really think we could do with a better source though. The Sunday Mirror is frowned upon. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- I haven't been able to find any other source confirming the name of the author of that original Red Issue piece, so I ended up removing it, and referenced the date of that article and the fact that the idea was originally floated during the attempted Murdoch takeover to an article published in the journal Soccer & Society. odder (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I really think we could do with a better source though. The Sunday Mirror is frowned upon. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- What makes "The Set Pieces" a reliable website?
- They are an award-winning football blog (1 and 2 although the website itself doesn't look much like a blog). They're also part of the Guardian Sport Network and are regularly featured on the Guardian's website, but if that's not enough then I guess I'll see if I can replace this reference with something else. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- 57 of the 140 sources are to fc-utd.co.uk, the club's own website. This seems a very high proportion to me, and we should not be using the subject of the article to provide so much information on itself
- Some of these references are used to provide the score, date or venue of particular matches; I'll try to replace them with outside sources, but I'm afraid it's probably mostly going to be the Manchester Evening News. The article is already using MEN materials 19 times at this moment, so I'm not sure if this isn't going to be a problem. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I think MEN would be better for at least some of these; that would be better than using the club's own site. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- I got that number down to 39 (out of 136) by replacing news pieces (updates) from F.C. United's website to articles published in the MEN; I tried to link to on-line versions where available, but some of those articles apparently never made it to the MEN's website, in which case I used the news database Newsbank which I can access as a reader at the Manchester City Council Libraries. odder (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think MEN would be better for at least some of these; that would be better than using the club's own site. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Ref 25 seems to go to an error page; and what makes North West Counties Football League reliable?
- You might need to try again, as that website appears to be having temporary issues. It certainly works for me. And as what makes the North West Counties Football League reliable, well… it's the North West Counties Football League, the organisation that runs the league that F.C. United were first accepted into, all the way back in 2005-06. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- What is Mancunian Matters, and what makes it reliable?
- It's a local on-line newspaper (news website) co-published by News Associates (Manchester branch), which apparently is the second-best sports journalism training centre in the whole of the United Kingdom (never knew that). odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- We have a lot of local press coverage, which is fine, and a few BBC items. Is there nothing in the sporting/football press about the club that could be included Sarastro1 (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- As F.C. United are a semi-professional, non-league club, there is a very limited fotballing/sports coverage available apart from local papers, and in particular apart from the Manchester Evening News, Manchester's most popular daily paper. The article does include a few references to FourFourTwo, one each from ESPN, the Non-League Football Paper, and a few references to general British press such as the Daily Telegraph, the Independent, and the Guardian (which due to its past has a particular interest in all things Mancunian).
-
- In any case, @Sarastro1, thank you so much for such a detailed review of the sources used. It's super helpful, and I will try to fix the issues that you pointed out. Due to work and other Wikimedia commitments this is likely to take some time, though; I expect to be able to work on this tomorrow (Tuesday) evening as well as Wednesday, and will update you once I'm done. Please do feel free to mention other issues that you find, and thanks again for your work on this, really appreciate the feedback. odder (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
More comments: I think this looks in reasonable shape overall, but could stand a little tightening. A few points from the lead to begin with. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- "United entered the North West Counties Football League Division Two in their inaugural season. They achieved three consecutive promotions in the first three years of their existence and were promoted for a fourth time to compete in the National League North for the 2015–16 season": Is it worth saying what tier they begun at, to give some contrast?
-
- This is mentioned in #North West Counties years (2005–07). odder (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- "In cup competitions, F.C. United reached the second round of the FA Cup during the 2010–11 season and the first round during the 2015–16 season. They reached the fourth round of the FA Trophy during the 2014–15 season and the third round of the FA Vase during the 2006–07 season.": I know what we are trying to do here, but it's a little bit of a list as it stands. We could either limit this to mentioning their best results in the cups, or make more of their achievements. For example, it is not immediately obvious to a non-UK football person that reaching the first round of a competition is actually an achievement, and involves winning games. I think I prefer the first option.
- "The club shared Gigg Lane with Bury until 2014 and in the 2014–15 season Bower Fold and the Tameside Stadium with Stalybridge Celtic and Curzon Ashton respectively. F.C. United's own ground, Broadhurst Park in north-east Manchester, opened in May 2015.": Again, we are getting list-y here; perhaps cut to "After initially sharing grounds with other clubs, F.C. United opened their own ground..." etc.
- The lead is a little light. Rather than list grounds and Cup results, we need a brief summary of each of the main sections in the main body. I would imagine Supporters, Organisation and Criticism (even if there is no longer a criticism section!) need a little more. WP:LEAD says somewhere that we need a summary of all the main content in the lead.
- This has been already mentioned during the article's peer review, and while I agree that a short summary of the Supporters and Organisation sections might be necessary—and I'll happily do that—I object to the inclusion of Criticism in the lead. I have read, re-read and then read again all featured English football club articles, and none of them mention any criticism in their respective leads. F.C. United's article is already unique in even mentioning the criticism (given the circumstances around the club's formation I guess it's fair play), however I think that including this in the lead would be pushing it a bit too far. odder (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- It looks like the prose could stand a little tightening in places in the main body. I'll take a look, and if you have no objections I'll copy-edit directly. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
History:
- "Although the fans had various reasons for their dissatisfaction": Can we list at least a couple of these?
- There exists a whole variety of sources mentioning those—particularly the early Manchester Evening News articles about F.C. United, mostly from May-August 2005 and I could certainly cite them, however see below for my reasoning as to why I haven't done that yet. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Just doing a quick spot check of ref 3 and 4 gave two references to AFC Wimbledon. Do we need to mention this as some sort of inspiration/precedent?
- AFC Wimbledon officials provided F.C United's steering committee with a lot of help in the early days, and Wimbledon's chairman was actually present at the Apollo Theatre; this is mentioned in a lot of sources, including Brady's book. I never covered this in the article as it felt to me as being too small a detail as compared to the bigger picture, but including this is certainly doable. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think we are missing a little detail about the public meeting; the Guardian says that "At those meetings, £100,000 was pledged and a name selected by founder members"
- I think there is a bit of a confusion here. The name that this passage refers to is "F.C. United"; it was originally suggested in that breakthourgh Red Issue piece, and then refused by the FA for being too ambigous. The name "F.C. United of Manchester" was selected by people who have pledged money to the club—as this was even before the club's inaugural member's meeting which only happened on 5 July—through the internet and the post rather than during the two public meetings at the Central Hall and at the Apollo Theatre. The £100,000 that is being referred to also was pledged in a variety of ways, including through the post, the internet, over the phone, etc., and not just during the meetings. But overall, I think this is too detailed to be included in this article per WP:DETAIL. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- "and "Newton Heath United"": I think this name at least warrants more explanation.
- Christopher Porter (ref 12) appears to be a thesis; what makes it a RS?
- According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP PhD theses can be used if they're cited in literature, as Porter's thesis has been (Peter Kennedy, David Kennedy, "Football in Neo-Liberal Times: A Marxist Perspective on the European Football Industry", ISBN 9781317576266; Simon Gwyn Roberts, "Sport, Media and Regional Identity", ISBN 9781443886666).
- "During F.C. United's formation, the owners of Leigh RMI offered to merge the two clubs, but United refused the offer as they believed that taking over an existing club would be hypocritical, given the manner in which F.C. United were formed.": This does not quite match the source, which says the clubs considered merging but decided against it. Also, the hypocritical suggestion came from the Chairman of the Leigh RMI supporter's club.
- "Instead, F.C. United's first game was a friendly match against Leigh RMI": Instead does not quite work here. Instead of what? Merging? But that's not what the source says in ref 18; that says it was more of a thank you for Leigh's support and to help that club's finances.
- I think we're a bit light overall on the formation of the club. It goes from an idea by fans, to an idea in a fanzine, to a fully formed club very, very quickly. Who were the guiding figures? Who organised the meetings? Who sat down and said, "We're going to do this!"? Where did the money come from? I just think we need more detail here. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm a bit torn about this. During the recent peer review, I have considerably shortened the history section (covering the actual football history of the club) and expanded the formation sub-section; I think the article is quite balanced as is now. I could certainly provide some of the information that you mention—such as names of the steering committee, name of the Club's first secretary; but then not all of them as there is a very limited number of reliable sources covering the quite chaotic formation of the club—however I'm worried that it would lead to the formation section outgrowing the rest of the article. Same for the inclusion of Wimbledon's help, the name Newton Heath United, and others. Is this detail necessary and proper in this kind of general article? For instance, Manchester United F.C., Liverpool F.C., Arsenal F.C. and Aston Villa F.C., all curent FAs about English football clubs, provide only one sentence about the actual formation of their clubs, and go into detail in their respective history articles, which seems to be the standard approach. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- My view, for what it's worth, is that the article is currently too sparse. Probably the most noteworthy aspect to the club so far has been their formation and the reasons for it. This requires more I think. As for concerns about the formation section growing too large, it is not at the moment. It's about a third of the history section, and I think it could be longer. Comparing FC United of Manchester to Manchester, Liverpool or Arsenal is hardly appropriate as those clubs have a much longer history and focusing on their formation would be a little undue. If there was ever a fear that the article was growing too long, the formation section could be spun out into its own article. Perhaps the best comparable article would be AFC Wimbledon, which has a very tight, very focused formation section (and a rather well-written one at that) but also an article (Relocation of Wimbledon F.C. to Milton Keynes) which covers the whole story, including formation of the new club. I don't think the Glazer ownership article covers the formation of FC United of Manchester much at the moment. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm a bit torn about this. During the recent peer review, I have considerably shortened the history section (covering the actual football history of the club) and expanded the formation sub-section; I think the article is quite balanced as is now. I could certainly provide some of the information that you mention—such as names of the steering committee, name of the Club's first secretary; but then not all of them as there is a very limited number of reliable sources covering the quite chaotic formation of the club—however I'm worried that it would lead to the formation section outgrowing the rest of the article. Same for the inclusion of Wimbledon's help, the name Newton Heath United, and others. Is this detail necessary and proper in this kind of general article? For instance, Manchester United F.C., Liverpool F.C., Arsenal F.C. and Aston Villa F.C., all curent FAs about English football clubs, provide only one sentence about the actual formation of their clubs, and go into detail in their respective history articles, which seems to be the standard approach. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Also, I just found this. I don't think we use it at the moment, but there's a lot of early detail. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. The article actually does not introduce any new information that isn't already covered in the article, however it does provide a lot of detail on the sums and organisations that provided funding for Broadhurst Park, so I have now added that piece as a reference there. odder (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
2005-07:
- Were they promoted as Champions in their first season? I can't quite check the reference as the webarchive link simply goes to a main page for the MEN.
- "were promoted to the Northern Premier League Division One North after beating Ramsbottom United.": As written, this looks like they won one game and were promoted.
- "They confirmed their promotion with a 7–1 win over Atherton Laburnum Rovers on 18 April 2007,": Hang on, we just said they were promoted after beating Ramsbottom...
- Why did they not play in the FA Cup until 07-08? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- They weren't eligible. odder (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Indopug
Comment per WP:NPOV, sections such as "Criticism" tend to act as POV dumps and content forks. I think this article doesn't need such a section at all and its contents can be easily moved elsewhere. For eg, the Fergie critique to Formation, and the stuff about the club allegedly betraying its principles to Organisation (where said principles are laid out) and Supporters as appropriate.—indopug (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- @indopug: Thanks for the comment. Can you explain exactly what you have in mind when saying "POV dumps" and "content forks"? WP:NPOV#Article structure says that no rules prohibit particular article structures as long as the overall presentation is broadly neutral, and I think both the article as a whole as well as the Criticism section specifically are indeed broadly neutral. I'm also a little bit confused about your saying that this article doesn't need such a section at all. I only expanded this section about two weeks ago after it was suggested during the article's third peer review that I do so, and I feel like I'm caught between a rock and a hard place here… odder (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I find indopug to be generally correct on these things. By POV dump, he means any time someone passes a comment in the real world, someone slaps it in the criticism section. And I think I agree that the content in the criticism section could be split. It certainly needs to be kept, but perhaps not in its own section. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Jack Verge
- Nominator(s): FunkyCanute (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is about Jack Verge, an Australian international rugby player who died while on active service in the Gallipoli Campaign in WWI. FunkyCanute (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments. A minor point: I'm not sure if the military history tag makes sense on this article. I've asked the question at WT:MIL#Jack_Verge. - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hawkeye and Nikki disagree, so the tag is probably fine. - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
- "a treat to witness" (x2): See WP:INTEXT. Anything in quote marks needs to be attributed in the text ... or paraphrased, or deleted, which would probably be better here.
-
- Deleted. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- "the second XI", "taking two for 22": Articles that pass FAC generally show up for one day at WP:TFA, and a summary of the article will be the first thing that 10 million readers will see that day. Most of those who go on to read the article won't know what you're talking about. Be kind to your readers.
-
- Kindness supplied. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Slow bowler.": Not a sentence. Combine and link it.
-
- Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Blarney", "Spragg", "Wickham": I'm guessing these are last names. Do you know the first names?
-
- No, Yes, Yes. Added to first encounter plus wikilink. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- "played a game at full back ...": INTEXT.
-
- Attributed. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- I got about halfway through it, down to 1904 season. I may come back and support on prose, later. - Dank (push to talk) 00:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Your edits all look good. I haven't been able to find out what "threequarter Blarney" means. - Dank (push to talk) 16:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I've reworked this sentence; threequarter is wikilinked earlier in the section. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Verge took the catch at pace and ran for the corner but was pushed into touch", "threequarter C.": Kindness needed.
-
- I've edited both sentences, and added a wikilink for Charlie White. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- My guess is other reviewers are going to want you to trim some details and game commentary. That's not my department, though.
- Otherwise, Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 08:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, Dank, very much appreciated. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Jack_Verge.jpg needs a US PD tag, as does File:NSW_Officers_1914.jpg
-
- Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- File:1904_Lions_in_NZ.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the creator is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago
-
- Changed tag to PD-anon-1923. FunkyCanute (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Also a general note on sources while I'm here: NLA's "Wikipedia" citation results in a lot of junk data in the output - the location and date range held aren't part of the newspaper name, and the location of the original publication isn't the same as the location of the "publishing" library. These will need tidying. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've started on this, but it's soul-destroying, so I'll come back and finish later. FunkyCanute (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- All cleared up now. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments: I only looked superficially at this stage, but over all it looks pretty good. Rugby isn't my game, though, so not sure I can accurately gauge the content. I have the following suggestions (all very minor): AustralianRupert (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, AustralianRupert. I've made a few quick edits and will come back and complete. FunkyCanute (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- per MOS:ALLCAPS the titles of the newspaper articles such as "FIRST GRADE TEAMS" should be "First Grade Teams" or "First grade teams"
- Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think a little more context could be added to the Military service section, for instance you could mention what war he fought in, and who the forces at Gallipoli were fighting against, and why they were sent there (it probably wouldn't need much more than a short sentence or two in this regard).
- perhaps mention that the light horse units were sent as reinforcements after the initial landing
- "threequarter — and captain — Lonnie Spragg": per WP:DASH the emdashes should not be spaced here;
- inconsistent initials, compare: "C. A. Verge" v "AJ McKenzie"
- Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- "England aboard the RMS Mongolia on 25 May 1907": --> RMS Mongolia
- Done. FunkyCanute (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Impala
This article is about a graceful antelope. The article was promoted to GA status in 2014, and now nominate it for FA status after expanding it further using better sources. Thanks. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Checkingfax
- Hi, Sainsf. I gave it a runthrough and made some minor edits to smooth it out functionality/MoS-wise.
- I would suggest adding alt-text to images requiring it.
I will be happy to do another runthrough and make an !vote after more comments come in. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
23:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Checkingfax: Thanks for your comments and efficient edits. I tried to add proper alt-text here, please check. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 01:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Sainsf. I am not good at creating alt-text for images. Maybe Graham87 can take a look at them for you. I will say that two of them merely repeat the caption, and that is not helpful, so the text of those two can be deleted for now. You do not have to remove the whole parameter, just the text portion. That way somebody can see that it needs filling in (leave alt=). I will take a shot and say you did a pretty good job of not being redundant in your alt-text. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
02:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Sainsf. I am not good at creating alt-text for images. Maybe Graham87 can take a look at them for you. I will say that two of them merely repeat the caption, and that is not helpful, so the text of those two can be deleted for now. You do not have to remove the whole parameter, just the text portion. That way somebody can see that it needs filling in (leave alt=). I will take a shot and say you did a pretty good job of not being redundant in your alt-text. Cheers!
Comments by Dunkleosteus77
- remove the pronunciation key from the lead
- Someone had attached a "pronunciation?" tag there when I began work on the article. That's why I added it.
- change "The slender, lyre-shaped horns, only on males..." to "The slender, lyre-shaped horns, that are only on males..." or "The slender, lyre-shaped horns (that only occur in males)..."
- Done
- "Browsers as well as grazers..." doesn't that just mean "herbivore"?
- Both are types of feeding behaviours, and in antelopes one of them generally predominates. Here we know for sure that it is a herbivore, and I wish to highlight that both ways of feeding can be observed in this antelope.
- is the plural of impala "impala" or "impalas"?
- Sources use both. And in antelope articles (like sitatunga, mountain nyala, and the FA hartebeest) I have stuck to what appears to be the singular form.
- "An annual, three weeks-long rut toward the end of the wet season, typically in May" this is a fragment
- Fixed.
- change "aepyceros" to "Aepyceros" in the Etymology section
- Done.
- change "Known as the common impala. Occurs across eastern and southern Africa. The range extends from central Kenya to South Africa and westward into southeastern Angola" to "Known as the common impala, it occurs across eastern and southern Africa. The range extends from central Kenya to South Africa and westward into southeastern Angola" do the same for A. m. petersi
- Done
- change "...from the Pliocene of Ethiopia" to "...from the Pliocene in Ethiopia" (optional)
- Seems "of" and "in" can be used interchangeably here.
References
- ref no. 4's OCLC number is 24702472
- ref no. 6's OCLC number is 861302215
- ref no. 9's OCLC number is 852789105 (might want to check the all book refs for their OCLC numbers)
- ref no. 13's OCLC number is 854973585
- I'm stopping with the OCLC numbers. Make sure all book refs have one (any of them with an ISBN should have an OCLC)
- Thanks for your comments,
will look into these soonresponded. But in none of my previous FACs have reviewers asked for OCLCs, are they mandatory? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)- I'm not sure, it's just another id number for the book User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Dunkleosteus77: I have added OCLCs for all the book refs. I don't think it is necessary to add it, just remain consistent in whatever you use. Please continue with your comments. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure, it's just another id number for the book User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 22:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
From FunkMonk
- Will review shortly, but first, as always, could we have scientific names in the cladogram? FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I really like the images, but the image under diet from a zoo in some cold country seems a bit out of place among the rest. How about some wild animals grazing?[5]
-
- Awesome. No idea how you come across the best image always.
- "An alternative name for the impala is "rooibok"" From what language? Sounds Afrikaans...
-
- Fixed
- "n 1845, Swedish zoologist Carl Jakob Sundevall placed the springbok in Antidorcas, a genus of its own.[8]" Not sure why you mention this, was the springbok originally in the same genus as the impala?
-
- Removed, seems it was added by mistake
- "led palaeontologist Elisabeth Vrba to consider" When?
-
- Fixed
- "According to Vrba, the impala evolved from an alcelaphine ancestor. She noted that while this ancestor has diverged at least 18 times into various morphologically different forms, the impala has continued in its basic form for at least five million years.[9][15] Several fossil species have been discovered, including A. datoadeni from the Pliocene of Ethiopia." This doesn't seem to have been confirmed by genetic evidence, why go so much into detail about this theory?
-
- I came only across this hypothesis when I tried to learn about its evolution. I don't think there is much outside that. If there were a better theory, I would have replaced this, but seems this should be there for now. Other sources repeat the same thing citing Vrba.
- Not really something you have to act on I think, but per our discussion about the genus being monotypic, the extinct species Aepyceros datoadeni seems to perhaps warrant a genus article...
-
- Then Antilope too may have extinct species we may not know about. And Aepyceros was perhaps never created, though this fossil species was mentioned right at the top.
- "Several fossil species have been discovered, including A. datoadeni" What are the others?
-
- I can't seem to find the names of the others... this is the only one mentioned almost everywhere.
- "The horns, strongly ridged and divergent, circular in section and hollow at the base." Seems an "are" is missing here...
-
- Blooper fixed. Checking for more...
- "Black streaks run from the buttocks" Does the source really say buttocks, and not rump or such?
-
- Nothing weird about that as sources do use it, try this [6]. Any problem with the word?
- "these glands males are most active" Glands males? What is that?
- "classifies the impala as Least Concern" Perhaps add "overall"? Since it doesn't apply to the black-faced one, apparently...
-
- Fixed
- "is spent in feeding and resting" Spent on?
-
- Fixed
- Rut is not linked outside the intro.
-
- Fixed
- "A possible explanation for this could be that because the impala inhabits woodlands, that are considered to have a high density of ticks, unlike the other animals in the study that inhabit grasslands, the impala could have greater mass of ticks per unit area of the body surface." This sentence is rather convoluted, perhaps put some of it in parenthesis?
-
- Fixed
- "in a study, ivermectin was found to" Perhaps state that this is a form of medication.
-
- Fixed
- "Impala carefully feed on" What is meant by carefully?
-
- It means they are careful in what parts of the plant they choose. Would "meticulous" be better?
- "A study revealed that time spent in foraging reaches a maximum of 75.5%" Percent of what? The day?
-
- Fixed
- Are the subspecies sympatric anywhere?
-
- This map [7] can give an idea of the black-faced impala's distribution, though it seems wrong about the common impala. Sources don't say exactly where their ranges meet, but it seems they must meet somewhere in southern Africa.
- Perhaps state the main difference between the subspecies in the intro, much space is given to behaviour in the intro (I'd say the kicking part is too detailed there), but not description.
-
- Done
- The male in the taxobox has very short horns compared to the one under description. is it a juvenile?
-
- Look up Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Impala. I don't know if it is a juvenile, but its horns do appear too short and may give a misleading idea as it's the lead pic. Thoughts? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Support for FA promotion. I gave it a read-through, and didn't find any significant issues. It looks to be in good shape. Praemonitus (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Older nominations
Slug (song)
- Nominator(s): –Dream out loud (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is about a song recorded by U2 and Brian Eno as part of a side project album in 1995. This is the song's third nomination for FA, as its previous nominations failed as many editors simply felt the article was "too short". Keep in mind, that the song about which the article was written was not released as a single, performed live in concert, or released on a mainstream album. As a result, it was a very obscure track released under a pseudonymn by major artists. I have noted that it is comparable in size to FAs of other lesser-known releases. The article completely details the background, inspiriation, writing/recording, and reception of the song, and I feel that is definitely warrants the status as a featured article. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments by starship.paint
- Support. I believe the length of the article is not an issue as it is comprehensive, well-sourced and presentable. Bonus points for the pictures, a quote and the sample. starship.paint ~ KO 12:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Review
- I'm not a music editor but I'll be taking a look in the next few days. starship.paint ~ KO 08:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Dream out loud: - see my comments starship.paint ~ KO 10:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Lede
- If Passengers is a secret pseudonym, perhaps that should be emphasized.
- Infobox
- Some discrepancies between this particle and Original Soundtracks 1. So this song was released on 6 November and the album was released on 7 November? Shouldn't they be on the same date? Also, the album says the recording for Westside Studios, London was in 1994.
- Is there a source for the recording locations... would that be the album itself?
- How is the genre for the song determined? I see 'experimental' appearing in the body, but not 'ambient', 'alternative' or 'rock'.
- Background and recording
- U2 and producer Brian Eno intended to record the soundtrack for Peter Greenaway's 1996 film The Pillow Book - what soundtrack?
- U2 spent time in Shinjuku, Tokyo at the end of the Zoo TV Tour in 1993, and their experience in the city influenced the recording sessions. - when were the recording sessions?
- I believe that all the sentences until ....the bullet train in Tokyo". should be in one paragraph as they are about the album. Whereas the stuff after that is about the song.
- By early July 1995, the band renamed the song "Seibu/Slug" - so why did the name turn out to be just Slug? Since it was never mentioned in the sources, how about inserting The song was released as "Slug", the second track on the Passengers album Original Soundtracks 1 on 7 November 1995. rephrased from the first sentence of the Reception section into the background section, before Details of the song's recording sessions were documented in Eno's 1996 book, A Year with Swollen Appendices.
- Composition and lyrics
- I thought the line "Don't want to be a slug" should be mentioned...? There should be some explanation of the title of the song, lest people like me think of the mollusc. I wiki-linked to Wiktionary since you didn't explain. Is that all right?
- Personnel
- Official U2 source, reference 19 currently, credits Rob Kirwan too.
-
- Most issues have been addressed. I don't understand your concern about the intention of recording for a soundtrack. U2 and producer Brian Eno intended to record the soundtrack for Peter Greenaway's 1996 film The Pillow Book. That sentence seems fine to me. What soundtrack? The soundtrack for the film - which they never ended up recording. As far as the name of the song, I could not find any source that explains why the name was changed. The closest thing I found was a source that mentions how The Edge still calls the song "Seibu", but I couldn't find a place to fit that in nor did I think it was worth mentioning. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Dream out loud: LOL I was confused on what a soundtrack was, but I understand now. See two unfinished concerns above. starship.paint ~ KO 01:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Starship.paint: Thank you so much for your feedback! Out of all the FA nominations this article has had, I can easily say that your feedback has been the most constructive. I've address all the issues so far. Please let me know if you have any other comments. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Dream out loud: - You're welcome, I'm heartened to hear that. There's one last issue above at the red text. The Reception section seems fine, the sourcing seems great, my review is almost done then. I don't see problems with length, content is enough for a non-single. starship.paint ~ KO 10:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Last issue addressed. Thanks again! –Dream out loud (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Dream out loud: - one more thing I thought of. Since this is a non-single, could you mention the album's commercial success (or lack of it) in this article to get an indication of whether many people could have heard this song. Maybe mention that this was one of U2's poorest albums (according to the album article) and the album's peaks in the American, British and Australian charts as a sample. Two sentences for commercial stuff. starship.paint ~ KO 23:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Starship.paint: Thanks, I didn't want to get too detailed about the album's lack of success since the article is about the song, but I did add one sentence in the reception section. I don't think statistics are necessary so I just added a line mentioning how/why it didn't sell well. –Dream out loud (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Dream out loud: Okay! I'm throwing my support, but there is another issue: could you attribute the quote of "desolate soul" in the body to its author? starship.paint ~ KO 12:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Dream out loud: - alright, my review is concluded since you addressed the above :) I hope you're satisfied overall! In return, if you are free and willing, I hope that you will drop by Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wrestle Kingdom 9/archive3, it's my (unreviewed) FAC. starship.paint ~ KO 01:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Most issues have been addressed. I don't understand your concern about the intention of recording for a soundtrack. U2 and producer Brian Eno intended to record the soundtrack for Peter Greenaway's 1996 film The Pillow Book. That sentence seems fine to me. What soundtrack? The soundtrack for the film - which they never ended up recording. As far as the name of the song, I could not find any source that explains why the name was changed. The closest thing I found was a source that mentions how The Edge still calls the song "Seibu", but I couldn't find a place to fit that in nor did I think it was worth mentioning. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- "Lyrically, it is a portrait of a "desolate soul"[1] during", and throughout: See WP:INTEXT. Quoted material has to be attributed in the text (or paraphrased, i.e. not quoted). - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- "the Edge": Two problems here. On WP, BritEng requires "the" in front of "guitarist", which would make it "the guitarist the Edge", which doesn't sound right. Also, one "the Edge" is fine (and it's fine in the infobox), but the constant repetition comes off as affected ... Donald Trump is sometimes known as "the Donald", but imagine how it would sound if you kept referring to him that way. "Edge" alone is listed as an acceptable name in his article, so I've switched to that name, I hope that's okay. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- "started to "sound better" and described it as a "[l]ovely song" ... they seemed "unfocused" and": I don't get why people make the mistake of quoting lots of completely ordinary phrases. This isn't a fancy FAC rule, this is common sense. Suppose I make a comment that the "article" had many "short, repetitive" phrases and numerous "punctuation" problems. Wouldn't you wonder what the hell I meant by the quote marks? Use quoted material sparingly, and only when it adds something to the narrative more than paraphrasing would. - Dank (push to talk) 19:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Dank: Thank you for your edits and your comments. I went ahead and removed some excessive quotation marks in the prose; I left ones in where the sentence referring to a quote (e.g. X described Y as "Z"). As a result, I removed the quotes from "desolate soul" so I don't feel a need for attribution. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- The article is very well written and I couldn't find any issues while reading it. There is, however, a FN issue with FN#22, once this is fixed I can support. Best – jona ✉ 12:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- @AJona1992: Issue has been fixed, thanks. –Dream out loud (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- One last thing, if this song was released on November 7, 1995, wouldn't it be a single or even a promotional single? – jona ✉ 15:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- @AJona1992: No, the song's album was released on 7 November 1995. There was no single or promo release for this song. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Mont Blanc massif
This article is about a very significant range of high mountains within the European Alps. Whilst numerous pages exist on discrete elements of the massif (including Mont Blanc itself), I have enhanced this one from a simple List into a full article that now gives a good, sound, informative overview of all major aspects of this important alpine region. Parkywiki (talk) 09:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Burklemore1
I figured I'd add some feedback after you initiated an impressive review on my FAC. I'll start with geography, then work with the lead and later sections.
- Paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 are at present without references. The third one does have a citation, but the rest of the paragraph does not. Think you may need to go through this.
Done - geographic description was derived from French online IGN maps, but I've now added refs to books and paper maps. (Schoolboy error). Thanks for offering to comment - it's you're chance to get your own back for my detailed critique of your FAC! Parkywiki (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Definitely, this is an impressive nonetheless and I'll probably not find many issues. I'm quite busy with a few articles I've been working on, including Nothomyrmecia of course, but I'll definitely find some time for this. Burklemore1 (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- OK, sorry for my absence with this FAC. Will definitely review this sometime, but I wouldn't mind seeing the issues given below all addressed first. It'd just make my reviewing process easier just in case I repeat some comments already provided. Burklemore1 (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments from jfhutson
- This is nitpicking, but you appear to be using en dashes in place of hyphens. See MOS:HYPHEN. Examples: north–eastern (MOS:COMPASS), Massif du Mont–Blanc (see the French Wikipedia version of the article), sight–seeing. --JFH (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Done - Nitpicking is good! I've now only left en dashes between date ranges, or where sentences are broken sentences.Parkywiki (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- You're using the URL of the website hosting the document cited in footnote 4 as the website parameter. This makes it show up as the italicized "work". In this case, I'd say "International Boundary Study" is a series and "Italy – Switzerland Boundary" is the title. All that website is doing is hosting an already published document. For all your cite web templates, you should use the title of the website rather than the URL of the website if that website really is the larger "work" in which the cited page is being published.--JFH (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. I appreciate that a lot of work has gone into this article, but in my opinion it needs some fundamental reworking.
- The article's structure is confusing, particularly in the history section - we start with a chronological account and then jump into a thematic organization, including subsections that are only sort of historical in nature. We also seem to be missing pieces of the story - for example, there's mention of plane crashes as an aside under Glaciers, but no mention of these anywhere in the history. Normally we'd expect to see significant events of this type described in the history narrative.
- There's an overemphasis on tourism details throughout
- The article is generally underlinked - many people won't know what "biotite mica" or "vascular plants" are
- Tables can be hard to interpret. For example, what is your definition of "largest" in the Glaciers table? Where does the information under Observations come from? Conversely, details of climate data might be better presented in table form rather than as prose.
- The article would benefit from a run-through for MOS issues - blockquotes shouldn't have quote marks, adjectival measurements should use hyphens, 'see also' shouldn't repeat links included inline, there shouldn't be spaces between footnotes, etc.
- Images
-
- There are a lot of them, to the point that they're disrupting the layout and causing blank space
- Some of them seem to be more 'artistic' than encyclopedic. For example, the ibex image is visually interesting but doesn't really give us a sense of what the full animal looks like.
- File:Zentralbibliothek_Zürich_-_Vallée_de_Chamonix_Traversée_de_la_Mer_de_Glace_-_400017818.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? This is a 20th-century image so it's quite possible they did not
- France does not have freedom of panorama, so depictions of statues and buildings need to include details on the copyright status of the pictured thing as well as the photo itself
- Sourcing
-
- Spotchecks found a few instances of material not supported by cited sources. For example, I don't see mention of a pollution-reduction rationale in this source
- Formatting is generally inconsistent - sometimes books include publisher locations and sometimes not, Further reading is hand-formatted while References are templated, some publication names aren't italicized when they should be, etc
- Daily Mail is not usually considered an RS. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Nikkimaria, for taking the trouble to read and leave your views on the article. I have since addressed a number of the concerns you raised, and will continue to address the remainder. Unless you would prefer me to comment on progress in a line-by-line manner, I will follow WP:FAC guidelines and return with a single commentary when the points you raised have been addressed, though I might offer an explanation now that I excluded plane crashes from the history section as I felt none were historically significance to the mountain range as a whole, but did serve to demonstrate the slow, inexorable movement of ice down the mountain in the glacier section. I could be wrong, though. Parkywiki (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Understood, but I would counter that some of the events you did include - eg. Winter Sports Week - are no more significant to the mountain range as a whole. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Peter Martyr Vermigli
Vermigli was an influential but lesser-known Reformation theologian who has experienced a renaissance of scholarly interest. He was born in Italy and converted to Protestantism after meeting Italian reformers. He fled the Inquisition in his forties and spent time with Bucer in Strasbourg, Cranmer in England, and Bullinger in Zurich. J Milburn conducted a thorough review and passed the article recently at GA. JFH (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Midnightblueowl
- Great work in general.
-
- Thanks!--JFH
- The opening sentence does not state Vermigli's nationality. I appreciate that this might be a complex issue (Italy not yet existing as a state, etc), but could we not refer to him as Florentine? Doing so helps to situate him in a particular geographical context. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done I don't have a problem calling it Italy. My sources call him Italian and it was referred to as such as a region before becoming a state.--JFH
- "Vermigli was attracted to the priesthood from an early age." - maybe "Catholic priesthood". I know that that seems obvious for anyone familiar with the region and time period in question, but some readers may not be aware of the Catholic hegemony of the region and might suspect that it was also inhabited by Protestants or pagans or whatever. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Lent and Advent" - I'd recommend adding a link to these two events. Many people who live outside of Christian communities will not be familiar with them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done--JFH
- "There he learned Hebrew from a local Jewish doctor to read the Old Testament scriptures" - i'd go with "There he learned Hebrew from a local Jewish doctor in order to read the Old Testament scriptures". It'll just make it that little bit clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hmm, the script I use to convert to Oxford English excised this, but I've found no evidence this is a British/American issue. I agree it helps. --JFH
- " learned from Vermigli. Vermigli had learned" - "learned" appears twice in quick succession. I'd recommend replacing one with a synonym. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done --JFH
- "arguing that the Jesus' words "this is my body" at the institution of the sacrament" - this doesn't really make much sense to me ("the Jesus"?). COuld it be clarified? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Definite article was a typo. I also clarified that this is at the Last Supper. Does that help enough or still unclear?-JFH
- Thomas Cramner is linked to about four times throughout the article; only two are permissible, that in the lede and the first mention in the main body of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I found three and deleted one.-JFH
- " has argued that Peter Martyr Vermigli, Wolfgang Musculus, and Heinrich Bullinger " - we really don't need Vermigli's whole name here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done-JFH
- "regarded by New England Puritan divines" - what is a divine in this context? If possible, could we have an explanation or a link? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- On the basis of the text and comprehensiveness, I am happy to give this my Support. Good work, JFH! Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- Since Italy does not have freedom of panorama, all images of Italian buildings should explicitly account for the copyright status of the building as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I added a PD-old-100-1923 to File:Le balze, veduta su badia fiesolana.JPG, as the building is well over 100 years old. I hope that was the right move, as I've never dealt with building photos before. Thanks for the review. --JFH (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- It was, but you'll need to do something similar with File:Basilica_di_San_Frediano_Lucca.jpg as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- I added a PD-old-100-1923 to File:Le balze, veduta su badia fiesolana.JPG, as the building is well over 100 years old. I hope that was the right move, as I've never dealt with building photos before. Thanks for the review. --JFH (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Driveby comments: watch out for overuse of "reform" and its variations ("Reformation"), especially in para 1 of the lead and para 2 of Legacy. Similarly the "Christ's body and blood" three-peat in the lead. "Peter Martyr Vermigli (Italian: Pietro Martire Vermigli, born Piero Mariano Vermigli"—rather than begin the article with three repetitions (basically) of his name, could you move the second two to a footnote?—indopug (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, this was helpful, and your edits improved the article as well. --JFH (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Requiem (Reger)
- Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is about Requiem compositions by Max Reger, notably his Hebbel Requiem on a German poem, but it covers also this poem, a motet the composer wrote on the poem, and his attempt to compose a Latin Requiem when World War I began - with the soldiers who would fall in mind. I tried to have the article ready for the anniversary of Reger's death, but failed, compare Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Requiem (Reger)/archive1. Afterwards, the article received copy-editing by Corinne, Fountains-of-Paris and (for GOCE) by Stfg, who listened to the music and consulted the score. I added the poem now, and my own translation. With thanks for all helpful comments and improvements, I try once more, this time with the centenary of the premiere in mind, on 16 July 1916 in a memorial concert for the composer. Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest condensing the lead caption to just what precedes the first comma. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I tried to explain why the title is not Requiem but Zwei Gesänge. Do you think readers won't need that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think readers won't understand that from what is given now, probably best to explain in article text instead and keep it simple for the caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- The current caption is more confusing than clear. The point is already well made in the article body. The difference needs words and context, why an attempt at a summary in the lead capt? Seems an unnecessarily difficult tasking. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- I moved it but see that it is now far away from the image, which I think should stay the lead image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I tried to explain why the title is not Requiem but Zwei Gesänge. Do you think readers won't need that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Support I have a few tweaks yet to make, but this aricle, on a subject with a complex genesis, is very well explained here. I found the wording and flow very engaging and it certainly drew me in. Note I am out of my dept re content. Ceoil (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Support Definitely an improvement since last time. I've read through the article again and am happy that all of my concerns in the previous FAC have been addressed, so this should meet the criteria. Good work! JAGUAR 12:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Support A deep yet lucid article, really awesome. Thoroughly enjoyed reading it, especially after the recent improvements. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Review by Curly Turkey
- Support on prose—Gerda's addressed all my concerns, and the article reads well. I'm not a subject expert, so I can't speak to its comprehensiveness, but it doesn't feel like it's missing anything important. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm mainly looking a the prose—I looked at one of the sources only to check the context of a translation.
- It has been described as of "lyrical beauty, a dramatic compactness, and [of] economy of musical means" in which the composer's "mastery of impulse, technique, and material is apparent".—this requires in-text attribution, per WP:INTEXT
-
- done --GA
- and as a result he was excommunicated—should mention he was Catholic, then
-
- good idea, done --GA
- ''[[Isle of the Dead (painting)|''Isle of the Dead'']]''—it's surprising that this links to an article about a painting
-
- clarified (not elegant though) - an article about the compositions is planned ;) --GA
- Following a full day of teaching in Leipzig, Reger died there on 11 May 1916.—he taught a day and died? What of? Was it expected?
-
- now copied from the bio, - no it was not expected that the workaholic died --GA
- "a poetic narrator, divine voice, or even the dead [themselves]"—attribution again
-
- the ref is also the attribution, no? --GA
- Not for quotations, no. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please teach me something, how then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- You just need something like "According to XXX, ..." or "The music critic XXX considered ..." Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- done here ---GA
- You just need something like "According to XXX, ..." or "The music critic XXX considered ..." Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please teach me something, how then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Not for quotations, no. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- the ref is also the attribution, no? --GA
- "a sequence of chromatically descending sixth chords"—attribution again, but why not paraphrase? It's not someone opinion, but a statement of fact, no?
-
- yes, but how would you paraphrase if this is the best way to phrase it? - ref is attribution, as above --GA
- "pain, fear, death, and suffering—common associations with chromaticism since the sixteenth century"—attribution again
-
- same again, ref is also attribution
- attribution added ---GA
- The pagination of FitzGibbon is off—what you give as p. 3, for instance, is the third page of the document file, but is paginated p. 22 in the document itself (I imagine it's the 22nd page of whatever publication it comes from). The pages given will have to be fixed.
-
- the topic was raised in the first FAC, - I chose the document pages because they appear on top (easily verified), while the journal pages are at the bottom (where you need to scroll to) --GA
- If someone's using the original publication, "p. 3" won't be helpful, but "p. 22" will work for both the original publication and the PDF. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- fine, changed to pages in the journal, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- If someone's using the original publication, "p. 3" won't be helpful, but "p. 22" will work for both the original publication and the PDF. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- the topic was raised in the first FAC, - I chose the document pages because they appear on top (easily verified), while the journal pages are at the bottom (where you need to scroll to) --GA
- {{nowrap|"(The}}—what is this {{nowrap}} for?
-
- no idea, you will have to ask one of the copy-edit-helpers --GA
- the introit and Kyrie—just checking (because I don't know), but is it correct that "introit" is lowercase and "Kyrie" is capitalized?
-
- Introitus would be capitalized, but introit is English, as mass is, - at least my understanding --GA
- adapted to suit Nazi ideology—any interesting details on this?
-
- isn't using a German text instead of Latin, label Totenfeier (Celebration of the Dead), enough? --GA
- You mean, it was adapted to Nazi ideology by being put in German? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- It wasn't translated (put in German), - it had a Christian text and got instead a different content in German, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Did the Nazi version drop the Christian aspects? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- of course, - but I wonder if that detail belongs in the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't need a lot of detail. If it dropped Christian references and replaced them with Nazi ones, it should say so. The way it's worded, it could, for example, have retained the Christian references while adding Nazi stuff—for example: "It was then performed with a translated German text in which Christian references were replaced with Nazi ideology", or something—whatever the sources support. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- look again, I even quoted the one line and its replacement, - the latter in English, - it's not given in German. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't need a lot of detail. If it dropped Christian references and replaced them with Nazi ones, it should say so. The way it's worded, it could, for example, have retained the Christian references while adding Nazi stuff—for example: "It was then performed with a translated German text in which Christian references were replaced with Nazi ideology", or something—whatever the sources support. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- of course, - but I wonder if that detail belongs in the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Did the Nazi version drop the Christian aspects? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- There could be more, as in the source, up to comparison of one line of text before and after. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- It wasn't translated (put in German), - it had a Christian text and got instead a different content in German, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- You mean, it was adapted to Nazi ideology by being put in German? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- isn't using a German text instead of Latin, label Totenfeier (Celebration of the Dead), enough? --GA
- Reger had composed Requiem settings before ... of a non-liturgical requiem—is the captialization of "Requiem/requiem" correct?
-
- another question to the helpers - I don't like it too much (an "English" word that is Latin), so tried italics now, - --GA
Some nitpicks and personal preferences that won't affect whether I'll support:
-
- done --GA
- (To the memory of the German heroes who fell in the 1914/15 War), (The Hermit), (Two songs for mixed chorus with orchestra)—I find glosses in parentheses ambiguous at times—sometimes they can be mistaken for a parenthetical aside rather than a gloss. Putting it in quotemarks as well makes it unambiguous: ("To the memory of the German heroes who fell in the 1914/15 War")
-
- I don't know exactly what you mean, perhaps because I don't know "glosses" in this sense --GA
- Just in case you don't know about it, you might want to look at {{sfnm}}
- (Ich habe nun zwei Chorwerke (Der Einsiedler und Requiem) fertig. Ich glaube sagen zu dürfen, daß diese beiden Chorwerke mit das Schönste sind, was ich je geschrieben habe.)—I'm in the habit of putting these things in footnotes ({{efn}}s), as they break up the flow of the text
-
- Yes, but here he writes about the most beautiful things he has written, - I'd like to show that in the original. (+ in a way: the longer the phrase, the more awkward it is to go back and forth between footnote and text) --GA
—Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for excellent comments, - I tried to follow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I now added two attributions, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Comment: thanks for the review, Curly Turkey. On the subject of capitalization and italics, Gerda, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Classical music titles. When "requiem" is used as a genre, italicising and capitalizing it are definitely wrong. Of course italicize it when it's the title of a specific work or part of such a title. Foreign origin is irrelevant when the word has been taken into English as a common word. Lower case for "introit" is correct since it's used generically and is English. "Kyrie" is confusing. MOS:MUSIC mentions it in lower case, but since the word means "O Lord", and the Lord (God) would be capitalized anyway, there might case for capitalizing it. I don't have an opinion about that. --Stfg (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Sorry that I am not familiar enough with English to know if requiem can ever be a genre, - for me it's the rest of the dead. Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei will not be lower case (nor pluralized), and I'd like to see Requiem in the same group. However, do as the MoS commands ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- genre: I though the genre might be "mass", or "requiem mass", ready to learn, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Gerda, whether you wish to call it a genre or not, it is a common noun. In English we don't capitalise words just because they are of foreign origin. We don't even italicise requiem. IT's OK to
do socapitalise it in title case, but not when writing of "a requiem". It's so much a common noun that in English we can even pluralise it, saying for example that about 5000 composers have composed requiems. The MoS is right about this one. --Stfg (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC) clarified Stfg (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- Gerda, whether you wish to call it a genre or not, it is a common noun. In English we don't capitalise words just because they are of foreign origin. We don't even italicise requiem. IT's OK to
-
-
Support Gerda Arendt, following my thorough review of this article, I find that it easily meets the necessary criteria for featured article status. This article is very well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, and stable. This article also follows Wikipedia's style guidelines, with an appropriate lede, structure, and consistent citations. The media in the article is also properly licensed as Public Domain, and the article is of an appropriate length. In the Lateinisches Requiem section, World War I is linked for a second time in the article, as is A German Requiem in the Hebbel Requiem section and SATB in the Structure subsection. There are several other duplicate wiki-links in the latter half of the article. As always, I enjoyed reading and reviewing this article, and I commend you on a job very well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments from jfhutson
- What is the source for the English translation of the poem?
-
- I did it myself, with some help, see talk, --GA
- Ah, would help if I read the nomination I suppose-jfh
- I did it myself, with some help, see talk, --GA
- "O soul, forget them not, o soul, forget not the dead", "Bless the Lord, o my soul". I've never seen "o" uncapitalized like this. Also, it doesn't match the full translation.
-
- Are we talking the psalm translation? That could be changed. --GA
- Based on the title, one would think the "Performances" section would give a full performance history, but it only mentions one performance.
-
- Changed. When I started the section, I hoped for more, but only this one stood out. --GA
I may come back and look some more later.--JFH (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for good comments, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Support with minor comments by Lingzhi
I still think "Durch die unendliche Wüste hin" would be better as "wastes", "wasteland" or "wastelands" rather than "desert". I also think the "Structure of Reger's Hebbel Requiem" table looks odd with cells missing below "Molto sostenuto". I think either find a table guru who knows how to stretch the rowspan of that one cell, or add ditto marks below it... but these are minor nitpicks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- wastelands taken, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- the cells are not missing but the tempo is not changed, - the alternative is to have it once for all of the entries, but then it would appear rather low, - I wanted to see it rather with the first line, - compare "Gloria" in the table in Rossini's mass. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've changed the table so that molto sostenuto shows as applying to all the first six rows. Is that better? --Stfg (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- That's what I described as possible ("Gloria" in the Rossini), but what I don't like because it appears so low, not next to the first line. It's the first tempo setting at all. Let's see if I can find a trick, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- I could, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've changed the table so that molto sostenuto shows as applying to all the first six rows. Is that better? --Stfg (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt
Support The prose is much improved from the last go-round, and the article was fine in most other ways then. I offer the following quibbles, and I've made some edits hands-on.
- "who had died or were mortally wounded." I'm not certain I appreciate the distinction.
-
- It came with copy-editing, but seems not the best solution for those who had already died and would die in the ongoing war. --GA
- "Following his advice, Reger managed the composition of the introit and Kyrie, combining both texts into one movement." I'm not clear what is meant by "managed". If it denotes an accomplishment, then possibly something like "Following his advice, Reger managed to combine the texts of the introit and Kyrie into one movement." Or maybe strike "managed to" from that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps you can do it better, - it's supposed to distinguish the completed composition of introit and Kyrie, while the rest remained fragment or was never even begun. --GA
- "but was interrupted" but had been interrupted
-
- changed --GA
- "The work remained unfinished at Reger's death, and his publisher named the first movement the Lateinisches Requiem, Op. 145a." (after my edits). I've played with this some (the reason for mentioning Reger's death is to absolve him from the soon-to-be mentioned Nazi connection). But I really think you should re-arrange things so that this naming, or designating if you prefer, is the first time the term Lateinisches Requiem is used, at least in that section. To do otherwise seems out of order.
-
- Will think about that. We said before that it was not finished, dropped in 1914 already, No wonder it was still not finished when he died. The publisher took what they could find, and assigned a completely unreasonable Op. number, pairing it with organ music. --GA
- "In sorrow we mutely lower the flags, for into the grave sunk what was dear to us" should sunk be sank?
-
- Can't help the quote in the source. As I don't know the German, so I could not improve the translation. Poetic license? --GA
- "stating the performance duration as 25 minutes" "stating ... as" doesn't seem to work, possibly "giving" for "stating"?
-
- yes, thank you, and for all the good comments, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well done. Sorry to be so slow.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Note -- source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Source review
Those who go for tons of coding will enjoy the admirable referencing system used here more than I do, but once I cracked the codes and thereby penetrated the references I found all the citations linked appropriately to the refs. Most of the references are to online material; I could have done with a bit more bibliographical information for the printed source: the Peters edition of the Zwei Gesänge and the two Hoernicke press sources – dates and page numbers would be good. Otherwise the sourcing seems to me to meet the FA criteria. I'll reread the article and comment on the generality of the candidacy a.s.a.p., unless it has already been promoted. Tim riley talk 14:29, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Tim. I found one date for a paper, not yet for the other. Both were available online (see urls commented out), but then the paper reorganized the website, sigh. I may find paper copies somewhere in my folders - or not. Peters: I couldn't find yet when they published it first, - last was 2002. Help welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Peters: they reprinted the first Simrock edition, after taking over the company. Can we derive a date, knowing that? Or should we just take the year of the last edition? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I heartily endorse Tims' view; personally I believe less is the new more; but this is fine. I did not spot check. Also am a requiem fanboy. Sorry FAC bosses. On the face this is huge advance and would like to see more. Ceoil (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Tim riley
WP:OVERLINK – I'd say "dramatist" is an unnecessary link to an everyday word; I doubt very much that people need a link to "German language"; and specifically (MoS) we don't link the major religions, of which Christianity is still widely regarded as one; there are repeated links to World War I, A German Requiem, SATB, pedal point, Schütz (with a third link later, this time calling him Heinrich Schütz), homophonic [there's a deadly trap for spell-checkers!], and Wiesbaden.
-
-
- I unpiped playwright, but left the link which I had not added
- I delinked German (language)
- World War I: I reduced the links to only the first time, and said just "war" or "World War" later, because at Reger's time, there was only one, and that should be clear by then.
- Brahms Requiem: I left one link for the German name and one (much later) for the English, - think that's clearer.
- Schütz, homophonic, Wiesbaden: left once, - thanks for the precise collection! --GA
-
Hebbel Requiem"Edition Peters published it in 1928, stating the performance duration as 25 minutes, although the duration implied by the metronome marking is 14 minutes." The second part of this sentence, although I'm sure it's true, looks very like original research to me. I'd feel more comfortable if a third-party citation could be found on the discrepancy between the two timings.
-
-
- The "13–14 minutes" come from the citation right after it, no? --GA
-
- Evaluation
**Just checking – in the Lenssen quote does the author really use the odd phrase "mid-aged man" rather than the idiomatic English "middle-aged man"? I can't open the full text to check. (Ought the reference to mention that a subscription is required?)
I found this article of great interest. I count myself a classical music buff, but had never so much as heard of Reger's requiem(s). I shall go in search of it on the indispensable Naxos online library. The above points are all very minor, and I look forward to supporting the elevation of the article to FA in due course. – Tim riley talk 14:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Thank you, Tim, for good points, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
-
Support – happy to add it for an excellent article that seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 07:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Bencherlite
Despite the above reviews, I have some concerns. I took one small section, "Scoring" and found problems.
- "The Requiem employs a large orchestra[27] of two flutes, piccolo, two oboes, cor anglais, two clarinets, two bassoons, four horns, three trumpets, three trombones, tuba, three percussionists and strings.[8]" I don't know why we need two citations for the same orchestration - [27] doesn't explicitly say "large" either, so I'm unsure what the mid-sentence citation is for.
-
- Thank you for looking closely. The passage is one of the early parts of the article, which explains some. I'll try to fix:
- removing the first ref, - the better one just wasn't there yet in 2010. Dropping "large" - those who are interested in such matters will know that an orchestra with that brass section is large, - would you agree. --GA
- "It requires a similarly large chorus" - "similarly" is not the word to use here. More importantly, what is the source for a large chorus being required? It is not mentioned in source [30], the Hyperion booklet, which is the next footnote used.
-
- changed to "a chorus to match", - it takes a few singers to be heard and understood over the brass (even if no source said so) ;) --GA
- "these requirements mean it has been rarely performed." No source (ditto) - nothing to support either the rarity of performance or the claim that rarity is based on the need for that size of orchestra plus chorus. (The orchestra looks to me to be pretty standard forces - triple not double woodwind, but even that's not unusual - we're hardly talking Mahler 8 proportions).
-
- We [can] drop that sentence, however it's true that the rather short piece is rarely performed. --GA
- "Reger himself wrote a version for piano.[30]" I don't see this in the Hyperion booklet - yes, they record a version accompanied by piano but it is not stated that the version was written by Reger himself, unless I've missed something.
-
- scoring source added, saying "Reger selbst erstellte den Klavierauszug der Komposition" --GA
- "To make the music more accessible" - is there a source for this claim that this was the motivation behind the arrangement?
-
- yes, the program notes, added, --GA
- "The organ version was premiered in the Marktkirche in Wiesbaden" - is there a source for this, since it's not in [4], the CV of Reger's life?
-
- yes, same, --GA
In addition:
- The "Recordings" table sorts by first name not surname.
-
- will try to fix --GA
- the conductors are by last name, the soloists are not worth sorting (sometimes one, sometimes four, a short table anyway), in a similar discussion one view was: don't make it sortable then at all, but I think that takes it too far. What do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Who is the publisher of the 2001 recording?
-
- St. Bonifatius, Wiesbaden, as far as I know --GA
- The one-sentence section "Modern performance" ought really to be merged somewhere else or omitted - probably into a renamed "Scoring and performance" section (which is effectively what it is already, in fact).
-
- good idea, done --GA
- Shouldn't Wiesbadener Tagblatt and Allgemeine Zeitung be linked / in italics? (I note that this is not Allgemeine Zeitung.)
-
- I didn't notice that the Tagblatt has an article now, thank you for pointing that out, - ill to the other --GA
Personally I think that 3 paragraphs of biographical background is excessive. This is not the biography of the composer and we don't need to summarise a composer's life at the start of an article about one of his works. BencherliteTalk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 14:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- When I wrote the section, our biography of the composer didn't have the information, - I added it there only later. It could be reduced now, but you were the first to mention it, - I'd like the voices of others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I looked what to drop but found little that is not in one or the other way connected to the three works. Studies in Wiesbaden, explaining why Wiesbaden has a special relationship to the works, setting texts by Hebbel, dealing with Toteninsel, circumstances in Meiningen and Jena where he composed two of the works, - what should go? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Personally I don't object to any of that section. But it doesn't explain why Wiesbaden "has a special relationship to the works", nor why Toteninsel is relevant. I think that all of the first two paragraphs could go, except that the sentence about "Gebet" could be moved to a suitable place the last paragraph, saying something like "He had set words by Hebbel before, the first such work being "Gebet" (Prayer), Op. 4 No. 1." I don't feel strongly about it, but it would be one way to go. --Stfg (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 2 of 6 recordings were made in Wiesbaden, where he lived at several street addresses, well remembered, - which doesn't have to be pointed out ;) - I prefer to have a chronological approach to the background, - the reader knows that Hebbel plays a role from the first sentence, so can make the connection when the setting is mentioned, without a finger pointing. If I'd say "Toteninsel" is relevant for his approach to death, it would be OR, but showing the image provides a look at the context: the image that was "found in every Berlin home", as a quote says. I bet Reger didn't compose his work without knowing and meaning the image. Did you know that its scene was kind of quoted in the Jahrhundertring, as the Brünnhildenfelsen? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I didn't know that, but I don't see how it's relevant. Many works in all art forms reference death, and Reger presumably knew several. So what? "I bet ..." is OR already. As for Wiesbaden, I don't see how the fact that 2 of 6 recordings were made in a place where Reger lived is at all interesting. But look, you said "It could be reduced now" and asked for suggestions. Take it or leave it. I'm not ging to get dragged into a major debate over it. --Stfg (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Sorry I wasn't clear about the Jahrhundertring relation was just to point out how important that image was for many in that era, - not going to mention it in the article, nor anything about Wiesbaden other than the facts. An article about Reger's composition Toteninsel (Reger) is planned. Thank you, will think about changes, - at the moment I see two who want the background section shorter vs. nine who saw no problem, and myself. Thank you for thinking about it. As for Requiem/requiem, I looked again and found only one instance of "a ...Requiem" (beginning of History), - If you feel strongly about lower case there, please change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- My thought on background length is that reasonable minds can differ but it's within the range where I tend to suppress "how I would do it" and defer to editor discretion. So I'm inclined to think that it should not be an actionable point at this stage.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
HMS Emerald (1795)
This article is about a 36-gun frigate of the Royal Navy which served with distinction during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. Since becoming a good article in August last year, additional information has been incorporated and I have given it a thorough copy edit and checked all sources for possible copyright violation. I believe it is now as complete as reliable sources will allow and that it satisfies the criteria (IMHO) Ykraps (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest scaling up the last map. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for your suggestion. I have enlarged to 300px. Is that about right, do you think? Regards--Ykraps (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Ykraps. For the benefit of readers that rely on special image sizes, please use our image scaling parameter instead of hardcoding the image size. The scale for 300px would approximately be upright=1.36
- Remove 300px, and replace it with upright=1.36 (between two vertical bars). Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
03:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)- Done, thanks. I have never come across that before. If I can find where it is I will read up on it.--Ykraps (talk) 08:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Found at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Thumbnail sizes, thanks--Ykraps (talk) 09:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestion. I have enlarged to 300px. Is that about right, do you think? Regards--Ykraps (talk) 07:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Checkingfax
- Hi, Ykraps. I made two edit sessions starting here to nudge things along, and will do more in a couple of days. Ping me back when the review is further along so I can !vote on it. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
07:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, and thanks for your edits.--Ykraps (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Checkingfax: The review is further along. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, and thanks for your edits.--Ykraps (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Ykraps. I believe the lead would be more engaging if it had much less minute detail. Leave the minutia for the body. Slash the minutia. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
21:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC) - Support – Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
06:33, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- I'll start making comments, but don't edit the article yet please, I'm working on it.
- "a Spanish treasure fleet was", "The British fleet under George Elphinstone were": check the article for consistency on was/were after "fleet".
- "a number of": search for this throughout; there's some evidence that it's ambiguous, at least as used on Wikipedia. Delete it, or say "several", or be more specific. - Dank (push to talk) 14:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- "the 74-gun Leviathan, the admiral's flagship, Swiftsure and a small fireship, Incendiary.": Is that two, three or four ships? Be careful with the wording in your lists.
- Okay, copyediting this is giving me a headache so I'm going to stop at Caribbean service, about halfway. Hopefully someone will pick up the copyediting from there. I may come back and support later on. It's engagingly written. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your edits and I am sorry it gave you a headache. I reverted one change here as it is more usual to say sail when talking about ships. Or perhaps it's a dialect thing. I'll double check.--Ykraps (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, I'm pretty sure it's not limited to a particular dialect. The most high profile example I can think of is at the Battle of Cape St Vincent (1797) where Robert Calder and Benjamin Hallowell count Spanish ships as they appear.[8] Regards--Ykraps (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- How about "ships"? - Dank (push to talk) 19:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- As a substitute for sail? I'm not sure. I try to avoid using 'ship' as it had a very specific meaning during this period of history whereas 'sail' is a nondescript term for any unidentified ocean going vessel and is routinely used in history books. Where I've used ship as a generic term, I have tried to make this clear by including a description or link to the vessel in question.--Ykraps (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- vessel, craft? - Dank (push to talk) 11:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Either could work. I have rewritten the sentence accordingly.--Ykraps (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- All the edits since mine look great. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Either could work. I have rewritten the sentence accordingly.--Ykraps (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- vessel, craft? - Dank (push to talk) 11:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- As a substitute for sail? I'm not sure. I try to avoid using 'ship' as it had a very specific meaning during this period of history whereas 'sail' is a nondescript term for any unidentified ocean going vessel and is routinely used in history books. Where I've used ship as a generic term, I have tried to make this clear by including a description or link to the vessel in question.--Ykraps (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- How about "ships"? - Dank (push to talk) 19:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Brigadier-general", "Lieutenant-colonel": Hyphenation can vary a bit; I really can't say if this is okay at FAC or not.
- Hi Dank, can you elaborate here? I've scanned the article but can't see what you mean by hyphen variation.--Ykraps (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't mean it varies in your article, I meant it varies in the wild, so maybe your usage is fine ... but I rarely see those two with a hyphen in military history articles on Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I was going to say, it's an Engvar thing but having checked the three dictionaries I have to hand:The Chambers Dictionary: 11th Edition. Edinburgh EH7 4AY: Chambers Harrap. 2008. ISBN 978 0550 10289 8. and Oxford Dictionary of English: 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0198610571. both hyphenate; Collins English Dictionary: 3rd Edition. Glasgow GN4 0NB: Harper Collins. 1991. ISBN 0-00-433286-5. does not. So yes it does seem to vary but providing it doesn't vary within the article, I assume it's okay.--Ykraps (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't mean it varies in your article, I meant it varies in the wild, so maybe your usage is fine ... but I rarely see those two with a hyphen in military history articles on Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Dank, can you elaborate here? I've scanned the article but can't see what you mean by hyphen variation.--Ykraps (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I fixed the commas (I think) down to Caribbean service, but the comma usage continues to be substandard after that, and I hope someone will fix the commas before this gets promoted.
- Otherwise, Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 08:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Euryalus
- Nicely detailed, and it's about time there were more featured articles about eighteenth century ships. I have a bunch of comments, so these are a starting point only. Please consider my comments in the light of my justified reputation for pedantry.
Lead, first paragraph
Consider “was a 36-gun” instead of “one of the 36-gun” as the current wording suggests the reader is either familiar with Amazon-class vessels, or that Emerald was one of the ones with 36-guns as compared to ones with other numbers.Remove “there” in last sentence, as redundant.John Jervis was a knight, but his role in this context was as an admiral – consider changing the honorific.
Lead, second paragraph
Suggest rewording second sentence as “In 1797 ’’Emerald’’ was one of ... the crippled Spanish flagship Santisima Trinidad which had managed to escape from the British victory at the Battle of Cape St Vincent.” Reasons: it doesn’t imply Emerald was at the Battle, it notes why the Spanish ship was important, and it gives a year to add context to the paragraph above.Capitalise “Admiral” in “Rear-Admiral” – lower case is generic but this refers to a specific person and should be capitalised (in the same way as commodore as a rank and Commodore John Smith as an individual)
Lead, third paragraph
Wikilink “western approaches” as it may not be a commonly recognised term. The eighteenth century western approaches was larger and more southerly than the one mapped in our article on it, but it is close enough to be of value as a link.
Construction section
Instead of “one of the first” ‘’Amazon’’-class frigates, how about “the second of four.”- I wrote that sentence in that way because, as she was ordered and laid down at the same time as Amazon, I considered Emerald to be joint first. She was launched a little later though (27 days) so I suppose she was second.--Ykraps (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've had a go at the entire section. See what you think now.--Ykraps (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Too many decimal places in the construction dimensions, suggest reducing to a single decimal place as the text is currently too precise for an eighteenth century craft.Last sentence – the Winfield ref says she was copper sheathed at Woolwich, which was completed by 12 October. This isn’t really fit-out, which needs only to have occurred before she sailed for the Mediterranean in January 1797. To come closest to the reference, suggest changing fit-out to copper sheathing in this sentence.Spell out tonnes burthen in the section, instead of using (bm)- Not essential, but consider adding the names of the remaining two Amazon's, either in the text or as a note. Winfield notes these two were built from fir – do we know what Emerald was principally made from? Am assuming oak, and could probably hunt this down for you if you think it adds anything. Otherwise, up to you but I wonder whether it might be better to remove the reference to fir for the remaining vessels as it begs the question on timbers for the subject of this article.
- As there wasn't an article on Amazon-class, I thought it might be useful to include a bit about other Amazon's so I'd like to keep it if possible. Any info you have on it would be a bonus. I have added a note regarding the names as you suggested. Further thoughts?--Ykraps (talk) 20:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Mediterranean service section
Winfield and Clowes both spell the captain’s name “Berkeley” – obviously spellings were variable at the time, just highlighting this to make sure we have the most common usage.Paragraph is too long – consider a break after “nearby Lagos Bay with other vessels.”The listing of vessels sent to pursue Santimisima Trinidad - sentence is a bit long, doesn’t explain that ‘’Santisima Trinidad’’ was the Spanish flagship, and as a minor syntax issue suggests Jervis issued the orders to the frigates themselves, rather than the crew. How about
-
“... entered the bay. Admiral Jervis ordered that three frigates - ‘’Emerald’’, the 40-gun ‘’Minerve’’ and the 32-gun ‘’Niger’’ – begin a search for the disabled Spanish flagship ‘’Santisima Trinidad’’ which had been towed away from the battle. They were to be accompanied by two smaller craft, the 20-gun corvette ‘’Bonne-Citoyenne’’ and the 14-gun sloop ‘’Raven’’.”
I appreciate this is an article on the ship and not the crew, but it may be worth noting historical conjecture that Berkley’s failure to bring ‘’Emerald’’ to engage the Spanish flagship was responsible for his subsequent resignation from command. It’s in both James (referenced in this paragraph) and the “History of the Royal Navy by Clowes (I can drum up the Clowes ref for you if you like).- If that was the case then I think it's a good idea to include something but all I can find in James (vol ii) is, "Captain Berkeley was much censured for his apparent want of resolution". Unfortunately it doesn't say by whom so that will invite immediate tagging. And, unless I'm missing something, Clowes (vol iv) simply says the motives for his mysterious actions were never made public.--Ykraps (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, not sure what I was reading, then. Give me a little while and will either come back with a different source or strike this. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Various newspapers from March-May 1797 indicate Berkeley was to be court-martialed on Jervis' orders for his failure to capture the Spanish ship, despite her having struck her colours on his approach (so the censure is both by the newspapers and by implication Jervis). However this slightly breathless account indicates the court martial was called off when the captain of Minerve offered a convincing explanation for Berkeley's conduct. So have stopped looking, as the reasons for Berkeley's resignation might reasonably be described as matters of historical dispute. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, not sure what I was reading, then. Give me a little while and will either come back with a different source or strike this. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- If that was the case then I think it's a good idea to include something but all I can find in James (vol ii) is, "Captain Berkeley was much censured for his apparent want of resolution". Unfortunately it doesn't say by whom so that will invite immediate tagging. And, unless I'm missing something, Clowes (vol iv) simply says the motives for his mysterious actions were never made public.--Ykraps (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Suggest using the full name (well, the Royal Order name) of Santisima Trinidad (Holy Trinity) on all occasions and not shortening it to Trinidad (Trinity) as occurs in one instance.- Done
The last sentence relates to the subsequent section and should be included there instead of here.- The subheader "Mediterranean service" doesn't work here, as everything down to "Caribbean service" is also Mediterranean. A non-essential suggestion: consider removing the “Career” header entirely and making “Mediterranean service” “Caribbean service”, “Home waters” and “Later career” the new level twos.
- Would you mind taking another look at this? There is very little difference between the two so you probably haven't noticed that the headings between "Mediterranean service" and "Caribbean service" are level three headings. They are sub-headings of the Mediterranean section. I have used the {{TOC limit|3}} template to stop them showing in the contents box which I thought was a bit too large.--Ykraps (talk) 06:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
"hopelessly" seems like editorial, suggest removing this word.- Done
Will have a few other comments in another day or so. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar
This article is about... one of the most beautiful of the commemorative half dollars and the rarest by design. I suppose by today's standards, the whole thing smacks of political incorrectness, especially the idea of Cook "discovering" an inhabited island. But it's still a nice coin.Wehwalt (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Quick comments Singora (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
"In 1927, the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii passed a bill calling on the U.S. government to issue a commemorative coin for the 150th anniversary of Cook's arrival in Hawaii. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon thought the occasion important enough that, unusually for him, he did not oppose the issue of a commemorative coin."
vs.
"In 1927, the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii passed a bill calling on the U.S. government to issue a coin commemorating the 150th anniversary of Cook's arrival in Hawaii. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon thought the occasion important enough that, unusually for him, he did not oppose the issue of a commemorative coin (or: coin's issue)."
And ....
"The Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar came about because of the observances there for the 150th anniversary of Captain James Cook becoming ..."
vs.
"The Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar was minted (struck) to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Captain James Cook becoming ..."
And ...
"The Hawaii Sesquicentennial coin is the scarcest commemorative half dollars by design". Is the plural intentional?
- I've made those changes, though in my own words (the plural was a mistake and has been corrected). Thank you indeed for the careful review. It shows how one falls into habits in writing ...--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ha! That wasn't a "careful review" -- I skimmed the article after seeing your blurb re: Captain Cook. I can't do too much more as your references aren't linked. If you could give me URLs to specific pages I'll check the sources, though I'm guessing these books aren't available for preview on Google. The one I did check pointed to George Mason University and asked me for a password.
- In the legislation section, I can email you copies of any sources you desire. The books I own and I don't think they do google books preview. I can email you copies of book pages but not until next week as am traveling.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, go for it. Next week is fine. I'm pretty sure that by emailing me (even via Wikipedia) I'll get your contact details. If this is an issue contact the administrator CasLiber. I've emailed him in the past and he ought to be able to confirm I'm a legitimate company owner. Singora (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- I will send you an email. The Congressional sources are easy, the others I can send you a selection of pages, plus any individual ones you desire.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Email received. I will of course treat your details as confidential. You can forward me PDFs, JPGs, PNGs and/or ZIPs. I don't know how senior you are, or if you're an administrator, but further down this list is an article about Catherine Zeta Jones. I glanced at it and noticed that sources include the UK's Sun (1 instance), Daily Mirror (4 instances) and Daily Express (3 instances), Australia's Herald Sun (1 instance), Fox News and People Magazine (7 instances). The article is an obvious oppose (you can't possibly use those sources), yet no one has picked up on this. At the very bottom of the page is a video game article, Nights into Dreams. LazerBrain asked for a source review, but no one has pointed out that refs 41 and 66 (among others) are incorrect. You may wish to pass this info on to someone. Singora (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am an administrator, though this is not a matter of administrative jurisdiction. If you reply to the email I sent you, I will send you the government materials immediately and jpgs when I get home in a week of the book pages. My identity, Gary M. Greenbaum, is not confidential, though I choose to edit under a pseudonym. I can't send you stuff until you reply to my email as attachments are not possible through the Wikipedia mail system. I will pass on what you say about the Zita-Jones article to the FAC going on there.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Email received. I will of course treat your details as confidential. You can forward me PDFs, JPGs, PNGs and/or ZIPs. I don't know how senior you are, or if you're an administrator, but further down this list is an article about Catherine Zeta Jones. I glanced at it and noticed that sources include the UK's Sun (1 instance), Daily Mirror (4 instances) and Daily Express (3 instances), Australia's Herald Sun (1 instance), Fox News and People Magazine (7 instances). The article is an obvious oppose (you can't possibly use those sources), yet no one has picked up on this. At the very bottom of the page is a video game article, Nights into Dreams. LazerBrain asked for a source review, but no one has pointed out that refs 41 and 66 (among others) are incorrect. You may wish to pass this info on to someone. Singora (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- I will send you an email. The Congressional sources are easy, the others I can send you a selection of pages, plus any individual ones you desire.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yep, go for it. Next week is fine. I'm pretty sure that by emailing me (even via Wikipedia) I'll get your contact details. If this is an issue contact the administrator CasLiber. I've emailed him in the past and he ought to be able to confirm I'm a legitimate company owner. Singora (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- In the legislation section, I can email you copies of any sources you desire. The books I own and I don't think they do google books preview. I can email you copies of book pages but not until next week as am traveling.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ha! That wasn't a "careful review" -- I skimmed the article after seeing your blurb re: Captain Cook. I can't do too much more as your references aren't linked. If you could give me URLs to specific pages I'll check the sources, though I'm guessing these books aren't available for preview on Google. The one I did check pointed to George Mason University and asked me for a password.
Image review
- File:Chester_Beach.jpg: when/where was this first published?
- File:Kamehameha_I_full_5110.png needs a US PD tag for the statue. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments
- The lead states "In 1927, the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii passed a bill" whereas the body states "A resolution was passed by the legislature of the Territory of Hawaii". Rather than merely point out the contradiction there, I'm going to dig deeper. I know next to nothing about the Hawaii legislature, whether territorial or state. OTOH, I'm more than very familiar with the territorial legislature of Alaska, where I live. In those days, legislation passed by the Alaska legislature was in the form of memorials to Congress. The territory's delegate would then introduce that legislation in Congress, which would consider and/or act on it. I would assume that Hawaii operated the same way, but I've not read any of Hawaii's organic acts and therefore really can't say.
- In the "Inception" section – to me, it comes across as disjointed and perhaps a bit redundant to make a vague reference to "an organization" which was authorized to purchase the coins from the Mint, then in the very next sentence explicitly mention that organization, yet these sentences appear in different paragraphs.
- Also in the second paragraph of "Inception", the specific affiliations of some individuals were mentioned, but not of others. I was still in the dark after reading that text as to whether some of the people mentioned were local Hawaiians, or federal officials, or perhaps both.
- In the first sentence of the "Legislation" section, is Don Taxay the only person known to have commented on that particular aspect? Of course, other perspectives are helpful if they exist, especially if they're non-numismatic in nature.
-
- Yes. He's the only one, and it's just an offhand comment. Numismatics is thinly covered by references, I fear. Most of his book
- The wording of the first and second sentences of that section comes across as slightly repetitive.
- "South Dakota Senator Peter Norbeck" – in this particular context, "Senator" appears to run afoul of MOS:JOBTITLES, which I realize is widely ignored because bludgeoning readers with officialdom at every turn is evidently more important.
-
- I'm aware of it, but I feel in the context of political and numismatic articles, having that as lower case in the midst of capital letters is distracting to the reader.
- "with the profits to be used toward establishing a Captain James Cook collection in the territorial archives." As the mechanics of the coin's distribution and pricing were mentioned earlier on, I'm confused as to whether "the profits" spoken of were those made by the Mint or by the Captain Cook Sesquicentennial Commission.
- In "Production, distribution, and collecting" – The statement "The Bank of Hawaii took charge of distribution" is far enough removed in the article from the statement "The Captain Cook Sesquicentennial Commission was to be the group authorized to order the Hawaii half dollars from the Mint" that it may help to elaborate on the exact arrangement those two entities had.
- "and they remained in the bank's vaults until 1986, when they were sold at auction". Do we know what sort of price they fetched at that auction? As it occurred a lot more recently than the 1920s, I would hope that it's not impossible to find out. It may appear to run afoul of WP:RECENT to explicitly mention auction prices or other values from the past few years in the very next paragraph but leave out similar details from a few decades ago.
-
- None of my online sources address this. I will be home in a week to check the book sources. Most coin periodicals don't have extensive archives. The Numismatist does and I checked, and nothing. It is, by the way, the Auctions by Bowers and Merena " Bank of Hawaii Consignment and the Ezra Cole Collection", January 23-25, 1986.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've sent an inquiry to the librarian at the American Numismatic Association library, asking if they have the auction catalog/prices realized. They have a large number of auction catalogs but they are not inventoried online. I will work on the other concerns expressed above soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- None of my online sources address this. I will be home in a week to check the book sources. Most coin periodicals don't have extensive archives. The Numismatist does and I checked, and nothing. It is, by the way, the Auctions by Bowers and Merena " Bank of Hawaii Consignment and the Ezra Cole Collection", January 23-25, 1986.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
In general, I enjoyed reading this. As the tasks I undertake on here put me into regular contact with the dregs of the encyclopedia, it's nice to discover the occasional article which is far removed from that. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 16:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Source review: Singora Singora (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC) OK - I'll make a start. I've got 5 PDFs and some HTML. I'll get this done by Sunday. This is later than anticipated, but I got hit out of the blue with some stuff for a new client. More to follow.
Right, I've got five PDFs:
- 1. Hawaii house hearings
- 2. Hawaii house report
- 3. Hawaii Senate report
- 4. Hawaii senate passage
- 5. Hawaii house passage
And the following books:
- 1. Numismatic Art in America (pages 174-175). The first ref holds up: wrote that the obverse "is too crowded, despite the large, flat, clothed bust" and that the various elements of the reverse design "are all too much for one small coin". The second is wrong: you've written He deemed "the coin honoring Hawaii in 1928 no more a credit to Chester Beach than was the Lexington Concord coin", whereas the source gives He deemed "the coin honoring Hawaii in 1928 is no more a credit to Chester Beach than was the Lexington Concord coin.
-
- Correct, I meant to put an ellipsis here. Fixed. Thank you.
- 2. An Illustrated History of U.S. Commemorative Coinage (the five scans are too small to use + the quality is dire)
-
- Will resend.
- 3. United States Commemorative Coinage (pages 84-87). RE: "These represent the eight largest volcanic islands of Hawaii: Oahu, Maui, Kauai, the "Big Island" of Hawaii, Niihau, Lanai, Kahoolawe, and Molokai". This is good. RE: "rising from obscurity" is very similar to the text "arising from obscurity".
- I guess. But Taxay didn't make up the phrase, so I don't feel there's an issue. Sometimes there's only one really good track. Open to suggestions.
- 4. Hawaiian Money Standard Catalog (pages 48-51). For page 48 you've got "Many Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollars were purchased by non-collectors and display the effects of poor handling" and "At least three different counterfeits are known". These are fine. For page 50 you've got "Bruce Cartwright, Jr., was in charge of choosing a coin design for the Captain Cook commission. Mrs. Ethelwyn Castle arranged for him to meet Juliette May Fraser, a local artist. Cartwright had prepared cartoon-style drawings, with the portrait of Cook based on a Wedgwood plaque that had been owned by Queen Emma, showing the explorer facing right. Within two days, Fraser had produced sketches", "The reverse was based on a statue of King Kamehameha I of Hawaii, designed by Thomas R. Gould, and intended to symbolize the past and future glory of the Kingdom [of Hawaii]", "The one that stands in downtown Honolulu today is a replacement for one that sank while being transported from Germany to Hawaii; the original was later salvaged and stands at Kohala on the island of Hawaii" and "Juliette Fraser had made several sketches, all with the same basic design elements, but with the chieftain in various poses and with Diamond Head in different positions". Why say "several sketches" when you only know for certain she made three?
- If you don't think the three sketches shown justify "several", I will strike it.
- Off the top of my head:
- 1. YOU: Juliette Fraser had made several sketches, all with the same basic design elements, but with the chieftain in various poses and with Diamond Head in different positions.
- 2. ME: Juliette Fraser had drawn several (some / initial / sample / example) sketches, three of which are reproduced in the Hawaiian Money Standard Catalog. These illustrations share the same basic design elements, albeit with the chieftain and Diamond Head in different poses and positions. Singora (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Off the top of my head:
- 5. The Authoritative Reference on Commemorative Coins (these five scans are too small)
- 6. The Encyclopedia of United States Silver & Gold Commemorative Coins (pages 95-99). For this source you've got "Of the remainder, half was to be sold on the Hawaiian Islands, half reserved for sale from elsewhere. The Bank of Hawaii took charge of distribution on behalf of the Captain Cook commission" and "Sales began October 8, 1928; sales were good and supplies were quickly exhausted. Numismatists Anthony Swiatek and Walter Breen, in their book on commemoratives, write that while there was never any scandal about these coins, there were unconfirmed rumors of hordes of coins, totaling as many as 1,500, bought by insiders and kept off the market". Not sure about this. The deal seems to be that 1500 of the 4975 intended for distribution in Hawaii were kept off the market. There's nothing to indicate that hoarding took place elsewhere. Perhaps you should clarify this. Note that the Bowers source uses the term "investors" rather than your "insiders".
- If they got to buy more than the mintage limit of 5, they were insiders, but I'll strike the word. I've clarified that the rumors say that the hoarded coins came from the local allocation.
I'll save this before I continue. Singora (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- 7. Commemorative Coins of the United States: A Complete Encyclopedia (pages 235-239). For page 237 you have "The Philadelphia Mint coined 10,008 Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollars in June 1928, with the eight pieces above the authorized mintage reserved for inspection and testing at the 1929 meeting of the annual Assay Commission. Fifty of the ten thousand were specially finished as sandblast proof pieces" and "One such grouping, of 137 pieces, comprised coins from an allotment for the Bank of Hawaii for sale to its employees. When the display coin was stolen, the bank president took the others off sale, and they remained in the bank's vaults until 1986, when they were sold at auction". The source says the coins were placed in the bank's vault for over half a century. Nothing about 1986. For page 238 you've got "The price was $2 per coin, the highest for a half dollar commemorative to that point". This is okay.
-
- The 1986 is on page 237. "at auction to the order of the Bank of Hawaii, Ltd. on January 23, 1986".
- 8. A Guide Book of United States Coins (pages 1138-1139). For this you've got "The Hawaii Sesquicentennial coin is the scarcest commemorative half dollar by design; according to R.S. Yeoman's A Guide Book of United States Coins published in 2015, it lists for between $1,850 and $11,000 depending on condition. The sandblast proofs are listed for up to $50,000 but none has recently been sold at auction—an exceptional specimen of the regular type went under the hammer for $25,850 in 2013". This is all good.
What am I supposed to do with PDFs? Tell me what sources link to which PDF. Singora (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- The PDFs are the copies of the government documents, hearing transcripts, congressional record, and so forth. They mostly support the "Legislation" section. I'll resend the others. Thank you for taking such time and effort.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've sent them to you. The five pdfs I sent you earlier are the hearing transcript, the committee report, and excerpts from the Congressional Record. Since there's only one per date, it should be clear when you open them--Wehwalt (talk) 07:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The two missing books Singora (talk) 03:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- 1. An Illustrated History of U.S. Commemorative Coinage (pages 123-131).
- Page 124: "On November 2, Charles Moore, chairman of the Commission of Fine Arts wrote to Assistant Director of the Mint Mary M. O'Reilly that Juliette Fraser's sketches were excellent and would translate well into a coin" and "Numismatic historian Don Taxay found it likely that members of the House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures were pledged to support a Hawaii half dollar prior to a bill being submitted as preparations had begun".
-
-
- Error! Correspondence with O'Reilly, along with the date, starts on page 123. Page 124 tells me the sketches had been prepared by Miss May Frazer. Why is he using her middle name?
- I don't know why he uses her middle name. Adjusted.
- Page 123 is also the correct source for your blurb re: members of the House Committee on Coinage, Weights and Measures. Why do you write "were pledged" instead of "had pledged"?
- Error! Correspondence with O'Reilly, along with the date, starts on page 123. Page 124 tells me the sketches had been prepared by Miss May Frazer. Why is he using her middle name?
-
-
- Page 127, 130: "Once Beach accepted the commission on March 12, 1928, Juliette Fraser's sketches were forwarded to him. On April 7, he sent completed models to the Mint and photographs to the Fine Arts Commission. Both the Mint and Houston responded with criticism, the former that the relief of the coin was high and difficult to reduce to coin-sized hubs"
-
-
- Error! Page 124 tells me that Beach accepted on March 12.
- Error! Pages 124 & 127 tell me the sketches were then forwarded to him
- Error! You're telling me the relief was too high to reduce to "coin-sized hubs". This wasn't the problem. The deal was that the relief was simply too high for their machines (notice the Chief Engraver's comment: "the coin would be very hard to coin because the area of greatest relief on each side was in the same part of the coin"). It was the text or lettering that, when reduced to coin-size, would be a problem: it was too small to start with and would be become indistinct when scaled down. The scaling issue, then, pertained to the text, not the height of the relief.
- Examine the Caemmerer letter on p. 127. The relief was reportedly too high for their reducing machine (which was fairly common with commemoratives). I'm inclined to take Sinnock's word for it (it would have come from him originally), as he was the first chief engraver to be comfortable with the Janvier reducing machine.
- You don't need to link to page 30, though if you re-read it you'll see the correspondents discus typefaces and letter-spacing. These are your scaling issues.
- Finally, look again at that engraver's comment of yours: "the coin would be very hard to coin because the area of greatest relief on each side was in the same part of the coin". Notice anything?
-
-
- Page 129: "Ferns are visible under that Latin motto: Houston wanted the plants removed, but Beach insisted on retaining them to balance the design"
-
-
- The word "balance" is the natural choice and can't really be changed.
-
-
- Page 130: "Beach agreed to lower any high points that might cause the Mint difficulty"
-
-
- Yep, this is okay.
-
-
- Page 131: "Delegate Houston had a long list of quibbles about the coin's design. For example, Beach had placed an anklet on the chief's leg; Houston felt such an item would not have been worn. Beach defended some of his choices, such as the anklet (which was removed when Houston insisted), and promised to comply with the remainder. This did not satisfy Houston, who was also unhappy about the shape of the palm tree on the coin, and Beach modified the design again. Beach forwarded final models, indicating that he would only consider making changes if the Mint requested it. He wrote to Moore, I think the proper thing for Mr. Houston to do would be to take the sculptor and family to Hawaii and let us live in the cocoanut [sic] trees for a while and absorb the atmosphere of that paradise." and "The coin was endorsed by the Commission of Fine Arts; on May 2, O'Reilly wrote to Beach that the design had received Secretary Mellon's approval".
-
-
- Error! Houston's objection to the anklet ("pertaining to a dancer rather than a warrior") is introduced on page 128. On page 131 he mentions the anklet has not been deleted.
- Error! RE: "on May 2, O'Reilly wrote to Beach that the design had received Secretary Mellon's approval" No. On May 2 Beach wrote to Moore explaining the changes. O'Reilly wrote to Beach to announce formal approval on May 9. You've confused the dates of two different letters.
-
More later.
Source review -- The Authoritative Reference on Commemorative Coins (Flyn) Singora (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Page 97: "The Captain Cook Memorial Collection, purchased in part with funds raised from the coins, is now in the Bishop Museum in Honolulu"
-
- This is fine.
- Page 98: "On April 19, Mint Chief Engraver John R. Sinnock wrote in a memorandum that the coin would be very hard to produce because the area of greatest relief on each side was in the same part of the design"
- Pages 276-77: "The Commission of Fine Arts met, and, at the suggestion of sculptor-member Lorado Taft, decided to ask Buffalo nickel designer James Earle Fraser (no relation) as to who would be most suitable to turn the sketches into plaster models, from which the Mint could make coinage dies and hubs. Moore wrote to James Fraser on December 19, but as the recipient overlooked the matter, he did not respond until February 7, 1928. James Fraser suggested Peace dollar designer Anthony de Francisci, but Chester Beach was engaged instead"
-
- This is accurate, though I'm not quite sure why the second sentence is needed. I mean, should I really care that James Fraser overlooked the matter, took a while to reply, and then suggested some dude who didn't get the job? Sentences one and three strike me as sufficient.
- Page 278: "thus, his gaze is westward"
-
- Yes, this is okay.
Page 98 checked & confirmed Singora (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2016 (UTC) It seems to me that your wording (the greatest relief) and that in the source (the bulk of the relief) are unusual ways of referring to what is generally described as "depth". See relief for more info. I guess this is a numismatist thing.
- Yes, relief is the common term in numismatics, taken from the artistic. Terminology is always an issue, though I don't think there's much ambiguity in numismatics that can't be cured with a link to glossary of numismatics, though I do not maintain that article.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
PDF: To authorize coinage of silver 50-cent pieces in commemoration of the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of discovery of the Hawaiian Islands
- 1. This is supposed to support "Perkins issued a report on February 1, 1928, recounting the history behind the proposed coin and indicating his committee's support", but I'm only seeing the minutes of a meeting that took place on January 23. Am I doing something wrong here? Singora (talk) 00:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I'll continue after you've clarified this point. I'm sure I've got the right PDF for the source. You've named it: Hawaii house hearings.
Douglas MacArthur's escape from the Philippines
This article is about one of the more dramatic actions of World War II. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Checkingfax
- Hi, Hawkeye7. I made a deep polishing pass through the article and made several helpful edits to put the article closer to a Featured Article promotion. I fixed a couple of typos too, but I did not put that in my edit summary. Ping me back when you are ready for my !vote. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
12:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)- Checkingfax, there have been a couple of supports now, did you want to be pinged? - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Support – on structure, MoS, accessibility, readability, and brilliance. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
07:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest scaling up the map
- Tried that. But it needs to be scaled up a lot before all the text becomes readable. Best to just allow readers to click on it to enlarge. When I watched the movie I got worried about my map, as it differs substantially from that shown. But our map is correct. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- File:Lieutenant_J._D._Bulkeley_k13927.jpg: is there a NARA link? The current source link is dead. Same with File:Lieutenant_John_D._Bulkeley_g14252.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class (almost 4 years ago). - Dank (push to talk)
Comments by Nick-D
It's good to see an article on this once-famous incident at FAC. I have the following comments:
- "ultimately arriving in Melbourne on 21 March. This was the occasion of his famous speech in which he declared, "I came through and I shall return"" - this wording is a bit confusing given that the article notes that he actually said this while en-route to Melbourne
- The second para of the lead should note that MacArthur was the commanding officer of the forces in the Philippines
- "The Philippines had no navy at all" - but there was a US Navy fleet based there - perhaps note this earlier
- Have any historians commented on the rights and wrongs of the escape? It looks somewhat indulgent to modern eyes, though probably wasn't seen as such at the time.
- I just read the account of this incident in The Fall of the Philippines, and it had some good details to draw on to flesh out the "Decision" section a bit - such as the military rationale for ordering MacArthur out of the Philippines (the history notes that a very senior commander was needed in a hurry with MacArthur being the logical choice) and the timing of the escape (which MacArthur delayed until the situation in Bataan was relatively stable). There's also some interesting material on the extent to which MacArthur resisted evacuating, which Morton suggests was over-egged somewhat by MacArthur's admirers, as well as MacArthur's demand that the best pilots and aircraft in the US be assigned to get him out of the Philippines. Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Support My comments are now addressed - great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments by jfhutson
- The lead: I think we need to know earlier who MacArthur is and what danger he is in. I have to infer that this escape is from something other than being taken prisoner, and not until the third paragraph do I hear about the "blockade".
- Re-written the lead. I hope the first sentence is not too long. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think this falls in line with the second example given at WP:LEAD#Avoid these common mistakes and I made a few changes to the first couple sentences. I'm not married to them, but it reads better in my opinion (before we might have thought the Japanese were in the PT boats, and yes it was very long).--JFH (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Re-written the lead. I hope the first sentence is not too long. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- "share the fate of the garrison" not immediately clear what this means
- "However radio broadcasts" needs a comma
- "Rockwell was far from convinced" reader can't keep track of who's in the boat, so mention that he's in the same boat as Kelly
- "time consuming" hyphenate?
Will return for a second read-through. --JFH (talk) 18:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)
- Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is about the sophomore studio album recorded by Romanian singer Alexandra Stan. I strongly believe that the article overall satisfies the criteria needed, with it being well-written and properly sourced.
Comment
- Dear lord how many different tracklists does that section have?! All you need is the international version (since the others are so very similar) and a note that says something like "Different versions of Unlocked were released for the Japanese, Spanish and German markets. They feature modified tracklists, bonus tracks and remixes." There is no need of listing out every last variant.—indopug (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Indopug: Incorporated your comment. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Agharta (album)
This article is about a 1975 live album by jazz musician Miles Davis. It was a divisive record, controversial for its jazz-rock music, Davis' last recording before his retirement, and influential on a younger generation of musicians, particularly because of guitarist Pete Cosey's frenetic playing. The album was later reassessed positively by critics, who viewed it as the culmination of Davis' electric period and one of his best works. Dan56 (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Prose review by Prism
For now I will just give a preliminary review and tomorrow I will hopefully explore the article better. At first read this is generally very good.
- Lead
- fiercely innovative is verging on puffery.
- Sony's Japanese division suggested its title, Agharta, which is a mythological subterranean utopia. I suggest rephrasing this, since the word Agharta is already said in the previous sentence. Perhaps:
- Sony's Japanese division suggested its title, which refers to a [[Agharta|mythological subterranean utopia]].
- cover artwork — artwork is sufficient
- Background
- subsequently is redundant
- The first concert began at 4:00 P.M. — It is previously mentined that it was held in the afternoon. This is trivia.
- Reception and legacy
- I believe mini-LP should be changed, as that term is usually reserved for mini-albums, as per the Wiki page that it is associated with.
More comments to come. Prism | (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've made corrections. Btw, I didn't have this page on my watchlist, so I've been making many changes to the article, unaware someone had already taken a look at it lmao. Barring any needed corrections or IP vandalism, I've made my final changes to the article @Prism: Dan56 (talk) 00:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support I've read the article thoroughly (sorry it took me few days), and I can comfortably support the prose. I think the article is well researched and well written, and given its legacy (as concluded in the reception section), it serves as a nice overview of this period of Davis' career.--Retrohead (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment, I've read the first half and from what I can see so far it's well written and very informative. I just skimmed the second half and can't really comment nn that. Karl Twist (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comments from AJona1992
- It would be better if you remove the "so he" and add a semicolon instead for better flow (first subsection; third paragraph). Other than that, the article is well-written, detailed and complete, the writing is superb, and well deserving of FA status. Another great read Dan, – jona ✉ 16:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Antlia
This article is about a constellation with a few interesting tidbits. Buffed it up so I think it is the equal to the other 25 or so Featured constellation articles. Got a thorough going-over at GAN. All input appreciated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
NB: A wikicup nomination. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Support: My concerns were addresses, so I'm giving my support for promotion to FA. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment:The article is a bit short, but it's difficult to see how it could be further expanded. Overall it looks to be in good shape.Here are a few points that caught my eye during a read through:
"The system is classed as an A-type W Ursae Majoris variable": what is meant by A-type here? The term seems to be conflated with the variable type description. Only one of the pair is an A-class star.
"...unusual hot variable ageing star...", "...and is a unique variable...": how is it unusual or unique? This is not quite clear.
"...yellow-white F-type star but it has almost no hydrogen": the article says it is deficient in hydrogen; meaning only that it is lower than normal.
-
- As an R Coronae Borealis variable, it has a very low ratio of hydrogen. Might not be spelt out there but is elsewhere. Article itself talks of "striking" absence/weakness of H lines etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, yes. The 'R Coronae Borealis variable' article makes it clear that this star may have formed with negligible amounts of hydrogen. Praemonitus (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- As an R Coronae Borealis variable, it has a very low ratio of hydrogen. Might not be spelt out there but is elsewhere. Article itself talks of "striking" absence/weakness of H lines etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
"Peter Birren" and "Ian Ridpath": these names should be formatted in a manner consistent with the other referenced authors.
Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- "Its main stars have no particular pattern": I don't know what that means.
-
- It means a recognisable pattern like an Asterism (astronomy)....but I have removed the sentence as does not add much. I think its faintness more of a reason it didn't get recognised and second bit not true anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- " All but one were named in honour of instruments that symbolised the Age of Enlightenment. ... [he] chose names mostly from scientific instruments": Seems repetitive.
- Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits.
Scanning quickly, it looks like you've addressed some but not all of Praemonitus's concerns.- Dank (push to talk) 16:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
- File:NGC_2997_ESO.jpg: source link is dead
Comments by Sarastro: A few nit-picks here, most of which concern making this a little more accessible for the general reader, which shouldn't be a problem in such a short article. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- "a historical air pump": How is a historical air pump different from any other air pump? Can we be more precise what we mean by historical? Later on, we link to "air pump" but not here.
- "the constellation was introduced by Nicolas Louis de Lacaille": Introduced seems an odd word to use here, unless it is a technical term.
- "Abbreviated from Antlia Pneumatica, the constellation was introduced by Nicolas Louis de Lacaille in the 18th century": In fact, there's something a little uncomfortable with the use of "abbreviated" here. The constellation wasn't abbreviated, it's name was. So, could we combine these ideas and say that Lacaille named it and (as it says in the made body) Herschel invented the abbreviation? Or something less clumsy than my attempt there??
- "is counted among the 88 modern constellations": I know we link this, but as readers, we're left wondering what a modern constellation is, and how it differs from other constellations. Do we even need this in the lead?
- "The stars are so close they have a common envelope and will one day merge to form a single star.": I wonder, for the lead, do we need the part about the common envelope? It would make perfect sense if it read "The stars are so close they will eventually merge to form a single star", unless we can avoid repetition of "star".
- "lie within Antlia's borders": Not obvious to the general reader that a constellation may have a border
- "De Lacaille had observed and catalogued almost 10,000 southern stars during a two-year stay at the Cape of Good Hope, devising fourteen new constellations in uncharted regions of the Southern Celestial Hemisphere not visible from Europe": A few points here. I'm assuming this was his intention when he travelled to the Cape of Good Hope; but, did he do so of his own volition, did he do so on his own? Were other people doing similar things, or is this the random act of a madman? Did he base his constellations on anything, or was it just a case of "that looks a bit like an air pump"?
-
- The new constellations honoured scientific inventions of the Age of Enlightenment. They were criticised for not looking like what they were supposed to represent but then again almost no constellations look like what they are supposed to represent... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- "All but one were named in honour of instruments that symbolised the Age of Enlightenment": Did he name them, or did it come back to a committee? If the former, why not "He named all but one..."?
- "John Herschel proposed shrinking the name to one word, which was universally adopted": When?
- "Though Antlia was technically visible to Classical Greek astronomers, its stars were too faint to have been included in any ancient constellations.": What do we mean by "technically visible"? It's a bit jarring to read that it was visible but they couldn't see it! What about something like the portion of the sky in which it is located was visible, the stars of the constellation were too faint to be visible for inclusion in anything?
-
- Only brighter stars ended up forming the classical constellations - there were loads of fainter stars lying around that were not used. actually the more I look at it the more I realize the first segment is actually redundant....and have removed it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Lacaille depicted Antlia as a single-cylinder vacuum pump used in Papin's initial experiments, while Johann Bode chose the more advanced double-cylinder version.": This sentence is oddly placed here. Why not in the naming part?
- "while Johann Bode chose the more advanced double-cylinder version": In such a short article, can we not spare the reader a job and say who Bode was?
- "The International Astronomical Union later adopted it as one of the 88 modern constellations": When? Also, maybe a word about who the IAU are/were? And, again we might give a link, but I think we should explain here what the 88 modern constellations are.
- "There is no mythology attached to Antlia as Lacaille discontinued the tradition of giving names from mythology to constellations and instead chose names mostly from scientific instruments": Again, this sentence is a little oddly placed; this would be better in the naming paragraph. The way this sentence is written, it also looks like his contemporaries were still using mythology. True?
- "According to some, the most prominent stars that now comprise Antlia were once included within the ancient constellation Argo Navis, the Ship of the Argonauts, which due to its immense size was split into several smaller constellations by Lacaille in 1763.": According to who? And, by "within" I assume we mean within the borders of the constellation, but not actually part of the "picture" they formed. Otherwise we are contradicting the previous part which says that the stars were invisible in Classical times. Again, may be worth making the distinction for the general reader. And this is a bit more context for what Lacaille was up to: so did he take what was there and re-organise it? Or was he looking for new stars?
- "The three-letter abbreviation for the constellation, as adopted by the International Astronomical Union in 1922, is Ant.": IAU linked here but not earlier. And no date is given earlier. I wonder should this be combined with the earlier information about the IAU?
- "as set by Eugène Delporte in 1930": Again, a word or two of context would be good here.
- "Beta and Gamma Antliae (now HR 4339 and HD 90156) ended up in the neighbouring constellation Hydra once the constellation boundaries were delineated in 1930": This is the first we have seen of any such delineation. Surely worth mentioning earlier?
- In the part about the stars, I appreciate that we can't cater as much for the general reader (and I confess that my eyes glazed over a bit, so I might have missed something). However, I notice that "spectral type" is used a lot; I know nothing about this but notice that our article has sections on different letters, such as type K. Could we link each mention of spectral type to its letter in our article?
- "It is a loose face-on spiral galaxy of type Sc": What does loose mean in this sense? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Support: I'm happy to support now. My only two remaining points are that I think it is worth saying more about the 88 constellations, as the obvious question is why were there modern constellations; the other one is that we now have the nicely informative "while German astronomer Johann Bode chose the more advanced double-cylinder version" but Bode appears from nowhere and it is not immediately obvious who he is, what he is doing and why he is doing it! However, these don't affect my support in any way. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Support: I performed the good article review for this article a short time ago, where all of my concerns were addressed. I see that the article has been further improved since then. (As part of that review, I checked all sources to the best of my ability. In the end, I only had a couple of reservations about the technical prose, and I assume someone with a stronger astronomy background would help with that.) Saskoiler (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Ladislaus I of Hungary
This article is about a late 11th-century King of Hungary who consolidated the Christian monarchy. He is considered as "the incarnation of the late-medieval Hungarian ideal of chivalry". Borsoka (talk) 06:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest scaling up the map
- File:Béla_elnyeri_a_koronát.jpg is tagged as lacking source and author info
-
- Fixed. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- File:Ladislav1_denar1.jpg should explicitly account for the copyright of the original work (PD-old-100)
-
- This is a medieval denar issued by King Ladislaus I (r. 1077-95). --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- File:Zaruke_hrvatskog_kralja_Zvonimira_Celestin_Medović.JPG needs a US PD tag, and given the current tag the given author cannot be correct
-
- Added the name of the original Croatian painter who died in 1920. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- File:Hungary_11th_cent.png: what is the source of the data conveyed by this map?
-
- Fixed. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- File:King_St._Ladislaus.jpg: what is the status and source of the original work?
-
- This is a 14th century reliquary (herma) of King Saint Ladislaus I of Hungar, owned and exhibited by Diocese of Győr. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- File:Derzs4.jpg: given licensing and author info does not make sense
-
- I don't understand your problem. This is a medieval mural in the Unitarian church of Dârjiu, Romania. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes it is, which is why the modern-day uploader is not the original author. For the purposes of Wikipedia, which uses primarily US law, taking a photo of a 2D work does not generate a new copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand your problem. This is a medieval mural in the Unitarian church of Dârjiu, Romania. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- File:Szent_László_legenda_4.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:LaszloOradea.jpg.
-
- Fixed. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- File:046CupolaSPietro.jpg: since Italy does not have freedom of panorama, we need to account for the status of the building as well.
-
- Sorry, but I could not find that image in this article. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- It appears in the portal bar. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, I see, thanks. The building is St. Peter's Basilica, completed on 18 November 1626. I quote from Commons:Freedom of panorama: "Under Law N. XII on Copyright of January 12, 1960, the Vatican decreed that unless church law says otherwise, the precepts of Italian copyright law apply in Vatican City. As noted above, Italy does not allow for freedom of panorama. Thus, sculptures and other works, including buildings, are not ok until 70 years after the death of the architect or designer [...]". --Norden1990 (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- It appears in the portal bar. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I could not find that image in this article. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments. Tentative oppose. The current image review is almost identical to the image review at the first FAC. If you're having problems understanding reviewer comments, it's better to ask than to just resubmit a FAC with the same problems. - Dank (push to talk) 03:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for your kind words. Yes I am having problems understanding the comments. Sorry, but an extremely simple-minded person like me cannot easily understand that a picture with copyright problems can be displayed in Commons, but the same picture cannot be used in articles. All the same, I will seek assistance. Borsoka (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not understanding "extremely simple-minded"; I certainly didn't say that. This isn't a comment about you, this is a comment about FAC. We have limited volunteer labor available. FAC can't possibly work if we ask all the volunteers to be willing to do the same work over and over again. Nikki is perhaps the most experienced image reviewer we have at FAC. Personally, I'm mystified by image requirements; I can't answer your question. But she knows what she's talking about. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Commons, like Wikipedia, is a work in constant progress; just as Wikipedia articles can often be improved, so too can Commons image descriptions, and just as Wikipedia articles sometimes warrant deletion, so too do Commons images. That being said, I expect most of the images in this case fall into the first camp rather than the second. If you have specific questions about what improvements are needed, I'm happy to answer them. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. I am sure I am unable to understand WP policies about pictures, so I already sought community assistance. Borsoka (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Striking oppose, in light of progress. - Dank (push to talk) 11:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. I am sure I am unable to understand WP policies about pictures, so I already sought community assistance. Borsoka (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words. Yes I am having problems understanding the comments. Sorry, but an extremely simple-minded person like me cannot easily understand that a picture with copyright problems can be displayed in Commons, but the same picture cannot be used in articles. All the same, I will seek assistance. Borsoka (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments by MPS1992
MPS1992, thank you for your excelent edits and thorough review. Please find my comments below. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- "jumped on Ladislaus's lance from a thorny bush and went up to his chest" - this feels slightly ambiguous. Does it mean it jumped onto his lance and then jumped onto his chest?
- "Solomon was defeated in the battle" - this sentence feels slightly awkward tacked onto the end of the paragraph. Perhaps it would read better if made longer with a little more detail.
- "Upon Helen's demand" - I have rephrased this to "At Helen's demand", but, do the sources support such a strong wording? In other words, could it be "at Helen's request" rather than "at Helen's demand"?
- In 1090, Ladislaus had a meeting with the bishop of Prague, an old friend. Do these two facts really add anything? Presumably he met various bishops and other important personages quite often; did the meeting have any significance or significant outcome? It seems out of place amidst military actions of long-lasting import.
- Similarly, " The same year, he wrote to Oderizius, Abbot of Monte Cassino in Italy, about his conquest of "Sclavonia"" appears to be inserted almost randomly into a paragraph that is otherwise almost entirely about the invasion of Croatia. This sentence should be moved to the following paragraph.
- " The occupation of Croatian territories resulted in a dispute, because..." - this is awkwardly worded. Perhaps it could be recast on its own or together with preceding sentences.
- "because Bács was situated closer to the Hungarian-Byzantine border" - it would be good to make a little clearer how this is related to the needs of the English refugees and the moving of the sees.
- " Historian Gábor Klaniczay writes that the whole story was probably invented during the reign of King Béla III of Hungary, who was actually planning to lead a crusade to the Holy Land in the 1190s.[100] However, Ladislaus did plan to invade Bohemia" - the article seems here to decide that Klaniczay is wrong, and says so in Wikipedia's voice. What makes one source right and the other (later) one clearly wrong?
- " Ladislaus's family and relatives who are mentioned in the article are shown in the following family tree" - I think this sentence should be removed entirely, but I presume the citation at the end of it indicates the attribution for the family tree diagram. Perhaps the attribution could be included in a caption. The note with the asterisk is probably unnecessary.
- bondsman should be wikilinked to something relevant. Neither of the items on the disambiguation page for bondsman are suitable. Perhaps it is slavery or perhaps it is something more subtle on the Russian model.
- Sorry, I do not understand your reference to the "Russian model". Why do you think any kind of "Russian model" is relevant here? Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- My thinking is that we should either explain "bondsman" or wikilink it. Best to wikilink it. But "people [who] paid for their passage to the New World" is not the right wikilink, and neither is "any person, agency or corporation that will act as a surety and pledge money or property as bail for the appearance of persons accused in court". So either the correct wikilink is slave, but there is a risk that is inaccurate in this context, and that serf might be more accurate. Although Wikipedia suggests that serfdom only became dominant in Eastern Europe a few hundred years later. Perhaps something similar to serf (he was the son of a craftsman, not an agricultural labourer.) What do you think? MPS1992 (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I do not understand your reference to the "Russian model". Why do you think any kind of "Russian model" is relevant here? Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- " a bondsman, named "Tekus, son of the craftsman Dénes", opened Ladislaus's tomb" - this is slightly confusing for the reader. It should be made more clear that this was part of the canonization ceremony, and not that Tekus took it into his head to vandalize the tomb one day.
- "the texts about Ladislaus's life and reign in 14th-century Hungarian chronicles, were written during Coloman's rule" - Coloman lived c. 1070 – 3 February 1116 (that is, from the 11th to the 12th century) so how can a 14th-century chronicle have been written during his rule?
I have made these edits. MPS1992 (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think these now all look OK, thank you for making the changes. I greatly enjoyed finding out about the very English-dominated nature of the Varangian Guard in this era, which I had not known about before. One stylistic point and one minor point:
- There are substantial quotes from primary sources and other antiquated sources at various points in the text. I don't know if the Manual of Style permits attributed quotes of out-of-copyright sources of this length, though they seem good to me. But, some of the later ones seem to have their text in italics, whereas the earlier ones do not. They should be consistent. (All of the work names seem to be in italics already, which is consistent and is good.)
- Second, and this is very minor and perhaps more nuanced, is the Illuminated Chronicle, dating from 1358 or later, really a primary source about a king who died over 250 years earlier? Perhaps it is a primary source for views taken by Hungarians in later centuries, I'm not sure. MPS1992 (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- All of my concerns have been addressed, and I am happy to Support. MPS1992 (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Michael Laucke
- Nominator(s): Natalie.Desautels, Corinne, and
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
22:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is about Canadian virtuoso classical and flamenco guitarist Michael Laucke. Lots of research and hard work by over sixty Wikipedia editors has gone into crafting this article and it is now worthy of a promotion to Featured Article. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
22:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Lingzhi
I'm confused by the first note, which is three notes(?). And the references forex number 37 that looks like this: [33][34][35][36].. and a sea of inline links. I think this all needs considerable work. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Lingzhi. If you click on [37] in the body, it will take you to [33][34][35][36] in the References section. If you click on any of those singly it will jump up to the germane reference that sits right above [37]. They are in sequential order like this: [33][34][35][36][37] in the References section. [37] is a grouping of the four. Reduces visual clutter in the body. And, instead of having to go back up to the body three extra times to visit the four references you only have to go down to the one group once and the four are right there at your fingertips. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
07:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)- I'm sorry, I was in a rush and didn't explain. Here's what I think:
- 1- First, IMO many statements are over-cited. AFAIK, there are only three reasons to have more than one citation per assertion. Perhaps the statement is controversial (that's the strongest reason), or it is really important enough that people might want to look at more than one source, or (finally) to avoid linkrot. But I really doubt much of anything in this article meets either of the first of those two criteria. If you are trying to avoid linkrot, other methods are less distracting (see WP:LINKROT).
- Done.
- 2- Second, it's very strange and confusing to have {{sfn}} or {{Ref}} style numbered boxes inside the References, ESPECIALLY if those boxes are sitting there without any textual explanation, and since moreover they just point to other things in the same References section.
- Done.
- 3- In the Notes section it's very strange to have notes 1, 2 and 3 link to the same note, esp. when two of them point to the exact same spot in the body text.
- Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done.
- The first Note, "A guitar transcription consists of ..." is unnecessary. The wikilink to Transcription (music) is completely sufficient. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done.
- Then in the Notes, 4, 5 and 6 "Virus Montréal... In 1980... MusiCanada" could easily be combined into a single note with three sentences. Or moved to a "Critical reception" section. Or just as easily, simply deleted. Perhaps you could look at other musician FA articles to serve as a model.
-
- Done.
- The two sentences beginning "Pell's former campaign manager.." are irrelevant and should be deleted IMO. The article is not about Pell's former campaign manager Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done.
User-friendly solution to grouped references implementation
@Checkingfax: Hello Lingzhi. First of all I would be amiss not to thank you for your time in helping us improve this article, and of course your wonderful work for Wikipedia in general over almost 10 years! I might just ask you for some survival tips .
You pointed out some interesting issues which I have admittedly thought about in the past. It turns out that with a little coding wizardry, they are now resolved. Hopefully you concur with my implementations to simplify this matter, and will be pleased. (After 1,787 edits by 63 editors in this article, what's a few more.)
So all these are gone:
- Notes 1.^ 2.^ 3.^
- reference 37. [33][34][35][36]
- reference 74. [33][34][35][36][73]
- reference 129. [33][34][35][36]
Yet the information is still available in a non-cumbersome way. If you go to Notes 10 and 11 you can see how I've reworked this.
I followed the suggestion of user MPJ-DK, who was our GA reviewer. He offered a tidy solution whereby Notes would simplify the user experience; it helped avoid disruption in reading, promoted flow and assisted the article in keeping focus.
For example, in the Early career section, I noticed the Grand Prix du Disque caused quite a stir in the media. But instead of cluttering up the section with newspaper quotes and interviews, we simply said 'Music critics took note.[1][2][3]'and moved on! We had simply included a few of the more important critiques in the Notes section, quite out of the way. So the reader can enjoy reading unimpeded, or if something piques his curiosity, he can quickly click to the Notes section and back; ...easy, plain and simple navigation. So that worked quite well although it was a bit tricky code-wise (having a diploma in computer science comes in handy sometimes), and I was able to switch the code around a bit. But the result for the end user is simple. Also, since Laucke apparently performed in 25 countries, we thought it would be interesting to show, by way of mainstream newspapers, the reaction of different cultures to at least some of these concerts, and fortunately good quality, mainstream sources were amply available.
Again, I very much appreciate your input and your help to rectify an issue I have long pondered about. Please feel free to share your thoughts, as time permits of course. kind regards, Natalie Desautels ...as within, so without 12:10, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
PS. By the way I was delighted not only with the beautiful image on your userpage but also the Wallace Stevens poem; his "The Man with the Blue Guitar" is one of my favorites.
- Yes I've spent time pondering the blue guitar as well. As for Laucke, you missed a spot at [109][110][111][112]. I'm still also wondering why seemingly uncontroversial points have multiple cites, as at "He also published articles on classical guitar.[39][40][41]." Is it because of concern about WP:LINKROT? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Lingzhi. I will let Natalie.Desautels fix the references with her new method. Getting to your 2nd point, several early editors demanded citations so we had to provide them. There is one citation for each publication (39, 40, 41). The same goes for the rest of the citation bloat in the article: everything was challenged, so citations had to be provided, even in the lead. Cheers! PS: Up top, you mention "forex"; what does that refer to?
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
18:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Lingzhi. I will let Natalie.Desautels fix the references with her new method. Getting to your 2nd point, several early editors demanded citations so we had to provide them. There is one citation for each publication (39, 40, 41). The same goes for the rest of the citation bloat in the article: everything was challenged, so citations had to be provided, even in the lead. Cheers! PS: Up top, you mention "forex"; what does that refer to?
-
-
- @Checkingfax: Hi Lingzhi, I have attended to the matters you pointed out above, which have been fixed as follows:
- Because of a discovered redundancy, I deleted the three citations in "He also published articles on classical guitar.[39][40][41]" because "... articles on classical guitar" is already wikilinked to the Articles section where we find these same cites.
- [109][110][111][112] have been deleted and are now available in the Notes section, in a non-cumbersome manner. Nice catch!
- And now it is made up 'of things exactly as they are' (...on the Bule guitar)
.
- PS. For the record, a technical limitation of the 'Notes' linking system, for all of its clarity and other advantages, is that an editor cannot Preview. The link will not work until the page is saved so preparation must be fastidious, and preferably supported by having 3 windows open for reference points. kind regards, Natalie Desautels ...as within, so without 22:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Checkingfax: @Natalie.Desautels: If we're gonna keep the multiple cites on multiple statements, can we at least bundle them? [There are many ways to bundle refs, see (WP:CITEBUNDLE). I prefer {{sfnm}}, but some people find that awkward to use, and you are not using {{sfn}}.] I just personally find even more than two of those numbered boxes to be an eyesore. Actually, I dislike to see even more than one in the body text, but perhaps I am a little crankier than the average reader. Checkingfax, you asked about my use of "forex" above. Perhaps Natalie.Desautels fixed the small problem I mentioned so quickly that you didn't see it? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Lingzhi. We are using List Defined References (LDR). I believe these two strategies are not compatible. That is why I used refn before.
- @Checkingfax: @Natalie.Desautels: If we're gonna keep the multiple cites on multiple statements, can we at least bundle them? [There are many ways to bundle refs, see (WP:CITEBUNDLE). I prefer {{sfnm}}, but some people find that awkward to use, and you are not using {{sfn}}.] I just personally find even more than two of those numbered boxes to be an eyesore. Actually, I dislike to see even more than one in the body text, but perhaps I am a little crankier than the average reader. Checkingfax, you asked about my use of "forex" above. Perhaps Natalie.Desautels fixed the small problem I mentioned so quickly that you didn't see it? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Checkingfax: Hi Lingzhi, I have attended to the matters you pointed out above, which have been fixed as follows:
-
-
-
-
-
- Natalie is rolling out Notes to rebundle the refs. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
01:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Natalie is rolling out Notes to rebundle the refs. Cheers!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @Checkingfax: Hi Lingzhi, I concur entirely regarding bundles and multiplicity. And I'm eager to proceed after my thorough analysis last night, both with refs and Notes. I'm excited about this fine tuning and I hope you'll be pleased too. I'm taken today until this evening but I plan to finish all implementations over the week-end; will be combing over all 139 references—they will end up somewhat fewer—and Notes (they will end up a little more); any consecutive Notes/refs of 3 or more will be bundled and a few multiple cites of 2 as well. Does beginning next week suit your schedule? PS. No, you're not crankier than the average reader; you should only know what's out there
. kind regards, Natalie Desautels ...as within, so without 13:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Checkingfax: Hi Lingzhi, I concur entirely regarding bundles and multiplicity. And I'm eager to proceed after my thorough analysis last night, both with refs and Notes. I'm excited about this fine tuning and I hope you'll be pleased too. I'm taken today until this evening but I plan to finish all implementations over the week-end; will be combing over all 139 references—they will end up somewhat fewer—and Notes (they will end up a little more); any consecutive Notes/refs of 3 or more will be bundled and a few multiple cites of 2 as well. Does beginning next week suit your schedule? PS. No, you're not crankier than the average reader; you should only know what's out there
-
-
-
-
Tasks completed as of May 14, 2016 @Checkingfax and Lingzhi:
- Multiple references are now all bundled into one. Deleted and bundled references were:
-
- Notes 1.^ 2.^ 3.^; reference 37 [33][34][35][36]; reference 74 [33][34][35][36][73]; reference 129 [33][34][35][36]; reference [109][110][111][112].
- Bundled all multiple citations on multiple statements. The maximum number of references now in a sentence is two. As a rule, when 2 consecutive references were found they were kept and when 3 refs were found, one was deleted.
- All duplicate links deleted, first re-occurrence kept after lead, and in infoboxes, tables, and image captions. ...used 'Highlight duplicate links' tool
- Deleted Note 1 about music transcriptions since there is a wikilink to Transcription (music) and it's sufficient.
- Notes 4, 5 and 6 were bundled, combined into a single note with three sentences.
- The two sentences regarding Laucke's first manager/impresario, and Senator Pell's admin ass't, were deleted from body and relegated to Notes section. ...considered relevant info, since Nelson was essential to Laucke's early career as he organized every U.S. concert.
- ...remains to decide on English or French spelling for 'Three Gymnopedies' or 'Trois Gymnopédies'. I opt for English in the en-Wikipedia...
-
- Done.
kind regards, Natalie Desautels ...as within, so without 09:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- I honestly don't see any point in including the "Selected Works" section, since it is perfectly duplicated in Michael Laucke discography and filmography. I don't know whether we have a tradition of leaving these sorts of things in, though.@Laser brain:, @Ian Rose:, would either of you tell me yay or nay on that question? Tks.
-
- @Checkingfax: Hi Lingzhi I noticed many WP music articles list a few select albums in the main article along with a link to a mainspace discography. I'd be eager to learn what the opinions are and excited to get to work on trimming/selecting; the discography is stable I think. Thanks again. kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 05:46, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Throughout the concert, Laucke's playing was a model of clarity, evenness, control and good sense" Once may or may not be too much, but twice certainly is. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done.
- "claves, maracas, special castanets" Ditto.
-
- Done. The works Legend and Flamenco Road each employ different instrumentation with some similarities, hence 'claves, maracas,' are repeated in each group; clarification added.
- "The tracks employ five guitars (flamenco, Spanish, classical, and electric guitars), a rhythm section consisting of bongos, four congas, and a rock drum set blended with other percussion instruments such as claves, maracas and castanets, three dancers performing typical "palmas" (hand-clapping) in synchronization, three trumpets, three pianos, and a "country-style" violinist" Oopsie, this needs quotation marks, or rewriting. Prefer latter. Wait... should we be concerned about copyvio or wp:close paraphrase elsewhere in the article...? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- In progress.
- @Checkingfax:. Lingzhi, No copyright concerns as the entire Flamenco Road production is licensed under Public Domain Dedication (CC0), all rights waived. I put this text in my own words, but it's way too long and clumsy. You made a good point. The source information from the CD jacket is here, lower right-hand side. I'd be happy to rewrite—I can certainly do better—or we could direct quote the original version; I feel it's a nice quote:
-
"It started with five guitars – all of them either flamenco, Spanish or classical and all natural acoustic guitars played the Spanish way, that is, with all the fingers of both hands and without a pick. The electric guitar with its steel strings was added later for contrast. For the rhythm section, bongos, four congas and a rock drum set were blended with other percs - claves, maracas, and castanets. Our dancers did typical “palmas” or hand-clapping in synchronization. Finally, trumpets, and then a “country-style” violinist…"
- Thoughts? Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 02:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done. ...addressed 'Oopsie' moment of very long sentence, now divided into 3 more compact ones here
- That picture with Elton John is really very blurry. Are we sure we want an FA to have a bad photo in it? Hmmm.@Corinne:, @Natalie.Desautels:, @Checkingfax:, hey I put in a request for image help for poor Sir Elton at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done.
- @Jerome Kohl: You gave this as an example where a logical quote is needed: Vivier states that he had: "hardly ever met a musician as committed and dedicated, of such great quality and, above all, of such great completeness and intense capacity for work". But... although the period would have gone after the word "work" in the original source, the text inside the quotation marks here is not a complete sentence. I do not know what to do in this case.. treat it as a phrase, period after quotation mark, or treat it as a case where the period goes inside..? Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- *If the quotation is a full sentence and it coincides with the end of the sentence containing it, place terminal punctuation inside the closing quotation mark. If the quotation is a single word or fragment, place the terminal punctuation outside.
- Marlin said: "I need to find Nemo."
- Marlin needed, he said, "to find Nemo".
-
-
- Since a fragment is a phrase or clause that is not a complete sentence, in your example, above, since the quoted material is not a complete sentence, it would end:
-
-
- ...of such great completeness and intense capacity for work". – Corinne (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Corinne: thanks! And yes, as far as I can tell, your explanation fits with my understanding, but the problem (from my perspective) is that the example that you and I both think should be "period outside" seems to be dealt with in Jerome Kohl's excellent comments as one that should be "period inside". I am a poor and confused little editor. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not going to argue with either Jerome Kohl or Natalie.Desautels, but if Jerome is right, then the guideline at MOS:LQ is misleading and should be changed. – Corinne (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
-
@Natalie.Desautels: Jerome and I discussed that logical quotation example on his talk page, and he agreed with me and Corinne that his example was wrong. You can undo your edit. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Checkingfax: Hi Lingzhi, ma gracieuse bonté ...get me a drink :). Ok, I just changed it back. Thanks for the clarification. Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 01:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done.
- Flamenco road's music video: I assumed the CD and video were separate beasts, but then I read the "Album Notes" section here. Seems some info on that website is missing from our article?
-
- Done. ...clarified enhanced CD with two videos
- I don't think he was "discovered" by Pell (mentioned twice). he was performing concerts before that...
-
- Done. ...second occurrence of 'discovered' deleted. ...clarified Senator Claiborne Pell's role as impresario/representative.
- What song required 24 tracks? Did all 10 songs require 24 tracks? Did we mention that there are 10 songs in all?
-
- Done. ...clarified which work comprises 24 tracks, and 10 works on CD
Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hi, Lingzhi. Things are further along per your comments and others. Care to comment or !vote? Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
08:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Lingzhi. Things are further along per your comments and others. Care to comment or !vote? Cheers!
- "that would later make him a national hero in Spain" citation needed.
- How can it be "arguably the first time a guitarist other than de Lucía himself would record these works"? Do we not know who has recorded them? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- "arguably the only version for guitar to include all of the notes of the original piano composition" Ditto. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Nikkimaria
Media review
- "Media" section is messy in terms of formatting. Why include the large icons? Why not a single column or row?
- File:Michael Laucke With His Great Friend Paco De Lucia.jpg: what is the copyright status of the signature?
- For music samples (whether audio or video), we need to account for the copyright status of both the music and the performance (and, where relevant, the arrangement). This means that several files are lacking complete licensing.
- File:Laucke during the CBC Documentary on the Great Wall Of China.jpg: if this is from a CBC documentary, how is it possible that Laucke is the copyright holder? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hi, Nikkimaria. Natalie.Desautels has been around the block a few times with the copyright issues so I will let her take on those answers.
-
- The Media section is messy looking. Can you please fix it? A single row may not render well on small screens or on mobile devices. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
23:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC) - Hi, Nikkimaria. Please take a look at the Media section now and ping me back. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
23:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)- Hi Checkingfax - it's certainly better, but is there a reason we need those type icons? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Nikkimaria. As far as I know the speaker icon is a system default. The camcorder ones are added for visual harmony and to be an icon to show that it is a video vs. a song or an image. The "play" triangle is hard to spot on videos as it is not a high contrast. Please advise. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
02:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Nikkimaria. As far as I know the speaker icon is a system default. The camcorder ones are added for visual harmony and to be an icon to show that it is a video vs. a song or an image. The "play" triangle is hard to spot on videos as it is not a high contrast. Please advise. Cheers!
- Hi Checkingfax - it's certainly better, but is there a reason we need those type icons? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- The Media section is messy looking. Can you please fix it? A single row may not render well on small screens or on mobile devices. Cheers!
-
-
-
-
- @Checkingfax:. Hello Nikkimaria, Many thanks for your interest and helping us make this article the best it can be; much appreciated. I did lots of translation work for SOCAN, our Canadian copyright organization, so I do understand copyright concerns; yes, we have to account for music, performance and arrangement copyright permission status.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- For the audio and video files, please see one example here . They have all the same permissions: Public Domain Dedication (CC0), with an all rights waived license, and, importantly, Commons has an OTRS attached to all files signed by Laucke. He has 100% ownership and is, verifiably, at times composer and always arranger, performer and producer of these works. As it says, 'Producer' which means that he paid for the production, he owns the work and has made this sample available for free, pending correct attribution. ...solid authorization. It's not surprising since Laucke is quite the businessman according to this mainstream article. ...things are ok to me in the copyright area. Kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 10:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Natalie. I did look at the media description pages and the URLs linked from them, but I still have some questions about copyright here.
- File:Michael_Laucke_With_His_Great_Friend_Paco_De_Lucia.jpg: yes, I see that the photo was taken by an employee or hired photographer. However, it was signed in Canada, under Canadian law signatures are typically eligible for copyright protection, and Paco De Lucia is neither an employee nor a hired photographer. Has he agreed to the licensing?
- For the audio/video files, where Laucke is the composer and arranger of course he can license the work as he pleases. But for several of the samples in the article, he is the performer but not the original composer of the works. For example, File:Satie_Gymnopedie_No_1_performed_by_Michael_Laucke.flac was originally composed by Satie. For such works, we need to know the copyright status of the original music as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Nikkimaria (with cc to Natalie.Desautels). Satie died in 1925 which was 91 years ago, if that is any help here. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
11:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Nikkimaria (with cc to Natalie.Desautels). Satie died in 1925 which was 91 years ago, if that is any help here. Cheers!
- For the audio and video files, please see one example here . They have all the same permissions: Public Domain Dedication (CC0), with an all rights waived license, and, importantly, Commons has an OTRS attached to all files signed by Laucke. He has 100% ownership and is, verifiably, at times composer and always arranger, performer and producer of these works. As it says, 'Producer' which means that he paid for the production, he owns the work and has made this sample available for free, pending correct attribution. ...solid authorization. It's not surprising since Laucke is quite the businessman according to this mainstream article. ...things are ok to me in the copyright area. Kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 10:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Hi Nikkimaria (cc to Checkingfax), Regarding copyright status of original music of works by Eric Satie (died 1925), Isaac Albéniz (died 1909) and J.S. Bach (died 1750), all are in the public domain as copyright expired 70 years after their death; see List of countries' copyright lengths. (N.B. ...just some background... Public domain means that anyone can perform these works without paying royalties, but a work by a living composer can also be performed by anyone as long as royalties are paid.) All works are samples taken from Laucke's production, the Flamenco Road CD; the inside cover credits as well as the back cover show copyright secured (copyright symbol © on bottom) by © SOCAN and © Intermede for Laucke's performances of all works. Record companies have to secure copyright before distributing albums commercially; this has been done here or the album could not be released. Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 12:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia follows US law, which per that list applies life+70 only to works published after 1978 - the original works in question here were published before that, even though the derivatives were published later. Wikimedia Commons also requires that files hosted there are in the public domain in their country of origin. In both cases the files will need licensing tags explaining their status. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- De Lucia signature: a signature only needs copyright status if it is a trademark. In this case, de Lucia autographed a photo for Laucke and this is considered a celebrity autograph. Once an item such as a photo, poster, etc, is autographed, the person who signs it is deemed to have given consent for it to be used freely and this right is automatically assigned to the recipient (Laucke), who has every legal right to even sell the signed item. The photo, taken by Laucke's photographer, is owned by Laucke as is the autograph. kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 12:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- That isn't true - any signature, whether a trademark or not, is copyrightable in most common-law jurisdictions. See commons:COM:SIG. You would need to check whether Canada is an exception to that. While Laucke may own the physical copy of the signature, he won't hold the copyright unless there was some kind of arrangement to that effect. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Nikkimaria (with cc to Natalie.Desautels). I read commons:COM:SIG several times and my takeaway is that in this case the signature is only copyrightable if it is deemed to be a work of art.
- That isn't true - any signature, whether a trademark or not, is copyrightable in most common-law jurisdictions. See commons:COM:SIG. You would need to check whether Canada is an exception to that. While Laucke may own the physical copy of the signature, he won't hold the copyright unless there was some kind of arrangement to that effect. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Nikkimaria (cc to Checkingfax), Regarding copyright status of original music of works by Eric Satie (died 1925), Isaac Albéniz (died 1909) and J.S. Bach (died 1750), all are in the public domain as copyright expired 70 years after their death; see List of countries' copyright lengths. (N.B. ...just some background... Public domain means that anyone can perform these works without paying royalties, but a work by a living composer can also be performed by anyone as long as royalties are paid.) All works are samples taken from Laucke's production, the Flamenco Road CD; the inside cover credits as well as the back cover show copyright secured (copyright symbol © on bottom) by © SOCAN and © Intermede for Laucke's performances of all works. Record companies have to secure copyright before distributing albums commercially; this has been done here or the album could not be released. Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 12:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
22:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Cheers!
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@Checkingfax:. Hello Nikkimaria , Thank you very much for your further help. As per your kind advice, I will do research to find the licensing tags you mentioned, explaining each work's status, over the weekend. I am busy off-wiki at the moment but I shall take the pleasure to get back with my findings within the next few days or sooner. PS. The list I sent you, to wit: List of countries' copyright lengths, may not be that useful after all; a closer look shows that it talks a lot about 'publications', not that much about music. kind regards, Natalie
Public domain issues for works by Satie, ALbeniz and JS Bach
@Checkingfax and GrammarFascist:. Hello Nikkimaria, Following your kind advice, I found some licensing tags explaining the status of each audio and video work we were discussing, as well as some relevant links, to wit:
- Public Domain tags found on Discussion pages (not on main page) for Satie Gymnopedies 1 , 2 and 3, Albeniz and JS Bach. Meanwhile, here are
- Complete list of transcriptions, arrangements and original works by Michael Laucke. All works are registered with the Canadian copyright organization SOCAN. and there is a pdf link to the full SOCAN catalog here. All works under discussion appear in this pdf from SOCAN, as registered by them. N.B. The status is in French: DP means 'domaine public'.
- Ruling on Unpublished works in the USA is 'Life of the author + 70 years' for works from authors who died before 1946. 'Unpublished' means the work was registered in another country, Canada in this case.
- In same document, we find 'Works First Published Outside the U.S., Before 1923'. The copyright Term in the United States is deemed 'In the public domain'. (Peter B. Hirtle's Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States)
- Rule of the shorter term does not apply as per 'In any case, the term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed' according to the Berne Convention, article 7(8). That would be Canada in this case.
- Regarding the signature issue, same tag is found for the signature we were discussing hereand also an OTRS tag on main page.
Once again, I very much appreciate your time in helping us advance. Kindly let me know your thoughts, if you feel all is now in order and what else I might do to be of further help. Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 23:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- The case of Satie is a bit more complicated. Take a look at WP:NUSC - it is quite likely that the wartime extensions apply.
- The Albeniz term would actually have been 80 years, which still means it's PD but this should be clarified on the image description page
- What about the music in File:Between_Two_Seas_("Entre_dos_Aguas")_by_Paco_de_Lucía,_arranged_and_played_by_Laucke.flac, File:Legend_(Leyenda)_performed_by_Michael_Laucke.flac, File:Pour_Guitare_by_Claude_Vivier---written_for_and_dedicated_to_Michael_Laucke.flac, and File:Me_duele_Espana_by_Francois_Morel.flac?
- I don't have OTRS access - do you know what was submitted? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Checkingfax:. Hello Nikkimaria. It will be my pleasure to attend to this toward the end of this week. It is extremely busy as I have been once again engaged as one of many interpreters (eng, fr., es, de) for 2016 International Olympic Games in Rio this summer with talks taking place here in Montreal until Thursday. But I'll be back in the WP saddle right afterwards and I'll chime in by smartphone ...just a thumbs up. Many thanks again for your wonderful input. kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 20:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- @Checkingfax:. Hello Nikkimaria, I delighted to report that several administrators at OTRS (Open-source Ticket Request System) all agreed and have now approved every single audio, video and image file used in this article and none are missing at present. Every one of these files in Wikimedia Commons now displays, prominently and right on the file page, “This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission ...”.
- You can click on any item to see this. For example, click the very first photo, and then once in Commons scroll down to Permissions where the brave little OTRS tag and text can be found under Permission. I would be amiss not to send my sincerest thanks to you for spurring us on to perfect the overall copyright security and bring this aspect to FA worthy status. Without your help I really don't think we would have thought to put so much effort into securing such solid permissions. This is important going forward too, because it means that the article will not end up with dead links because Commons responded to a file delete request. I'm delighted to have their stamp of approval and I'm sure other contributors will be as well. We still have to attend to the many very good suggestions by Jerome Kohl below, and that will be attended to over the next few days. kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 09:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- I see that they've added OTRS tags. However, I don't see that those tags apply to the underlying compositions as well as the performances? Do we know what the OTRS message said, or could we invite an OTRS admin to comment on what it covers? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
-
OTRS tags issued on all audio, video and image media found in article
-
- Done, with copyright issues.
@Checkingfax: Hi Nikkimaria, I've started this new section as the above one seemed to be getting somewhat long and hard to navigate. Yes, on all files stamped by OTRS, the copyright overseers, the message says "This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission. Wikimedia has received an e-mail confirming that the copyright holder has approved publication under the terms mentioned on this page. This correspondence has been reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in our permission archive. The correspondence is available to trusted volunteers as ticket # [different ticket number depending on item]." ...example. My understanding is that this applies to the compositions as well as the performance since it refers to the totality of this work. There is an email address for them; perhaps Checkingfax knows it.
I'm about ready to defer to their higher understanding of the issues. I see that many experts in copyright over at Commons have deemed all works used to be in proper standing, content and performance, so I'm quite happy about this since just as an article about a painter should have at east a few examples, so it is for musicians. And it seems WP is now protected. I imagine Commons copyright experts did their research and perhaps one of the things they discovered was that the atonal works by Vivier and Morel, not written by Laucke (which seems to be your concern) were commissioned by him, written for him, paid for by him and that of course means he owns them. Of course, I cant know what went on behind the scenes but certainly all these aspects must have been considered. At any rate, the onus falls on the person who issued the copyright, and that would be Laucke himself I suppose. That alleviates WP of any responsibility which is a good thing for us.
My experience with copyright has been in translating SOCAN's annual report for 3 decades as well as their monthly newsletter. Translation means that you really have to understand the original intent before rendering into a different idiom, but I admittedly don't live copyright law. In this case, I am happy to defer to the experts in Commons. My understanding is that even when a work is written by someone else, that does not mean they own the work; it depends. For example, I could commission a work from Paul McCartney and if I pay him to write it for me, I own it. So Laucke can play Claude Vivier and still own the work. Then again, there's copyright and royalty distribution and it can be broader than that. Usually, anyone can play material copyrighted by anyone else; if you have no share of the royalties, it just means that you are not entitled to receive any money, but you can always play the work. For example, the SOCAN catalogue tells us that Laucke has 25% on the Satie arrangements he made. Laucke has the right to play Satie anywhere, and he decided to make his arrangements of Satie freely available at Commons, so as we say "chapeau" (hat's off :)) There would be a problem if Laucke declared that he composed the original Satie work and is entitled to 100%, or other such nonsense but that’s obviously not the case and the SOCAN catalog is clear on percent of ownership. I have only seen one exception, ever; that was a work by singer Sting where felt that only he should sing a certain song, for a while anyway. It makes perfect sense really; either let other artists perpetuate your art or let your work fade into oblivion in many cases.
If I may offer another example: One could record an instrumental album for classical guitar of Beatles' song arrangements; the musician would not get royalties, but he would probably sell albums ...happens every day but no copyright restrictions prevents him from playing his Beatles arrangements. So I feel comfortable with the present situation and see no risk, and no danger, further comforted by the fact that several experts in copyright at Wikimedia have assigned due authorization. There is a slight caveat though, since each file has a condition in the description that must be respected, and, indeed the article does respect these demands. ("If you use this photo, you must use the correct attribution"). Your thoughts, time, comments and help—to make this article as good as it can be—are much appreciated and valuable to me. Kindly tell me which compositions you may still be concerned about, if any, and I will follow up as always. kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 23:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hopefully an OTRS admin can weigh in on what exactly was said. Generally speaking, it's not necessarily true that someone commissioning a work would own the copyright of that work - it may be a work for hire or the composer may retain copyright, depending on the nature of the agreement made. (And of course the Satie works were definitely not works for hire). It also isn't necessarily true that an absence of royalties equates to an absence of copyright protection, and it's the latter that matters for Wikipedia's purposes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Checkingfax: Hi Nikkimaria, Yes, it would be interesting if an OTRS admin could weigh in with greater detail. Be that as it may, I am happy with their decisions. To conclude our discussion, for works by Satie and Albeniz, they were published well before 1923 (Satie in 1888, Albeniz in 1892) and are therefore deemed 'In the public domain' as per Peter B. Hirtle's authoritative publication Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, as I imagine the OTRS experts realised. SOCAN, copyright's largest representative in Canada, (catalog here) also shows Laucke owns 25% of his arrangements of the 'public domain works' by Satie and ALbeniz. I concur that—one does not own a work simply because one commissioned it, depending on the agreement made, as you stated, and that no general rules apply to something as complicated as copyright law. Still, even if Laucke did not own the copyright, I believe he could still perform them on WP or elsewhere, just like these arrangements of The Beatles for Classical Guitar. To clarify 'absence of royalties', I simply meant that a performer is free to play whatever he likes, but will not get royalties if he does not own at least part of the work. Again, my appreciation for your time, care and kind help. Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 22:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- No - if someone other than he holds a valid copyright on the underlying music, then the files cannot be hosted on Commons, and could only be hosted on English Wikipedia under a fair-use claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Nikkimaria. Yes, of course; good point. I should have included that caveat, to wit: If Laucke did not own the copyright, he could still perform them on WP or elsewhere, if no one else holds a valid copyright on the underlying music; otherwise, a Wikipedia fair-use claim would be needed. Many thanks. kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 00:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Nikkimaria. Things are further along per your comments and others. Care to comment or !vote? Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
08:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)- Hi Checkingfax, I'd still like to see confirmation from an OTRS admin of what exactly underlies those tags. I also think the life+70 tag on the Satie works may be wrong given the timeframe - have you verified that the wartime extensions did not apply to his work? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- No - if someone other than he holds a valid copyright on the underlying music, then the files cannot be hosted on Commons, and could only be hosted on English Wikipedia under a fair-use claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Checkingfax: Hi Nikkimaria, Yes, it would be interesting if an OTRS admin could weigh in with greater detail. Be that as it may, I am happy with their decisions. To conclude our discussion, for works by Satie and Albeniz, they were published well before 1923 (Satie in 1888, Albeniz in 1892) and are therefore deemed 'In the public domain' as per Peter B. Hirtle's authoritative publication Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, as I imagine the OTRS experts realised. SOCAN, copyright's largest representative in Canada, (catalog here) also shows Laucke owns 25% of his arrangements of the 'public domain works' by Satie and ALbeniz. I concur that—one does not own a work simply because one commissioned it, depending on the agreement made, as you stated, and that no general rules apply to something as complicated as copyright law. Still, even if Laucke did not own the copyright, I believe he could still perform them on WP or elsewhere, just like these arrangements of The Beatles for Classical Guitar. To clarify 'absence of royalties', I simply meant that a performer is free to play whatever he likes, but will not get royalties if he does not own at least part of the work. Again, my appreciation for your time, care and kind help. Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 22:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- @Checkingfax: Hi Nikkimaria, Thanks so much once again. I've done a bit more research into the life+70 tag on the Satie works and the wartime extensions. My findings are as follows: The first and third Gymnopédies were published in 1888 and the second Gymnopédie was published in 1895. As per Peter B. Hirtle's authoritative publication Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, works 'First Published Outside the U.S. before 1923' are deemed 'In the public domain'. Further considering wartime extensions, and that 'The normal duration of copyright is 70 years following the end of the year of publication of the work', one would add 6 years and 152 days for World War I and 8 years and 120 days for World War II. Even though The Paris Appeal Court ruled against applying the extensions in 2004, if the extensions are applied, my understanding is that Gymnopedie nos. 1 and 3 became public domain in 1972 (1888+70+6+8) and Gymnopedie no. 2 in 1979. Thanks once again for your input; ...hope this helps. Kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 07:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Where are you getting publication+70? French copyright law is that for known authors copyrights on musical works expire at life+70, plus any applicable wartime extensions. And even if the works are now PD, we still need accurate copyright tags on them. Same with the Bach piece, which currently lacks any tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Checkingfax: Hi Nikkimaria, Thanks so much once again. I've done a bit more research into the life+70 tag on the Satie works and the wartime extensions. My findings are as follows: The first and third Gymnopédies were published in 1888 and the second Gymnopédie was published in 1895. As per Peter B. Hirtle's authoritative publication Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, works 'First Published Outside the U.S. before 1923' are deemed 'In the public domain'. Further considering wartime extensions, and that 'The normal duration of copyright is 70 years following the end of the year of publication of the work', one would add 6 years and 152 days for World War I and 8 years and 120 days for World War II. Even though The Paris Appeal Court ruled against applying the extensions in 2004, if the extensions are applied, my understanding is that Gymnopedie nos. 1 and 3 became public domain in 1972 (1888+70+6+8) and Gymnopedie no. 2 in 1979. Thanks once again for your input; ...hope this helps. Kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 07:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Comments by Sainsf
Going to give a thorough read. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 02:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sainsf ...very excited about your kind visit, care and excellent suggestions, with which I mostly agree; ...should be completed within 2 days. ...always a pleasure. kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 11:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- General
- As we discussed in the GA review, the tone of the article does not sound too positive anymore, but I feel the lack of counter-views. Has Laucke been criticised or been involved in any controversy? It would be amazing if he has not been, as almost every biography I come across here does discuss some criticism or controversy.
- Check that the article is completely in either American/British English.
-
- Done. Article now conforms entirely to Canadian English.
- "Highlights and awards" looks more like, and could be renamed as, "Timeline".
-
- Done.
- Lead
- The lead does not seem to cover the aspects of Laucke's life before de Lucia's entry. I would recommend adding a few lines covering the sections before "Styles and influences" to the first para of lead.
-
- Done. ...added a few lines, hopefully not too many. Have a look?
- I think you should follow a chronological order in the lead. As such, the line he began performing in 1965, recording the first of 16 albums in 1969 (early life) appears misplaced.
-
- Done; better chronological order
- I think the third para may be praising Laucke a bit too much. Could be trimmed.
-
- suggestion for trim?
- As the lead should mention only the most important facts, I would suggest trimming it to "Laucke has studied with several classical guitar players, including Julian Bream, Alirio Díaz, and Rolando Valdés-Blain. With his more than 100 transcriptions of classical and flamenco music, Laucke is credited with having broadened the guitar repertoire. Several notable Canadian composers have written atonal works for him. SOCAN's The Music Scene magazine considered Laucke to be one of "five of Canada's best-known soloists". He has received many awards and honours throughout his career, including the Grand Prix du Disque for Best Canadian Recording." I am worried this para appears to praise him a bit too much, but if you honestly can not find any controversy involving him to present counter-views, we must have to make do with this. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Trimmed lead; good compromise I think.
- As the lead should mention only the most important facts, I would suggest trimming it to "Laucke has studied with several classical guitar players, including Julian Bream, Alirio Díaz, and Rolando Valdés-Blain. With his more than 100 transcriptions of classical and flamenco music, Laucke is credited with having broadened the guitar repertoire. Several notable Canadian composers have written atonal works for him. SOCAN's The Music Scene magazine considered Laucke to be one of "five of Canada's best-known soloists". He has received many awards and honours throughout his career, including the Grand Prix du Disque for Best Canadian Recording." I am worried this para appears to praise him a bit too much, but if you honestly can not find any controversy involving him to present counter-views, we must have to make do with this. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 18:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- suggestion for trim?
- Early life
- I think Laucke's brother and any other siblings should be mentioned in the first para, as a general introduction to his family.
-
- Done.
- Early career
- Laucke studied with several classical guitar masters Their names should be linked here, as they are in the lead.
-
- Done.
- Laucke was introduced to flamenco by Spanish guitarist Paco de Lucía Wikilink Paco de Lucia, it is his first mention in the main article
-
- Done.
- Music critics took note A pretty short line, can be combined with the earlier one.
-
- Done; made into one sentence.
- The device measured eight by four inches Can use convert template
-
- Done.
- Consistently say "de Lucía" throughout the article.
-
- Done.
- Teaching
- from his teachers Andrés Segovia, Julian Bream, Alirio Díaz, and Valdès-Blain Looks a bit like repetition to me. Just "his teachers" could do, as you discuss them in the previous section.
-
- All removed.
- Styles and influences
- He was given, by the Canadian federal and provincial governments When?
-
- Done; reference now indicates date as to 'when', quote and url
- and is one of "five of Canada's best-known soloists" "is" looks vague, as of when is his in the top five? Is he still there?
-
- Done; reference now indicates date as to 'when', and url.
- Wikilink percussion instruments, acoustics
-
- Done.
- Paco de Lucia
- He was asked by his mentor, Valdès-Blain "mentor"should be apparent by now, you have mentioned often that he was one of his teachers
-
- Removed.
- I think this subsection does not belong to this section, it should rather go to "Early career", where you discuss de Lucia first. The part from Laucke was frequently hired to play at the launches... until the "Teaching" section can be made into another subsection, so that we have three subheadings under "Early career".
-
- It is a bit of a restructuring in this section, but I have conceived how to implement this, ...tomorrow; your outline is good. The three subheadings under "Early career" will be called "Teaching", "Paco de Lucía" and I am trying to find an appropriate name for the third ...perhaps "New York", or "Early accomplishments"?
- Done.
- "the closest thing to the 18th century intellectual and artistic salon to be found anywhere these days" This quote does not look very relevant here
-
- Deleted.
- Contributions to the guitar repertoire
- Wikilink "atonal"
-
- Done. Atonal is wikilinked in the lead, and in the Early career section.
That should be it. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 03:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Sainsf (with cc to Natalie.Desautels and Corinne). All points raised to date by you have been addressed. Thank you so much. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
16:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)- The changes fix the issues I found, thanks for your cooperation. However, as I am new to music articles, I would feel more confident to support once someone more acquainted with this field posts a review. Will wait till then. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Sainsf. Things are further along per your comments and others. Care to comment or !vote? Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
08:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Sainsf. Things are further along per your comments and others. Care to comment or !vote? Cheers!
- The changes fix the issues I found, thanks for your cooperation. However, as I am new to music articles, I would feel more confident to support once someone more acquainted with this field posts a review. Will wait till then. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Jerome Kohl
This is probably going to seem rather petty, but I notice some inconsistency in punctuation usage throughout the article. In particular:
- Serial commas, or not? Although there are more instances with serial commas, there are also a substantial number of cases where it is omitted. For example, under Flamenco Road album, there are two examples in a row: "(claves, maracas, special castanets mounted on wood blocks, chimes and a large gong), bass and flute", and in the second paragraph of the same section, two more: " claves, maracas and castanets" and "three trumpets, three pianos and a 'country-style' violinist", alongside two counter-examples using the serial comma: "five guitars (flamenco, Spanish, classical, and electric guitars)" and "a rhythm section consisting of bongos, four congas, and a rock drum set". Naturally, this criticism does not apply to direct quotations from sources (or to institutional names) not employing the serial comma,.
-
- Done.
- Logical quotations. I see many article on Wikipedia that assume logical quotation means always putting a closing comma or period after the quotation mark, but this is not the case, and this style seems to be well-implemented here, but there are some cases that may be mistakes. The difficulty with this style of punctuation (preferred on Wikipedia) is knowing when a closing punctuation mark is part of the quoted material or not. For example, the section Original works ends with a quotation from Claude Vivier (translated from the French) that ends in a complete sentence, so the period at the end belongs inside the quotation mark. (The reference note here has a typo in it, by the way: "Canadian compser Claude Vivier", and this title does not appear to be exact, since the title in the URL begins with the word "Renowned" and continues "for Michael Laucke". The next section, "World tours", contains apparently conflicting examples. In the first paragraph, one newspaper quotation (from Soleil) ends with the period before the closing quotation mark, but this is immediately followed by another with the period after the quotation mark. This might be correct, if the second example (from Guitarra magazine) is actually an incomplete quotation, but it has the appearance of a complete sentence, just like the first one. The second paragraph also has two quotations from the Washington Post, both of which appear to be complete sentences, but the first has the period after the quotation mark, and the second one before it.
-
- Done.
- I share the concern of other commentators about the over-intensive use of citations. One thing that would help a little is if clusters of citations could be combined into single footnotes. The additional use of content notes aggravates the problem. I have always felt in such cases that, if the material in the note is worth retaining, then it should be incorporated into the main text. Banishing it to a footnote not only makes it appear unworthy of notice; it is also distracting for the reader.
-
- Done. Maximum number of sequential citations is presently two, mostly at the end of sentences or paragraphs. Several citations, mostly critique quotes and such, were moved to footnotes in order to keep better focus, improve flow and be less disruptive. Using these footnotes is more in keeping with the general thrust of the article. Instead of deleting slightly divergent information which the reader may still find relevant, it is relegated to a footnote instead of in the body where it felt slightly intrusive.
- The footnotes need to be gone through with a fine-tooth comb to make the formatting consistent. I notice that an assortment of templates have been employed, which need to be handled with care. These all contain two sets of parameters, the "author=" parameter, and the "last="/"first=" pair. It is common on Wikipedia (though not, in my experience, in the publishing world at large) to confuse the intended use of these parameters. The former (in which the author's name is given in normal order) is intended for footnotes, while the latter, which inverts the name, is for alphabetised lists. There are several citations here using the correct name order for footnotes ("Nancy Louden", "Hazelle Palmer; Nancy Louden", "Alfred Fisher", "Nancy McGregor", "Eric McLean"), but many more using inverted name order (e.g., "Urquhart, Carl", "Plant, John", "Deschênes, Bruno"). While I personally deplore the latter practice in footnotes, the important thing is that a consistent style be adopted. The placement of bracketed year of publication (and, worse, day-moth-year of publication) immediately after the author's name is also a layout feature for alphabetical bibliographies (and the day-year matter belongs wityh the issue number, not in the brackets after the author's name), but objecting to this is futile, since there is no option offered by the templates, as far as I am aware.
-
- Done.
On the whole, I find this not only an informative but also entertaining article (the bit about yo-yo championships is particularly endearing), though despite recent toning-down it does still occasionally veer into an overly promotional tone (too many laudatory newspaper reviews, for example). I think this aspect should be given serious reconsideration, though I have no opinion on what should be cut and what should be allowed to remain. I hope these rather finicky comments will prove useful, and result in an improved, Feature-worthy article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Jerome Kohl. Things are further along per your comments and others. Care to comment or !vote? Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
08:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)- Things have definitely gotten better, but I think a vote is premature. Punctuation is still rather scrappy. For example, in the section Paco de Lucía, the second and fourth sentences each contained a superfluous comma: "He was asked by Valdès-Blain, if he would mind sharing ..." and "In the Quebec, French-language newspaper Le Soleil, ...". I have removed these already, as they seemed uncontroversial edits, but the entire article should be gone through with a fine-tooth comb to discover if there are others like them.
- The main thing that still bothers me, however, is the superfluity of reference numbers, and the mish-mash of content and reference notes. Are 140 citations really necessary for this article? There are quite a few cases where a single verifying citation ought to be sufficient, and yet there are two in a row. For example, the section "Style and influences" has three such cases (notes 37/38, 39/40, and 5/43). This problem is compounded by the fact that each of the first four contain extended commentaries or quotations (at least some of which properly belongs in content notes, since they are being used separately in this article anyway). This already extravagant situation is compounded by having citation notes embedded in many of the content notes—most notably the tenth and last content note, which contains no fewer than eight footnotes. The confusion is increased further by having a cluster of content notes (3, 4, 5, and 6) all linked from the same number in the text, so that the following content-note numbers do not correspond to the numerals found in the text. At least one of these (content-note 7) fails to link back to its place in the text, making it impossible to tell what it is meant to be commenting on. Another example occurs in the section "World tours", where the first sentence ends "on the Great Wall of China", followed by two footnote numbers, 76 and 8. The first note seems relevant ("China Minister of Culture letter"), but clicking on the second appears to link to the footnote with "Building Is His Hobby", about seven-year-old Michael's toothpick-boat project! It takes some detective work to discover that this "note 8" actually links to content-note 10, "Other countries where Laucke performed include ...". One makeshift solution would be to cause the content notes to be identified with letters instead of numbers but, in my opinion, the content notes should be eliminated altogether, by incorporating the information into the main text where it is useful, and simply omitting any that are not. The excessive annotation gives a defensive appearance to the article. It should not be necessary to annotate separate words in the same sentence, as in the third sentence of the Transcriptions section, or the egregious content-note 10 (alias 8). It is usual to collect all the supporting citations at the end of a sentence, and WP:CITEBUNDLE should also be considered here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Checkingfax and Jerome Kohl: I am eager to attend to these interesting and generally excellent recommendations over the next few days. Although the LDR (list-defined references) technology used is incompatible with bundling, I have quite a few ideas on how to clear up the navigation, content and reference notes issues; and many of the above ideas will be helpful in this regard. Indeed, a single verifying citation may very well be sufficient in most cases. Jerome Kohl's reasoning seems very sound to me; considering this broad overview, it is perhaps time to reduce citations which exist simply because editors insisted on them and reduce their abundance. Merci Jérôme; j'apprécie beaucoup votre contribution et votre temps. Je veillerai à ce que la mise en œuvre de vos commentaires soit fructueuse. Cordialement, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 08:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Michael Bednarek
Why is this biographical article categorised in Category:Atonal compositions? I also queried the purpose of Category:Gymnopédies at Category talk:Gymnopédies; depending on a response there, that category may have to be removed here. Related: repeating this article's categories at Michael Laucke discography and filmography is wrong; that article should be in some subcategories of Category:Discographies and in Category:Filmographies. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Michael Bednarek (with cc to Natalie.Desautels). The Michael Laucke article is more than a biography. In fact it originally was all about the music and little about the person. Furthermore, this article contains multimedia: images, a signature, audio, and video, including atonal works and the Gymnopédies. The discography/filmography article is new and still being refined. Thank you for your observations. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
03:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Checkingfax: Hello Michael Bednarek Thank you so much for your interesting input, and also for your posting at Category talk:Gymnopédies. I am most interested to learn of the results there and have 'watched' that page. Regarding the related discography article, you are correct of course in that it does need some refining when it comes to categories. Thank your for spurring me on in this area; I now intend to put more time on this task. Expanding on Checkingfax's comments, at its inception the Michael Laucke article seemed to be almost exclusively about atonal music, one of my main interests/passions. Besides the 25 atonal works written for, dedicated to and performed by Laucke, some in Carnegie Hall, there's also the fact that most of these 25 composers are wikilinked in the article, so a rich tapestry emerges here around atonal music. Laucke is also one of 3 guitarists in the world to have performed what has been called, arguably, the world's most difficult atonal composition, Boulez's 'le Marteau sans Maitre' (The Hammer without a Master). ...a 21 minute atonal work won the guitarist a Grand Prix du disque, and so on. So there are just so many connections to atonal music that we think the atonal music category should remain. Again, your time, comments and help—to make this article as good as it can be—are much appreciated and valuable to me. kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 22:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- I still disagree with this article's categorisation as Category:Atonal compositions. Donizetti wrote more than 70 operas, but his article is not categorised as Category:Operas. Many composers have written works for Siegfried Palm, but his article is not categorised as Category:20th-century classical music. Lastly, Laucke's name (& his discography) are oddly the only non-compositions among the members of Category:Atonal compositions. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ditto. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done.
- @Checkingfax and Lingzhi: Hello Michael Bednarek, You are correct. Seen from a broader perspective, you have deftly made a very valid point. "Laucke' is not an atonal composition just as "Donizetti" is not an opera himself. If there is ever a category called "Performers who play atonal works", than that might fit the bill. Until then, I have deleted Category:Atonal compositions since its links should be to atonal compositions. ...even godfather Arnold Schoenberg doesn't display this category. So it is gone, withered away like the proverbial tide over the sandcastles until we say "What was it, where did it go"
. Many thanks, kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 21:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Michael Bednarek. Things are further along per your comments and others. Care to comment or !vote? Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
08:45, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Ditto. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- I still disagree with this article's categorisation as Category:Atonal compositions. Donizetti wrote more than 70 operas, but his article is not categorised as Category:Operas. Many composers have written works for Siegfried Palm, but his article is not categorised as Category:20th-century classical music. Lastly, Laucke's name (& his discography) are oddly the only non-compositions among the members of Category:Atonal compositions. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Checkingfax: Hello Michael Bednarek Thank you so much for your interesting input, and also for your posting at Category talk:Gymnopédies. I am most interested to learn of the results there and have 'watched' that page. Regarding the related discography article, you are correct of course in that it does need some refining when it comes to categories. Thank your for spurring me on in this area; I now intend to put more time on this task. Expanding on Checkingfax's comments, at its inception the Michael Laucke article seemed to be almost exclusively about atonal music, one of my main interests/passions. Besides the 25 atonal works written for, dedicated to and performed by Laucke, some in Carnegie Hall, there's also the fact that most of these 25 composers are wikilinked in the article, so a rich tapestry emerges here around atonal music. Laucke is also one of 3 guitarists in the world to have performed what has been called, arguably, the world's most difficult atonal composition, Boulez's 'le Marteau sans Maitre' (The Hammer without a Master). ...a 21 minute atonal work won the guitarist a Grand Prix du disque, and so on. So there are just so many connections to atonal music that we think the atonal music category should remain. Again, your time, comments and help—to make this article as good as it can be—are much appreciated and valuable to me. kind regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 22:01, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Pdebee
As you requested, I have gone through the whole article, including the 'Notes' section, in order to check all punctuation. There are three comments I would make:
1. Serial commas - I decided to re-instate serial commas, because of this specific case, where I felt we really needed the serial comma, otherwise the adjectives 'classical' and 'electric' would have seemed to qualify the preceding 'Spanish', which made no sense. Yes, I am aware that the enumeration makes it clear that we are talking about four types of guitars (I added 'types' in the prose to strengthen the point even more) and so, logically, we shouldn't need the serial comma. However, I added it because there were already some serial commas upstream in the article and, therefore, I decided to apply serial commas consistently and throughout the article. Having said all this, I just hope I have really been consistent, as I was also needed away from the Wiki today. In any case: you are the creatrix of this article and I will let you decide whether you want them or not; if not, then I will go through another pass of removing all serial commas. It makes no difference to me, so please don't hesitate to indicate your preference and it will be done with grace.
2. Other edits - As you have already noticed, I have done a bit more than check punctuation. In fact, it is this simple task of checking punctuation which has made me re-read the prose with greater scrutiny than ever before () and, as a result, I found several opportunities to re-word it in a way that I thought might improve the reader's experience. If there is anything you dislike in these changes, then please don't be bashful (
) and tell me exactly what you want changed. Better still, feel free to revert or "re-improve" (there should be such a verb...) any of my changes; I promise I won't mind...
3. Possible regressions in the prose - If I have done anything wrong, then please forgive me and simply go ahead and revert/change anything you don't like.
Finally, I didn't add any supporting comments in the article's talk page, but please feel free to crib any of the above, to add it as a summary to some other talk/project page if you deem it appropriate or necessary.
Enjoy the final stretch and, as ever, I send you my very best wishes of success with the heady heights of your current drive towards FA. (Wow, just writing this last sentence makes me feel so high I am having a 'mental nosebleed'... ).
With kindest regards, as ever;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 17:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Checkingfax: Hello Pdebee. Thank you so much; ...much appreciated. I have taken the pleasure to carefully study each and every one of your fine edits and found them all tastefully and deftly done indeed! Serial commas are now consistently implemented throughout, in fact, very consistently
, and no further adjustment is required. The re-wording was excellent and I only reverted the SOCAN/Montreal Gazette sentences to point to the correct references. Finally, as you can see, I transcluded your comments to this Featured article candidates comments page. It remains for me to send my gratitude for your astute, meticulous, and skillful editing, 'et d'avoir passé le peigne fin'. If I can further be of help with your Québécois/French translations, or with other languages for that matter, you know where to find me
. Toutes mes salutations les plus amicales et mes vœux les plus aimables, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 07:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Lingzhi, Pdebee, and Checkingfax: In the interest of continuing this thread and at the same time respecting the conciseness of this FA revew page, I have copied Pdebee's kind response onto his talk page here. His comments were immensely helpful and his acknowledgement deeply appreciated. I believe I may be responsible for the mix-up since I simply copied the text without implementing the transclusion code. ...too much haste I guess... 'you have to run twice as fast to stay in the same place
'. kindest regards, Natalie Desautels …as within, so without 14:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Lingzhi, Pdebee, and Checkingfax: In the interest of continuing this thread and at the same time respecting the conciseness of this FA revew page, I have copied Pdebee's kind response onto his talk page here. His comments were immensely helpful and his acknowledgement deeply appreciated. I believe I may be responsible for the mix-up since I simply copied the text without implementing the transclusion code. ...too much haste I guess... 'you have to run twice as fast to stay in the same place
Emily Ratajkowski
- Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is about American model and actress Emily Ratajkowski. This is my final attempt to get this promoted in time for consideration at WP:TFA on her 25th birthday (June 7). Currently TFA is scheduled out to May 25. FAC4 was closed with a comment ending "I would expect to see deep work done to address concerns about sourcing and prose outlined by Ealdgyth, SlimVirgin, TrueHeartSusie3, and others [In FAC3 and FAC4]." I have been editing the article furiously in the last 2 weeks. It now stands at 18965 characters of readable prose. For comparison notice how much content has been changed/removed since the following milestones:
- 22080 character 21:26, 26 April 2016 version when FAC4 ended
- 23556 character 06:41, 26 April 2016 version last comment at FAC4
- 23805 character 23:42, 24 April 2016 version when I started actively chopping down the article
- 24671 character 12:11, 20 April 2016 version when I responded to TrueHeartSusie3 comment on the article's length on April 20 in FAC4,
- 24541 character 04:13, 18 April 2016 version when I started FAC4,
- 25889 character 13:02, 9 April 2016 version when FAC3 ended.
I am especially hopeful that my revisions are satisfactory since both Drmies and Linguist111 have given unsolicited thanks (e.g., here) for my edits to the page in the last week, which I hope is a sign that my recent edits have substantially changed the page in a good way.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note that Drmies had derided the article length when it stood at 25997 characters just three weeks before thanking me for my edits.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Notifying
-
- WP:GOCE1 reviewer User:Baffle gab1978
- Talk:Emily Ratajkowski/GA1 reviewer User:Cirt
- Wikipedia:Peer review/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1 discussants User:Cirt, User:SNUGGUMS, User:Kiyoweap, User:Sigeng
- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive1 discussant User:Cirt, User:MaranoFan and User:Karanacs
- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive2 discussant User:Bollyjeff, User:SandyGeorgia, User:Masem, User:Nikkimaria, and User:Elcobbola
- Wikipedia:Peer review/Emily Ratajkowski/archive2 discussants User:White Arabian Filly--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- The page's most active editors: Tinton5, Baffle gab1978, General Ization, All Hallow's Wraith, Nightscream, Chaheel Riens, American In Brazil, Cliftonian, Thewildone85, SNUGGUMS, Guat6, N0n3up, and Mbinebri
- WP:GOCE2 reviewer User:Twofingered Typist
- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3 discussants: GRuban, Cirt, SlimVirgin, General Ization, White Arabian Filly, Nightscream, Figureskatingfan, Chaheel Riens, Ealdgyth
- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4 discussants: Cirt, TrueHeartSusie3, GRuban, The ed17, Chaheel Riens, Twofingered Typist
--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note to FAC coordinators (Ian Rose and Laser brain): The article currently has an open GOCE. In FAC4, Laser commented that "an article with an open GOCE request strikes me as admittedly unprepared". In this case, the open GOCE was made during FAC4. Given all the changes I have made to the article since then (noted above), I don't think the open GOCE is an admission of unpreparedness. It remains open only because 1.) it is at the top of the GOCE queue and likely to be addressed promptly, 2.) I don't think a GOCE would hurt the nomination, and 3.) This is now a time-sensitive nomination. If either of you thinks I should close the GOCE in order to go forward, I am willing to do so. Also, I am willing to suspend the nomination (hopefully for no more than 48 hours) if a GOCE is considered disruptive to the nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Drmies
- I will just say that I think Tony has done a good job cutting this down. I think more needs to be cut. A 91k article on a minor, minor figure, with minor parts in maybe two notable movies and a few TV things, with 205 references from mostly the entertainment press, and six full paragraphs on her "activism and advocacy" which, while verified, is minor in the grand scheme of things, I just don't think that this is the kind of thing we ought to be doing. Yes, the stuff is verified, and well-organized--but it's stuff, just stuff. I don't want to start a fight but FA criteria 4... BTW, yes, I thanked Tony for an edit that pruned the article some, and I will gladly continue to do so. Drmies (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- this edit was the one you thanked me for. It took the article to 19447 characters of readable prose. I have not often seen people discuss the wikitext size of articles at FAC. I think it is the readable prose count that matters. Yes she is a low-importance actress. The question is not whether her acting career has been impressive. Note that no one known primarily as a model has achieved FA for some reason. Should we really discount entertainment press sources so much that a model cannot achieve FA?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I do my thing, you do yours. She is a low-importance actress, and devoting this much space to a low-importance actress, with low-level sources (not a single book, I don't think), and then putting it in the FA window for the Wikipedia shoppers, sorry, I have a hard time with that. I've made similar comments before on GA reviews and, I guess, all over the place, not just in K-pop articles. I made a suggestion or two. She [well, the article] can get to FA status without 205 references and with less text and less table porn. I think it's high time that we take item 4 seriously--not just here, but also, and perhaps especially, in GA reviews. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- At GA, there seems to be no relation between importance and the viability of a nomination. Thus, articles of all levels of importance seem to be viewed as deserving of the same level of detail. However, here everyone wants to say that this subject is low-importance and thus less worthy of consideration for FA and less worthy of editorial attention. I.e., since she is not an award-winning actress, she should not be detailed on WP. At GA, there is no such relationship. Here it seems that WP:WIAFA 4 is used to say that an article is being detailed more than a higher importance article that would be more deserving of that level of detail. There is a clear disconnect between the interpretation of WP:WIAGA and WP:WIAFA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- P.S. I believe I had addressed all the source review issues prior to closing FAC3, but the reviewer had not evaluated my responses.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I do my thing, you do yours. She is a low-importance actress, and devoting this much space to a low-importance actress, with low-level sources (not a single book, I don't think), and then putting it in the FA window for the Wikipedia shoppers, sorry, I have a hard time with that. I've made similar comments before on GA reviews and, I guess, all over the place, not just in K-pop articles. I made a suggestion or two. She [well, the article] can get to FA status without 205 references and with less text and less table porn. I think it's high time that we take item 4 seriously--not just here, but also, and perhaps especially, in GA reviews. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- this edit was the one you thanked me for. It took the article to 19447 characters of readable prose. I have not often seen people discuss the wikitext size of articles at FAC. I think it is the readable prose count that matters. Yes she is a low-importance actress. The question is not whether her acting career has been impressive. Note that no one known primarily as a model has achieved FA for some reason. Should we really discount entertainment press sources so much that a model cannot achieve FA?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Drmies, one of your reservations was "six full paragraphs on her 'activism and advocacy'". I have been looking at the other actress FACs and have reorganized this content. I was wondering what you think now.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- I should be clear. I was comparing the organization to the articles of Emma Stone, Freida Pinto and Kalki Koechlin, which are current FACs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Numerounovedant
The article has little issue with the prose and its quality and is well written. However, IMO it does not have enough substance to work with. Most of the article is self analytical, it talks more about itself rather than the subject. Review after review for minor roles, sub sections which barely have a purpose and the unnecessary table. I will have to look at further such articles to actually see how much of this article is even required. Even the references are cluttered and not required in places. Have no issues with the prose though. NumerounovedantTalk 11:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- I concur with Vensatry that the article muddles with the tense at times. NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Based on the most recent copyedit by WP:GOCE, it seems that your article is actually incorrectly using WP:MOSTENSE. When a critic discusses a film the summary is suppose to be present tense. I find this confusing and had considered commenting on your review. However, I think you consistently use the past tense incorrectly when summarizing and quoting critics.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- As I said there has to be more to it. All the FAs that I referred to use past tense. NumerounovedantTalk 12:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger Regardless, I didn't mean to point out at the use of past/present, it is the variation that bothered me. NumerounovedantTalk 12:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Numerounovedant, I did catch a few wrong tenses.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- WP:MOSTENSE gets very confusing. Take the following consecutive sentences: "Piers Morgan states that Ratajkowski's form of feminism is a misguided affront to true feminism,[182] labeling it pseudo-feminist gibberish.[183] After Morgan wrote that "Feminism Is Dead", the Chicago Tribune's Heidi Stevens as well as Emmeline Pankhurst's great-granddaughter and The Daily Telegraph's Helen Pankhurst said Ratajkowski neither killed nor bolstered feminism.[184][185]" Ratajkowski's feminism is an ongoing thing criticism about it are in the present. However, the following sentence is about a particular time in the past that must be written in the past.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Numerounovedant, @FrB.TG: and Vensatry, Looking back at the history of tenses in this article and my confusion/belief about how to interpret WP:MOSTENSE and WP:FICTENSE, I see that in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive3, GRuban complained about tenses on 03:00, 30 March 2016. This led to my own March 30 revisions to the page here and here based on MOSTENSE and FICTENSE. At some point GRuban was satisfied with these changes. I asked Twofingered Typist to consider MOSTENSE (among other issues) in the copyedit. He never actually made tense changes in his copyedit and I assumed this was a ratification.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- N.B., as I have stated elsewhere, I believe that WP:MOSTENSE and WP:FICTENSE mean that we should consider films ongoing present things rather than past events. Unless a critical commentary is made at a past event (like a film festival panel discussion), it is written about in the present until the critic dies or the film is lost in my opinion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:45, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- TonyTheTiger Regardless, I didn't mean to point out at the use of past/present, it is the variation that bothered me. NumerounovedantTalk 12:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- As I said there has to be more to it. All the FAs that I referred to use past tense. NumerounovedantTalk 12:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Based on the most recent copyedit by WP:GOCE, it seems that your article is actually incorrectly using WP:MOSTENSE. When a critic discusses a film the summary is suppose to be present tense. I find this confusing and had considered commenting on your review. However, I think you consistently use the past tense incorrectly when summarizing and quoting critics.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Numerounovedant, I am not sure what is meant by self analytical. Please point out examples because I do not understand.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- I mean it loses focus a lot, instead of focusing on the subject it talks about just "stuff". Some instances just from the "Leading Roles" section-
- Around the time of its release, Ratajkowski was prominent in the media with cover appearances on Grazia France, British GQ, harper by Harper's Bazaar, InStyle UK, and InStyle Australia as well as a role as a 2015 MTV Video Music Awards presenter. The British GQ cover story was photographed by Mario Testino, who produced a short film for the magazine's website." - How is the latter part important?
- To my knowledge she has worked with 5 photographers who are notable enough to have their own WP articles. I wanted to work in Testino's name as I have worked in the other 5. He not only photographed the cover story, but also produced a video used on the magazine's website. I thought this was a good way to mention him. I am open to suggestions on how to work in his name.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I just realized it was unclear the short film was about Ratajkowski.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly my point. There are a couple more instances. NumerounovedantTalk 05:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Actually, I just realized it was unclear the short film was about Ratajkowski.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- To my knowledge she has worked with 5 photographers who are notable enough to have their own WP articles. I wanted to work in Testino's name as I have worked in the other 5. He not only photographed the cover story, but also produced a video used on the magazine's website. I thought this was a good way to mention him. I am open to suggestions on how to work in his name.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:50, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ratajkowski's We Are Your Friends performance received mixed reviews. She played Stanford University dropout Sophie, the love interest of Efron's character and girlfriend/personal assistant of Wes Bentley's character. Ty Burr of The Boston Globe and Nell Minow of Beliefnet are unimpressed. Kyle Smith of the New York Post, Jordan Hoffman of Daily News and Glenn Kenny of RogerEbert.com praise her performance. Robbie Collin of The Daily Telegraph and Morris note Ratajkowski's rhythmic dancing skills and sex appeal previously seen in "Blurred Lines". Duralde of TheWrap states that Sophie was a thin role (as did Burr), while Christopher Gray of Slant Magazine described Sophie as a muse. Bilge Ebiri of Vulture.com says that Ratajkowski's role takes a back seat to the love triangle's central Efron/Bentley relationship. - Aren't those a little too many? Not to mention they add little value to the article, most of them have no praise description of what the critics actually thought of the performance, the rest just describe the role, and not the performance. Again an example of the analysis of the film maybe, but definitely nothing to do with Ratajkowski. NumerounovedantTalk 15:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- In regards to too many, the article currently includes all 11 critics whose reviews were mentioned by Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic and who both have their own WP articles and whose reviews were in media outlets with their own WP articles. As you may have noticed you are at FAC5. I have been under pressure to shorten the article. If you look at the version when FAC3 ended, you will see that I described the critical commentary more fully in that version. It sounds like you are suggesting restoring some of that. I could make it look shorter by not mentioning each affiliated media outlet. Thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Here are examples of prior content that was removed: Ty Burr of The Boston Globe says Ratajkowski's performance is "lovely to look at and surpassingly dull".[130] Nell Minow is also unimpressed.[131] Kyle Smith of the New York Post, Jordan Hoffman of Daily News and Glenn Kenny praise her performance with descriptors such as "entrancing", "sweet", "sexy" and "sensible".[132][133][134]
- In fact it once (23:10, 15 March 2016) said: Ty Burr of The Boston Globe described her performance in the role as "lovely to look at and surpassingly dull".[124] Nell Minow was also unimpressed.[125] Kyle Smith of the New York Post described her performance as "quietly entrancing", while noting her physical contribution to the film.[126] Jordan Hoffman of Daily News described Ratajkowski's performance as "stunning and sweet".[127] Glenn Kenny was satisfied with her presentation of her "sweet, sexy, and sensible" character.[128]
- Numerounovedant, can you tell me what you think might need to be restored?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- I strongly suggest bringing down the number of reviews based on their relevance. What good are 11 reviews if none actually talk about her performance. I'll go through all the reviews personally and suggest the ones which I believe are more relevant. Give me an hour for this. NumerounovedantTalk 05:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- So, the review with 1) Ty Burr of The Boston Globe says Ratajkowski's performance is "surpassingly dull" makes perfect sense (in context to a negative review), I would restore it. 2) Instead of saying Nell Minow was also unimpressed you can quote him saying that she "does more posing than acting" and merge it into the previous sentence. 3) I would also merge Kyle Smith of the New York Post described her performance as "quietly entrancing" & Jordan Hoffman of Daily News described Ratajkowski's performance as "stunning and sweet" into one sentence 4) Glenn Kenny doesn't make any critical commentary so I would remove it. Rest I would keep Robbie Collin's part but remove all the remaining commentary because it simply talks about the role and not the performance. NumerounovedantTalk 06:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is not clear to me why we don't want to describe the role as thin or point out that her first leading role is not actually part of the dominant relationship to clarify things for the reader.--16:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't mean to completely drop the idea, but extensive critical commentary just on the role isn't the way. You could mention the former review which calls the role thin, but the latter about her role in the relationship really doesn't belong here. The article is about her not the film or its characters. Facts like these are better suited in the film's article. NumerounovedantTalk 16:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have moved the love triangle comment to the film article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- I restored the thin comment (Basically as it was before).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't mean to completely drop the idea, but extensive critical commentary just on the role isn't the way. You could mention the former review which calls the role thin, but the latter about her role in the relationship really doesn't belong here. The article is about her not the film or its characters. Facts like these are better suited in the film's article. NumerounovedantTalk 16:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is not clear to me why we don't want to describe the role as thin or point out that her first leading role is not actually part of the dominant relationship to clarify things for the reader.--16:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- So, the review with 1) Ty Burr of The Boston Globe says Ratajkowski's performance is "surpassingly dull" makes perfect sense (in context to a negative review), I would restore it. 2) Instead of saying Nell Minow was also unimpressed you can quote him saying that she "does more posing than acting" and merge it into the previous sentence. 3) I would also merge Kyle Smith of the New York Post described her performance as "quietly entrancing" & Jordan Hoffman of Daily News described Ratajkowski's performance as "stunning and sweet" into one sentence 4) Glenn Kenny doesn't make any critical commentary so I would remove it. Rest I would keep Robbie Collin's part but remove all the remaining commentary because it simply talks about the role and not the performance. NumerounovedantTalk 06:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- I strongly suggest bringing down the number of reviews based on their relevance. What good are 11 reviews if none actually talk about her performance. I'll go through all the reviews personally and suggest the ones which I believe are more relevant. Give me an hour for this. NumerounovedantTalk 05:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- In regards to too many, the article currently includes all 11 critics whose reviews were mentioned by Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic and who both have their own WP articles and whose reviews were in media outlets with their own WP articles. As you may have noticed you are at FAC5. I have been under pressure to shorten the article. If you look at the version when FAC3 ended, you will see that I described the critical commentary more fully in that version. It sounds like you are suggesting restoring some of that. I could make it look shorter by not mentioning each affiliated media outlet. Thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Around the time of its release, Ratajkowski was prominent in the media with cover appearances on Grazia France, British GQ, harper by Harper's Bazaar, InStyle UK, and InStyle Australia as well as a role as a 2015 MTV Video Music Awards presenter. The British GQ cover story was photographed by Mario Testino, who produced a short film for the magazine's website." - How is the latter part important?
- I believe that each fact of the article is substantiated with a ref or two. Can you point out examples references that do not support facts. Maybe two or three.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- From the "Leading Roles" (again not exhaustive) - The second paragraph is not at all informative, and has atleast 6 references thats tand for nothing, because the corresponding text does not offer anything.
- I think we have gotten that paragraph restored to significance.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Rise to fame- "Much commentary on Ratajkowski's debut focuses on her sex appeal,[68][69][70] but some note that her small role as a "duplicitous and manipulative former student" is critical.[71][72]" Again, nothing about her performances and cluttered refrences. Isn't there a source that talks about the round up? & "Her role as Adrian Grenier's character, Vincent Chase's visually appealing love interest is described in sexist ways in the press,[85][86][87] with mentions of her as the object of multiple affections.[88][89][90]" - Too many references that talk about the same thing. (Not even a significant detail or addition to the article) NumerounovedantTalk 16:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Am I suppose to support a "Much commentary" claim with one comment. I thought three was appropriate for such a claim unless you just think the claim should be removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, you are supposed to cite an article that says so. 2-3 articles about the comments barely support the claim for "Much commentary". For an instance, see the discussion on this page. I really think that such claims need just one source that says so, instead of multiple sources actually talking about it. NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, you are supposed to cite an article that says so. 2-3 articles about the comments barely support the claim for "Much commentary". For an instance, see the discussion on this page. I really think that such claims need just one source that says so, instead of multiple sources actually talking about it. NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- While I supported a "Some note" fact with two. I thought this was appropriate.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- No it's not both the "much commentary" , "Some noted" border WP:WEASEL. You rather state names, (if the obsevation is vital to the article) or remove the claims. The latter is the case here (IMO). NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Some named.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- No it's not both the "much commentary" , "Some noted" border WP:WEASEL. You rather state names, (if the obsevation is vital to the article) or remove the claims. The latter is the case here (IMO). NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- The round up? What does that mean? Commentary on her roles thus far is somewhat limited.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- A round up would be an article that sums up her performance, or rather attributes an adjective to it which can be used in the article. For instance a RT consensus. NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Is one ref considered better than three?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- You may want to refer to WP:CITEKILL (last paragraph from the lead), if you still believe all the references are required try WP:CITEBUNDLE. NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- What is meant by not a significant detail or addition?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- In this article for instance I would consider - "Ratajkowski has done public service announcements promoting safe sex and birth control for Planned Parenthood (PPFA).[144][145] She also committed to be in a short reproductive and sexual health film for PPFA.[146][147] Ratajkowski describes PPFA as her main charity because of its role in women's health, and has helped PPFA raise funds.[148]" to be a "significant detail", whereas "She reports receiving a wide range of responses to her involvement, including comments on her bravery." - would qualify as unnecessary/"not a significant detail". NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have been trying to cut out unnecessary details and welcome it when you point to them. In regards to the Entourage summary, is it unnecessary to say she was the object of multiple affections or that she was viewed in sexist ways by the press?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have been trying to cut out unnecessary details and welcome it when you point to them. In regards to the Entourage summary, is it unnecessary to say she was the object of multiple affections or that she was viewed in sexist ways by the press?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- In this article for instance I would consider - "Ratajkowski has done public service announcements promoting safe sex and birth control for Planned Parenthood (PPFA).[144][145] She also committed to be in a short reproductive and sexual health film for PPFA.[146][147] Ratajkowski describes PPFA as her main charity because of its role in women's health, and has helped PPFA raise funds.[148]" to be a "significant detail", whereas "She reports receiving a wide range of responses to her involvement, including comments on her bravery." - would qualify as unnecessary/"not a significant detail". NumerounovedantTalk 05:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Am I suppose to support a "Much commentary" claim with one comment. I thought three was appropriate for such a claim unless you just think the claim should be removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at the table of contents, I am not sure what the multiple unnecessary subsections are since there are so few subsections.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Early leading roles" - She has had just one film to her credit in the section. I don't know how much upcoming projects account for a "Leading roles" section, they better be separated as upcoming projects and the entire section be merged into the previous one. NumerounovedantTalk 15:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think I created this section after her first leading role and the early development of Cruise which seems to be a leading role. Her more recent upcoming projects are not leading so I think you are right to merge this back. I have done so.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- In defense of the table, there was probably a time when a discography or filmography was considered an unnecessary table. We have never had a person notable primarily as a model achieve FA. Thus, I thought I would try to assemble a table detailing her modelling history. A coverography could be shown to be as notable as a filmography is for an actress or a discography is as a musician because there are multiple reliable sources that present the details that I present in the table. I am not just cobbling stuff together. You can go out to the internet and find this stuff fairly easily, IMO. Models.com does the most comprehensive job at covering this, but fashionmodeldirectory.com does a decent job at covering these and there are other sources. Since we are suppose to summarize the secondary sources, this type of table is as interesting an element of summarizing secondary sources for a model as a filmography or discography might be. Its importance to a biography is similar to Template:2010–19 Sports Illustrated Swimsuit in the sense that for people more notable for things other than modelling it is considered irrelevant, but for models it is considered important. Sure a coverography for an actress is not really an important thing, but for a model, it is somewhat defining.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Some other observations-
- "Ratajkowski was told that modelling could lead to an acting career." - It is again very Weasely, not to say uninformative.
- I don't think WP:WEASEL really applies, but I have removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- "As a 5-foot-7-inch (1.70 m) model with "curves that put her in a different class from runway models", she hopes to break barriers for shorter and more curvaceous models." - Really doesn't belong in the career section.
- I am not sure where to move it. See what you think.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Either personal life or media image NumerounovedantTalk 12:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- It is in media image.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Either personal life or media image NumerounovedantTalk 12:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure where to move it. See what you think.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- " As they touch, they reveal each other. Levine "caresses and serenades" Ratajkowski during the video." - Does not belong in her article, maybe the music video's article.
- "Levine "caresses and serenades" Ratajkowski during the video"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- "A. O. Scott of The New York Times and Alonso Duralde of TheWrap, note Ratajkowski's early disappearance from the film." - How is that important?
- Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think the "March 2013 GQ Türkiye" images should be reduced in size. They are really sitracting this way.
- 180px-->160px.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:02, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I am leaning towards Weak Support (after the remaining queries have been addressed), but I suggest a thorough source review. I wish I could do it myself, but I am afraid that I have prior commitments. Ping me after the source review and I'll be happy to help further. Good Luck! NumerounovedantTalk 13:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Numerounovedant, I have addressed the WP:MOSTENSE issues.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Perfect, I am watching the page, but ping me when the source review is done. I think it's really going to help the article. Good work though. NumerounovedantTalk 06:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Numerounovedant, I just noticed that Catherine Zeta-Jones is getting a lot of support at FAC with a lead that includes the phrase "Zeta-Jones initially established herself in Hollywood with roles that highlighted her sex appeal..." We have wiped out a lot of content supporting a similar claim for Ratajkowski's first two roles. What do you think?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, so as far as Zeta-Jones' article goes it had certain substantiated statements, with full commentary. While that could be a fine addition to the article, the discussion here was more of he said: she said: sort. I wouldn't mind if you add a well substantiated claim on her sex appeal with some actual commentary. For instance, the comment on her rhythmic dancing skills and sex appeal here. NumerounovedantTalk 05:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- GRuban, Since you were the original person who pointed out that the article had WP:MOSTENSE issues (and were an interested discussant in FAC3 and FAC4), could you please comment on your thoughts on the new changes to the tense presentation and state whether you have an opinion on the vastly changed version of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Twofingered Typist, since you were the most recent WP:GOCE copyeditor (and a commenter at FAC4), could you comment on the changes to the tense presentation and state whether you have an opinion on the vastly changed version of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger The tense presentation seems fine to me. I have fixed some inconsistencies in the punctuation. I notice a lot of excessive detail has been trimmed so that the article is much more concise and to the point. I'd say it is in very good shape. I still question the need for a box-form listing of covers she's done - this does not appear in other models' articles. You've picked some highlight examples, leave it at that. A complete listing, like listing quote good or bad for an appearance in a film, is excessive.Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Twofingered Typist, have you seen my "defense of the table" above?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Review by FrB.TG
I suggest not to link London as it borders on WP:OVERLINKING. And perhaps San Diego too?London delinked. San Diego not. I am not sure how widely SD is known.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
"Her modeling career" - don't begin a new para with a pronoun (use her last name).Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
"erotic magazine treats! which led" - comma after "treats!"Good eye.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
"Ratajkowski began acting as a youth in" - awkward phrasing, try: "...acting at a young age" or "as a child/teenager" (whatever her age was then)I think child is appropriate. She began before the Harriet role which was at 13 years and 1 month. She was likely 12 or younger. Not sure if she was per-pubescent.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you need to mention Zac Efron in the lead.O.K. Someone before you has argued about this. I'll concede.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
"Currently, she has various acting engagements in development." - WP:CURRENTLYRemoved.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Except Planned Parenthood, I don't think you need to link anything in the last para of the lede.I think feminist is necessary and women's health. I am torn regarding Women's rights--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I have not come across a biography which mentions the age of the person's parents when s/he was born.Having parents who average age 42 is a bit out of the norm. I would not mention ages if they were more in the normal range. It is not so far out of the norm as to be WP:LEAD material like being the posthumous child of RFK, but it is probably worth a mention.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
"she tried soccer" - soccer as in American football or football? If it's the internationally known football, go with football.I think for Americans, soccer is used in the article. See Landon Donovan, Mia Hamm, etc.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
"nudist beaches" → "nude beaches" at least that's what our article says.O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Teen is an informal term; go with teenager.- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Nothing of major concern so far (my review is only till early life section). FrB.TG (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Opposing your proposal at several FACs, including Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emma Stone/archive1, I would like to say that reviews should be in past tense as they are events that have passed. Besides, I have never seen an article to do so (oh and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a poor justification). FrB.TG (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- I second that. NumerounovedantTalk 15:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- FrB.TG see commments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kalki Koechlin/archive3 and above regarding MOS:TENSE and WP:FICTENSE.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Even if I agree with you, I can't say that using past tense is wrong. I would like to hear from @WP:FAC coordinators: on this matter. FrB.TG (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)- I am going to start a discussion at WT:FILM.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Using present tense when describing what a reviewer said is incorrect. I would not consider that an actionable request as a coordinator. As a reviewer, I would oppose any article using such language. --Laser brain (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- FrB.TG see commments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kalki Koechlin/archive3 and above regarding MOS:TENSE and WP:FICTENSE.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- FrB.TG I think I have reversed myself correctly. Please let me know where the article stands in your eyes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hi Tony. It looks much better with the past tense. I will add further comments very soon. FrB.TG (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- FrB.TG, Thanks. It would be much better for me if you could add those comments in the next 48 hours. I have little free time on Friday through Monday because I drive for Uber those days.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Tony. It looks much better with the past tense. I will add further comments very soon. FrB.TG (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
"or another limited unwanted role" - better without "unwanted".Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
"two 2009-10 third season episodes of Nickelodeon's iCarly" - perhpas better as "two episodes of the third season of Nickelodeon's iClary (2009–10)"Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
"A Holiday 2012 video and a Valentine's 2011 video" - are they both proper nouns? If not, better as A 2012 holiday video and a 2011 ...O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
""Blurred Lines" is controversial because some feel it..." - still in present tense.Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
"The video is deemed sexist" - I think it's better in the perfect or past tense.I have tried a perfect tense.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I think the next paragraph can be combined with this one.Combined.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:53, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
number 1 → number one.Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
"On June 24, she appeared" - do you need to be this specific with date? Just June 2014 would suffice.based on her social media, I think this date is her mother's birth date. So it may have been a symbolic date for her first major cover. I think we should WP:PRESERVE the detail for this reason. It is also coincidentally my birthday, which is surely a big day in her life, making it even more important symbolicly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
"In September, Ratajkowski was" - which year?2014--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
"she made her runway modelling debut"O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
"On October 22, 2013, Esquire.." - again, I don't think you need to be so specific.Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
"On February 4, 2014, Sports Illustrated" - again!Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
"Her acting career had a slow start" - use her last name.Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Tables do not meet WP:ACCESS for row and col scopes (see MOS:DTT).What's with the huge space for "Notes".fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I think it might be of trivial tone as other reviewers have taken note of, but I don't expect anything else in the biography of a model. FrB.TG (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Vensatry (a quick scan)
Alt text should conform to WP:ALT (talking about the infobox image). Add the same for other images as well.- Alt added to all media.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
"Currently, she has various acting engagements in development." We usually don't document current events in the lead.- Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
"At birth, her mother and father were aged 39 and 45, respectively,[6] and unmarried" You introduce her parents with ages, why not with names?- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Ratajkowski is of Polish, German, Irish, and Polish Jewish descent" You need to clarify this since the previous para says both of her parents are Amercians. Further, the following sentence says she considers herself a 'Polish Israeli'.
- I watch two articles where ethnicity is constantly a topic of debate. Stana Katic and this one. Here there are two parts of the article that seem to have a lot of different people weighing in and tinkering. In the LEAD the current consensus is "an American model and actress. Born in London to American parents..." Sometimes it is "British-born American" In the body, the section you point out is often in flux. I do not know policies regarding ethnicity and just let those who think they know tinker. Being American means they were born in the United States or born to American citizens abroad. It does not mean that they were Mayflower descendants. I have removed the German reference that seems unsourced. I don't know what else to clarify and it is sort of beyond my expertise.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
The Little Match Girl points to the short story.- I have clarified that this is an adaptation of the short story.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- What's 'unwanted' role?
- She was attempting to avoid certain types of roles. I think there is some reading that needs to be done between the lines here. I guess the sources don't actually say unwanted, but there were clearly types of roles she did not want. I am not sure what correction to make. I looked at this phrase quite a bit when pruning the article prior to FAC5. I was not sure what to do, but advice is welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- "As a 5-foot-7-inch (1.70 m) model with "curves that put her in a different class from runway models",[32] she hopes to break barriers for shorter and more curvaceous models." This reads like an editorial.
- Do you want this content removed?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
"Previously, Ratajkowski had been cast in two other music videos; "Fast Car" by Taio Cruz,[33] which was released on November 5, 2012,[34] and Maroon 5's "Love Somebody",[2] which was released two months after "Blurred Lines".[2][9]" The first semi-colon could well be replaced by a colon. Replace the comma after November 5, 2012 and with a semicolon.- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- When was "Blurred Lines" released?
- The article notes the date that the video was made public (March 20), which was a different date than when the audio of the song was released (for public download or for radio airplay—not sure which) on March 26. I don't think the March 26 date is relevant to this article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Grazia France - Is it a French edition?- Yes. This is typical magazine naming conventions I believe. Either French Grazia or Grazia France are both acceptable as I understand it. Would you suggest a change?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
"Ratajkowski enjoys freedom of sexual expression "while still being a feminist"[77] and is outspoken about using her celebrity to fight the social implications of supporting the empowerment of women and sexuality" This sentence desperately needs commas.- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- The filmography table is unsourced. Andrew's Alteration and A Year and a Day are not discussed anywhere in the article.
- I don't see filmography tables source in Kalki Koechlin, Freida Pinto, Emma Stone. What are you asking me to do? Neither of those pre-fame films is sourceable to my knowledge.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Role missing for The Spoils Before Dying in the table.- Added.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- I believe the article covers the mains aspects of the subject. Coming to prose, a lot of sentences use too much commas (and some with under usage). Also, you keep changing the tenses (between past and present) invariably quite often. —Vensatry (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Vensatry, I did catch a few wrong tenses.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- As mentioned above to Numerounovedant, Based on the most recent copyedit by WP:GOCE, it seems that your article is actually incorrectly using WP:MOSTENSE. When a critic discusses a film the summary is suppose to be present tense. I find this confusing and had considered commenting on your review. However, I think you consistently use the past tense incorrectly when summarizing and quoting critics.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- You might want to initiate a discussion at WP:FILM because this should set a precedent for future articles as well. —Vensatry (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Vensatry, I have tried to reverse myself. Please let me know what the current status of your consideration of this article is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- You might want to initiate a discussion at WP:FILM because this should set a precedent for future articles as well. —Vensatry (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- As mentioned above to Numerounovedant, Based on the most recent copyedit by WP:GOCE, it seems that your article is actually incorrectly using WP:MOSTENSE. When a critic discusses a film the summary is suppose to be present tense. I find this confusing and had considered commenting on your review. However, I think you consistently use the past tense incorrectly when summarizing and quoting critics.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Checkingfax
Hi, TonyTheTiger. I made some edits[21][22] to put Emily's article that much closer to a Featured Article promotion. Ping me back in a couple of days and I will be happy to !vote. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
11:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Checkingfax, I noticed that you made the cats fully alphabetical rather than having traditionally leading (birth year and living people) cats first. Please comment.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, TonyTheTiger. Is there a MoS guideline for putting them out of order like that? I just do what makes sense to me, which happens to be alphabetically. I always put the category with the pipe in it at the top, and the rest I do an alphasort on. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
12:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)- I don't know. I have asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#Category_order.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Checkingfax, have you been following the commentary there?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, but I will now. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
13:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, but I will now. Cheers!
- Checkingfax, have you been following the commentary there?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know. I have asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories#Category_order.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, TonyTheTiger. Is there a MoS guideline for putting them out of order like that? I just do what makes sense to me, which happens to be alphabetically. I always put the category with the pipe in it at the top, and the rest I do an alphasort on. Cheers!
Hi, TonyTheTiger. There are at least three sections that lack images yet the Career section has images that are creating a corridor around the text in that section. See what can be done about that. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
12:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Would you like to add more images from Commons:Category:Emily Ratajkowski? I hadn't because they are almost all from the same 2013 date.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, TonyTheTiger. I would suggest reducing the number of images in the Career section to avoid the image corridor around the text. I will look around for other images later for other sections. Cheers!
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
13:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)- I have rearranged the images.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, TonyTheTiger. I would suggest reducing the number of images in the Career section to avoid the image corridor around the text. I will look around for other images later for other sections. Cheers!
Support – Happy Birthday, Emily! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
08:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Image review
Some concerns:
- The nude image is non-free and in my view its use here doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC #8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."
The rationale says the image provides "critical visual information" but doesn't say what that is. The argument in FAC 3 seemed to be that, because a man liked an image of a naked woman enough to offer her another job being naked, we must see the image to be able to understand. Using that reasoning, if a film director offers someone a part based on their performance in a previous film, we could claim fair use of that film to help us understand the director's point of view. Or if someone gets a second book contract because their first book was successful, we could claim fair use of that book to "significantly increase readers' understanding" of why the second contract was offered.
The rest of the non-free rationale should be removed: "Ratajkowski has advocated against censoring female nudity (especially her own) and as the w:WP:BLP subject would take offense to censorship of her nudity." [23]
The horizontal images in the "Music video performances" section look crowded and squeeze the text. Because of the shadow, the lipliner image looks as though something is being smeared on her. The semi-nude image is unpleasant. The captions – "receiving hair spray," "getting lipliner" – could use a rewrite.It isn't clear that the video from which the images derive is free (see Commons:Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot). It was uploaded to Vimeo as cc-by in March 2013 by Eric Longden, who filmed it with Mike Marasco. [24] Is Longden the copyright holder? The video opens with "Tony Kelly for GQ Türkiye" (see Tony Kelly), so I would expect one of them, probably GQ, to hold the copyright. GQ Türkiye uploaded it to YouTube in April 2013 with the standard licence. [25] Longden did the same in September 2013. [26] Someone should ask Longden to confirm the release and that he's the copyright holder (and/or contact GQ), then forward the details to permissions.
SarahSV (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Confirming here for the benefit of the delegates that the cameraman and photographer referred to above (Longden and Kelly) have said the video has not been released. This affects several images and clips derived from it (Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot). I've forwarded the emails to permissions, but there's a backlog. In this article, it concerns the three images in the Music video performances section and the two clips in Media image. SarahSV (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- The images have been deleted. SarahSV (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- I understand your issues to be the following:
- Images fail WP:NFCC #8 because
- Reasoning is that "man likes random nudity which led to more nudity so we need to show the reader the random nudity"
- FUR needs clarification
- Expanded--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- FUR content unnecessary
- Content irrelevant to WP:NFCC removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Images crowd text.
- Rearranged.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Lipliner image looks smeared
- We have a whole category of images to choose from, but I am trying to present these as a set for what I think are obvious reasons.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Semi-nude image is unpleasant.
- We have a whole category of images to choose from, but I am trying to present these as a set for what I think are obvious reasons.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- WP:CAPTIONs need to be rewritten.
- I could use some advice. I am not sure what the problem is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Image free use unclear (Who is copyright holder?.)
- INeverCry and czar reviewed the images at Commons:Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot. As I understand it, cinematographer, publisher and subject each have some sort of rights, but Ratajkowski's rights are merely
{{personality rights}}
in this case. I do not understand why a cinematographer can release his copyright and make something free without the consent of the publisher. Thus, I am not sure what verification I am being told to needs to be sought. Given my level of expertise, I would feel more comfortable if someone else sought this clarification or would give me a precise question/set of questions to ask.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)- The copyright holder is the only one that can release the video, so you need to find out who that is and make sure they understand the implications of releasing it. In the case of GQ, they will understand, but it might have to come from their legal department. Links here to email addresses for GQ, Tony Kelly and Eric Longden. [27][28][29] See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a suggested email the copyright holder needs to send. SarahSV (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- SarahSV, as I understand it there is no claim that GQ has relinquished its copyright or that Kelly has released his. The only relevant inquiry is whether Longden has released his and then we need to determine if his act is sufficient. Is this correct?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, that's not correct. It is most likely that either Condé Nast (GQ) or Tony Kelly or Eric Longden owns the copyright, not all three. You need to find out which one does. Then you need to ask the copyright owner for a release under a Creative Commons licence and forward that release to permissions. It seems to me unlikely that the copyright holder would release an expensive photoshoot so that others could make commercial use of it. But of course I could be wrong about that; perhaps they had their reasons. But first, you need to find out who owns the copyright. SarahSV (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin, I know I am not qualified to address the issues of the copyright. However, I do know enough about the issue to tell by your response that you do not understand the issues of the copyright either. You speak of the copyright as if it is a singular thing. There is not one copyright holder for a published work. There are typically 3 or 4. May I ask if you are even a qualified image reviewer because someone who does not understand copyrights well enough to understand this might serve WP well to step aside of an image review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, that's not correct. It is most likely that either Condé Nast (GQ) or Tony Kelly or Eric Longden owns the copyright, not all three. You need to find out which one does. Then you need to ask the copyright owner for a release under a Creative Commons licence and forward that release to permissions. It seems to me unlikely that the copyright holder would release an expensive photoshoot so that others could make commercial use of it. But of course I could be wrong about that; perhaps they had their reasons. But first, you need to find out who owns the copyright. SarahSV (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- SarahSV, as I understand it there is no claim that GQ has relinquished its copyright or that Kelly has released his. The only relevant inquiry is whether Longden has released his and then we need to determine if his act is sufficient. Is this correct?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- The copyright holder is the only one that can release the video, so you need to find out who that is and make sure they understand the implications of releasing it. In the case of GQ, they will understand, but it might have to come from their legal department. Links here to email addresses for GQ, Tony Kelly and Eric Longden. [27][28][29] See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a suggested email the copyright holder needs to send. SarahSV (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- INeverCry and czar reviewed the images at Commons:Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot. As I understand it, cinematographer, publisher and subject each have some sort of rights, but Ratajkowski's rights are merely
- Clarification needs to come from permissions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin, who is "permissions"?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- See Commons:OTRS. SarahSV (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've heard back from Longden and he is not the copyright holder. I'll forward the correspondence to permissions. SarahSV (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin, I repeat. There is not one copyright holder. There are sort of layers (depending on the medium think about a subject/subject creator, a performer, a recorder and a publisher). The first copyright is the subject creator. I.e., sculptures are always copyrighted in certain jurisdictions. Works of music are often copyrighted by a lyricist and a songwriter or teams thereof. Meanwhile, people are not copyrighted in the United States, but
{{personality rights}}
are different by jurisdiction. It may be the case that a human subject owns a copyright to photos of them in Turkey. However, I doubt it given the number of photos that we have of Category:Turkish footballers. Given that human subjects in Turkey are probably not copyrightable per se, the next level of copyright is determined by who did the work. A photographer/videographer always owns the copyright to his own work (consider the Monkey selfie issue), but he may be restricted from releasing it if the subject has a copyright. Given what is in Commons:Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot, Longden may very well want to take back his released copyright, but if he is in fact the photographer, he can not unless at the time he released the work he did not have the right. Of course, he may have given up his copyright, but if he is the photographer he has/had a copyright. I.e., if he had signed over his copyright to Condé Nast (GQ) as part of a publication contract or performed the work as an employee of Condé Nast, he may have surrendered his copyright. Is he claiming he was not the photographer, that he was an employee of Condé Nast or that he signed over the photographer copyright to Condé Nast?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin, I repeat. There is not one copyright holder. There are sort of layers (depending on the medium think about a subject/subject creator, a performer, a recorder and a publisher). The first copyright is the subject creator. I.e., sculptures are always copyrighted in certain jurisdictions. Works of music are often copyrighted by a lyricist and a songwriter or teams thereof. Meanwhile, people are not copyrighted in the United States, but
- The director of the video has separately confirmed that it is not under a free licence. It appears that the Vimeo tagging as free was just a mistake. SarahSV (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- I believe you are talking about Tony Kelly when you say director. Kelly is not required to release his copyright in order for the filmmaker to release his AFAIK. I don't think he was ever a concern for the image reviewers. Unless we are going to claim Longden's input was like that of the monkey and that Kelley has a copyright over the work he directed with Longden, we do not need Kelly's consent or release. Longden is pressing the buttons and has a copyright.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- All this misses the point. The question is whether anyone has released this video. There are three entities that we assume might be in a position to do so: Condé Nast/GQ; the director; and/or the cameraman. The director and cameraman have both said the video has not been released. When we add images to FACs nowadays, we're expected to do due diligence. Sometimes it's obvious on Vimeo, YouTube or Flickr that the person posting a release is the copyright holder and really did intend to release it, but often it isn't. In this case, it's a red flag that someone would release an expensive photoshoot so that other commercial entities can use it for profit. The safest thing to do in these cases is to email them, ask if they own the copyright, and make sure they understand what a Creative Commons licence entails (namely that anyone can use their work for any reason). When that is confirmed, if you forward the correspondence to permissions, then it's on file that the release was confirmed and understood. SarahSV (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- If the Vimeo account was his, it does not matter whether he now says he intended to release his copyright. He probably did not expect to see his work all over wikipedia. I am sure he did not expect to see his work posted on WP at Hair rollers, Lip liner, and so on (See the what links here link for Ratajkowski). He could now say he did not want to release it as an attempt to take back his release, but I believe it is too late.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- We're not supposed to take advantage of people who have made mistakes. Someone might have an intern upload something and add the wrong tag. Or they might believe they have released it but they don't own the copyright. Or they do own the copyright but didn't realize what releasing it meant. That's why it's important to email people before uploading if there is room for doubt, particularly if it's for a featured article. I had a photographer release an image to me once of a person, a very clear release, after I had explained to her what it meant. It was a good photograph, except that she had added a strong orange colour to the person's face. I removed the colour, uploaded the image and added it to an article. She immediately emailed me to say I did not have her permission to remove the orange, and she was upset because she thought it only looked good with the added colour. In fact it looked very strange. I therefore deleted the image and regarded the release as invalid, because it was obvious that she had not understood what a release meant, and I didn't want her to be upset. SarahSV (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I suggest taking the lot (the category) to deletion review on Commons if the video's license is being challenged. There are all kinds of different rights depending on the artistic direction, the cinematography, music, country-specific, etc. and of course whether the cinematographer had the rights to release (was it work for hire?) The "license review" on Commons exists to confirm the status of a release on an external site—so while of course we cannot check the rights situation of every release, it is at least plausible that Longden's official channel has the rights to relicense under Creative Commons. But based on SV's inquiries, this warrants more discussion on Commons
czar 01:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Czar, as I wrote below, Longden said that someone his end chose the wrong licence by mistake. SarahSV (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- It may not be that simple. The CC license is irrevocable, so our own diligence and grace period separates mistake from regret. But this aside, ticket:2016052410026559 says that GQ owns the copyright and that Longden only has creative rights, so the video would not be his to relicense. I've opened
commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:2013 GQ Türkiye photo shoot czar 13:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- It may not be that simple. The CC license is irrevocable, so our own diligence and grace period separates mistake from regret. But this aside, ticket:2016052410026559 says that GQ owns the copyright and that Longden only has creative rights, so the video would not be his to relicense. I've opened
- SlimVirgin, I drafted something that will not see article space anytime soon at User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Emily Ratajkowski's blue Koma dress. I am wondering if a fair use image of that dress belongs in this article and whether the article should have more content on that topic.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments by GRuban
Addressed comments |
---|
|
- ""Blurred Lines" was controversial: some felt it promoted rape... Ratajkowski said that; The video has been called sexist for its degradation of women... Ratajkowski did not think of the video as sexist[9]" These two paragraphs are on the same topic, and should be combined, as all the critics who feel it promotes rape also think it degrades women, and those who don't, don't, and as Rata's responses are basically the same.
- I still think they are two topics, but I have merged the content as best I can.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- "On April 29, Russian entertainer Dima Bilan announced his forthcoming music video "Inseparable" (sometimes translated as "Indivisible") via Instagram.[132][133] The Russian-language video, featuring Bilan as a photographer and Ratajkowski as his muse,[134] was recorded in Los Angeles.[135]" Combine into one sentence; it doesn't matter how Bilan announced the video, since it doesn't affect Ratajkowski, and almost doesn't matter where he recorded it. I guess it might be of some interest that it's in Russian; does she speak in the video?
- She just models in the video. Sentences merged.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Richard Roeper and Wesley Morris noted that Ratajkowski, who again played the attractive object of affection in We Are Your Friends, again failed to demonstrate acting prowess." - clumsy. How about "In their respective reviews of We Are Your Friends, Richard Roeper and Wesley Morris noted that Ratajkowski, again playing the attractive object of affection, again failed to demonstrate acting prowess."?
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- In February 2014, Ratajkowski broke up with her boyfriend Andrew Dryden, a creative director and menswear buyer.[136][137] In December 2014, Us Weekly confirmed she was dating musician Jeff Magid.[138] - Remove. We are not a gossip magazine, we are not interested in whom she's dating month to month. Ten years from now, she herself won't remember. If she marries or is otherwise in a long term committed partnership, fine, but just casual relationships are not any of our business.
- I am confused why this content is any different than the content in other actresses at FAC that this section was modeled after. They each seem to summarize relationships that are noted in sources that rise above tabloids. It seems that personal life is suppose to summarize known relationships. I am not summarizing every date. E.g., she went with some designer to the Met Gala a few weeks ago and has social media posts with other dudes. I am not naming random dates. I am summarizing relationships that are significant according to RS. Look around at other FAs and the current FACs. This is what is now deemed proper.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- She's a 24 year old single actress and model specializing in erotica, of course she dates. She similarly eats, sleeps, wears clothes, and swims at beaches, and I'm quite sure we can find articles, with extensive paparazzi photographs, saying "today EmRata was spotted at restaurant X, hotel Y, wearing a new outfit by Z, and/or at beach Q", and none of these would be suitable for her encyclopedia article either. If she didn't date, that might be notable! However, in addition, naming people that don't have articles or don't otherwise appear in the Wikipedia except for dating her can have a huge undue impact on their lives; every subsequent Google of them by another prospective date will bring this up high on the list, which isn't fair to them. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names is basically about this. I am pretty sure this content wasn't there during the last review(s), or I would have said the same there. As for the contention that we do this in other FAs, let's see; I haven't reviewed that many. There isn't an "actresses" section, but there is a Media section. Let's look at the other biographies at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media_biographies. Andjar Asmara - no Personal life section; James T. Aubrey - no Personal life section; Kroger Babb - has Personal life section, only romantic interest named is the one who became a life long partner; Vidya Balan - has Personal life section, only romantic interest mentioned is the one she later married; Eric Bana - has Personal life section, only romantic interest mentioned is the one he later married; Joseph Barbera - has Personal life section, only romantic interests mentioned are the two he later married; John Barrymore - no Personal life section, but mentions romantic life throughout (so I may have missed some on a skim) but it seems to mention one person he proposed to, whose murder trial became a major scandal, and three he married; Harriet Bosse - no Personal life section, but mentions romantic life throughout, only naming three people she married; Rudolph Cartier - no Personal life section, only mentions one of three spouses (?!?); Nancy Cartwright - has Personal life section, only romantic interests mentioned are one she married and one she planned to before his death, fallout from which death had a significant impact on her life. Those are the first ten, alphabetically. I'm going to keep my assertion that we should only mention marriages or similarly highly important romantic relationships. --GRuban (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- I had content like this in at one point and was told to remove it. Then for this FAC, I noticed that the other current actress FACs (Emma Stone, Frieda Pinto, and Kalki Koechlin and more recently Catherine Zeta-Jones) all had personal lives sections and media image sections and were all getting supports. I reformatted Ratas "Activism and advocacy" section to be like the acceptable format of other actress articles. Note Andjar Asmara is not an actor and was promoted in 2012, James T. Aubrey not an actor and promoted in 2005, Kroger Babb not an actor and promoted in 2006. In 2016, actress personal life sections seem to be expected at FAC. I am not going to keep going, but I suggest sorting for FAs promoted in 2016 and seeing what you find. Given the current slate at FAC, I am guessing personal life sections will abound. In an earlier FAC of Brad Pitt (now an FA), I tried to get Gwyneth Paltrow's (not FA) relationship with him mentioned and got a lot of brushback. I now see she is mentioned in his personal life section and the personal life section of Ben Affleck (not FA) and has a personal life section of her own.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Furthermore note that GQ mentions boyfriend Magid in Sept 2015. The article shows that they began dating in December 2014. There are also a host of tabloid mentions of the couple dating in Daily Mail and Daily Express.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hrr. 1. I'm troubled that you searched for actresses only, not actors. 2. Freida_Pinto#Personal_life only mentions an engagement, and a 6 year relationship with her costar in the movie that launched her career. Kalki_Koechlin#Personal_life_and_off-screen_work only mentions her husband. 3. The other FACs only name people who are other actors and have articles of their own. 4. I may well now go to some of these other FAC reviews you link to and oppose on this basis. Thanks. >:-). --GRuban (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- There are no current actor nominations. I am not sure that the current FACs personal image sections exclude non-notables. I think they just include people in RS. I will try to look up 2016 actor/actress promotions for a better feel. Let me know what happens in the context of other FAC opposes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- O.K. Personal life sections are not mandatory. The 2016 FAs are Sonam Kapoor and Michael Hordern both of which don't have them. I don't think Hordern is a relevant comparison since his life predates the internet era where relationships are quite public. Kapoor's article is void of relationships. I am not sure what is right given the current slate of nominees.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hrr. 1. I'm troubled that you searched for actresses only, not actors. 2. Freida_Pinto#Personal_life only mentions an engagement, and a 6 year relationship with her costar in the movie that launched her career. Kalki_Koechlin#Personal_life_and_off-screen_work only mentions her husband. 3. The other FACs only name people who are other actors and have articles of their own. 4. I may well now go to some of these other FAC reviews you link to and oppose on this basis. Thanks. >:-). --GRuban (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- She's a 24 year old single actress and model specializing in erotica, of course she dates. She similarly eats, sleeps, wears clothes, and swims at beaches, and I'm quite sure we can find articles, with extensive paparazzi photographs, saying "today EmRata was spotted at restaurant X, hotel Y, wearing a new outfit by Z, and/or at beach Q", and none of these would be suitable for her encyclopedia article either. If she didn't date, that might be notable! However, in addition, naming people that don't have articles or don't otherwise appear in the Wikipedia except for dating her can have a huge undue impact on their lives; every subsequent Google of them by another prospective date will bring this up high on the list, which isn't fair to them. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names is basically about this. I am pretty sure this content wasn't there during the last review(s), or I would have said the same there. As for the contention that we do this in other FAs, let's see; I haven't reviewed that many. There isn't an "actresses" section, but there is a Media section. Let's look at the other biographies at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Media_biographies. Andjar Asmara - no Personal life section; James T. Aubrey - no Personal life section; Kroger Babb - has Personal life section, only romantic interest named is the one who became a life long partner; Vidya Balan - has Personal life section, only romantic interest mentioned is the one she later married; Eric Bana - has Personal life section, only romantic interest mentioned is the one he later married; Joseph Barbera - has Personal life section, only romantic interests mentioned are the two he later married; John Barrymore - no Personal life section, but mentions romantic life throughout (so I may have missed some on a skim) but it seems to mention one person he proposed to, whose murder trial became a major scandal, and three he married; Harriet Bosse - no Personal life section, but mentions romantic life throughout, only naming three people she married; Rudolph Cartier - no Personal life section, only mentions one of three spouses (?!?); Nancy Cartwright - has Personal life section, only romantic interests mentioned are one she married and one she planned to before his death, fallout from which death had a significant impact on her life. Those are the first ten, alphabetically. I'm going to keep my assertion that we should only mention marriages or similarly highly important romantic relationships. --GRuban (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- I am confused why this content is any different than the content in other actresses at FAC that this section was modeled after. They each seem to summarize relationships that are noted in sources that rise above tabloids. It seems that personal life is suppose to summarize known relationships. I am not summarizing every date. E.g., she went with some designer to the Met Gala a few weeks ago and has social media posts with other dudes. I am not naming random dates. I am summarizing relationships that are significant according to RS. Look around at other FAs and the current FACs. This is what is now deemed proper.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Ratajkowski has done public service announcements promoting safe sex and birth control for Planned Parenthood (PPFA).[139][140] She also committed to be in a short reproductive and sexual health film for PPFA.[141][142] Ratajkowski describes PPFA as her main charity because of its role in women's health, and has helped PPFA raise funds" - shorten, repetitive. Something like: "Rata has raised funds, done public service announcements, and committed to a short film promoting safe... for ... She describes it as her main charity because of ..." Keep the opposition sentence.
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- "As a woman who enjoys both ballet and pornographic entertainment, Ratajkowski feels that she can be nude in her professional work and also support equality for women." - Umm ... what? That's a striking non sequitur. What does ballet have to do with either nudity or equality? Is it specifically naked ballet? Feminist ballet? (Both exist, I imagine.)
- I think Rata's argument is that society has a non sequitur perspective that a woman can not act certain ways or do certain things and support equality for women. However, Rata herself not only does things professionally but also has a wide range of things that she considers acceptable non of which preclude her stated beliefs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- If it takes that much debatable interpretation, it's a poorly chosen quote. She has said lots of things in support of the intersection of feminism and sexuality, and we will only pick some of them to quote in our article, so we should choose ones that make sense. Unless we are trying to point out that she often says things that don't make sense? Is she prone to malapropisms? --GRuban (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- She often makes the point that "she can be nude in her professional work and also support equality for women", but it is not always pointed out in which her activities of enjoying ballet and pornography are discussed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- And you believe that mentioning that she enjoys ballet and pornography is crucial to the article? First, I admit, I kind of doubt it. But, if you really feel strongly about it, it shouldn't be conjoined with her point about sexuality and feminism, as at least the ballet part isn't obviously connected. It would be like writing: "As a woman who is 5'7 tall and was born in Westminster, Ratajkowski supports sexuality and feminism." --GRuban (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Both Ballet and Pornography are forms of female artistic expression of the body and sexuality, which are what Ratajkowski's message is all about. I have rephrased.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- And you believe that mentioning that she enjoys ballet and pornography is crucial to the article? First, I admit, I kind of doubt it. But, if you really feel strongly about it, it shouldn't be conjoined with her point about sexuality and feminism, as at least the ballet part isn't obviously connected. It would be like writing: "As a woman who is 5'7 tall and was born in Westminster, Ratajkowski supports sexuality and feminism." --GRuban (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- She often makes the point that "she can be nude in her professional work and also support equality for women", but it is not always pointed out in which her activities of enjoying ballet and pornography are discussed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- If it takes that much debatable interpretation, it's a poorly chosen quote. She has said lots of things in support of the intersection of feminism and sexuality, and we will only pick some of them to quote in our article, so we should choose ones that make sense. Unless we are trying to point out that she often says things that don't make sense? Is she prone to malapropisms? --GRuban (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- I think Rata's argument is that society has a non sequitur perspective that a woman can not act certain ways or do certain things and support equality for women. However, Rata herself not only does things professionally but also has a wide range of things that she considers acceptable non of which preclude her stated beliefs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- "to counter Gloria Steinem's statement that young female Sanders supporters (and thus Hillary Clinton opponents)" - strike the parenthetical remark, it doesn't add anything
- I have attempted to rework the parenthetical to add what it was intended to add.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- "and Rachael Moon of The Daily Mirror" - "The" should either be both italicised and capitalized, as part of the paper's name, or neither.
- thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Ratajkowski defended Kim Kardashian in a March naked selfie social media controversy" - a bit more description is needed. "... defended KK from criticism after K posted a naked selfie on ... " maybe?
- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Following her letter and social media statement, her feminism became controversial." - that's just not true, her feminism was controversial from at least the moment she called herself one after appearing nude on the treats cover, if not before. You've got an entire paragraph on the controversy in the Personal life section. In fact, what makes that paragraph go in the Personal life section, and this go in the Media image section?
- I have reworded this from "her feminism became controversial" to "the controversy about her feminism heightened".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Same for the Sanders endorsement, what makes that Personal life and not Media image? Though I guess you have to put it somewhere, it's a prominent political endorsement, it's not really Personal life. How about renaming the whole Personal life section to Politics or Activism, since, after removal of the dating sentences, that's what it is about?
- FA bios now have a section titled personal life in which people talk about relationships and causes. I question removing dating content that is in RSs. If you have a cause that becomes a media hot topic, I think it moves down into the media image section. Causes that do not stir a lot of emotions stay up in the personal life section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- CR Fashion Book seems to be United States (New York, even) https://twitter.com/crfashionbook--GRuban (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thx.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- GRuban, what do you think of adding a FU image for her August 11 breakout day.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Er ... ? I'm not sure; let me enumerate why. 1) What's the image? 2) I'm not sure what her August 11 breakout day would be. When she went on tour promoting a film that she had a minor part in? 3) Honestly, I'd recommend asking the opinion of Sarah (SV). She's the main person opposing the current fair use image in the article. There is a lot to be said for making your reviewers happy. Presumably the image you choose would wear clothes... 4) Finally, given the subject, and the occasionally heated discussion, we ... probably should not use FU as the abbreviation for fair use. Just saying. --GRuban (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Copy-edit by the Guild of Copy Editors
I have completed a requested copy-edit of this article. Here are the changes I made. I removed very little content, only a sentence or phrase here and there. I moved a couple of chunks of text to more appropriate sections.
I took care to check some potentially controversial quotations and paraphrases against their sources and rephrased or replaced the text in the article with text that better matched the sources.
Let me know if you have any questions. I'll keep this page on my watchlist for a while. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why did you remove the following: She said: "... there's different kinds of nudity, and ... the video was tasteful".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I saw it as excessive. Immediately prior to that sentence, we have "Ratajkowski did not think of .. and claimed ...", "She said that ...", and "Ratajkowski said that ... and that she believes ...." We don't need a sixth statement in a row from Ratajkowski. Five is already a lot. If you think that the "different kinds" statement adds value, I recommend finding a way to synthesize the previous five messages from the article's subject. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking on this copyedit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- I saw it as excessive. Immediately prior to that sentence, we have "Ratajkowski did not think of .. and claimed ...", "She said that ...", and "Ratajkowski said that ... and that she believes ...." We don't need a sixth statement in a row from Ratajkowski. Five is already a lot. If you think that the "different kinds" statement adds value, I recommend finding a way to synthesize the previous five messages from the article's subject. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Jonesey95, Is it "before they settled in the United States" or "before it settled in the United States"?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments from FunkyCanute
This is my first time reviewing a FAC, so I posit these as comments.
I see you have done a vast amount of work on this article, which is great. However, fundamentally, the article for me does not appear to be well-written (WP:WIAFA 1). I'd go so far as to say that it is poorly written. It reads like a mosaic of citations, which have been pieced together to make the article. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work, and results in stilted language construction and even, at times, non-sequiturs: the writing (rather than the article), is therefore not 'engaging'. There are also, on occasion, some sentences that need work to be considered 'of a professional standard'. These are some examples, and are not an exhaustive list:
- Early life
*Ratajkowski, an only child,[4] was born in Westminster, London, to American parents.[5] At Ratajkowski's birth, her mother, Kathleen Balgley, and father, John David "J. D." Ratajkowski, were aged 39 and 45, respectively,[6] and unmarried.[7] Balgley, an English professor and writer, described by Ratajkowski as a "feminist and intellectual",[8][9] was teaching under the Fulbright Program.[7] Balgley met J. D. Ratajkowski, a painter and art teacher,[8] when they both taught at San Dieguito Academy.
I can see how this has been pieced together, but it is clunky. Try instead:
Ratajkowski was born in Westminster, London, the only child of Kathleen Balgley and John David "JD" Ratajkowski, both American. Balgley, a professor of English and a writer, was teaching under the Fulbright Program, when she met JDR, a painter and art teacher,whenwhile they were both teaching at San Dieguito Academy. At the time of their daughter's birth, they were aged 39 and 45 respectively. Ratajkowski describes her mother as a "feminist and intellectual".- FunkyCanute, I don't have a lot of time today, but I do appreciate the involvment of better writers than me. This suggestion results in an odd use of when twice in the same sentence. Does that seem odd to you?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger Yes, agreed, but easily remedied by changing the second when to while. No doubt my suggestion can be improved further. Part of what it achieves, nevertheless, is a reduction in the number of times that the names Ratajkowski and Balgley appear in the paragraph. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- FunkyCanute, I don't have a lot of time today, but I do appreciate the involvment of better writers than me. This suggestion results in an odd use of when twice in the same sentence. Does that seem odd to you?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I have made the change above with slight modifications.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- comma before respectively.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- removed the term writer because I do not see it in any of the sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- The term unmarried has been omited in your suggestions. Was this intentional?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- No, my mistake. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Restored.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- No, my mistake. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have made the change above with slight modifications.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
*As a physically mature young teenager, Ratajkowski endured pressure to suppress expressing her sexuality[19][20] and how she presented herself.[21] Several problems. 1) The sentence introduces the idea that she was physically mature in a sub-clause. 2) The alliteration in 'pressure to suppress expressing' is unappealing; while the second part of the sentence (...and how...) does not follow syntactically from the first. 3) From whom did she endure pressure?
-
- 1 and 2 corrected. Sources enumerate varous sources of pressure (teachers, relatives, friends, society).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Career
*Ratajkowski staged shows for her family as a child.[22] Her first formal acting role was as Elsa in an adaptation of The Little Match Girl at the North Coast Repertory Theatre School in Solana Beach, California.[4] She played Harriet in the interactive 2004 Lyceum Theatre production of Harriet Potter and the Throne of Applewort.[23] Ratajkowski signed with Ford Models at age 14 and did teen print catalog modeling for Kohl's and Nordstrom.[8] She attended San Dieguito Academy high school in San Diego, while modeling and acting in Los Angeles.[24]
This is a list, albeit presented as prose. It's difficult to understand what is going on partly because the timeline switches between year and her age: 2004, age 14; partly, we have unexplained jumps in location. I appreciate that some previous comments have said it needs to be cut back, but here we need to expand. Something like: "Ratajkowski began acting as a child, staging shows for her family. Her first formal role was as Elsa..." Year? Age? "Later, in 2004, she played Harriet..." What's the cause for the transition form North Coast Theatre School to San Dieguito Academy? Is it the signing with Ford Models or something else? It isn't clear.
-
- The first 3 sentences show she enjoyed theatre, her first role and a later prominent role. Nothing unusual about that. We can only present time references that we have. If we have a year for one and an age for another that is what we have.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- From what I can tell by this non-RS North coast was as a 6th grader in 2002. San Dieguito was high school. I think age causes such a transition:)--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Music video performances
*The fourth paragraph, beginning "Blurred Lines" was controversial, is very nicely put together, and is the standard to which the rest of the article needs to adhere, although it would be better not to repeat 'promoted'.
-
- Thanks. redundancy averted.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
*The following paragraph repeats the polarised positions of the video's reception, with a little more detail, rather than moving on, as would be expected. Blend these two paragraphs together. Try:
"Blurred Lines" was controversial: it was called sexist for its degradation of women, and some felt it promoted rape. Others disagreed, asserting that it promoted female power and sexual freedom. Martel defended Ratajkowski's performance, saying: "it's very, very funny and subtly ridiculing." Ratajkowski did not think of the video as sexist and claimed that the producers, through the use of humor and sarcasm, "took something that on paper sounded really sexist and misogynistic and made it more interesting". She said that the song "gave me an opportunity to say the things that I felt about feminism today and about women in general in pop culture." She did not feel objectified and enjoyed performing in a sexual manner: the attention given to the nudity in the video, she said, showed that America had not advanced as far as it should have, and, she believed, society repressed sexuality, which was bad for both sexes.
-
- You are asking me to merge a paragraph about "rapey" lyrics of the song with a paragraph about perceptions of degrading nudity in a video. The subject of one is lyrics and the subject of the other is a video. I am having trouble with this last instruction as a result.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- I see that GRuban above has given similar instructions. I will reconsider this aain.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- You are asking me to merge a paragraph about "rapey" lyrics of the song with a paragraph about perceptions of degrading nudity in a video. The subject of one is lyrics and the subject of the other is a video. I am having trouble with this last instruction as a result.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
These are examples, only, and some suggestions for remedying the prose. Most of the article would benefit from some serious attention to the writing.
Aside from this, in my opinion, the article mostly meets all the other FA criteria. FunkyCanute (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- FunkyCanute, I am just getting around to looking at your review. Thank you for taking the time to contribute. I'll be responding and editing in the next 48 hours or so.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Rise to fame
- Overall, while this section seems very thorough, it doesn't appear to offer a progression. We occasionally jump from one item to another, and some of the timeline is unclear.
*The title strikes me as WP:PEACOCK.
-
- This title was probably better before I moved its first paragraph to lead the Media image section. I have changed it to "Breakthrough"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Too many paragraphs begin with her name.
*There are also two consecutive ones that begin "Ratajkowski was cast in...".
-
- I have addressed this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Many of the paragraphs are very short. Is it possible to combine them in some way?
- I can merge the two 2016 modeling paras at the end.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- The first sentence is about July 2013. The next begins June 24, but is about July 2014. I'm confused about the timeline.
- With the rearranged content the chronology is more muddled. Advice welcome, but I don't think relying on strict chronology will work.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Ratajkowski parlayed her sudden prominence into supporting roles in major films." I don't know what this means. Also seems to be PEACOCK/WEASEL.
- FunkyCanute, I could use some advice on the fact that the first paragraph of the media image section is in a place that it probably belongs but is now not serving to introduce her breakthrough section. What should I do regarding this?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have moved the lead paragraph back to this section and added content to the media image.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have some trouble with "parlayed". Apparently, it's an Americanism. In any case, it might be better to use a different word/phrasing here. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- How is leveraged?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have some trouble with "parlayed". Apparently, it's an Americanism. In any case, it might be better to use a different word/phrasing here. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have moved the lead paragraph back to this section and added content to the media image.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- FunkyCanute, I could use some advice on the fact that the first paragraph of the media image section is in a place that it probably belongs but is now not serving to introduce her breakthrough section. What should I do regarding this?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- "In September 2014, Ratajkowski was a victim..." The sentence that follows is a non-sequitur.
- Thematically, they are not closely related subjects, but they occured in the same month, which causes them to be sequential.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger Still, it's a complete change of subject, so it doesn't work. On further reflection, the iCloud story isn't really about her career at all, and probably fits better in personal life. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Moved.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger Still, it's a complete change of subject, so it doesn't work. On further reflection, the iCloud story isn't really about her career at all, and probably fits better in personal life. FunkyCanute (talk) 09:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thematically, they are not closely related subjects, but they occured in the same month, which causes them to be sequential.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
*The final four paragraphs are not in chronological order.
-
-
-
- Moved.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:59, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Personal life
- "In February 2014, Ratajkowski broke up with her boyfriend..." It would be better to begin by informing the reader that they were together before mentioning the breakup.
- It is on the public record that she dated Dryden from March 2012 until Feb 2014, but I don't think this is a reliable source and am not sure one exists for this fact. I'd settle for one stating that they dated for nearly 2 years or since 2012 if I could find it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger, that's all the comments from me. You've addressed my earlier comments already. I've made a very small number of edits directly to the text. I will read through again. FunkyCanute (talk) 08:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger I've made a few more changes to the article, purely in an attempt to improve the prose. Following these, I give a support for the article's text. However, I have not reviewed any of the images. FunkyCanute (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- FunkyCanute, note that above I asked GRuban about adding a FU image for the August 11 breakthrough appearance. Do you have any thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger My feeling is that the article is sufficiently well illustrated already. FunkyCanute (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments from SlimVirgin
Oppose, 1(a), 1(d), 3 and 4. This has been at FAC since January. I suggest withdrawing it, fixing the issues reviewers have identified (even if you disagree with them), then submitting it for peer review.
- When the last FAC ended, the article was 3,488 words. The current version is 3,105, which is an improvement, but the article is still very list-like, with a weak narrative structure and too much trivia, which makes it repetitive and hard to read. For example:
-
Alonso Duralde of TheWrap described the role as thin, as did Ty Burr of The Boston Globe.[105][106] Burr said that Ratajkowski's performance was "surpassingly dull",[105] while Nell Minow of Beliefnet noted that she "does more posing than acting."[107] Kyle Smith of the New York Post described her performance as "quietly entrancing",[108] and Jordan Hoffman of the Daily News described Ratajkowski's performance as "stunning and sweet."[109] Robbie Collin of The Daily Telegraph and Grantland's Morris noted Ratajkowski's rhythmic dancing skills and sex appeal, as previously seen in "Blurred Lines".[110][111]
-
The "Blurred Lines" video garnered Ratajkowski notoriety,[11] especially as a sex symbol.[63] In October 2013, Esquire magazine named Ratajkowski "Woman of the Year", over online fan vote finalist Jennifer Lawrence.[64] That December, Rolling Stone magazine listed her among its twenty hottest sex symbols.[63] In February 2014, Sports Illustrated magazine named Ratajkowski as one of twelve 50th anniversary swimsuit issue rookies.[65] In April, FHM ranked her the fourth sexiest woman in the world.[66] Maxim magazine included Ratajkowski at number 62 on its 2014 Hot 100 list.[67][68] AskMen ranked her the third most desirable woman of 2014.[69]
-
Ratajkowski is regarded as one of the sexiest women in the world. She was ranked in Maxim's Hot 100 list in both 2014 (#62)[67] and 2015 (#2).[164] AskMen ranked her among its most desirable women of 2014 (#3)[69] and 2016 (#14);[165] while FHM ranked her among the sexiest in 2014 (#4),[66] and 2015 (#18).[166] She is also praised for her fashion sense: Ratajkowski made Vogue Italia's Best Dressed List of 2015,[167] and Harper's Bazaar placed her atop its best dressed list at the February 2016 New York Fashion Week.[168]
-
- It is pretty difficult to figure out how to improve the article based on issues like this. Basically, you are saying: This is stuff that could reasonably be presented in a listified trivia section that should be deleted. However, WP:TRIVIA says "A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions..." Thus, I am thinking that this content is presented as well as it could be. The WP:LEAD currently says "She is known for her sex appeal and fashion sense." The third example that you present is an example of grouping and ordering such facts about her sex appeal and fashion sense for an integrated presentation. Alternatively, you could make the argument that we do not need to tell the reader "She is known for her sex appeal and fashion sense." in which case, this content is not necessary, but the main body is currently just supporting the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- The article is promotional. For example, this sentence is pure PR: "As a 5-foot-7-inch (1.70 m) model with 'curves that put her in a different class from runway models',[125] she has said that she hopes to break barriers for shorter and more curvaceous models."[125]
- Can you clarify what you mean by the term promotional in this context. I am not even sure how to attempt to correct the issue because I don't really imderstamd upur point. Please tell me how the current article violates WP:NOTADVERTISING.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- At least two reviewers have highlighted the inclusion of the parents' ages, yet it remains: "At the time of their daughter's birth, they were aged 39 and 45, respectively ..." There is nothing unusual about this, and it looks odd to mention it.
- In the current FAC, both Vensatry and FunkyCanute have helped me refine the presentation of this content without any suggestion that it was not properly included. FrB.TG questioned whether the parental stage of life at birth is an encyclopedic matter. I explained that it may be and can even be WP:LEAD worthy. E.g., a posthumous birth can be Leadworthy in the case of a very notable parent, such as Rory Kennedy. Although not LEAD-worthy here, the parental stage of life at the time of birth (average age of 42) is in the skinny part of the bell curve. Noting a posthumous birth in the article is probably not normal, but in some cases is very encyclopedic. Noting older and unmarried parents is not quite as unusual as a prominent dead parent, but those two facts together make for unusual enough parental stage of life to cause need for clarification, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- "Ratajkowski was a physically mature young teenager who endured pressure to limit expressing her sexuality ..." Better to use the primary source. [30] Many women experience the kind of sexism she describes, but the article almost gives the impression that it's unusual. Try something like: "R has written about her experience of ..."
- As I review WP:PRIMARY, I am having a hard time justifying replacing WP:SECONDARY sources with the WP:PRIMARY source, especially since this is a complicated issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- The nude non-free doesn't comply with WP:NFCC #8.
- Item #8 is addressed in the revised FUR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Including current and former dates is intrusive.
- By dates are you referring to boyfriends of over 18 months?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- The paragraph about feminism in the "Personal life" section isn't well-written or sourced. It uses Charlie Burton of GQ, a men's magazine, as an RS on feminism: "British GQ's Charlie Burton stated that she is a feminist with more to say than others. He said that her message is one of sexual empowerment, because sex should not feel like a service and should be beneficial to all involved parties."
- "isn't well-sourced"? The sources are Cosmopolitan (magazine) 2x, Elle (magazine), The New York Times, InStyle, Zimbabwe Metro, and British GQ. By what standards are these not good sources? I think the writing is up to the standards of the sources, but am willing to respond to examples that might clarify your concern. Regarding Burton, WP is suppose to depict all sides of an issue. Including feminism summaries from both men's and women's publications is not a mark against the sources. In fact, it is probably exemplary. We are not suppose to only present the issue from one side. Furthermore, Burton is quite sympathetic to Rata's issues and hardly contradicts or contravenes the women's mag statements.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- There are more paragraphs on sexism and feminism in the "Media image" section. They are list-like, not neutral and not well-sourced. The feminism sections should be combined and reduced, and based only on appropriate sources.
- "List-like"? I am just summarizing sources. I have attempted to model the personal image section and media section based on the articles that were at FAC while this FAC was (Emma Stone, Kalki Koechlin, Freida Pinto and Catherine Zeta-Jones). Advocacy seems to be a personal life issue in other bios. However, specific stories are media image issues in my mind. It seems that you are advocating eliminating all elements of the personal life section. However, it seems to be current expectation that this content be included.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- The paragraph on Blurred Lines in the "Music video performances" section leans almost entirely toward Ratajkowski's view, which is the minority view. Most sources found the song and video disturbing; the Guardian called it the "most controversial song of the decade." [31] The idea that the song or video said anything about feminism is absurd; that view should not be included unchallenged.
- The idea that the song or video said anything about feminism is the view of the subject of the article. Shouldn't the content focus on the subject of the article? The paragraph clearly states that there are two sides to the issue. Then it expands upon Ratajkowski's opinion. She is the subject of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- The second-last sentence attributes a subhead to a journalist (the Saul source). These are usually written by sub-editors. Unless that sentence is also in the article, it should not be attributed to the reporter.
- Amended.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
SarahSV (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- GRuban, you are the SlimVirgin-whisperer. I am not finding the issues herein actionable. What am I not understanding? I am trying to WP:AGF here, but feel I am just up against someone who will do anything to keep this article from passing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sheesh - I already got into trouble for mansplaining once, now I'm being asked to do it again! (Well, kind of. Technically mansplaining is explaining to a woman, not quite about one...) Tony, she's not writing in some foreign language that I need to interpret. (If she were writing in Russian, I could do that for you!) SlimVirgin / Sarah (SV) is an experienced Wikipedia editor, FA writer and (presumably, I haven't checked) reviewer. Yes, she does not like the nude image. Since you seem set on having it, there doesn't seem to be a way around that, it will be a road bump. You might be able to get the article passed anyway, if that is the sole objection, but if you have several road bumps like that you won't pass, so addressing the things that you and she can find common ground on seems like a good idea, rather than pushing back on every little thing, and assuming that Sarah is out to get you. She is not. No, she is clearly not a personal fan of the subject; but in the end, she is able to overcome that in an effort to make the article better. She doesn't have to actually like the subject in order to write well about it - her most recent FA is Female genital mutilation, I hope you can accept she is not a fan of that? Addressing the specific things she says, with rare exceptions like the nude image, is quite possible. For example, she is saying that Charlie Burton of GQ magazine is not an expert on feminism. You're saying that there are 6 sources for that paragraph, GQ is only one. Well, just at first glance, then, there seems to be room to meet there; the other 5 are presumably better sources on feminism than GQ, a, by definition, men's magazine. No? Surely the other 5 sources can support most if not all of what you want to write there? (If you would like to insist that Burton is an expert on feminism, please dig up some sources that say so, or noticeable works he's written on the subject, or something like that; it is theoretically possible to be an expert on feminism without being a feminist ... but frankly I suspect just relying on the mainstream papers and the women's magazines will be easier.) --GRuban (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Wings for My Flight
This article is about Wings for My Flight, a small, yet deeply engaging book about author Marcy Cottrell Houle's challenges protecting a family of peregrine falcons at Chimney Rock National Monument in Colorado, at a time when peregrine falcons were on the verge of extinction. The events described in the book happened in 1975 – the ensuing global effort to save the peregrine falcons was remarkably successful. In 1999, nine years after Wings for My Flight was first published, the peregrine falcon was removed from the U.S. Endangered Species list, securing the victory for Houle, which she comments on in the 2014 revised edition of the book.
This article was reviewed at GAN by User:Cirt last October, and I took it for a peer review these past few months, getting some great feedback from User:J Milburn and User:Moisejp. Ultimately, this is my first FAC, so hopefully I haven't screwed anything up too badly. Respectfully submitted, Mz7 (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Parkywiki
Like you @Mz7:, I am also a newcomer to Featured Articles, having only critiqued one other and having just nominated my very first FAC article. However, I do have a very strong interest in this subject (I established a peregrine falcon webcam project on an urban nest site in England ten years ago which I still run today.) So, I understand the subject matter well, am clearly extremely biased, but have not read the book!
My initial impressions is that this is well-written and well-referenced article which provides a good flavour of what the book was about, how it was received and, of course, the background to the story. I found it very interesting (but am somewhat biased, as I said). It could do with some minor tweaks to the text, which I will outline below on a sentence-by-sentence basis, and over various posts. I'll omit wikilinks and references. If I make any mistakes as a reviewer I'd welcome being corrected by other more experienced users.
- Two of the three images are lacking alt-text.
Lead section. This seems of an appropriate length. I felt the first paragraph focussed just a little too quickly on the details of causes of the demise of the peregrine falcon. The article is about the book, and I suggest the demise of the peregrine is put a little lower down within the lead. I need to know about Chimney Rock, too, of course, and shouldn't have to rely on wikilinks anywhere within the article to help me understand a name or a term.
- "...where one of the last pairs of peregrine falcons was discovered" tense suggest: "had been discovered" (give date if poss)
Done. Couldn't find a specific date, unfortunately. Mz7 (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- "To protect the falcons, Houle had to halt a million-dollar project to build a tourist attraction for ancient Anasazi ruins in the area and faced harassment by the Chimney Rock community as a result." reword I don't think the facility was designed to attract ancient Anasazi ruins, was it? Would "opposition and harassment" be an appropriate description?
Done. I rephrased it as: To protect the falcons, Houle had to halt a million-dollar project turn ancient Anasazi ruins in the area into a tourist attraction and faced opposition and harassment by the Chimney Rock community as a result. However, doesn't "harassment" already imply opposition? I suppose that not all of the opposition was harassment, though. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- "The community eventually showed concern for Houle, however, after her trailer was burglarized." I write this, not having read further on, but the simple act of burglary (is burglarize actually a real word, btw?) does not quite make the link for me. I'm guessing her trailer was broken into in an act of intimidation to get her to leave)
I just reread the relevant passage in the book. Houle never found out who broke into her trailer, so she never found out exactly why it was vandalized, but it was probably to intimidate her. It's not our job to speculate, though. "Burglarize" is an Americanism that another British editor at WP:PR got annoyed at too, heh heh. I've changed it to "broken into and vandalized" – hopefully that looks better for international readers. ;) The community's response to the burglary is surprisingly heartwarming. Houle expected the community to rejoice at her misfortune, given their indignation towards her presence at Chimney Rock, but they would not tolerate such a massive crime – thousands of dollars in scientific equipment was stolen, and that provoked the morality of the community and caused it to rally behind Houle. It's an interesting twist in the story, one that I fear I didn't explain well enough in the summary. I'll look into it over the weekend. Mz7 (talk) 02:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Wings for My Flight was originally published in hardcover by Addison-Wesley in 1991. The book was republished in 1999 by Pruett Publishing and again in 2014 by the University of New Mexico Press." Get rid of the red link and tighten up these two sentences. Is it republished, or reprinted? Or a revised 2nd edition with extra content?
I tried to make it more clear by adding additional details: Wings for My Flight was originally published in hardcover by Addison-Wesley in 1991. The book was republished in 1999 by Pruett Publishing with a foreword by Robert Michael Pyle and a new preface and epilogue by Houle. The book was updated again in 2014 and republished by the University of New Mexico Press with photographs and a preface by Houle touching upon the recovery of the peregrine falcon. Mz7 (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- "The book co-received the Oregon Book Award in 1991 and was also awarded a Christopher Award for books in 1992" It might be nice within the lead to know briefly what these awards were both for without having to follow the wikilinks or to read further down.
Done. Briefly added a description of both awards. Mz7 (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- "The Library Journal described the book as "well-crafted and compelling",[1] while the Los Angeles Times referred to the book as "heartfelt", although "naive and overdrawn at times".[2]" Two comments here: 1) I'm sure I was read another reviewer say that FA leads should not contain citations', so think about removing this and ensuring it is cited later on. 2) Try and avoid the use of the same word (book) twice within a single sentence. FA writing should flow well and be a pleasure to read. Just use 'it' or something similar to give more balance to the sentence.
Not done and done. You're right that lead sections should generally not contain inline citations to avoid redundancy, per WP:LEADCITE. However, WP:BURDEN specifically states that all quotations should be cited. LEADCITE advises us that a case-by-case approach is needed, and I think the citations here are appropriate, so that we know exactly where the quotes are coming from. I've changed the repetition of the word "book" to "it" as you suggested. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- "By the 1970s, there were no peregrine falcon nests discovered east of the Rocky Mountains,[4]:xii and in the West, peregrine falcon populations had declined by 80 to 90 percent.[3]" The link between these sentences could be enhanced with a 'however' or something similar. I suspect the statement that "no peregrine nests had been discovered" is incorrect. From the similar situation described by scientist, Derek Ratcliffe, here in the UK in the 1960s and 70s, nests were definitely being occupied (=discovered), and eggs were laid, but none were successful at hatching chicks because of the egg shell-thinning problem. This is an important distinction to make. Why is 'West' capitalised?
I'm not sure if "however" is the right link. The second clause complements the first by furthering the description of the major decline; it doesn't oppose it. I did a bit of research, and I'm not sure if the part about the east is inaccurate. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, when they took the peregrine falcon off of the endangered list, published this directive, which states that Peregrine falcons in the Great Plains states east of the Rocky Mountains and south of the boreal forest in Canada and the United States were also extirpated in the DDT-era. On the other hand, the state of New Jersey published this report in 2010, which states that The eastern population plunged from an estimated 350 active sites in the 1930's and 1940's to no active breeding birds in 1964 or 1975. I think means that some peregrines were found (i.e. discovered) but just not breeding, so they became essentially extinct in that area, so you may be right. I'll keep looking. Mz7 (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC) Oh, and "West" was capitalized since the Western United States is conventionally referred to as "the West", but I've made it lowercase since we are talking about west of the Rocky Mountains and not the western U.S. in general. Mz7 (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- "By the events of Wings for My Flight, which take place in 1975, only 324 pairs of peregrine falcons were known..." This sentence is a little clumsy. Maybe something like this might be better?: "By the time the events described in Wings for my Flight took place in 1975, only 324 ..."
Done. Reworded to read: By 1975, the year in which the events of Wings for My Flight take place, only 324 pairs of peregrine falcons were known to reside in North America Mz7 (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- "In the midst of the peregrine falcon decline, Houle studied biology at Colorado College in Colorado Springs." This seems an odd way of linking two events. Could it be better worded?
How about During the peregrine falcon decline, Houle studied biology...? Mz7 (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- "The institution's block scheduling system allowed Houle to frequently travel to experience various ecosystems in addition to her academic studies." Again, clunky wording. Without following the wikilink I have no idea what block scheduling means, and "to experience various ecosystems" seems an odd phrase to use.
Changed to The institution's block scheduling system meant that Houle had fewer classes each day, allowing her to travel frequently to experience various ecosystems in addition to her academic studies. It might still be a little clunky; I'll think about it. Mz7 (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Following the experience, Houle had to decide whether to continue pursuing wildlife biology or to instead commit to her passion of writing..." Which experience? Just tweak the wording a bit here. And the split infinitive ('or to instead commit') doesn't sound good either. There's another in the previous sentence, too.
Done. Tweaked to read Following her experience with the peregrine falcons, Houle had to decide whether to continue pursuing wildlife biology or to commit instead to her passion of writing. Also tweaked the split infinitive in the earlier sentence. Mz7 (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Wings for My Flight merges both fields and documents Houle's observations of the peregrines and the community at Chimney Rock during her first summer there." a little clunky here. Try: " Wings for My Flight combined both of Houle's interests; it recounted her observations of the peregrines as well as her interaction with the community at Chimney Rock during her first summer there.[6]"
Done. Mz7 (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- "The peregrine falcon became an endangered species primarily due to the use of organochlorine pesticides, especially DDT,[4]:xii, 15 the breakdown of which lowered estrogen levels in the female peregrine bloodstream and inhibited the production of calcium, causing eggs to grow thinner by up to 20 percent. Since peregrine falcons lay their eggs on rocky ledges rather than nests, the thinned shells break under the stress of both the rocky ledge and the weight of the parents during incubation.[4]:15–16" This is very complex I suspect the lay reader needs a phased introduction to this concept. How about something like this: "The peregrine falcon became endangered [around DATE], after almost every clutch of eggs cracked during incubation at their nest sites. This was eventually found to be caused by the widespread use of organochlorine pesticides, especially DDT,[4]:xii, 15. Widely used as a seed-dressing [confirm], these passed up through the food-chain and built up in the peregrines' bodies. The breakdown products of DDT lowered estrogen levels in the female peregrine's bloodstream which inhibited the production of calcium. (is 'production of calcium' the right phrase? This caused the eggshells produced by affected birds to be up to 20 percent thinner than normal. These shells then shattered during incubation because of the weight of the parent birds against their hard, rocky nest ledges.[4]:15–16"
- "...and recovery teams in North America and Europe were successful in breeding and training peregrines in captivity to later release to the wild, a procedure called hacking" I've not checked your references, but I am not aware of any European projects breeding and training peregrines in captivity for later release, and almost certainly not in the UK. I'm not saying this hasn't happened - just that in my experience I have not heard of it in Europe - so, I would ask that you re-check this source and ensure it is absolutely correct and supported by a full citation(s) later on.
Done. I was sitting in the library as I was looking over this. I didn't have the source on hand, but it turns out, it was no more than a few steps away from me! Page 34 of the Reader's Digest book says nothing about the hacking procedure performed in Europe. Accordingly, the mention of Europe will stay removed, and I will update Peregrine falcon#Recovery efforts. Thanks for catching that! Mz7 (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
That's enough for now - I'll work on more sections later on (in between monitoring my own breeding peregrines!) Parkywiki (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Parkywiki: Thank you so much for your thorough review! Looking through them, your comments are very helpful – should I respond by addressing each bullet point separately, underneath each issue, or should I respond to all of them together in a paragraph underneath the comments? Mz7 (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Glad to hear it's what you want. I'll try and work through a bit more over the next few days. I'm not sure if there is a protocol for this, but what I found helpful when reviewing Nothomyrmecia was when nominator responded beneath each of my bullet points. Don't use a bullet point or colon to indent, and start each sentence with Done or Not Done, followed by your response/discussion. This lets you and me easily see what's been addressed, and what's left to do, as your response won't be indented. It might not be what others do - but it worked for me! Parkywiki (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Parkywiki: Thanks! That sounds reasonable. I should mention that I would consider myself very much a "lay person" on this subject matter. This is a book that I found one day and that piqued my interest – I have no experience actually working with or studying peregrine falcons, so I consider you far more knowledgeable on this topic than me. ;) With regards to the "breeding and training peregrines in captivity for later release," I followed the lead of Peregrine falcon#Recovery efforts, which says that it was done by teams in Germany and Poland, in addition to Canada and the United States, and I borrowed the Reader's Digest source from that article. I've removed the mention of Europe for now and will double-check the source to make sure. Mz7 (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Glad to hear it's what you want. I'll try and work through a bit more over the next few days. I'm not sure if there is a protocol for this, but what I found helpful when reviewing Nothomyrmecia was when nominator responded beneath each of my bullet points. Don't use a bullet point or colon to indent, and start each sentence with Done or Not Done, followed by your response/discussion. This lets you and me easily see what's been addressed, and what's left to do, as your response won't be indented. It might not be what others do - but it worked for me! Parkywiki (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Parkywiki: Thank you so much for your thorough review! Looking through them, your comments are very helpful – should I respond by addressing each bullet point separately, underneath each issue, or should I respond to all of them together in a paragraph underneath the comments? Mz7 (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- I believe I have responded to most of the concerns. Regarding image alt-text, my understanding was that alt-text was not necessary if the caption or file name adequately explains what the image depicts. I tried to structure the lead similar to how the article is structured, starting with the factual background and moving into a summary of the book's content, then awards and reception. I can see how the lead might put too much emphasis on how the peregrine declined, and I will muse on how I could modify it. Mz7 (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Wrestle Kingdom 9
- Nominators: リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) and starship.paint ~ KO 04:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
This is our third attempt at WP:FA for this article, as the first two attempts didn't generate enough discussion. The article is about a 2015 Japanese professional wrestling show, the premier annual event of NJPW, and was praised by critics. It received an award as the Best Major Wrestling Show of 2015, and one of its matches was awarded 2015 Pro Wrestling Match of the Year. Ribbon and I have created the article, brought it to DYK, GA and peer review.
To encourage activity, I'm willing to exchange reviews for anyone I haven't already given help to! Whereas Ribbon said he would try to help in his own way! :) starship.paint ~ KO 04:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
Sorry to see you've had so little luck getting reviews after three nominations.
Any reason for the citation on the first sentence? Cites aren't usually needed in the lead except for direct quotes and contentious statements.
-
-
- I believe it was originally there to show that the full name of the event is "Wrestle Kingdom 9 in Tokyo Dome" and not just the "Wrestle Kingdom 9" that's used throughout the article. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
-
"The Tanahashi-Okada heavyweight title match also headlined Wrestle Kingdom 7 and Wrestle Kingdom 10": I think this means that 7 and 10 also had a heavyweight title match between Tanahashi and Okada, but this phrasing isn't quite right -- "The Tanahashi-Okada match" refers to a single instance of a match, not to a matchup. Just changing the lead "The" to "A" and making it "had also" might do it, though you could also rephrase.
-
- Changed, thanks! starship.paint ~ KO 02:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- I tweaked it; see if that's OK -- the problem is that Wrestle Kingdom 10 is not in the past at the time of Wrestle Kingdom 9, so using "had" only works for WK7. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Changed, thanks! starship.paint ~ KO 02:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
"The appearance of Pro Wrestling Noah wrestlers led to a storyline where NJPW's Suzuki-gun group began wrestling in Noah": I don't know enough about wrestling to really follow this, but I think it's saying that the Suzuki-gun group began wrestling under the Noah promotional banner, or in Noah events. I think this would be clearer to non-aficionados if you provided a timeframe -- e.g. "led to a storyline at the following week's Noah event".
"Wrestle Kingdom 9 was announced on August 10, 2014, to take place at the Tokyo Dome on January 4, 2015. That day NJPW announced a partnership with Jeff Jarrett's Global Force Wrestling, which it approached about bringing the event to a new market." I think this should be "which it had approached", since the approach presumably precedes January 4, but wouldn't it be better to make this strictly chronological? Something like (and I'm guessing at the date for the first part): "Early in 2014, NJPW approached Jeff Jarrett's Global Force Wrestling to suggest bringing the Wrestle Kingdom event to a new market. On August 10, 2014, NJPW announced that Wrestle Kingdom 9 would take place at the Tokyo Dome on January 4, 2015, and on November 4 GFW followed with an announcement that the event would be presented live on ..."
-
- Personally, I would think that NJPW approached GFW about the PPV thing after August when the partnership between the two was announced, but this isn't specifically stated in the source given. It could also have happened before August. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- If the date's not in the source then it's moot, so I've struck my comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Personally, I would think that NJPW approached GFW about the PPV thing after August when the partnership between the two was announced, but this isn't specifically stated in the source given. It could also have happened before August. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
"Ross attempted to obtain Mike Tenay for color commentary, but was turned down by the Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (TNA) promotion": What does TNA have to do with obtaining Tenay?
-
- Tenay is employed by TNA. I clarified, is it alright? starship.paint ~ KO 03:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Tweaked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Tenay is employed by TNA. I clarified, is it alright? starship.paint ~ KO 03:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
"Others considered for the job were John Pollock, Mauro Ranallo and Kevin Nash, before GFW settled on Matt Striker": Do we need to include details of people who were not, in the end, involved in the event? If this is the sort of thing wrestling fans find interesting, I'm OK with leaving it in, but it seems a bit peripheral.
-
- Most wrestling fans recognize the names of Ranallo and Nash and I think would find the idea of them being considered interesting. I'm fine with removing them too. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- That's fine; I was just making sure. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Most wrestling fans recognize the names of Ranallo and Nash and I think would find the idea of them being considered interesting. I'm fine with removing them too. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not very knowledgeable about wrestling, but it appears kayfabe applies to Japanese wrestling too. Wouldn't it make sense to link "scripted" to kayfabe instead of to script (recorded media)? Or is the term not applied to Japanese bouts?
-
- Changed the link and the text too. In the period of time that this FAC was up, WP:PW reached a consensus that the old "wrestling is scripted" disclaimer should be rewritten. starship.paint ~ KO 02:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
If you say "the main event" you can't really say "other main event"; you either have one main event or two main events.
-
- Changed. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The Tanahashi/Okada paragraph of the Storylines section goes back and forth in time in order to bring the reader up to date, and it's a bit confusing. I'd suggest sequencing the information like this:The main event was Tanahashi/OkadaTanahashi's path to being champion was ...Okada's path to becoming champion was ...The two have an extensive history; this is the seventh match between them, etc.
-
- Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- That's improved; just one more comment. Can we get rid of "As a result, this slated"? It's redundant, and "slated" is journalese. I think you can just say "The Wrestle Kingdom 9 main event was the seventh match...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 11:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
"Wrestle Kingdom 9's other main event was determined at the November 8, 2014, NJPW Power Struggle event": "event" used twice in a short span.
-
- Changed the second "event" to "show". リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
"Nakamura and Ibushi had a previous match at the 2013 G1 Climax": why is this relevant in this article?
-
- The 2015 match played a lot off the 2013 match. It was like a sequel... Furthermore, the 2013 match was highly rated just like the 2015 match, it was rated the match of the year by Tokyo Sports. starship.paint ~ KO 02:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- OK -- can something to that effect be added in the text? For a reader unfamiliar with the wrestlers, it seems a bit of a non sequitur, since many of the wrestlers will have had prior bouts. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Okay, I tweaked it, so how is it now? starship.paint ~ KO 02:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I tweaked it, so how is it now? starship.paint ~ KO 02:52, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- The 2015 match played a lot off the 2013 match. It was like a sequel... Furthermore, the 2013 match was highly rated just like the 2015 match, it was rated the match of the year by Tokyo Sports. starship.paint ~ KO 02:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
"In one Wrestle Kingdom 9 match": not a very good opening to the sentence, though I can see you have to vary the intros to each paragraph in this section. How about something like "Another title that was contested at Wrestle Kingdom 9 was the IWGP Tag Team Championships" as the lead in?
-
- Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Struck; I'm not going to object to every use of "slated" but I think it should be used very moderately -- we want to sound like an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Changed. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 11:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
"The rivalry took a turn in May 2014": I don't think you can say it took a turn if you've given no previous history. Something like "Wrestle Kingdom 9 also showcased a rivalry between Toru Yano and the Suzuki-gun group, which had begun in 2012 [or whenever]. In May 2014 Yano's tag team partner ..."
-
- Done. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
"...by Fish on Nick. first Chasing the Dragon...": missing "The" at the start of the sentence?
One instance of "Styles Clash" is italicized, and one is not; which is correct? I see some other italicized move titles; are these usually italicized in the sources? "High FLy Flow" is also once italicized, once not.
-
- They're not italicized in the sources but in wrestler articles Bobby Eaton#In wrestling if the wrestler gives a special nickname to the move instead of its technical name, then they are italicized in Wikipedia like Alabama Jam. starship.paint ~ KO 02:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- OK -- if it's a WikiProject style and is consistent, that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- They're not italicized in the sources but in wrestler articles Bobby Eaton#In wrestling if the wrestler gives a special nickname to the move instead of its technical name, then they are italicized in Wikipedia like Alabama Jam. starship.paint ~ KO 02:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The link from "huracanrana" indicates that it should be spelled with two "huracanrrana"; I didn't fix it because I don't know which is correct.
-
- Two of the sources say "huracanrana". I've always thought it was spelled that way. If it's a misspelling, it's certainly very widespread. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
"...with a High Fly Flow crossbody to Okada on the floor. After Tanahashi's High Fly Flow crossbody back in the ring...": assuming these are the same move, this could be compressed to avoid the repetition.
"puroresu is, beyond a shadow of doubt, indeed ichiban": I haven't got a clue what this means. If it's important to leave in, could you add an explanatory footnote? Aha; I see a link later for puroresu, but I still don't know what ichiban is.
-
- Linked to wiktionary! starship.paint ~ KO 02:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- The MoS doesn't forbid linking in quotes, but it discourages it. How about a footnote instead? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Made into a note and reordered the reviews so that puroresu link is above. starship.paint ~ KO 03:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Made into a note and reordered the reviews so that puroresu link is above. starship.paint ~ KO 03:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Linked to wiktionary! starship.paint ~ KO 02:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
"English-language commentators Ross and Striker "enhanced the show in their own ways": this is a bit vague and I think could be cut. You might need to paraphrase more of Powell's comments in that paragraph as a result, to avoid having almost the whole paragraph be a straight quote.
'Martin wrote that New Japan had transcended puroresu and was "some of the most passionate and poignant performance art today." ': New Japan is a group, so we can't say "New Japan is performance art"; it should be something like "has produced some of".
-- I've completed a pass; I'll wait for your responses and then go through again. Haven't looked at the sources yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:30, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie and Ribbon Salminen: - thank you Mike for dropping by. I've addressed some but don't have much time now. I'll do more in the days to come. Ribbon you want to handle the Background/Storylines stuff? I'll add more about Powell in the Reception section, at least. starship.paint ~ KO 03:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- I've struck most points above; I'll look at the remaining points this evening and read through again then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: I think we've responded to all the above comments :) starship.paint ~ KO 03:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've struck almost everything; a couple of minor issues left. I should have time to do another read-through this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: I think we've responded to all the above comments :) starship.paint ~ KO 03:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've struck most points above; I'll look at the remaining points this evening and read through again then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I read through again and made a couple of minor copyedits. I think the text is now fine. I will take a look at sources, probably tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. For reference, I used the WP:PW/RS wikiproject reliable source list when editing. starship.paint ~ KO 03:26, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I did some source spotchecks and only found one issue -- the following is too close to the original and needs to be paraphrased further.
- Article: "Flipps announced that the stream would not work on Chromecast, Xbox 360 or Xbox One, three of the four most common devices listed as compatible with the application"; source: "Flipps TV is saying ...that the live stream won’t work on Chromecast, Xbox 360, Xbox One, or LG smart TVs. Yes, Chromecast and the Xboxes, three of the four most common devices listed as compatible with Flipps".
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- I tried my hand at paraphrasing, Mike Christie. starship.paint ~ KO 12:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- I tried my hand at paraphrasing, Mike Christie. starship.paint ~ KO 12:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Support. Prose is fine; I didn't do a thorough source review but checked a handful and the sources seem reliable for what they're used for. I did find one close paraphrase and perhaps it would be good if another reviewwer did a couple more spotchecks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comments by MPJ-US
Only fair I comment on one of the few other pro wrestling FACs on here. I will be providing more comments over the next day or so. MPJ-US 20:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Prose - nothing jumped out at me on my first readthrough.
- Images - Going through them it looks like they all have the appropriate tags and licenses needed. The poster being fair use is allowed under the fair use rights so that checks out IMO.
- Sources
-
-
- 3 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
- 4 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
- 8 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
- 10 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
- 19 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
- 23 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
- 24 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
- 41 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
- 42 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
- 43 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
- 45 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
- 46 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
- 48 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
- 49 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
- 50 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
- 52 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
- 53 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
- 55 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
- 56 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
- 57 does not have a date in the citation data. it's listed in the article.
-
- Thanks for the help. I've added dates in those citations. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 21:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Kalki Koechlin
- Nominator(s): NumerounovedantTalk 17:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Notifying (at the first user contribution)
-
- WP:GOCE1 reviewer User:Twofingered Typist
- Talk:Kalki Koechlin/GA1 reviewer User:FrB.TG
- Wikipedia:Peer review/Kalki Koechlin/archive1 discussant User:Yashthepunisher
- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kalki Koechlin/archive1 discussant User:Vensatry and User: Cassianto
- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kalki Koechlin/archive2 discussant User:Kailash29792, User:Dr. Blofeld, User:Jaguar, User:Ssven2, and User:Krimuk90
- Wikipedia:Peer review/Kalki Koechlin/archive2 discussants User:IndianBio, User:SNUGGUMS, User:J Milburn NumerounovedantTalk 17:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is about Indian actress Kalki Koechlin. It has been improved further after another WP:PR and a WP:GOCE ce. I believe that all the issues have been addressed and the article now meets the criteria. Share you thoughts, Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 17:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comments from Yashthepunisher
- Koechlin is best known for her character roles that defy the stereotypical portrayal of women in Indian cinema, and has been credited in the media for publicly expressing her opinions. Similar things are written in Rani Mukerji, Preity Zinta, Priyanka Chopra, Kangana Ranaut and Sonam Kapoor's article. I'm wondering how so many actresses has broken the stereotype of female roles in bollywood and everyone is known for there outspoken personality. None of them is Arnab Goswami or Arundhati Roy. A dubious statement IMO.
- I think its slightly unfair to compare Zinta, Chopra and Mukherji to Koechlin because they are not contemporaries, the conditions were wildly different in Bollywood back then. As far as Ranaut and Kapoor go I believe if you have followed these actresses you would be inclined to side with Koechlin's work (both on & off screen) to be more empowering. I really insist on keeping the statement.
- How can you say Chopra and Mukherji are not contemporaries, when they are still acting? Anyway the fact that her roles defy the stereotype of women in Indian cinema is not mentioned or sourced in the article.
- It sure is See - refs 134, 135, 136.
- Following her portrayal of such characters as those in Dev.D, Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara, Shaitan, and Margarita With a Straw, Koechlin gained wider recognition and earned the tag of a "nonconformist". Where is the claim that I have pointed out? It only gives an Idea that she has done some off-beat roles, not that she brought a change or something. I'd suggest you to trim that bit from the lead.
- "has established herself as somewhat of a Bollywood pioneer taking on unconventional cinematic roles" from ref 135 & "managed to subvert stereotypes by playing characters who are nothing like each other, [ranging from a prostitute to a sensual, unmarried writer, a disabled woman and a club DJ]" from ref 136 clearly point at "the breaking stereotypes" claim.
- Following her portrayal of such characters as those in Dev.D, Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara, Shaitan, and Margarita With a Straw, Koechlin gained wider recognition and earned the tag of a "nonconformist". Where is the claim that I have pointed out? It only gives an Idea that she has done some off-beat roles, not that she brought a change or something. I'd suggest you to trim that bit from the lead.
- It sure is See - refs 134, 135, 136.
- How can you say Chopra and Mukherji are not contemporaries, when they are still acting? Anyway the fact that her roles defy the stereotype of women in Indian cinema is not mentioned or sourced in the article.
- She expanded her career to include screenwriting scripting They both mean the same.
- Fixed
- There is one dead link.
- Oh that has been archived, it's functional.
- Not in my server.
- I'll look into what I can do about it
- I removed the repeat reference, try ref 58 from the article now.
- I'll look into what I can do about it
- Not in my server.
- No source for the claim that Dev.D met with generally positive reviews.
- I believe you mean the overall reception as in the case of Shanghai?
- Yes.
- Added
- Yes.
- Her portrayal of Sophie, a manipulative woman who is abducted by two corrupt policemen garnered mixed reviews by the critics. Again, you can't say "portrayed/portrayal" unless she plays a real-life character. Also, ref 7 says that the film "received good ratings from most critics."
- Fixed
- Partially fixed. Ref 7 claims otherwise to what's written. Also I'd suggest you to remove the DNA review, since 1 or 2 reviews doesn't gives a full Idea of the overall reception.
- Ref 20 is for her role in the film, Ref 7 doesn't contain that information. Also, I think you have misread the article here - the "received good ratings from most critics." bit is for Shaitan and here we are talking about The Film Emotional Atyachar. The most I can do is removed ref 7 to help with the clarity.
- Then remove ref 20 which is near 7, for obvious reasons.
- I really don't think that you are getting what I am trying to say here. Ref 7 is less important here, Ref 20 has all the information, both about the role & her performance. I removed Ref 7
- Then remove ref 20 which is near 7, for obvious reasons.
- Ref 20 is for her role in the film, Ref 7 doesn't contain that information. Also, I think you have misread the article here - the "received good ratings from most critics." bit is for Shaitan and here we are talking about The Film Emotional Atyachar. The most I can do is removed ref 7 to help with the clarity.
- Partially fixed. Ref 7 claims otherwise to what's written. Also I'd suggest you to remove the DNA review, since 1 or 2 reviews doesn't gives a full Idea of the overall reception.
- Ref 23 is the RT link of ZNMD, while the prose talks about Shaitan.
- My bad, fixed.
- Rediff --> Rediff.com
- Fixed
- Remove either ref 38 or 39, we don't need to overcrowd the article with redundant sources.
- Removed
- The Shanghai issue is still unresolved.
- I am not sure what you mean here, there are no claims of critical acclaim there anymore
- Then what's The film received positive reviews from critics,
- Doesn't positive response and acclaim mean differently. I think it isn't that controversial to say the film received positive reviews. I did however added the reference that states that the film was well received.
- Then you need to provide a source for that claim, not 2-3 positive reviews. Saying this the nth time.
- I did Yash, I did. The ref 7, (HT) does support the claim. I am sorry that you have to repeat your points again and again, but I did sort this one just fine. (Looking for the same for —Dev. D and YJHD) NumerounovedantTalk 14:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- No need to apologise. To sort these issues, remove those unnecessary sources from the article that doesn't support the 'received positive reviews' claim.
- I did Yash, I did. The ref 7, (HT) does support the claim. I am sorry that you have to repeat your points again and again, but I did sort this one just fine. (Looking for the same for —Dev. D and YJHD) NumerounovedantTalk 14:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Then you need to provide a source for that claim, not 2-3 positive reviews. Saying this the nth time.
- Doesn't positive response and acclaim mean differently. I think it isn't that controversial to say the film received positive reviews. I did however added the reference that states that the film was well received.
- Then what's The film received positive reviews from critics,
- Wikilink Witchcraft.
- Fixed
- The film opened to a positive response from the audience, and emerged as one of the highest-grossing Bollywood films with earnings of ₹3.02 billion (US$45 million).[56] The film received mixed reviews,.. One claim is contrary to the other.
- It's a different case in both the sentences, first it's the audience, then the critics.
- What's "positive response from the audience"? Clearly box-office success. So remove that bit, it creates confusion among the reader.
- Fixed
- What's "positive response from the audience"? Clearly box-office success. So remove that bit, it creates confusion among the reader.
- Do we need to provide a review for every other film of her's ? Even the one like The film Emotion Attyachar?
- I was asked to elaborate on the entry The Film Emotion Attyachar in the FAC, and then in the PR it was suggested that it should be further expanded by giving details of the role. Also its her only film role in between Dev. D and Shaitan.
- After the separation Koechlin said in an interview with Daily News and Analysis: "[But] everyone has doubts, we're all human. Even as an actor, you have days when you haven't slept enough, you don't feel like you're good enough or pretty enough... But ultimately, it's all about attitude. You must live with a little abandon and not be self-conscious. You ought to stop staring at yourself in the mirror, and just smile a little!" Sounds like a personal-diary stuff. This is why I was refering to quotefarm.
- The article has had trouble because of this quote at numerous occasions but I believe it to be vital as its her perspective on life and womanhood. Do you think it would work if in a quote-box?
- Quotes in the quote-box should be of some kind of Importance, not there feelings, IMO.
- Reviewing her work in Printing Machine, the journalist Subhash K. Jha Remove 'the', also he is more known as a film critic.
- Done
- Place an mdash for the role coloumn of Love Affair in the table.
- Done
- Either remove or shift ref 156 from the table.
- I am not sure what you mean here
- Never mind. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Same issue with YJHD. Only one review for the claim.
- Done
I hope this is going to be its breakthrough attempt. Good luck. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Left Comments. Thank you for the work put into this article. Really appreciated! NumerounovedantTalk 16:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Further comments. Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 08:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- I beleive all comments have been addressed. NumerounovedantTalk 06:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Yashthepunisher: Do you have any further comments? NumerounovedantTalk 06:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- I beleive all comments have been addressed. NumerounovedantTalk 06:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Further comments. Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 08:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yashthepunisher Where did you see "the pioneering a change in Indian cinema" in Chopra article? It's not in the lead or even something like that at all.Krish | Talk 07:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comments from Dr. Blofeld
"The family later settled in Kallatty, a village near Ooty in Tamil Nadu, where Koechlin's father established a business designing hang-gliders and ultralight aircraft" -do we know when?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Not really, I could not find any information on that. NumerounovedantTalk 18:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Taran Adarsh called her "truly awe-inspiring"," - you can't have the mush of a joke critic in this article. It's about time he was blacklisted, obviously paid for his gushing comments about everybody.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'll look for another positive review then! NumerounovedantTalk 18:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
"Her characteristic bee stung lips have been cited by Rediff.com as her trademark, contributing to her "raw sex appeal"." -reads like a Daily Mail article. Deary me, I'd have thought "bee stung lips" would wreak of cosmetic over indulgence, not raw sexuality..♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Koechlin is particularly known in the Indian media and film industry for her dedication to her work and her professional behaviour.[" -professional behaviour?? I'm sure a lot of actresses are professional..
- " She was also the brand ambassador of the "Cinema For Care" section, aimed at creating awareness about disability issues at the All Lights India International Film Festival (ALIIFF) held in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala in November 2015.[153]" -was or is?
- "was" - It was a one time event.
It's nearing FA quality I think, but in places needs a copyedit. I had to reword quite a bit as I went through to improve the flow. There's also some questionable claims like the bee lips and professional behaviour. Could still use a few people to give the prose a grilling and ensure it's definitely FA standard. Overall it definitely covers what needs to be covered and is a decent article, but I'm going to wait until Krimuk90 has looked at it again before making a decision.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments, I'll look into the issues, the professional bit has been mentioned in previous FAs like that of Priyanka Chopra, and I agree the bee lips might not be the most important parts of the article. However, Krimuk won't be a part of the FAC as he has decided to distance himself from the current nomination. NumerounovedantTalk 20:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Well I'd prefer not to mention things like that, Chopra included.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'll rework the fourth paragraph, removed bee lips. Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 08:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Dr. Blofeld: Done NumerounovedantTalk 07:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'll rework the fourth paragraph, removed bee lips. Thank you! NumerounovedantTalk 08:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well I'd prefer not to mention things like that, Chopra included.♦ Dr. Blofeld 05:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
Leaning towards Weak support, as it's nearing FA quality I think. Could still use a few people giving it a read and copyedit though to ensure it's really there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Alright thanks! NumerounovedantTalk 09:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support—After going through the article thoroughly for the last two days, i find it well written and reliably sourced, with a liberal usage of free images. The article's tone is neutral and is very focused. Good job! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 06:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Pavan! NumerounovedantTalk 11:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comments from TonyTheTiger
"Unable to find work there, she moved to Mumbai, where she worked with theatre directors and the founders of a Mumbai-based theatre company called "The Company Theatre" Atul Kumar and Ajay Krishnan who were looking for actors for a theatrical festival, Contacting the World, to be held in Liverpool." seems to be ungrammatical or a run-on sentence as currently punctuated. There may be some missing commas.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed NumerounovedantTalk 17:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am not sure what you are trying to do. Is that a comma before "They were looking for actors"?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The content regarding Waiting seems to be dated.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- The film is yet to be released theatrically, so I believe we will have a better account for it then? NumerounovedantTalk 17:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Updated released date NumerounovedantTalk 17:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Should the lead mention that she has appeared in several widely viewed YouTube videos regarding various issues?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- That is an interesting observation, do you have something in mind? NumerounovedantTalk 17:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- You might want to expand "Koechlin is also an activist and a celebrity endorser." However, I imagine a person who has done YouTube videos has also used social media such as Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, etc. Before I make a suggestion, do we have sources regarding any advocacy and/or activism in other social realms?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- In that case, I think it's better to leave it the way it is. There can be a lot of conflicting claims here NumerounovedantTalk 12:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Maybe you could just say she has used YouTube as a platform or forum for issues that she advocates for.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- I suspect it reading awkwardly in the lead, I have added it in her off-screen work. NumerounovedantTalk 06:10, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- In that case, I think it's better to leave it the way it is. There can be a lot of conflicting claims here NumerounovedantTalk 12:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- You might want to expand "Koechlin is also an activist and a celebrity endorser." However, I imagine a person who has done YouTube videos has also used social media such as Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, etc. Before I make a suggestion, do we have sources regarding any advocacy and/or activism in other social realms?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
"under the banner of Quaff Theatre" is an idiom which is unfamiliar to me and many EN WP readers I am sure.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Removed NumerounovedantTalk 17:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Was she reviewed for Colour Blind?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sure there would be at least a couple of reviews NumerounovedantTalk 17:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well. You know what to do.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Done, fixed both. NumerounovedantTalk 11:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am quite satisfied with this article. It is very thorough.
I can now support.
- Thank you TonyTheTiger! NumerounovedantTalk 05:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Now that you bring this to my attention, I should point out that the article incorrectly uses tense per WP:MOSTENSE. Commentary by critics when summarized or quoted should generally use the present tense.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- I wonder how that is so, considering all the FAs that I have come across using the past tense. (See;Deepika Padukone, Priyanka Chopra, Brad Pitt among many others) I am sure there is more to it than the obvious. NumerounovedantTalk 12:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please ignore that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that is inconsistent with this advice. It is confusing to me. Here is my interpretation. Write in past tense about things from to past. E.g., she made a movie, filmed a pilot. Write in present tense about things that are not in the past. A movie, although made in the past, lives for a long time if not forever (like a building). The movie is in the present like a building is. Thus, an opinion about a thing that is present is written about in the present. A critical commentary about a building or a movie would say. Critic X says the building is tall or the movie is good. We do not say critic X said the building was tall or the movie was good. Hope that helps.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- That is a really interesting observation, however it is at the end unlike anything that I have seen before. So, I would like other editors to comment here and reach a consensus before I make such a significant change. Thank you TonyTheTiger! NumerounovedantTalk 05:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am not even an expert on MOSTENSE. I was just interpreting it based upon the WP:GOCE copyedit that I received after it was mentioned in a prior FAC. I was going to ignore the tense issues in this article until people dinged EmRata as having tense problems. The changes came mostly from Twofingered Typist and were ratified by a review of his work by Baffle gab1978. I doubt anyone already involved in this review is an expert on WP:MOSTENSE. So I am pinging those guys who know it and can explain it better than me since you have doubts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Twofingered Typist did provide the article with ce. J would love to hear his comments here. NumerounovedantTalk 06:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- WP:MOSTENSE suggests using past tense for past events. It seems to me that a three year old review should be in the past tense. If you want to change it to the present tense, feel free. Twofingered Typist (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Twofingered Typist: Thank you so much for you help! I believe that the issue is sorted then TonyTheTiger? NumerounovedantTalk 12:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Twofingered Typist, of course I am at a loss as to why 3-year-old reviews are past events and 2-year-old reviews are present tense.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- I believe reviews do get dated after a period of time, which is hard to define, it might as well be a year old or 3 years old. NumerounovedantTalk 05:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Numerounovedant, Twofingered Typist, Please reconsider WP:FICTENSE, when combined with MOS:TENSE, I believe it means commentary by critics is written about in the present tense until they are deceased or the film is considered lost.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- I understand you concerns (which is the lack of clarity here), however, what I can't seem to get my head around is the fact that why would so many (practically all) the previous FA articles use the past tense approach if this was such a significant issue. I came across 300 (film) where both past and present tense has been used in the reception section. I think it works either way. Still is's just an observation, I could be wrong. NumerounovedantTalk 17:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- What we are dealing with is colloquialism. Ask any common person what they thought about a film that they saw and the will say. It was good/bad. Even though it is as ongoing as an building. Ask them about a building and they will say it is tall/beautiful/etc. We have a lot of common folk writing and reviewing our articles here. Did you even consider WP:FICTENSE when writing your article? It clearly exists although it is not a policy. MOS:TENSE is clearly a guideline. The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS inconsistent with the current argument never is a Kosher consideration. We are suppose to look at MOS:TENSE and consider WP:FICTENSE. I don't think we can look at those and then invoke a 3-year rule. I think it is clear a film exists. In fact any building constructed today is more likely to be demolished 100 years from now than a major film is likely to be considered lost in 100 years. Films are more permanent than buildings now and we should consider them ongoing present things rather than past events. Unless a critical commentary is made at a past event (like a film festival panel discussion), it is written about in the present until the critic dies or the film is lost in my opinion. A 3-year rule is poppycock.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- I understand you concerns (which is the lack of clarity here), however, what I can't seem to get my head around is the fact that why would so many (practically all) the previous FA articles use the past tense approach if this was such a significant issue. I came across 300 (film) where both past and present tense has been used in the reception section. I think it works either way. Still is's just an observation, I could be wrong. NumerounovedantTalk 17:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Numerounovedant, Twofingered Typist, Please reconsider WP:FICTENSE, when combined with MOS:TENSE, I believe it means commentary by critics is written about in the present tense until they are deceased or the film is considered lost.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- I believe reviews do get dated after a period of time, which is hard to define, it might as well be a year old or 3 years old. NumerounovedantTalk 05:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Twofingered Typist, of course I am at a loss as to why 3-year-old reviews are past events and 2-year-old reviews are present tense.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Twofingered Typist: Thank you so much for you help! I believe that the issue is sorted then TonyTheTiger? NumerounovedantTalk 12:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- WP:MOSTENSE suggests using past tense for past events. It seems to me that a three year old review should be in the past tense. If you want to change it to the present tense, feel free. Twofingered Typist (talk) 10:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Twofingered Typist did provide the article with ce. J would love to hear his comments here. NumerounovedantTalk 06:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am not even an expert on MOSTENSE. I was just interpreting it based upon the WP:GOCE copyedit that I received after it was mentioned in a prior FAC. I was going to ignore the tense issues in this article until people dinged EmRata as having tense problems. The changes came mostly from Twofingered Typist and were ratified by a review of his work by Baffle gab1978. I doubt anyone already involved in this review is an expert on WP:MOSTENSE. So I am pinging those guys who know it and can explain it better than me since you have doubts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- That is a really interesting observation, however it is at the end unlike anything that I have seen before. So, I would like other editors to comment here and reach a consensus before I make such a significant change. Thank you TonyTheTiger! NumerounovedantTalk 05:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please ignore that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that is inconsistent with this advice. It is confusing to me. Here is my interpretation. Write in past tense about things from to past. E.g., she made a movie, filmed a pilot. Write in present tense about things that are not in the past. A movie, although made in the past, lives for a long time if not forever (like a building). The movie is in the present like a building is. Thus, an opinion about a thing that is present is written about in the present. A critical commentary about a building or a movie would say. Critic X says the building is tall or the movie is good. We do not say critic X said the building was tall or the movie was good. Hope that helps.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- I wonder how that is so, considering all the FAs that I have come across using the past tense. (See;Deepika Padukone, Priyanka Chopra, Brad Pitt among many others) I am sure there is more to it than the obvious. NumerounovedantTalk 12:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Now that you bring this to my attention, I should point out that the article incorrectly uses tense per WP:MOSTENSE. Commentary by critics when summarized or quoted should generally use the present tense.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- I will restore my Support. I am fairly certain that I am confused on what MOS:TENSE actually means.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:18, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment
that "and has been credited in the media for publicly expressing her opinions." - This seems to be a habitual claim with almost all Indian actresses. Not sure it belongs in the lead. —Vensatry (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please refer to the conversation above (with Yash), and can you suggest something that fits better? NumerounovedantTalk 16:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I haven't watched any of her films, so can't really comment on the 'stereotype' thing. My concern is the 'outspoken' thing; that's quite a claim. —Vensatry (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)- I don't know if the claim sounds boastful but if anyone who has followed her career closely would know that she has been more outspoken on such issues. Do you think Tony's comment of mentioning her work in Youtube videos would fit better as it is more factual? NumerounovedantTalk 17:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
It borders WP:PUFF (not just with her case, but with other articles too). She is not even a known entity outside Bombay. More to the point, the claim is hardly encyclopaedic. I'd call only Arundhati Roy, Kamala Das and the likes as 'outspoken'. If the YT claim is an established fact, it may very well go into the lead. —Vensatry (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)- I believe Ssven2 fixed it NumerounovedantTalk 12:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know if the claim sounds boastful but if anyone who has followed her career closely would know that she has been more outspoken on such issues. Do you think Tony's comment of mentioning her work in Youtube videos would fit better as it is more factual? NumerounovedantTalk 17:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. You've already got 4 supports, so I just did a little copyediting, down to Critical acclaim (2013–present). Hope that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 21:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- All your help is greatly appreciated Dank! Thank you. NumerounovedantTalk 03:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comments from Krish!
- Well the article is pretty good in shape. However I came across some mistakes which are:
- "Koechlin is best known for her character roles that defy the stereotypical portrayal of women in Indian cinema" — Someone please tell why this is necessary? I know she is a great actress, much better than those who call themselves no. 1 and get media attention for ex-boyfriends and fashion sense but she has a long way to go. Also it is used in nearly all "fancruft" Indian articles on wikipedia. Please remove it.
- "One of the most popular Indian celebrities". Is she? NO.
- She won Jury Award at 63rd National Film Awards but her filmography says Special Mention, both are different — she actually won an award unlike people who win Special Mention are only given certificates. Correct that.
That's it from me.Krish | Talk 07:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed the lead, the jury/mention article is the same. In the table it does say award, Thanks for taking out your time for the review Krish. NumerounovedantTalk 11:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support: After fixing small things, I fully support the article. It is a well-written, unbiased and detailed description of a great talent. I would like to thank Vedant for working on articles like this. It's refreshing to see people like him picking such artists, who need more appreciation than those PR-led, attention seeking actresses who can't act. I hope you will continue to work on some other under-rated artists like her. Congratualiton. Krish | Talk 12:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot Krish! I try doing my best XD NumerounovedantTalk 05:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments from SlimVirgin
Just a couple of points:
- She calls herself an actor, but we call her an actress. I was just wondering why.
-
- There should be gender neutrality in the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- She calls herself a feminist, but the article says otherwise: "Despite being part of a number of feminism campaigns, Koechlin identifies herself as a humanist over a feminist." That relies on this 2014 source, which attributes that view to her. But in other sources, including more recent ones, [32][33][34] she makes clear that she's a feminist, so that should be fixed.
SarahSV (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin: Thanks for taking out the time for the review Does the sentence read better now? NumerounovedantTalk 13:15, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- It's better, but it's odd to hang it on the end like that. Feminism seems to be an important part of her life. Perhaps you could say at the start of that paragraph something like "Koechlin is a feminist and is involved with several humanitarian causes." SarahSV (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed (hopefully) NumerounovedantTalk 11:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- It's better, but it's odd to hang it on the end like that. Feminism seems to be an important part of her life. Perhaps you could say at the start of that paragraph something like "Koechlin is a feminist and is involved with several humanitarian causes." SarahSV (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Image review
According to the file pages, all the images in the article have been released by Bollywood Hungama, an entertainment website:
- File:Kalki Koechlin at the launch of Dessange's new look.jpg
- File:Kalki Koechlin with mother her Francoise Armandie at Prithvi Fest (cropped).jpg
- File:Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara Press Conference.jpg
- File:Kalki Koechlin and Emran Hashmi Shanghai.jpg
- File:Kalki Koechlin at the Lakme Fashion Week (2).jpg
- File:Kalki Koechlin watches the play 'Ishqiya Dharavi Style'.jpg
- File:Kalki and anurag at filmfare.jpg
- File:Kalki Koechlin snapped at an ad shoot (3).jpg
Did Bollywood Hungama take or commission all these photographs? SarahSV (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- They were taken by them. NumerounovedantTalk 13:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Just to follow up, the template for these images, Commons: Cc-by-3.0-BollywoodHungama, says that (of course) it doesn't apply to images on their website where the copyright is owned by others, which means that these images have not necessarily been released. The template page says: "Don't just upload any images from there and put this license on it — please check if the said rules apply before you upload." So it seems that, for each image you've used, you're going to have to determine that Bollywood Hungama does own the copyright. SarahSV (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- SlimVirgin, the license holds good for only images listed under: sets, parties, and press meetings. You may crosscheck with the OTRS ticket if you want. —Vensatry (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin: All the photos are from parties and events, the Shanghai one is a press meet. So, it satisfies the criteria Vensatry specifies. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 10:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- SlimVirgin, the license holds good for only images listed under: sets, parties, and press meetings. You may crosscheck with the OTRS ticket if you want. —Vensatry (talk) 08:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
-
The template says:
Bollywood Hungama grants everyone permission to use some of their images under a CC-BY-3.0 license. However, this applies only to images at sets, parties, and press meetings, and not screen-caps or photos copyrighted by other sites. Don't just upload any images from there and put this license on it — please check if the said rules apply before you upload (bold added).
It adds that it must be (inter alia) a photograph of a Bollywood party or event, taken by a Bollywoood Hungama photographer, and provided with a direct link to the source on the Bollywood Hungama website.
For example, File:Kalki Koechlin at the Lakme Fashion Week (2).jpg (here on the website) was taken at Lakme Fashion Week, which is not a Bollywood Hungama event, and there's no sign that it was taken by a Bollywood Hungama photographer. SarahSV (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- Replaced the photograph from a party event. NumerounovedantTalk 06:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Margaret Lea Houston
This article is about Sam Houston's third (and final) wife, who became the First Lady of the Republic of Texas, and the First Lady of Texas when it became a state. I have been working on this article on and off since 2011.
An explanation about the names. Houston and Lea are the predominant surnames in this article. To avoid confusion, only Sam Houston is referred to solely by his last name. The others are referred to by their first names. Because the children were often given the exact name as the adults, I have included their nicknames to distinguish who they are. Houston City is how many authors mention the city of Houston when they are writing about Sam Houston. It could be confusing to say "Houston went to Houston." or "The Houstons moved to Houston." "The city of Houston" could have double meaning, because he also maintained a residence there. — Maile (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Image permission check:
- File:Margaret Lea Houston.jpg is tagged fair use, but is almost certainly PD due to age.
-
-
- Replaced with File:Margaret Lea Houston 1839.jpg PD image, a little less grainy
-
-
- File:Sam3.jpg same, plus would benefit from moving to a better name
-
-
- Renamed File:Sam Houston 1848.jpg — Maile (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
-
Comments. - Dank (push to talk)
- I'm sorry that I probably won't have time to finish this one, but I'll do as much as I can.
- "They met in between his two non-consecutive terms as President of the Republic of Texas": AHD and M-W say that "in between" (with or without a hyphen) can't be a preposition. You might change this to: just before his second term, or: just after his first.
-
Changed to "They met following his first of two non-consecutive terms"
- "during his service as a representative": Politicians are really the only ones who think they're providing a service. "when he was".
-
Changed
- "a strong, close-knit family": What's a strong family?
-
removed "strong"
- "the man who was arguably the most famous and accomplished individual of his place and time.": I don't know what that means. What would a list of people who were the most famous of their place and time look like? Who would be on such a list?
-
Changed to "the man who was an accomplished politician in both Tennessee and Texas, and who had won the Battle of San Jacinto during the Texas Revolution"
- I like it. - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- "8 children": eight children
-
Done
- "to the majority of them": feels a little clinical to me. "most of them"
-
Done
- "helping with the children, alternately providing the family with financial assistance and temporary housing, as well as managing the household help": I'd go with: helping with the children, managing the household help, and always providing either financial assistance or temporary housing
-
Done
- "The Lea family presence in Texas formed a spiritual bond that helped Margaret convince her husband to": I personally don't object, but the tone isn't standard for Wikipedia. I'd go with: "With the help of her extended family in Texas, Lea convinced her husband to"
-
Done
- "Nacogdoches": link it ... and it's an odd-looking name for a town, so I'd put "Texas" after it.
-
Done
- I didn't get far, but I hope that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you. I've taken care of these. — Maile (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 20:43, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. I've taken care of these. — Maile (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments –
The last two sentences of the first paragraph of the Marriage section are currently unsourced.
I put a citation at the end of the paragraph that applies to both sentences.
First Lady of the Republic: "She renamed it Ben Lomond as a tip of the hat to the romantic Walter Scott works she'd read". Contractions like "she'd" should be avoided if possible. I could understand leaving it if it was part of a quote, but since that is not the case I'd suggest going with "she had" here.
done
The last sentence of the section's second paragraph could also use a cite.
done
Raven Hill and Woodland: "and his concern that he'd had no letters from her in weeks." This has another contraction that should be removed; since you may not want "had had" in there, consider "that he had received no letters from her in weeks" or similar.
done
Another in "she'd had with a breast lump", and one more immediately afterward. Try sweeping the rest of the article for any more.
and I checked the rest of the article for possible contractions of 'd, 'nt or 't
"while Congress was in session and Houston in Washington, D.C.." Double period here, and the spacing of the abbreviation seems different than what you're using in the rest of the article. Also, if you think a Washington, D.C. link is helpful, it could be placed earlier in the section.
done
Houston's profession of faith: The Independence link could be moved up to the first sentence here.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Giants2008 I've taken care of all issues. That was a really good catch on the double period and varied spacing on Washington, D.C. — Maile (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Support – A nice read overall, and I think it meets the criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Giants2008 I've taken care of all issues. That was a really good catch on the double period and varied spacing on Washington, D.C. — Maile (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman
This article is about a Hawaiian-American Union Army soldier who is considered one of the "Hawaiʻi Sons of the Civil War"; he was among a group of more than one hundred documented Hawaiian and Hawaii-born combatants who fought in the American Civil War while the Kingdom of Hawaii was still an independent nation. In recent years, he has become one of the many central figures of interest in a revival of interest of this period of Hawaiian history. This article was nominated as a good article and A-List article and has been peer reviewed. Basically, everything known in the sources directly about this individual is already in the article itself, so there are some questions that I won't be able to answer because no known knowledge exist about it. Renominating. KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Talk:Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman/GA1
- Wikipedia:Peer review/Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman/archive1
- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman/archive1
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Henry Hoʻolulu Pitman
Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 03:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Support - noting that I've been involved with this article at the peer review stage. It appears to cover the available sources thoroughly and I don't remember finding any additional material at peer review which should have been added. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Support: generally looks pretty good to me. I have a couple of minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- ". In 2010, the service of these "Hawaiʻi Sons of the Civil War" were commemorated..." --> ". In 2010, the service of these "Hawaiʻi Sons of the Civil War" was commemorated..."
Done--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Not done; it still said "service ... were commemorated". I fixed it by removing "the service of". - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- "he reportedly bursted into tears" --> "he reportedly burst into tears"
- "Considering him missing, Pitman's regiment didn't discover his final..." --> "Considering him missing, Pitman's regiment did not discover his final..."
- "the military services of Hawaiians..." ---> "the military service of Hawaiians..."
Support - I reviewed this for GA, since then it has only gotten better. The prose & material is FA quality --Errant (chat!) 15:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Note -- Unless I missed it, looks like we need a source review for formatting and reliability; also as I believe this will be the nominator's first FA if successful, we'll need a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. A request for these can be listed at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Milos Raonic
This article is about Milos Raonic, a Canadian tennis player who is currently ranked no. 11 in the world. His breakthrough was in early 2011 (when this wikipedia article first received major attention), and he's had a steady climb since then, peaking at #4 last year before injury trouble. He is a two-time major semifinalist, most recently at this year's Australian Open. The article has gone through an extensive overhaul this year (as documented here), been promoted to GA, and has gone through a peer review.
I believe this article meets the FA criteria. I look forward to any feedback you have, and I'm committed to addressing any concerns or deficiencies to the best of my ability. If this nomination is successful, this would be the first tennis player biography to be a featured article; I'm hoping to apply what I've learned during this process to improve other articles as well. -- Saskoiler (talk) 18:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Oppose - There are numerous unsourced facts. For a FA all statements, which are not common knowledge, require inline citations of reliable sources. Graham Beards (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Could you provide some examples? I'd be happy to address any deficiencies. Saskoiler (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, but please by mindful that FAC is not the place to fix such errors. These should have been attended to before nominating.
- He received a wildcard to the qualifying tournament of the 2008 Canadian Open, but lost in the first round to Alexander Kudryavtsev. The match was his first in the ATP World Tour and his last as an amateur.
- This marked his first singles match against a player ranked No. 1, and his first singles match against a member of the Big Four.
- He defeated world No. 4 Andy Murray in straight sets in the quarterfinals at the Barcelona Open. This marked his first victory over a member of the Big Four. In the semifinal, he lost to world No. 6 David Ferrer. Raonic lost to Juan Mónaco in the third round of the French Open, and followed this with a second round loss to Sam Querrey at Wimbledon.
- It marked his fourth consecutive loss in the final of an ATP 500 event.
- Despite the loss, Raonic saw his world ranking improve to a career-high No. 6.
- This tied previous matches between Mats Wilander and Mikael Pernfors in 1993, and between John Isner and Philipp Kohlschreiber in 2012. The five set match lasted 4 hours and 19 minutes, with Raonic losing and Nishikori advancing to the quarterfinals. In October, Raonic reached the final of the Japan Open for the third consecutive year, but lost to Nishikori again.
- Later in the month, he reached the quarterfinals of the Australian Open after beating world No. 12 Feliciano López. He lost to Novak Djokovic in straight sets.
- At the Indian Wells Masters, Raonic won his quarterfinal match against No. 3 Rafael Nadal, after saving three match points from Nadal in the second set tiebreak. It was Raonic's first career victory over Nadal after five defeats. He lost to Roger Federer in the semifinals.
- Raonic lost a lopsided straight sets match to Djokovic in the final, his third consecutive loss in an ATP 1000 final.
- The defeat marked Raonic's first singles match against Djokovic.
- In 2014, Raonic partnered with Eugenie Bouchard to represent Canada in the Hopman Cup. Raonic won two of three singles matches, and paired with Bouchard to win two of three doubles matches. Canada finished in second place in their pool, behind top-seeded Poland.
- They have played each other minimally, however. Raonic is 1–1 against Karlović and 0–3 against Isner. Karlović holds a 3–2 head-to-head advantage over Isner.
-
- Graham Beards (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done I've addressed all of the examples listed above as well as a few others. I had tried to get everything sourced previously (going from 68 citations a couple months ago to well over 230), but I see now that I had left some gaps. I appreciate your feedback and patience. — Saskoiler (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have struck my "oppose" and I look forward to reading further reviews. Graham Beards (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Done I've addressed all of the examples listed above as well as a few others. I had tried to get everything sourced previously (going from 68 citations a couple months ago to well over 230), but I see now that I had left some gaps. I appreciate your feedback and patience. — Saskoiler (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Graham Beards (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Comments from starship.paint
- Support - all my issues have been addressed below. As a non-tennis editor, this is now is a comprehensive, well-sourced and understandable article. Great work! starship.paint ~ KO 14:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Graham Beards: - if you want to read my extensive review below... starship.paint ~ KO 14:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Review
- Early and personal life
- Please mention his date of birth in the body; this section.
- His father: one source says his profession is electrical engineering, another says he has a PhD in engineering. But this doesn't mean he has a PhD in electrical engineering. Professional is not equal to studies.
- His mother: source says she has degrees in computer and mechanical engineering, article does not.
- His siblings: article does not mention she is nine and he is eleven years older than him, source does. Good detailed work on his family anyway.
- There are contradictions between the Ace Age article and the one by the Toronto Star. TS says he was six when introduced to tennis, AA says age seven. Just note both? "aged six or seven"
-
- Done - Good catch. I tried to resolve the disperity, but could not. Both sources agree that his time with Curtis started in 2009, but one says start in 2007 with a two-year gap, and the other says start in 2008 with a one-year gap. I've taken your advice for "six or seven". Saskoiler (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Toronto Star says he had "weekly, hour-long sessions" in 1997 at Bramalea Tennis Club after head instructor Steve Gibson recognized his potential. The move to another place was soon after this, not soon after the one week camp. This is worth mentioning.
- Toronto Star emphasized his parents did not interfere in his coaching. Worth mentioning?
- Toronto Star: “Our only condition was ‘good in school,’ ” says Dusan. “Great marks.” “An honours student,” pipes in his wife. “Below that? No way.” A smart kid on and off the court, Milos kept his side of the bargain... So, how did Milos do academically, where and what did he study? There's no mention in the Wiki article. Source mentions Thornhill Elementary School. Source also says "he agreed to start taking university courses by correspondence at the University of Athabaska in Alberta."
- Lede infobox does not mention coaches Casey Curtis and Steve Gibson.
-
- Done (Curtis) - I've added Curtis to this list. As his coach for ~9 years, he absolutely belongs. That was a glaring omission.
- Not done (Gibson) - I have not added Gibson, however, for a few reasons (a) It was a very brief relationship (once a week, less than a year). (b) It wasn't one-on-one... source says "group sessions". (c) Raonic himself says that Curtis is his first coach (d) I searched hard, but could not find any other source article that even mentions Gibson. So, since it seems to be a more casual relationship mentioned by only a single source, I think it is best to limit it to one sentence in prose and skip the infobox. Any more seems to be undue weight. Saskoiler (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Why use "2011 Canadian Open" instead of "2011 Rogers Cup" per the source and per that Wiki article's title? Also mention he was recovering from injury at that time of being the analyst, the source sais that.
-
- Done (mentioned injury) Saskoiler (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Re: "Canadian Open" vs "Rogers Cup" - When I began working on the article, there were all sorts of inconsistencies in references to tournaments. For example, a tournament might be referred to as "Canadian Masters" in one paragraph, as the "Rogers Cup" in a different paragraph, and then as "Canadian Open" in the performance timeline tables. But it's all the same tournament, and this is confusing. So, after scouring the Wikiproject Tennis guidelines and talk pages (where it has been discussed many, many times, with varying degrees of consensus), I opted to (a) use tournament names consistently throughout the article (and on the companion career statistics article) and (b) in general, use the non-sponsored names as these are more "stable" over time. For example, the Canadian Open has been referred by numerous names over history. In particular, for the significant tournaments (majors and ATP 1000, which includes the Canadian Open), I follow the Wikiproject Tennis guidelines for performance timelines, which is used on hundreds (or thousands?) of tennis player pages. Saskoiler (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- Please mention that Monte Carlo is in Monaco. Also mention that he chose to stay there because of proximity to his tennis club (good to get a name of this, it's not the Monte Carlo Country Club which is in France). “I go downstairs, get balls, and practise,” Raonic said. Source: “It’s relaxing; nobody bothers you. Nobody cares who you are.” When he travels to Barcelona for his blocks of training time with Blanco, it’s all tennis. “Monte Carlo is a place I can go, and just clear my mind. And it’s not that far — a one-hour flight.”
-
- Done - I've located another source (video) which confirms that his tennis club is the Monte Carlo Country Club, and then cleaned up the sentence to be more relevant. (Mentioning his home club is much more relevant than other players who happen to live there.) Saskoiler (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry I went through this with a comb LOL. I don't edit tennis so I tried to be careful. Also could you find out why his family moved to Canada? starship.paint ~ KO 13:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Philanthropy
- I'm not seeing it in the sources that he launched his foundation on 14 Nov 2012. However, it was apparently registered on 22 Feb 2012.
-
- Done - Looks like the registration date was Feb 2012, then the first press conference some months later (couldn't find a good source, but I came across photos), and then had its first big fundraising event in November. All of these are "launching" the foundation in a way, so I just fell back on saying the foundation was launched in 2012. I also added details from the previous year when Milos sought out philanthropic advice. Saskoiler (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sources say (the star) which aims to help children needing prosthetic limbs play sports and (official foundation) In the initial stages of its work, the foundation will focus, in particular, on children with physical disabilities. and (ATPworldtour) In this stage of its work, The Milos Raonic Foundation will focus on children with physical disabilities and, especially, children in need of prosthetic devices that will enable them to reach their full potential. which I think is worth mentioning
- It's not in the source that the "inaugural fundraising event for the foundation—dubbed "Raonic Race for Kids"
- The Race for Kids seems to be a multi-team competition with well-known captains. Not exhibition matches as "featured exhibition matches between Raonic and Andy Roddick, and between Serena Williams and Agnieszka Radwańska" seems to indicate. According to the source for the second Race, the first Race was won by the team of "the Aces". Please find out more about the first Race and reflect the nature of the Races accordingly. It's also okay to list more notable captains and their profession. starship.paint ~ KO 02:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Playing style
- Unfortunately, The Tennis Island seems like a Wordpress blog. Is Jeff Donaldson a notable figure in tennis to ensure reliability?
-
- Done - I wasn't able to find much about the author of that article to validate its reliability (although the article seems valid based on my experience). So, I replaced it with two sources - one is a video analysis showing Raonic doing the inside-out forehand (from a tennis player/coach), and the other is a mainstream newspaper which notes that he prefers the shot. Many other newspaper articles mention the shot as a strength of his, or a preference, etc. Saskoiler (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Also, is Sports Mole reliable?
-
- Done - I think the site is reliable. In this instance, the quote was accurate. However, since the key was really just a single quote from the press conference, I replaced the source with the press conference transcript. (In general, the "playing style" section is one of the hardest to provide sources for. The statements made there consistent with comments by announcers on just about any match of Raonic's, but I don't know how to source comments made during broadcasts in a verifiable way. Finding them in newspaper/online sources is harder.) Saskoiler (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Rob Cherry Tennis seems like a questionable source.
-
- In this case, the cited source is a 68-second video of footage from the 2016 Australian Open which has been annotated to demonstrate how Raonic is running around his backhand to hit an inside-out forehand. In the footer, it says "... an ITF iCoach Expert..." which links to here. That site is, according to this, an official coaching platform for the International Tennis Federation. It identifies Rob Cherry as a 20-year coach, and establishes him as an expert (i.e. someone who can analyze/recognize an inside-out forehand). I believe this is trustworthy. Saskoiler (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Saskoiler: This said he was a hothead. This alluded to poor mental strength. Any other information on this issue? starship.paint ~ KO 07:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Re: "Mental strength" (inner thoughts) is such a subjective term, and I think different writers mean different things by it. The source you mention: "Mentally...Milos has a lot to improve. ... The step he has between himself and the top players is more mental." This source, from earlier the same year (2012) says: "The kid’s mental strength is remarkable". Or, from the 2016 Australian Open match vs Murray, this source says "There is still question marks over his mental strength", while this source uses an image caption: "Mental strength: Raonic won the third set with relative ease". I will keep searching, but I'm not sure I can write anything coherent and meaningful on the topic based on sources I've read so far.
- On the other hand, the other source you mention ("a hothead") may be something to build upon. I've heard that very early in his career, he used to be demonstrably emotional on court... behavior that could be described as a hothead. For the last several years, I would say he's just the opposite, practically robot-like. So much so that when he smashed his racquet during the 2016 Australian Open SF, it was absolutely shocking. So, I think there may be something to build upon with respect to his outward display of emotions, which is less subjective than "mental strength". I'll need to search for other sources, however.
-
- Okay, I've researched this a fair bit, the result of which is a new paragraph saying (1) at young age, he was described as hothead (2) as he got older, he was described as the opposite (analytical, stoic, robotic) (3) he ties his systematic demeanour back to his parents. I was not able to find any second opinion that mentions anything close to the "hothead" comment. Hope this works. - Saskoiler (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Equipment and apparel
- SportsProMedia says The new deal, negotiated by Raonic’s management team at CAA Sports, will also see New Balance extend its support for the Milos Raonic Foundation - worth including.
- At first, he wore a blue fisherman's sleeve to cover a rash he had due to an allergic reaction to massage cream. This was replaced with an athletic compression sleeve, which is worn for comfort only, and often colour-coordinated with his on-court apparel. - needs references (which I think are already elsewhere in the paragraph) There was a mention of a basketballer's sleeve.
-
- Done (inline reference) - Copied an inline reference down to cover other sleeve details.
- Not Done ("basketball sleeve") - I didn't alter the language to include "basketball sleeve" in the prose. After reading at least a half dozen sources, I believe that "basketball sleeve" is just a synonym along with more general terms such as "arm sleeve", "arm compression sleeve", "compression sleeve", "athletic sleeve", and "athletic compression sleeve". In light of this, I've kept the most generic (and yet descriptive) term: athletic compression sleeve. Basketball players, football players, baseball players, etc. all wear these things on their arms. I believe "basketball sleeve" (or "shooter sleeve") may just be a marketing term to sell more in NBA shops, because it was basketball athletes who appear to have made them popular. Hope that makes sense. Saskoiler (talk) 02:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Alright, it's fine. But I don't think the reference says that the fisherman's sleeve is blue.
- I think you should also clarify what His other sponsorship deals are, like Aviva is insurance, etc.
-
- Done - To be honest, my first reaction was that this was a trivial suggestion. However, once I looked at the new sentence, I see the value. It provides a more comprehensive view of the diversity of companies (not "just" companies that market to tennis players) that have find value in the Raonic brand and his marketability. So, thanks! Saskoiler (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome.
- Done - To be honest, my first reaction was that this was a trivial suggestion. However, once I looked at the new sentence, I see the value. It provides a more comprehensive view of the diversity of companies (not "just" companies that market to tennis players) that have find value in the Raonic brand and his marketability. So, thanks! Saskoiler (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- For his sleeve, I believe the US Open reference says that the sleeve is also worn because Raonic is used to the routine of wearing it, and his team supports it. So it's not exactly just for comfort...? My team would say it helps me. I haven't found a reason to argue that so far.” “With a guy like Milos, who is so specific on what he does every single day with his preparation, it’s just become part of his whole process,” Nunn said. ... "I'm not gonna argue when things are going OK,” [Raonic] said, smiling
- Rivals and contemporaries
- @Saskoiler: I haven't taken an in-depth look into this but in my experience on Wikipedia, Bleacher Report is definitely an unreliable source. starship.paint ~ KO 03:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- A Fan Obsessed and Globalite Sports are blogs?
- Amateur career
- Is it worth mentioning that Bradley Klahn is American? I don't know how tennis doubles work really, in terms of nationalities
-
- Not done - I wouldn't oppose if you had inserted it, but I don't think it is necessary. Doubles partnerships often span nationalities (probably the majority of the time). The article doesn't specify the nationalities of too many other players. Exceptions include Pospisil (special relationship), Nishikori (notable because Raonic played him in Japan Open), and various national representation sections (Olympics, etc.) Saskoiler (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Alright.
- Not done - I wouldn't oppose if you had inserted it, but I don't think it is necessary. Doubles partnerships often span nationalities (probably the majority of the time). The article doesn't specify the nationalities of too many other players. Exceptions include Pospisil (special relationship), Nishikori (notable because Raonic played him in Japan Open), and various national representation sections (Olympics, etc.) Saskoiler (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- ten ITF Futures events, three ATP Challenger Tour events, and one ATP World Tour event - can you state that ITF Futures are third-tier events for professionals, Challenger is second-tier and World is first-tier? Would help inform unaware readers like me.
- Raonic had received scholarship offers from several colleges, including the University of Michigan, Princeton, and Northwestern University - I don't see this in the Ace Age source.
- committed to play for the University of Virginia that fall while studying finance - I don't see this either.
- While he took correspondence courses from Athabasca University - this is in the Ace Age source. Please add, and if possible, find out what course.
- How did you figure out the deadline of two years for reaching the top 100 and thus referred to a ranking of 933? Is that date mentioned in the Ace Age source?
-
- Done - The canada.com article, dated September 2, 2008 said "Yesterday, the word was that Raonic has stiffed Cavaliers head coach..." → On September 1, his ranking was 933. However, I changed the language of that sentence to be a bit more generic (since no source pins the exact date of the conversations and "deadline deal" with his parents) and just give his ranking range for that summer. I think it reads better now. Saskoiler (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Okay!
- Done - The canada.com article, dated September 2, 2008 said "Yesterday, the word was that Raonic has stiffed Cavaliers head coach..." → On September 1, his ranking was 933. However, I changed the language of that sentence to be a bit more generic (since no source pins the exact date of the conversations and "deadline deal" with his parents) and just give his ranking range for that summer. I think it reads better now. Saskoiler (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- 2008–2010
Can you explain that the ITF Men's Circuit is the same as the ITF Futures?
Worth mentioning from How Milos Raonic served his way to the top of tennis source: Raonic was ranked around 400 in the world in late 2009 when Niemeyer took over as his coach.
Who coached him before Niemeyer and after Curtis? 2008-2009 seems to be unaccounted for.
When exactly did Blanco start coaching Raonic and what was Raonic's ranking then?
The referencing in the Raonic's coaching relationship evolved paragraph needs to be tighter. Stuff like because he had a young family isn't covered by the provided source. Please double-check all the claims in this paragraph...
Mention that he was knocked out in the second round of the 2010 Canadian Open after the giant-killing act.
@Saskoiler: more comments. Raonic failed to meet the top 100 deadline set by his parents, didn't he? starship.paint ~ KO 10:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
-
Yes, he did. By approximately 5 months. (Assuming he made the deal in late August 2008, his ranking didn't enter the top 100 until January 2011.) Do you think that should be mentioned? If so, I think probably the best way to do it is to add a parenthetical note to the paragraph where the 2-year-deadline is mentioned, saying something like "(Raonic would later enter the top 100 in January 2011, missing the target deadline by approximately 5 months.)" and citing the rankings history. Yes? Saskoiler (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Temporarily struck the above. Could you replace TennisEarth and Tennis Ledger with better sources? starship.paint ~ KO 13:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- 2011
- Last paragraph, state he injured himself at Wimbledon against Gilles Müller?
- 2012
- How about stating he broke into the top 20 for the first time on 2012.08.13 at #19?
- 2013
- Can you find a better source than Sports Interaction?
- State that he was ranked #10 when he was "ranked within the top 10 for the first time"?
- 2014
- What was the nature of the injury which caused him to pull out of the ATP Tour Finals?
- 2015
- Could you shift Ljubičić's picture to the bottom of this section?
- How about an update of his ranking at the end of 2015? He was #14 from 2015.11.02 to 2016.01.18, the first time he fell out of the top 10.
- The Moya stuff should be starting the 2016 section.
-
- Not Done (but improved) - I think it belongs at the end of 2015 for a couple of reasons. [1] The beginning of the relationship goes back to right after Ljubičić left, developed through the IPTL, and was finalized in 2015. (Raonic says "And then it was decided and sort of put together just before the new year.") [2] I think it reads better to combine this in a single "coaching/team changes" paragraph with the departure of Ljubičić (and his long-time manager). To reflect this, I've bolstered that paragraph with additional detail and sources. Okay? Saskoiler (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- 2016
- Mention that he rejoined the top 10 at #10 on 2016.05.02?
- I believe he was recently eliminated from the French Open.
- National representation
- How did Canada do in each of the Davis Cups? It is unstated for 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015.
-
- No change I've chosen not to include any other Canadian team results in this article for a few reasons: [1] Canada's performances have been not been very noteworthy, bouncing between wins and losses each year and not "going deep". In some cases (like the victory over Israel in 2011), Raonic wasn't a key contributer (because he didn't play much or at all due to injury) and thus it's not really part of "his" story [2] The main article for Canada's performances contains this detail. Instead, I chose to focus on the noteworthy matches/years: (a) Raonic's first match, first victory, first (and only) time he played three rubbers (b) 2013, when Canada reached SF. Raonic played a major part in this performance, with 5 wins in 6 rubbers over three ties. Other player articles (e.g. Nishikori, Federer, Djokovic) tend not to list every Davis Cup performance, but rather focus on noteworthy matches or those where the player made the finals, etc. (However, Andy Murray's article is an exception in that it has tremendous detail on every year. I think this is undue weight, however.) Fair? - Saskoiler (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- State that Canada's second place in the pool meant that they didn't qualify for the Hopman Cup Finals.
- Lede
- What exactly does the "Tennis Canada Media Guide". Tennis Canada reference source cite? Do you mean to refer to page 20 of this PDF? If so, cite the PDF. starship.paint ~ KO 01:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Yes, that's right. I recall thinking that the 2016 PDF URL would eventually die, so I thought linking to the "base page" (Tennis Canada publications) would be clever. Then, when it is replaced by the 2017 media guide, etc, the link would still work. However, I've now just put an archived URL there.
- Ideally, I'd like to have that PDF included in the references once, and then be able to link to specific pages for different citations. (For example, the media guide is used twice now, and perhaps more in the future.) However, I don't know how to do that. Saskoiler (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to do that, the only thing close I know ... refer to Slug_(song)#References. starship.paint ~ KO 07:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
@Starship.paint: I believe I've now addressed all of the questions raised above. Thanks for all your efforts. Saskoiler (talk) 02:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Saskoiler: - for the Davis Cup issue, see this edit of mine. Everything else was settled well. I'm impressed at all the work you've put in, and apologize for the exhaustive review. I'm putting my Support for this comphrensive, well-sourced and understandable article. If you agree with the Davis Cup issue, I'll transfer my support to the top of the review. starship.paint ~ KO 12:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- I like your Davis Cup edit, and wish I had thought of it myself. I appreciate all of your thoroughness. This is my first time through this process, and I've learned a great deal from your many insights. The article is better now, both in the prose and in the supporting sources. Saskoiler (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Saskoiler: You're very welcome. (I put my support at the top now). I didn't know it's your first time, and actually I have just one FA myself. I'm trying for a second FA with this FAC. It hasn't received any comments yet, would you be able to comment? Thanks :) starship.paint ~ KO 14:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I like your Davis Cup edit, and wish I had thought of it myself. I appreciate all of your thoroughness. This is my first time through this process, and I've learned a great deal from your many insights. The article is better now, both in the prose and in the supporting sources. Saskoiler (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Additions
I added a required key for the performance chart. I added commas to the scores in the records section. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
I also just ran it through the ndash checker and it fixed a couple minor errors. Overall this is is well done article per Tennis Project guidelines. It has a consistent use of of correct "world No." as opposed to "World No.". Scoring in prose (except for extraordinary feats) is correctly eliminated (as opposed to so many other articles). Photos are at their limit (we try to keep it to about 10) but they show backhand, forehand, serving, return of serve, volley... so a good variety of his particular tennis shots. I'm not sure we need a picture of a coach he had 4 coaches ago (of his total of 8 coaches). His stats look up to date, and the overall sourcing is impressive. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
2008 UAW-Dodge 400
This article is about the 2008 UAW-Dodge 400, the third race of the 2008 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series held at Las Vegas Motor Speedway. The 267-lap race was won by Roush Fenway Racing's Carl Edwards who was later penalized 100 points for a loose oil lid on his car's oil reservoir encasement. This article has underwent a GOCE copy-edit and I believe that it is up to the required standard. All comments welcome. Z105space (talk) 06:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support It really is a shame that your articles don't get more attention, as Jaguar says, this article is excellent. Will211|Chatter 00:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Mike Christie
There are a couple of bits of information in the lead that aren't in the body, from the first couple of sentences of the lead. The lead is supposed to include only information that's in the body, rather than be an introduction that doesn't need to be repeated in the body. I think if you repeat the first two sentences, verbatim or close to it, before the "Background" section of the "Report" section, that would work.- I've removed bits that are not in the body. Z105space (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- I guess I wasn't quite clear on this. If you chop off the lead, what is left should serve as a complete article. Currently your first section starts talking about the track. It should start with some sentence such as "The 2008 UAW-Dodge 400 was the third stock car race of the 2008 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series", and tell the reader what we're talking about. The lead just summarizes the rest of the article. That's not what you have here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- FYI, I've asked about this point here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have chosen to add the remaining parts of the lead into the main body as a result of the discussion. Z105space (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't see this. I've just edited the first paragraph of the body to show you what I meant; I cut the crowd size since that's mentioned below. You don't have to do this with a simple repetition from the lead; a glance at other articles will give you ideas on how to merge the information in the first paragraph, but at least this does the job. Feel free to delete what I've done and do it another way, but the straightforward declaration of the facts (it's a stock car race; it's in the 2008 Sprint Cup series; it was held in Las Vegas on 2 March 2008) needs to be in the first couple of sentences in some form or other. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have chosen to add the remaining parts of the lead into the main body as a result of the discussion. Z105space (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- FYI, I've asked about this point here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I guess I wasn't quite clear on this. If you chop off the lead, what is left should serve as a complete article. Currently your first section starts talking about the track. It should start with some sentence such as "The 2008 UAW-Dodge 400 was the third stock car race of the 2008 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series", and tell the reader what we're talking about. The lead just summarizes the rest of the article. That's not what you have here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:28, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've removed bits that are not in the body. Z105space (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
"dodging to avoid" is redundant; how about "swerving to avoid", or just "dodging"?- I've changed it to "swerving to avoid"
"He was joined on the grid's front row by Edwards and felt his car had oversteer during his run": this is an odd pairing of two unrelated bits of information. Wouldn't the note about oversteer be more naturally included in the previous sentences?- Not that I know of but I have moved to an earlier sentence. Z105space (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- You've removed it from this sentence, so I've struck my comment, but FYI as far as I can see you haven't re-added it elsewhere -- did you mean to? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Not that I know of but I have moved to an earlier sentence. Z105space (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
"Bowyer drove up the track and hit the outside wall": what does "track" mean here? Per this I assumed it meant racing surface, but that doesn't seem right, as then every driver would have driven up the track and you wouldn't have mentioned Bowyer doing so.- You are correct in that track means racing surface.
- OK, then I don't follow the sentence. To me, driving "up the track" means driving along it. Do you mean he moved to the outside of the track and went too far and hit the wall? Sorry to ask what are no doubt basic questions to a NASCAR fan, but other readers will be as ignorant as I am so it does need to be clear for them too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is correct. Z105space (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- OK, then it needs to be clarified. I tried reading the sentence out to a Formula 1 fan I know, and they didn't know what it meant either. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Z105space (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Z105space (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- OK, then it needs to be clarified. I tried reading the sentence out to a Formula 1 fan I know, and they didn't know what it meant either. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- This is correct. Z105space (talk) 11:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- OK, then I don't follow the sentence. To me, driving "up the track" means driving along it. Do you mean he moved to the outside of the track and went too far and hit the wall? Sorry to ask what are no doubt basic questions to a NASCAR fan, but other readers will be as ignorant as I am so it does need to be clear for them too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- You are correct in that track means racing surface.
"Four laps later, Edwards started to challenge Kyle Busch for the lead, while Jeff Gordon had moved up to third on lap 18, and Martin had fell back from third to eighth by the same lap": a couple of problems. You don't want "had" for something that postdates the previous comment; and "had fell back" is ungrammatical.- Done
- I tweaked this some more to get rid of another "had". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Done
"the third caution was triggered when Stewart's right-front tire burst, and made heavy contact with the turn two wall": as written this means Stewart's tire made contact with the wall, which I don't think is what is meant.- Sentence rearranged
- Looks like you're missing a word; should be "Stewart's vehicle" or something like that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sentence rearranged
I removed one instance of "fell down to nth place" but I see there are several more. Is this standard usage? It seems redundant to me; just "fell to nth place" is cleaner.- Done
- I took out one more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Done
"On the same lap, Gordon passed Busch, who fell down another position": why "who fell down another position"? Isn't that implied by the rest of the sentence?- Removed "who fell down another position".
"Biffle and his teammate Kenseth drove alongside each other in a battle for second place on lap 166, until Biffle escaped and ran onto the apron on the next lap": I don't follow what happened here, probably because I don't know what the apron is. Could you add it to the glossary of motorsport terms and link it?- I've added "apron" to the glossary and linked it. – Nascar1996 (talk • cont) 02:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
"officials located debris in the turn two groove": suggest linking "groove" to the glossary.- It is now linked to the glossary. – Nascar1996 (talk • cont) 02:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
The post-race section has a lot of quotes. I don't have any objections to any specific quote, but I think it would be a good idea to go through and try to convert some of them to paraphrases -- the fair use justification for these quotes is weaker the more of them you have.This sentence seems to be incomplete: "a device or duct work that permitted the car from one area of the interior of the car to another" -- permitted what?Not an issue for FAC, but is there any reason not to make some of the tables at the end sortable?- It is the way how I create tables. Z105space (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- The qualifying, race and post-race points tables have been made sortable and sortnames have been added to the appropriate areas. Z105space (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- As I said, not a requirement, but it's a convenience for readers and I think is worth it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- The qualifying, race and post-race points tables have been made sortable and sortnames have been added to the appropriate areas. Z105space (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- It is the way how I create tables. Z105space (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
-- That's everything I see on a first pass. Most of the points are pretty minor. I think the only issue I'm concerned about is the quotes. I went back and looked at the other NASCAR FAs and this article is in line with the usage there. I'd like to hear from other reviewers on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the first source:
- Jayski's Silly Season Site
Article: "Hornish scraped the turn-two wall early in the session"; source: "Hornish scraped the turn two wall early in practice". Too close to the original.Article: "Kyle Busch won the third pole position of his career, and his first at Las Vegas Motor Speedway": source doesn't say it was his first at this track.Article: "he came down the track and Kyle Petty hit Bowyer's rear-end and damaged his front-left fender": source doesn't say Petty hit Bowyer's rear end.Article: "Reutimann did the same and scraped the outside wall, causing right-rear damage to his car. He was black-flagged by NASCAR because parts were hanging from his car"; source: "Reutimann slipped high and smacked the wall, doing right rear damage, NASCAR finally black flagged the #00 as parts were hanging off the car". Too close to the original.
Also, what makes jayski.com a reliable source? Per the about page, it's run by a single person. It's owned by ESPN but it doesn't appear that they exercise editorial control over the site. Our article on the site says that Adamczyk "continues to be the operator". -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- FYI, I've raised the question of whether this is an RS at the RS noticeboard; please join the conversation there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have decided to abstain from the any review of RS for Jayski. Z105space (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- OK, though I don't think it's necessary. I've posted a note at the NASCAR project to let editors there know about the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I've struck most of the points above. I'm going to nudge at the RSN for comments on jayski.com; I'd prefer to get more eyes on the discussion, since I gather it's used in many NASCAR articles. Once that's addressed I will look at more sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- No response at the RSN. Is there an ESPN page where jayski.com is linked, so that it can be seen that ESPN regards jayski.com as a good source for NASCAR news? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- The note just posted at RSN is good enough evidence for me that jayski.com is reliable. I will try to continue looking at the sources tomorrow; I'm in the middle of several reviews at the moment so it might be a day or two. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Support. I checked three or four more sources for close paraphrasing and found no other issues. I have not done a full source review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- "turn-two wall", "turn two groove": consistency in hyphenation, when "turn two" is used before a noun.
- " 1,700 feet (500 m) long": Use adj=on in the template.
- Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Dank: Thanks. Much appreciated. I've addressed your comments Z105space (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Old Pine Church
- Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
This article details the history, architecture, and spatial environment of Old Pine Church, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This article was written in the same style and format as four other Featured Articles on NRHP properties: Capon Chapel, Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge, Hebron Church (Intermont, West Virginia), and Literary Hall. All guidance is welcomed and appreciated! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Dirk.willems.rescue.ncs.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Nikkimaria, thank you tremendously for the image review. I've added the necessary US PD tag. Please let me know if you have any other comments or suggestions! -- West Virginian (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment by Johnbod The architectural section is full, not to say exhaustive. Congratulations on avoiding ascribing inappropriate stylistic labels. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you Johnbod. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Johnbod, do you see any outstanding issues barring this article from FA status? -- West Virginian (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Sourcing and other comments
- I ran Duplication Detector on each linked source in the article. No issues of concern showed up. (See the next editor's comments below. Apparently, Duplication Detector doesn't flag well on PDF.)
- Nice job with the measurement conversions.
Is there a way you can link something to help the reader know what triune immersion is? I'm a little unsure myself if that means they got dunked 3 times, or if they did it in the name of the Trinity. Is it perhaps like this:
-
- (Dunk #1) "In the name of the Father..."
- (Dunk #2) "...and the Son..."
- (Dune #3) "...and the Holy Spirit..."
- I believe I've mentioned before how much I enjoy reading your articles about old churches. You really excel at detailing the architecture and interiors. You do it so well, I can close my eyes and picture standing inside that church, seeing everything you have described.
— Maile (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Maile66, thank you so incredibly much for taking time to complete this review, and for your kind words! I am a huge fan of yours! I will address your comments within the next 24 hours. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I have a fan? Shazam! After you get through with this, if you have some time, I could used help with a review of Margaret Lea Houston. Not a lot is happening on that template. But only if you have time. — Maile (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Maile, I've clarified the statement on triune immersion and have found a source, J. Gordon Melton's Encyclopedia of Protestantism (2005). You were correct that triune immersion involves the dunking of a new believer three times, once for each entity of the Holy Trinity. Take a look at the statement's current formatting and let me know if you have any further suggestions or edits. I will definitely take a look at Margaret Lea Houston as soon as I have a moment and have addressed Singora's issues with this article. Thank you again for your thoughtful review and suggestion! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Maile, is this new description of triune immersion acceptable? Thank you again for your review, and please let me know if you see any other outstanding issues. -- West Virginian (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
-
Architecture section Singora (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I noticed the positive feedback re: this article's architecture section. What follows is a comparison of the Wiki article and the PDF source.
-
- Singora, thank you again for your review of this article. As you stated below, these descriptions are a bit difficult to word differently from the original source, as the architectural descriptions can only be altered so much. I will go one by one, and will address each of the similarly-worded sentences you have identified. Take a look at each one and let me know if they are sufficiently changed to be acceptable for your approval. Thank you again for taking the time to review this article and identify these sentences. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wiki: Old Pine Church is a large, one-story, front gable log building
- PDF: is a large, one-story, front-gable log building
- Revised version: "Old Pine Church is a large, one-story, gablefront log building." We are quite limited here, as there are only so many ways to say that the building is large, one story, and has a gablefront or front-gable architectural form. Let me know if this is different enough. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wiki: The church exhibits a symmetrical front façade, facing to the west, and encompasses a central main entrance consisting of double four-paneled doors
- PDF: The symmetrical façade, facing west, includes a central entrance with double-doors, each wooden with four panels
- Revised version: "The church exhibits a symmetrical front façade, which faces toward the west, and encompasses a central main entrance consisting of double four-paneled doors." There are only so many ways to state that the church has a symmetrical façade, that it faces west, and that it has one central main entrance with two doors that consist of four panels. I am definitely open to suggestions. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wiki: The main entrance is reached by two concrete steps, which are adjoined by a modern metal balustrade
- PDF: Two concrete steps with a modern, metal balustrade lead to the entrance
- Revised version: "The main entrance is reached by two concrete steps, which are adjoined by a modern metal handrail on either side." I've changed balustrade to handrail as it is more appropriate, but again, it is what it is. As always, I am definitely open to a suggested rewording. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wiki: A small wooden sign painted white reading "Old Pine Church" in black lettering is located over the church's main entrance
- PDF: A small sign reading “Old Pine Church” is located over the entrance
- Revised version: "A small wooden sign painted white reading "Old Pine Church" in black lettering is situated over the church's main entrance." Is this sufficiently different by changing located to situated. A white sign with black lettering placed over the main entrance can only be described in so many ways. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wiki: The main entrance is flanked on either side by one nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden window (MY NOTE: the word "flanked" implies "on either side")
- PDF: Nine-over-six doublehung sash wood windows flank the central entrance (MY NOTE: notice the correct use of the verb "flank")
- Revised version: "The front façade also consists of two nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden windows which are located on either side of the main entrance." I've modified the structure of the sentence, without any usage of flank or flanked. Let me know if this is sufficiently different. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wiki: The church's side elevations, facing toward the north and south, feature two symmetrically placed nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden windows
- PDF:The north and south (side) elevations each have two symmetrically placed nine-over-six double-hung sash wood windows
- Revised version: "The church's side elevations, facing toward the north and south directions, consist of two nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden windows, which are placed symmetrically." Is this worded differently enough. As always, I am open to suggested rewordings. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wiki: Between the two windows on the church's north elevation is located an exterior concrete block chimney of modern construction
- PDF: A modern exterior concrete block chimney situated between the two windows is on the north elevation
- Revised version: "Between the two windows on the church's north elevation is an exterior concrete block chimney." -- West Virginian (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wiki: The east (rear) elevation of the church is also symmetrical in plan, and features three nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden windows with the center window placed above the other two windows
- PDF: The east (rear) elevation is also symmetrical. It has three nine-over-six double-hung sash windows with the center window elevated above the other windows
- Revised version: "The rear elevation of the church, which faces toward the east, is also symmetrical in layout, and features three nine-over-six double-hung sash wooden windows with the center window placed above the windows on either side." -- West Virginian (talk) 16:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wiki: The church's windows have been repaired throughout its history, with materials compatible to those originally used
- PDF: The windows were repaired at some point, but compatible materials were utilized (MY NOTE: the Wiki version "throughout its history" is not implied by "at some point")
- Revised version: "The church's windows have been repaired with materials accordant to those originally used." -- West Virginian (talk)
- Wiki: The church's interior exhibits an open architectural plan. Against the rear (east) wall, centered underneath the middle window, is located a simple wooden frame pulpit
- PDF: The interior of the building has an open floor plan. A simple wooden frame pulpit is situated against the rear (east) wall, centered under the middle window
- Revised version: "The church's interior exhibits an open architectural plan.[7] Against the rear wall, centralized underneath the middle window, is located a plain wooden frame pulpit." -- West Virginian (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
And so on. I guess this kind of stuff is not always easy to re-write.
- Singora, thank you for taking the time to review this article, and for highlighting some of the close wording. This was a bit difficult because there are only so many ways you can describe these features. I will go through and try to fix each sentence from the article that you'd identified so that it is not as similar as the source. Thank you again. I will be getting to this within the next 24 hours. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Singora, I've finished rephrasing or otherwise revising the above-mentioned sentences. Thank you again for your review. I will re-review the architectural section to see if I can further reword these sentences. Please let me know if you have any suggestions in the meantime. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Singora, please re-review the article for any further close wording. Corinne from the Guild of Copy Editors was kind enough to review the article, and provide a further copyedit of the architecture section. As stated above, architectural writing is difficult because some descriptions can only be described appropriately using similar wording. Please take another look and let me know if you identify any further issues. You'll notice in your selected sentences above that I took special caution not to duplicate the wording of the original source. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Singora, I've finished rephrasing or otherwise revising the above-mentioned sentences. Thank you again for your review. I will re-review the architectural section to see if I can further reword these sentences. Please let me know if you have any suggestions in the meantime. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Image review: no issues. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Stifle, thank you for the image review! -- West Virginian (talk) 02:25, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
More from Singora Singora (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I've re-read this and to be honest it's sub-par. In the lead, for example:
- 1. "The church is believed to have been utilized by German Methodist settlers"
- I've reworded the sentence as thus: "The church is believed to have also been a meeting place for German Methodist settlers." Does this work better? -- West Virginian (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- 2. "By 1870, Old Pine Church was primarily used exclusively by ....". This sentence appears twice in the article.
- This has been changed to "By 1870, Old Pine Church was primarily used by the Brethren denomination." -- West Virginian (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- 3. "The church and its adjoining cemetery were added to the National Register of Historic Places on December 12, 2012, due to its ..."
- I've removed "adjoining cemetery" as this sentence is merely meant to reference the church's architectural significance. The sentence now reads: "The church was added to the National Register of Historic Places on December 12, 2012, due to its..." -- West Virginian (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Take a look at the Restoration section. You've got:
In 1968, residents of the Purgitsville community raised the necessary funds to conduct a restoration of Old Pine Church. It is probable that during this restoration the boarding room addition was removed from the church structure; there are no extant remains of the addition. During the restoration, the church's unpainted weatherboards were painted, a new roof was installed, the original windows were repaired, and the original wood floor was replaced. The pressed metal ceiling may have been added during the restoration.
Every sentence uses the word "restoration". How about something like:
In 1968, residents of the Purgitsville community raised the necessary funds to restore Old Pine Church: the church's original windows were repaired and the unpainted weatherboards painted; a new roof was installed and the original wood floor replaced. The boarding room addition was probably removed (nothing of it now remains) and the pressed metal ceiling may have been added.
- I've added this suggested re-wording to the restoration subsection. Let me know if you have any further suggestions. -- West Virginian (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Do CTRL+F and search for the word "located". You'll see 13 results, many of which are in the Architecture section. Losing them all should be easy:
- You: Along the foundation of the church's perimeter are located fieldstones ...
- My suggestion: Fieldstones span the church's perimeter foundations ....
- You: Located centrally against the rear wall, underneath the middle window, is a plain wooden frame pulpit
- My suggestion: A plain wooden frame pulpit stands against the the rear wall, underneath the middle window
- You: The church's small wood-burning stove was originally located in the center of the sanctuary but was relocated to the church's north wall ...
- My suggestion: The church's small wood-burning stove originally occupied the center of the sanctuary but was moved to the church's north wall ...
- I've used your suggested rewrites for the aforementioned sentences. I've also modified further uses of "located" throughout the article. Please take another look and let me know if you find any other sentences in need of further tweaking. Only four uses of "located" remain. -- West Virginian (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
More errors:
- "Around 1870, the Nicholas congregation of Brethren were in use of the church, led by Dr. Leatherman"
- This has been modified to "Around 1870, the Nicholas congregation of Brethren was worshiping at the church and was led by Dr. Leatherman." -- West Virginian (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- "Old Pine Church continued to utilize the church and worship there"
- This sentence has been removed. -- West Virginian (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
And so on.
- Singora, I've incorporated your suggested edits, and I have made further modifications to the article. Please take a look and let me know if you find anything else that inhibits this article from receiving your support for Featured Article promotion. I appreciate you taking the time to provide your thoughtful guidance and suggestions. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Singora, I just wanted to touch base with you to ensure that you were aware of the necessary changes that I have made to the article. I have incorporated your suggestions, and have made further changes. Please re-review when you have a chance, and let me know if you find any outstanding issues or problems. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Singora, I am just checking in to see if you have had a moment to review my responses to your concerns, and subsequent changes in accordance with those concerns. I just want to ensure that I have adequately addressed your comments. Thank you! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Singora, I just wanted to touch base with you to ensure that you were aware of the necessary changes that I have made to the article. I have incorporated your suggestions, and have made further changes. Please re-review when you have a chance, and let me know if you find any outstanding issues or problems. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- "have a "minimalist appearance".": Per WP:INTEXT, attribute it or paraphrase it.
- Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Dank, thank you for taking the time to engage in a thorough and comprehensive review and its corresponding edits. I added an inline citation after "minimalist appearance" per your suggestion and per WP:INTEXT. Please let me know if you see any outstanding issues with this article. Thank you again for your review, and thank you tremendously for your support. -- West Virginian (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Blast Corps
- Nominator(s): czar 18:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Flush from its recent expansion as Nintendo bought major stake in the company, Rare handed an ambitious Nintendo 64 console project to four young, recent grads in 1996. They, in turn, released Blast Corps, a game of creative destruction, to universal acclaim, with one million copies sold. Even minding the indie movement, projects of such stature are scoped much differently today. Blast Corps led a series of Nintendo console games with consistently high critical acclaim (think GoldenEye 007, Banjo-Kazooie, Perfect Dark, Jet Force Gemini). In comparison, Blast Corps was not so much a cult classic or sleeper hit as simply cherished. The game's creative concept was emblematic of the company's spirit and left fans hungry for more even two decades later. It was among the most anticipated re-releases in the 2015 Rare Replay retrospective compilation and proved to be the standout favorite among reviewers.
This nomination is part of the Rare WikiProject effort to improve the articles that correspond with the 31 titles included in Rare Replay. I rewrote Blast Corps from scratch using the best sources available on the subject, with extra care to mind the game's original reception (magazines from the 90s). The article went through a diligent good article nomination (@AdrianGamer) and an even more meticulous peer review (@J Milburn and Moisejp) and I believe it meets all of the featured article criteria. (Permission to start the nom early.) Time to get moving, czar 18:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Comments from JDC808
Extended content |
---|
I will be reviewing soon (probably tomorrow). I also have God of War (series) up at FAC if you could leave some comments there. Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 23:45, 24 April 2016 (UTC) I had meant to get to this yesterday, but got very busy and didn't have time. Lead
Development
Reception
|
-
-
-
-
- Aside from the comments I've made, this article is very well done. I just looked at the article again and don't see anything oppose worthy. If I had to nitpick one other thing, it would be that I don't see the pic of the N64 necessary, but that's a personal preference that you don't have to change. With that, I Support this article's promotion. --JDC808 ♫ 02:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
Image review
- File:Blastcorps.png needs a more specific FUR - the purpose of this image isn't to identify the game, that's what the lead image is for. Perhaps to illustrate gameplay? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Nikkimaria, missed that somehow... ✓ fixed czar 22:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, that looks fine, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria, missed that somehow... ✓ fixed czar 22:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Moisejp
Hi Czar. I'm basically ready to support. The prose is very good, and I have spot-checked a number of refs. Two small issues:
- Unfortunately the AllGame ref seems to be dead, including the archived version.
- I feel the last sentence of Legacy is a weak ending, doesn't flow well with the rest of the section, and sounds subjective as it's written. If you do decide to keep it, I would suggest maybe attributing the opinion to Rob Crossley within the text itself. And is there another place within the article it could be moved to where it flows better? Or maybe if it's not crucial to the article it could be cut altogether?
Besides that, great article! Moisejp (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Looks great, I Support! (BTW, I also wanted to mention, congratulations on your Knight Lore FA.) Moisejp (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Dank
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- This is an outstanding video game article. It has lots of specifics, without leaving the reader behind.
- I'm not comfortable with all the quote marks. Quote marks mean roughly four different things, and readers don't always pick up on the right meaning. If the quote marks are quoting text, then in-text attribution is needed per WP:INTEXT. But I'll leave this problem for other reviewers.
- "EGM considered Blast Corps incomparable to other games": If "incomparable" is the right word here, then I'd probably delete "to other games". If they said it was hard to make comparisons, I'd use another word.
- Blast Corps is overused; "it" and "the game" could be substituted more often, and rewriting might reduce some repetition.
- Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, Dank! The counter to using the game's name is using too much of "the game"—this said, I changed a few. Appreciate your support. czar 22:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments from JM
Source review:
- The tweet seems to be incomplete; I'd want a wikilink to Twitter somewhere, as well as an accessdate.
- Your Retro Gamer "A Rare Glimpse" source is formatted differently to other magazines; you've cited it like an academic journal rather than a popular magazine. Same for your Retro Gamer McFerran citation.
- Do we need retrieval dates and archive dates? I don't know.
- I'm struggling with your Crossley citation; where are you getting that page number from? If it's an article from Retro Gamer, surely we need the issue number for the page number to be meaningful?
A few spotchecks revealed no problems, and all of the sources are appropriate for an article of this sort. My own searches from the peer review indicate (but certainly don't prove) that no major sources have been missed, but a deeper search has thrown up some nice sources which may be worth citing (see the FAC talk page in a few minutes...)
- I've put up a few reviews I found in respectable broadsheets. I think they'd be very much worth incorporating. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Some other driveby comments:
- postmortem? Unless this has a particular meaning in video game journalism, this is not the right word.
- Perhaps the composer belongs in the article body somewhere?
- Perhaps Matt Fox's view belongs in the review box?
Hope this is helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, @J Milburn! I think I've addressed everything, if you'll take a look. I archived the tweet and started a discussion at {{cite tweet}} about linking directly to Twitter. I think it's silly to have retrieval and archive dates too but that was the practice last time I looked into it. The idea is that the archived version may differ from the live version, so the access date can show that the two differ. That said, I don't see why an access date would be needed if the archived version contains the same contents and would be willing to start that trend myself. (Discussion: Help talk:Citation Style 1#Needing both access and archive dates.) The Crossley section was reprinted online, but I included the original magazine citation, which I used as well. I didn't see anything worth adding content-wise in the LexisNexis sources—newspaper sources tend to repeat the same stuff as the specialized sources with no new criticism—but I added a few redundant citations. There wasn't any good coverage on Graeme Norgate's composition process, so I felt it was best to exclude mention in the prose. And I don't give much credence to Fox's brief reviews, hence the short mention and why it isn't in the reviews box. Thanks again, and let me know if you see anything else? czar 17:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- @J Milburn ping czar 16:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies. I'm happy with source formatting and reliability. Comprehensiveness seems good. I may come back for a fuller review, but no promises. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- @J Milburn ping czar 16:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Next steps
@WP:FAC coordinators: thoughts? czar 07:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
SMS Körös
- Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
This article is about a river monitor that served successively with the navies of the Austro-Hungarian Empire during WWI, and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and the Axis puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia, during WWII. During WWI she fought along the Danube from Belgrade to its mouth, and even made a foray across the Black Sea to Odessa. During WWII she was scuttled, raised, and later mined, after which she was raised again and broken up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I feel you should explain why there were charges on the bridge to begin with. 23 editor (talk) 12:48, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- have added a few additional words to clarify. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Dan! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Support: looks pretty good to me, I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
- I wonder if the lead could be tweaked a little to clarify that the monitor remained in service throughout the inter-war years. It probably wouldn't need much more than a short clause after the part where you mention the renaming to Morava
- the launched date of 5 February 1892 only appears in the infobox, I suggest mentioning it in the body of the article;
- same as above with the commissioning date of 21 April 1892
- " Equivalent to a Austro-Hungarian..." --> " Equivalent to an Austro-Hungarian..."
- in the References, Sondhaus should appear before Stein
-
- All addressed, thanks Rupert! These are my edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Ben Crosby
- Nominator(s): A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 19:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Let's try this again. Ben Crosby was an early football player and coach who died before he could really do anything. This might be the shortest article I ever bring to FAC. Researching it was a pain because he's the second-most obscure of all Navy football coaches, behind the guy who my primary source said has disappeared from the historical record. There is not much to this article; it's all about either playing football or coaching football or being forgotten by football. I nominated the article earlier this year and got an image review. Hopefully I can get someone to copyedit my choppy prose. Thanks, A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 19:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC) Notice: I will probably be limited in my ability to respond to your concerns for the following month because of IB exams. Sorry for any inconvenience.
Comments – Sorry that nobody has stopped by to give you a review so far, and that you didn't receive much commentary at the first FAC. I made some copy-edits here and there which you'll want to check. Here are some things I spotted:
You have a tendency to "bury the lead" in a couple of places in the lead, reversing what seems to be the logical order of items in a sentence. For example, the very first sentence of the article is "Benjamin Lewis Crosby , Jr. was an American law student and football player and coach." Why is the law student part put first in this sentence, when Crosby's football career is the reason an article on him is considered notable in the first place? The fact that he was a law student might be worth mention, but not as the first thing the reader sees.
-
- Corrected.
"Crosby attended Yale University beginning in 1889, where he was a popular student and sportsman." Since "where" is in reference to the school and not the year, the sentence should be changed so that the school comes directly before the comma.
-
- I attempted to fix this.
"Crosby was a backup on the crew team and a two-year starter on the football team." Again, I'd move the football part up in the sentence, since that is more important than his time on the crew team.
-
- Done.
"Notably" should be removed, since I'd hope something in a lead would be notable.
-
- Got rid of it.
I see a couple of "however"s in the lead, which is usually a sign of wordiness. Try finding ways of removing some in the article, through rephrasing or just taking them out.
-
- Down to just two "however"s in the article.
Early life and college: "both he and John A. Hartwell ... were both injured in a game." Remove one of the "both"s to avoid redundancy.
-
- Got rid of the latter one.
Coaching career: We don't need two Army Black Knights football links in this section, even though I do love the team (as bad at football as they may be).
-
- Only one link now. Also, 14 years and counting...
"against the Penn Quakers. The Quakers...". Try not to have the team name repeat from the end of one sentence to the start of another like this. You could try "against the Penn Quakers in Annapolis. The Quakers...", which would at least move it a couple more words away.
-
- Reworded it per suggestion.
If you fix these prose issues, the article should be in better shape. While I wish there was more to read, there isn't going to be that much material about a man who is primarily notable for one coaching season, and I don't think that should be a barrier to FA by itself. The article appears to be extensively researched, and I have no reason to believe that it isn't comprehensive. When I typed the subject's name into Google for kicks, around half the articles that popped up related to Bing Crosby, so I'm impressed you found as much as you did. I could see myself supporting this, but would like a quick scan for further writing points like the ones I found. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review and sorry for taking so long to respond. I have made all of your suggested changes and I went back through the article and made a couple more changes. There might be more that can be improved, but I'm not good at spotting it. Thanks again, - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 19:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Support – There was one remaining duplicate wikilink, which I took the liberty of fixing. That was the last thing that I spotted. As I said before, this is a solid piece of research, and I think it meets the standards now. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
-
Images are appropriately licensed, per discussion last time around. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your review at the previous nomination and for following up here. - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 19:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Comments – taking a look now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- "'contracted a "severe cold" - can be dequoted "URTI" or something
-
- his illness intensified and he apparently "succumbed to an attack of typhoid fever". - "his illness intensified and he apparently fell gravely ill from typhoid fever." (or somesuch)
Minor points though, a nice little read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments – I just removed a bunch of extraneous blank spaces that our templates seem to put in. Not a requirement for any review, but eliminating them decreases bytes on server usage. Other comments:
- "Navy had requested that Camp serve as coach" At this particular place, it reads awkward to me. Did the team make the request or did the Academy? Possibly change to "The Academy requested", or perhaps "The Navy team requested"
- Section Death and legacy could use some improvements, and loses me a bit on how it's put together.
-
- "Crosby had, reportedly, contracted a "severe cold" during his time as a head coach, which continued to affect him after the season." Seems to have a lot of commas. Personally, I think you could eliminate the commas before and after "reportedly" and still convey the same thing.
- State the year of his death.
- The sentence "Crosby's coaching position was filled by Yale teammate John A. Hartwell." should be right after his death.
- "who was subsequently replaced by another Yale teammate, William Wurtenburg." doesn't seem to have anything to do with the article. Can this be taken out, or do you think it has significance to the article?
-
- Break into new paragraphs right after his death, or a sentence or two followed by a sourced mini-list. For instance:
- "Crosby has been largely forgotten outside of Navy football history, however..." (complete the sentence)
- His replacement as Yale end by Frank Hinkey was discussed in magazines until at least the 1920s. (What were they discussing? Why is this significant?)
- In his one season as a head coach, Crosby amassed a record of 5–2 and his team outscored their opponents 146–64. The five wins are tied for the seventh-fewest of any Navy coach, but third-most of single-season coaches.
- Crosby has the third-fewest losses among Navy coaches. His .714 win percentage is tied for the tenth-highest of any Navy coach.
- (my rewording on this) The most significant impact that Crosby had with Navy was through his hiring of Dashiell. The latter would serve as assistant until 1903 under the eight Navy coaches. As head coach from 1904 to 1906, Dashiell brought Navy to national prominence and won 25 games. He later became one of the longest-serving members of the college football Rules Committee, helping to legalize the forward pass and ban the flying wedge, among other things.
Hope this has been helpful to you. — Maile (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Coordinator note - A Texas Historian, where are we on addressing Maile's comments? I will need to archive the nomination if you are no longer attending to it. --Laser brain (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry about not replying earlier. I've had exams for the past couple weeks and I haven't been able to do much editing. The exams are over on Wednesday, so after then I'll be able to address the concerns. Thanks, - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 16:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'll try to address all of the concerns in the next couple of days. Thanks, - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 16:29, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Mike Christie
- You have "succumbed to an attack of typhoid fever" and "succumbed to the effects of typhoid fever" within a couple of lines of each other; can this be rewritten to avoid repetition?
I've looked at the sources and they seem fine; I have not done a spotcheck, and I have not looked at the images. I expect to support once the minor issue above is fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship
This article is about a Mexican Professional wrestling championship, promoted by the oldest still active wrestling promotion in the world (founded in 1933). It has recently been through a really good GA review and passed, it's also benefitted from a number of Feature List Candidate review for other CMLL championships where I have applied improvement suggestions across all championship articles. I believe this has all the characteristics of a Featured Article, hopefully you will agree. MPJ-US 00:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Comments – MPJ, I'm sorry that this hadn't attracted any reviewer attention before now. Wrestling articles at FAC have had trouble getting reviewers pretty much since I first started commenting here. I have no knowledge at all of lucha libre, but let me see if I can get things started.
First off, did we ever discuss at FLC whether the CMLL champion lists (List of CMLL World Light Heavyweight Champions in this case) should be split from the main articles? This isn't an overly long article, so someone will probably ask about that at some point. I can't remember it being brought up, but if it was that would be helpful for others to know. You'd probably remember that better than me anyway.- That is going back a while but I believe that there was a limit, I want to say 10 champions, before we should even consider creating a seperate list - and then only of the main article actually has enough content to not just be a short, subbish article. This being a GA I think it meets this criteria, MPJ-US 09:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
General question: Is "Light Heavyweight" normally capitalized in this context (meaning when not part of the title's name) in lucha libre coverage? If not, you should decapitalize all instances in the article that aren't part of belt names. If so, feel free to ignore this comment."Because Lucha Libre puts more emphasis...". Our article doesn't capitalize the second word of "Lucha Libre", so why would it be capitalized here? While I'm here, the term could stand to be wikilinked. I'm not normally a fan of using many links, but it might be helpful to readers since it looks like this form of wrestling is unique when compared to the American version."La Mascara is the current CMLL World Light Heavyweight Champion in his first reign, who won it...". Since "who" refers to La Mascara, his name would optimally be right before the comma. How about using "The current CMLL World Light Heavyweight Champion in his first reign is La Mascara"?Remove the hyphen from "over-all".- Fixed MPJ-US 09:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
You left no space between "15th" and "overall", and the latter word has one too many "l"s. Needs a couple more tweaks.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed MPJ-US 09:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
"History: "positioning the NWA title as the highest ranking title in the Light Heavyweight division and the Mexican National title positioned as the secondary championship." Reads a little awkwardly. Changing "and" to "with" would probably be enough to fix it.You don't need to fully spell out the NWA twice in this section. The one in the second paragraph can be abbreviated."with The CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship created to...". Don't think that "The" should be capitalized here.- Fixed MPJ-US 09:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I still see the capitalization.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed MPJ-US 09:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Try not to start a sentence with a number, like in "8 days later Dr. Wagner, Jr. won the title back before returning to Mexico." In these situations, just spell out the number at the start of the sentence or reword it to move the number away from the beginning.Again, "over all" should probably be one word.Reigns: "Only two men have held the title more than once, both Dr. Wagner, Jr. and Atlantis have officially held the title two times." Minor, but the comma could stand to be a colon or semi-colon."due to an injury to the reigning champion or that champion stops working for the promotion". This could use "when" before "that".The wrestler's name Rush is missing from "In late 2013 then light heavyweight champion".- Fixed MPJ-US 09:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
You did fix it, but I just noticed that Rush and El Terrible both have unneeded repeat links. That should be handled as well.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed MPJ-US 09:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Rules: "The official definition of the Light Heavyweight division in Mexico is from 92 kg and 97 kg." "and" should be "to".- Fixed MPJ-US 09:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
"Now this needs "is" before "between". Not sure why that was removed, but it should definitely be put back.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed MPJ-US 09:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
"However, in the 21st century the official definitions has at times been overlooked for certain champions." "definitions" probably shouldn't be plural here.- It's not just the defintion of the light heavyweight division but all the definition of all the divisions. Plural still inappropriate??
No, but in that case "has" should be "have", which is plural in nature here.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's not just the defintion of the light heavyweight division but all the definition of all the divisions. Plural still inappropriate??
"With a total of twelve CMLL promoted championships being labelled as "World" title". Last word should be plural.2013: "starting on January 22, 2013 and the finals held the following week." Add "were" before "held"?Another "over all" here.Is Footnote 1 referenced by where it appears in-text? I couldn't find a source directly in the note.The all caps should be taken out of "MEXICO" in references 2 and 8.Date formatting in the references should be consistent. I see a couple of ISO dates, but most of them are fully spelled out. It will be less work to convert the ISO dates than the others, so I recommend that option.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)- Thank you @Giants2008: I appreciate Fthe input, and yes most FAC for pro wrestling often die on the vine due to lack of attention, does not help that I have been busy IRL and not done my share of FAC reviews. I am hoping to address this starting this weekend. MPJ-US 09:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Giants2008: - Could you please check to make sure my updates are approriate? If so perhaps lend your support? Thanks in advance. MPJ-US 16:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- I went and performed further copy-edits for you. In particular, I did a bunch of edits to make the article compliant with MOS:JR, the newest part of the Manual of Style that the FAC community doesn't seem to know much about yet. and removed some wordiness in places. Before considering a support, I'd like to see Starship's comment about the most significant CMLL championship fully addressed. It looks like you're close to finding a solution, and I encourage you to work with it until you find something the two of you can agree on. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Now that Starship's issue has been resolved, I'll go ahead and support. It is a short article, but it is the kind of subject where I doubt there is too much more to say in sources that wouldn't be questioned here. Perhaps there is more in wrestling websites, but without knowing much about their reliability at this level I don't want to push the point. The nominator seems to have done a good job of sticking to print publications and the like, and I wouldn't want to see a step back in this regard. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
- I went and performed further copy-edits for you. In particular, I did a bunch of edits to make the article compliant with MOS:JR, the newest part of the Manual of Style that the FAC community doesn't seem to know much about yet. and removed some wordiness in places. Before considering a support, I'd like to see Starship's comment about the most significant CMLL championship fully addressed. It looks like you're close to finding a solution, and I encourage you to work with it until you find something the two of you can agree on. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments from starship.paint
- Support after my review is concluded with issues addressed, this is a comprehensive article! starship.paint ~ KO 02:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- History
References 2-9 are books/print. Are there any e-book versions available via Google...?Can I confirm that the first sentence with "1933" is supported by [4] or [5]? I would advise to cite references for these sentences.There's no mention of the Spanish name of the title in the body of the article. It should be referenced too, in the body.- @Starship.paint: - thank you for your input. MPJ-US 02:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
"Rey Escorpión defeated Volador Jr." This is the "finals" for the vacant championship, right? It should be stated so, then.According to the list of reigns page, Rush gave up his Light title to get a title shot for the Heavyweight title, this can be mentioned with the appropriate reference.
- Reigns
I just noticed that the Rush vacating title and Escorpion winning was mentioned both in the History and in the Reigns section. I think one mention is enough..."Oftentimes a championship is vacated due to an injury to the reigning champion or when a champion stops working for the promotion" - this is a contestable claim requiring a source. You can change "oftentimes" to "sometimes", and source with (injury vacation: WWE's Bryan/Rollins) and (working vacation: AAA's Alberto El Patron).You say that there are fifteen reigns by fourteen wrestlers in this section and in the lede. Fifteen reigns does not include Aquarius but fourteen wrestlers does. If Tajiri's reign is not counted, there are only thirteen wrestlers. Please fix this inconsistency.
- Rules
Looking at the reference, the "official definition" seems to be dated to 2001. I think that's worth a mention.- Not sure what you mean by that? mention that it was defined in 2001? the definition pre-dates that by at least 70 years with most division dating back to the early days of lucha libre. And yes it's 15 years old but they have not changed in 85ish years now so I don't believe that's a problem? MPJ-US 03:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay never mind about 2001. How about mentioning that the official definition comes from BOX Y LUCHA LIBRE PROFESIONAL DEL ESTADO DE MEXICO?starship.paint ~ KO 05:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)- I believe I addressed this by clarifying that this is the lucha libre commission defined weight limits, hence "official". Does that work? MPJ-US 19:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Fine!
- Not sure what you mean by that? mention that it was defined in 2001? the definition pre-dates that by at least 70 years with most division dating back to the early days of lucha libre. And yes it's 15 years old but they have not changed in 85ish years now so I don't believe that's a problem? MPJ-US 03:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- "With a total of twelve CMLL promoted championships being labelled as "World" titles" - this sentence, is it sourced? It's also a contestable claim requiring a source.
- Well "contestable" may be a stretch IMO, the CMLL page lists 12 championships with the word "World" in the title. But that page does have a reference for each of the most recent champions, I can easily grab those 11 sources and put them on the page I suppose. MPJ-US 03:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. Since you said that, I Wiki-linked it for you. No need for the 11 sources. But the contestable part is actually the other part of the sentence "the promotional focus shifts from championship to championship over time with no single championship being promoted as the "main" championship of the promotion". Sorry, I wasn't clear. starship.paint ~ KO 05:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- I see what you mean - that's a tough one. So the WWE title is the top title - but not because the WWE said so, but by it being the focal point of most main events, gets the most storyline focus etc. with CMLL there is not one single title that gets that kind of focus, heck some of them go ignored for months on end. Titles are generally a second tied underneath "Apuestas" (mask or hair matches) in CMLL's pecking order, the Apuestas often get the main events of the big shows - title matches are more to build to the Apuestas. I am just not sure how to source what CMLL's booking pattern has been in the last 83ish years. MPJ-US 19:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- How about writing Despite a total of twelve CMLL promoted championships being labelled as "World" titles, the most highly promoted matches tend to be Lucha de Apuestas matches? I based that from reading the main events of the Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre Anniversary Shows...? starship.paint ~ KO 02:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- How about the reworded sentence now?? MPJ-US 23:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- @MPJ-DK: I like your addition. But I would ask that the promotional focus shifts from championship to championship over time with no single championship being consistently promoted as the "main" championship, instead be removed if the Mondo Lucha book does not support it. Does it? starship.paint ~ KO 07:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Starship.paint: the Mondo Lucha book is a little vague on that part. I would really like the article to reflect that CMLL does not have "That One Big Championship" because that's the truth. Just trying to figure out how to source such a statement is the challenge right now. I have some various Year in Review magazine editions I won on eBay years back, I may go through those to see if I can source that the main event title spot does not always go to the Heavyweight title. MPJ-US 23:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's already quite established that the main event match spot does not always go to the Heavyweight title. Looking at the Anniversary Shows easily establishes that. However, that does not prevent the Heavyweight title from still being the main championship defended. Usually, placing on the card determines importance. If you can find that in some years, the main event or semi-main event / second last match had other championship matches than the Heavyweight, then it should be fine. Of course, you need a source for this starship.paint ~ KO 23:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- @MPJ-DK: see this comment. starship.paint ~ KO 01:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- @MPJ-DK: any update? starship.paint ~ KO 03:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Starship.paint: the Mondo Lucha book is a little vague on that part. I would really like the article to reflect that CMLL does not have "That One Big Championship" because that's the truth. Just trying to figure out how to source such a statement is the challenge right now. I have some various Year in Review magazine editions I won on eBay years back, I may go through those to see if I can source that the main event title spot does not always go to the Heavyweight title. MPJ-US 23:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- @MPJ-DK: I like your addition. But I would ask that the promotional focus shifts from championship to championship over time with no single championship being consistently promoted as the "main" championship, instead be removed if the Mondo Lucha book does not support it. Does it? starship.paint ~ KO 07:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- How about the reworded sentence now?? MPJ-US 23:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- How about writing Despite a total of twelve CMLL promoted championships being labelled as "World" titles, the most highly promoted matches tend to be Lucha de Apuestas matches? I based that from reading the main events of the Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre Anniversary Shows...? starship.paint ~ KO 02:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- I see what you mean - that's a tough one. So the WWE title is the top title - but not because the WWE said so, but by it being the focal point of most main events, gets the most storyline focus etc. with CMLL there is not one single title that gets that kind of focus, heck some of them go ignored for months on end. Titles are generally a second tied underneath "Apuestas" (mask or hair matches) in CMLL's pecking order, the Apuestas often get the main events of the big shows - title matches are more to build to the Apuestas. I am just not sure how to source what CMLL's booking pattern has been in the last 83ish years. MPJ-US 19:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm. Since you said that, I Wiki-linked it for you. No need for the 11 sources. But the contestable part is actually the other part of the sentence "the promotional focus shifts from championship to championship over time with no single championship being promoted as the "main" championship of the promotion". Sorry, I wasn't clear. starship.paint ~ KO 05:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Well "contestable" may be a stretch IMO, the CMLL page lists 12 championships with the word "World" in the title. But that page does have a reference for each of the most recent champions, I can easily grab those 11 sources and put them on the page I suppose. MPJ-US 03:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- (Out dent) @Starship.paint: - So I have gone back through CMLL's major show history, I stopped at 2013 when I did not find a heavyweight title match but did find three other singles title matches listed. I am trying to find out when the last title defense was, so I can reference that as part of the "it's not the main title" section. I did not think it would take this long. MPJ-US 16:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- Do the additional details work? MPJ-US 16:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- @MPJ-DK: - yes, yes, that is great research and it largely works. The only (minor) concern that I have is that when you write Since 2013 and The last time a ... these kinds of statistics have to be constantly updated, you have to be aware of the results of the CMLL major shows and update this article in the event the statistics change. Personally I would prefer to change Since 2013 to From January 2013 to May 2016, and when 2017 rolls around you can change it to From 2013 to 2016 so that there is less chance for inaccurate statements. What do you think? starship.paint ~ KO 00:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- @MPJ-DK: - I'm really close to stamping my support ... so address this :D starship.paint ~ KO 13:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Giants2008 and Starship.paint: - Sorry I have been sick for the last couple of days and did not get around to addressing this. I updated the time period to be more specific. Does that work? MPJ-US 13:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
- Do the additional details work? MPJ-US 16:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Good work on finding the other promotions where the title was defended.
- Tournaments
It would be helpful to insert a reference for "from September 15 to October 26, 1991". That's all for my comments today!starship.paint ~ KO 03:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)- @Starship.paint: - I believe I have fixed your concerns or answred your questions. MPJ-US 19:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- Lede
Because lucha libre puts more emphasis on the lower weight classes, this division is considered more important than the heavyweight division, which is considered the most important championship by most promotions outside of Mexico. - I don't recall seeing this in the body. This needs to be sourced too..I did a copyedit for the whole article.
- Further note for Reigns section
Shouldn't La Mascara be the shortest reigning champion and not Jerry Estrada?starship.paint ~ KO 07:22, 18 May 2016 (UTC)- Good call on La Mascara, I added that and stated the date he would surpass Jerry Estrada if he remains champion - that way it's clear when the article would need to be updated. MPJ-US 00:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- "[5][4]": Picky, I know, but we're generally looking for [4][5] unless there's a good reason not to do that.
- Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for your support, I have also addressed the [5][4] source issue. MPJ-US 23:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Notes -- Did I miss image and source reviews? Also, it seems to have been a long time since your last FA, MPJ, so I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. A request for all these can be made at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- I did not realize the separate reqwuest space for that, thank you @Ian Rose:. It has been a while since I had one pass for FA - and perhaps the fact that I did not realize there was a request space maybe why my last two FACs has less participation than I had hoped. MPJ-US 14:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Theodore Komnenos Doukas
- Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 17:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
This article is about one of the most fascinating figures of Byzantine history. An ambitious, capable, and quite ruthless man, who sidelined his nephew, captured Thessalonica from the Latins and almost succeeded in recovering Constantinople and restoring the Byzantine Empire, only to be defeated, captured and blinded by the Tsar of Bulgaria. He was then released when the tsar became infatuated with his daughter, deposed his brother to regain Thessalonica, and ruled it via his sons for several years before it was captured by the Empire of Nicaea. In a final act of defiance against Nicaea he urged his nephew the ruler of Epirus (whom he had deposed at the beginning of his reign) to launch a joint attack against Nicaea, where he was finally defeated and captured, ending his career. The article is as comprehensive as it can get, relying on the main biographical work on him (Varzos) and complementing it with several other scholarly histories and articles on specific aspects of the period. It passed GA and MILHIST ACR without problems, and I feel it is ready for FA. Constantine ✍ 17:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- "Giovanni Colonna (de)", " William I of Sancerre (fr)": terminate this template (at FAC at least) with extreme prejudice. If you don't want the link to be red and you know there's a reasonable article at de.wp or fr.wp, write a stub on WP.
- Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Dank for your edits and the support. I've created a stub for Colonna, and will go about creating short articles for the other redlinks as well. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Just to be clear ... a few redlinks at FAC (within reason) is fine. It's the "(de)" template that isn't fine. - Dank (push to talk) 13:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Dank for your edits and the support. I've created a stub for Colonna, and will go about creating short articles for the other redlinks as well. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Image review
Suggest scaling up the mapFile:Theodor_I._Despot_von_Epirus.jpg: need more information on the source - it would appear that the given tags are for the coin itself, but not the photo- Hmmm, accoring to its description, it is taken from a catalogue, hence probably scanned. I'm not too familiar with the subtleties of copyright law in this case, but it can be replaced with File:Theodore Comnenus-Ducas cropped.jpg, which is fully licensed.
- I've replaced the image.
- Hmmm, accoring to its description, it is taken from a catalogue, hence probably scanned. I'm not too familiar with the subtleties of copyright law in this case, but it can be replaced with File:Theodore Comnenus-Ducas cropped.jpg, which is fully licensed.
File:Stefan_the_First-Crowned,_fresco_from_Mileševa.jpg: source link is dead- And what is the recommended solution here? Whatever the source, as a medieval 2d-object it is PD or not?
- Is an alternate source available, or an archived link? It would be good to have a source available for verifiability purposes, so that someone could check that the description is accurate. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- It has been archived by the Wayback Machine, link added
- Is an alternate source available, or an archived link? It would be good to have a source available for verifiability purposes, so that someone could check that the description is accurate. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- And what is the recommended solution here? Whatever the source, as a medieval 2d-object it is PD or not?
- File:Epir1205-1230.png (original source of the map) - on what data source or pre-existing map is this based?
- It is itself base on File:Epirus 1205 1230.svg. I don't know the author nor what sources he used, but it more or less matches what is described in the article. I thought about whether to remove this map, but it is evident from its design that it is not meant to be an exhaustively accurate representation of Epirote territorial extent, but to give a general overview. For this role the map is both useful and quite correct. Constantine ✍ 15:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Tsar_Ivan_Asen_II_cropped.png needs a US PD tag.Nikkimaria (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)- Fixed. Constantine ✍ 15:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: This looks interesting, and I look forward to reading it and adding further comments. In the meantime, may I suggest that you don't use the phrase "fall of Constantinople" in the lead when referring to the city's capture by the Fourth Crusade in 1204, since this term is generally used in connection with its capture by the Ottomans in 1453. Brianboulton (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Brianboulton! Good point regarding the 1204 sack. I'll change it right away. Looking forward to your review! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- OK, here's The first instalment, taking us to about midway through the Epirus section, and very interesting it is, too. My comments are mostly concerned with prose issues, mostly minor in themselves, but collectively indicating that further attention needs to be given to this aspect. Two recurrent faults are (i) overlong sentences and (ii) a tendency to editorialise rather than observing strict encyclopaedic neautrality:
- Lead
- The first sentence/paragraph is overlong and somewhat convoluted. I suggest a break after "from 1224 to 1230", followed by: "He was also the power..." etc (I'd omit "real" as redundant)
- How relevant is the "bastard" description? Why not just "half-brother"?
- Well, Michael was an illegitimate son, and this is often stressed in the sources.
-
-
- Maybe, but we don't have to blindly follow them without reason. However, it's up to you. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- "advanced as far as" → "advanced to"
- "In that year, Theodore diverted the army amassed to besiege Constantinople against Bulgaria, an ambivalent ally which threatened his northern flank." Not entirely clear as worded. Perhaps: "In that year, Theodore used the army he had amassed to besiege Constantinople to attack Bulgaria, an ambivalent ally which threatened his northern flank"?
- "the splitting off of" is clumsy. Perhaps "the dispossession of"?
- "Disposession" is not what is meant her; I've rephrased for clarity.
- Who was "John Asen"?
- The Bulgarian tsar John II Asen, who is mentioned and linked in the previous sentence.
- "he installed his eldest son John as emperor in his stead" – last three words redundant
- The "in his stead" was necessary in so far as it linked this act with his own blinding, which disqualified him. I've rephrased for clarity.
- "suzerainty" needs a link
- "In 1246 Vatatzes overthrew Theodore's unpopular younger son Demetrios and annexed Thessalonica" – when did Demetrios enter the picture? The last we heard, Thessalonica and its environs had been left to Theodore and John.
- It is mentioned at the beginning of the lede, where it is implied that Demetrios succeeded John; I've rephrased for clarity.
- Early life and career
- "a daughter of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos" I'd say "Byzantine Emperor"
- "notably refers to him" – "notably" is editorialising and should be removed.
- Paragraphs should not begin with pronouns (2nd para)
- "an apologist for Theodore". Better clarify, as the last Theodore mentioned was Laskaris. The sentence is overlong anyway, and would be better split after the end of the quotation.
- "Theodore" on its own refers throughout to the subject of the article; the distinction is quite clear IMO with "an apologist for Theodore, he provided valuable services to Laskaris," and the continued juxtaposition of the two in Bardanes' text. I've split the sentence up, though.
- Ruler of Epirus
- This single section runs to 2,500 words. It would greatly assist readers to navigate the section if it was divided into subsections
-
- I repeat: this section is indigestibly long in its present form, and for the sake of your readers needs to be subdivided. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- "Dyrrhachium and Corfu had been recovered" – when had they been lost? Also I suggest you lose "as well"
-
- Not answered. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- "As Michael II was illegitimate and too young..." This needlessly repeats information given in the preceding paragraph
- I prefer to keep it, as the context here is different and I feel it bears repeating.
- "It must be noted that" – editorialising, remove. The content of these two sentences needs to firmly attributed to sources, e.g. "X and Y have noted that..." etc
- I moved this to a separate footnote. Regarding to attribution, this is not a matter of opinion or dispute between scholars, it is one of usage and helps clarify the issue for the uninitiated reader who might wonder why, when the main article on the Epirote principality is at Despotate of Epirus, this article goes out of its way to avoid naming it thus.
- Another overlong sentence beginning "The Principality of Arbanon...", and can you explain what "the Epirote orbit" and "magnate" mean (maybe use a pipe-link for the latter)?
-
- Not noticeably shortened. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- And another long one: "Stefan II then sought..."
- "the homonymous archbishopric": I think you mean "eponymous" (homonyms are words that sound the same but mean different things, like "hole" and "whole"}
- Quite right, I'm quite embarrassed at getting two Greek words mixed up...
- The wording "...was particularly important. Indeed..." etc needs to be re-thought (see above re editorialising). Unless you are paraphrasing a specific source it needs to be rephrased neutrally.
- I've rephrased for clarity and attribution to Varzos.
More later. Brianboulton (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Brianboulton and thanks for taking the time for such a detailed review! I've incorporated/answered the first batch of suggestions. Looking forward to more! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 09:26, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- I will resume the review shortly. As a matter of procedure, I would prefer to strike my own comments, after I've had the chance to look at your responses. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- As you prefer, I've removed them :). Constantine ✍ 14:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- There's a couple of points from the above still needing attention, in particular the non-subdivision of this very long section. Reading on now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- As you prefer, I've removed them :). Constantine ✍ 14:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- I will resume the review shortly. As a matter of procedure, I would prefer to strike my own comments, after I've had the chance to look at your responses. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Note to FAC coords: Brian is happy as far as his review went. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Mike Christie
"he aspired not only to expand his state against Thessalonica": to me "expand his state against" is not very natural phrasing. How about "acquire more territory from"?- I've rephrased this.
A map would be useful earlier in the article than the current one, since many readers will be unfamiliar with these names.I think File:Epiro 1205-1230.svg needs to be translated into English to be acceptable on an en-wiki FA.- For both of the above, I've begun translating the map and making various corrections/additions using the sources present in this article.
"The election was uncanonical and thereby of questionable legitimacy": suggest "therefore" or "hence" rather than "thereby", which tends to imply agency rather than just consequence.- Fixed
"relations between Theodore and Serbia remained cordial": why "Theodore and Serbia" rather than "Theodore and Stefan" or "Epirus and Serbia"?- It reflects more the fact that Theodore had good relations with both Stefan II Nemanjić and his successor Radoslav, but I see your point. I've rephrased it, to follow more closely the biographical POV of Theodore, especially since good relations with Serbia were an important pillar of his foreign policy.
- You have "Despite the quarrels of the churchmen, however, Theodore took care not to let them affect his cordial relations to the Serbian ruler", but Theodore's care was not really despite the quarrels -- it was because of the quarrels, if anything. How about: "Theodore took care not to let the quarrels of the churchmen affect his cordial relations with the Serbian ruler"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- True. Rephrased accordingly. Thanks for the suggestion. Constantine ✍ 11:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- It reflects more the fact that Theodore had good relations with both Stefan II Nemanjić and his successor Radoslav, but I see your point. I've rephrased it, to follow more closely the biographical POV of Theodore, especially since good relations with Serbia were an important pillar of his foreign policy.
"Western sources claim that he offered to recognize...": Can we substitute a name for "he"? I'm pretty sure this is Colonna, but the context is complicated and it would help the reader.- Fixed.
- Struck; glad I asked, since I see I was wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed.
I'm unclear on the discussion of the difference between Philip Van Tricht's views on the conflict between Theodore and Peter II, and those of other historians. As far as I can see Van Tricht's views relate only to Peter's motivations, not to the course of events. What is this contrasted with? I don't think the earlier discussion explicitly says that Theodore never recognized the suzerainty of the Latin Empire. It sounds like that must be the difference, but I think it could be clearer.- Hmm, the issue here is interpreting the political context of Peter's landing. If Theodore was still a Latin vassal, even if in name only, then Peter's landing in Albania, and his readiness to trust Theodore, make much more sense. Theodore also, unlike his brother, had not yet openly confronted the Latins, as the territory in Macedonia he expanded into was held by local (mostly Bulgarian) rulers. Most writers consider that Theodore had a clear anti-Latin policy from the outset, and view all his actions from the lens of his eventual capture of Thessalonica and drive for Constantinople. While, as with any ambitious Greek ruler of the time, these were certainly things he aimed at eventually, a continued Latin vassalage leaves open the possibility that he acted opportunistically only after Peter was considerate enough to present himself on a platter. I'll try to make this clearer.
- I've split this up, and added the issue of allegiance to the Latin Empire to the brief summary of Michael I's anti-Latin campaigns, and I've expanded on Theodore's motivations behind his clash with Peter based on Van Tricht. Constantine ✍ 11:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- That's much clearer, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've split this up, and added the issue of allegiance to the Latin Empire to the brief summary of Michael I's anti-Latin campaigns, and I've expanded on Theodore's motivations behind his clash with Peter based on Van Tricht. Constantine ✍ 11:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, the issue here is interpreting the political context of Peter's landing. If Theodore was still a Latin vassal, even if in name only, then Peter's landing in Albania, and his readiness to trust Theodore, make much more sense. Theodore also, unlike his brother, had not yet openly confronted the Latins, as the territory in Macedonia he expanded into was held by local (mostly Bulgarian) rulers. Most writers consider that Theodore had a clear anti-Latin policy from the outset, and view all his actions from the lens of his eventual capture of Thessalonica and drive for Constantinople. While, as with any ambitious Greek ruler of the time, these were certainly things he aimed at eventually, a continued Latin vassalage leaves open the possibility that he acted opportunistically only after Peter was considerate enough to present himself on a platter. I'll try to make this clearer.
I think the "Ruler of Epirus" section needs to be either split or given subsection headings; it's very long for a single section.- I've divided it into a section detailing his relations with Serbia and Nicaea, and his wars with the Latins leading to the fall of Thessalonica.
"There she quickly appreciated the wealth and strength of the Principality of Achaea": suggest "quickly came to appreciate" as slightly more natural phrasing.- Fixed
"the hope to be able to assist": suggest "the hope that he might assist" or "that he might be able to assist".- Fixed.
The discussion of the timing of Theodore's coronation gives the opinions of the various scholars in the past tense. I'd suggest switching to the present tense, which is more usual, and is consistent with the discussion of the conflict with Peter II, where John Van Antwerp Fine and Philip Van Tricht are cited in the present tense.- Done.
"titelature": I think this should be "titulature" but I hesitate to change it without checking in case there is some shade of meaning I'm unaware of.- No, it is an error. Fixed.
"to limit the blame on Chomatianos": I think this should be "to", not "on", if I understand the sense correctly.- Indeed. Fixed.
"the presumption of Chomatianos to usurp the patriarchal privilege": suggest either "the presumption of Chomatianos in usurping the patriarchal privilege" or "Chomatianos presuming to usurp the patriarchal privilege" or "Chomatianos' presumption in usurping the patriarchal privilege".- Fixed. Constantine ✍ 11:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
"i.e. for Theodore the right to appoint bishops": suggest "i.e. the right for Theodore to appoint bishops".- Fixed. Constantine ✍ 11:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
"Nevertheless, for reasons that are unknown": why "nevertheless"?- You're right, it is superfluous. Constantine ✍ 11:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
"Manuel soon lost Epirus to Michael I's bastard son Michael II. Returning from exile, Michael quickly succeeded, apparently with the support of the local population, in taking over control of Epirus." These two sentences say almost the same thing. Can they be combined?- Done. Constantine ✍ 11:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
"According to a recently discovered letter": better to give the date of discovery in the text, I think. "Recently" won't always mean the same thing.- Good point, but Fine does not give a date. I've removed this altogether, given that Fine's book is itself not that "recent" any more. Constantine ✍ 11:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
-- That's everything I can see on a first pass. These are all pretty minor issues. I will do another read through once these are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Mike Christie and thanks for the review! I'll go over it today and over the weekend. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Mike Christie! I've finally found some time to work through the rest of your comments. I'll do the map over the rest of the weekend as well. Best, Constantine ✍ 11:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- I've struck everything except the points about the map. I'll read through again to see if I can spot anything else. I expect to support once you've fixed the map. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Mike Christie! I've finally found some time to work through the rest of your comments. I'll do the map over the rest of the weekend as well. Best, Constantine ✍ 11:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Second read-through:
"Manuel was unable to prevent the loss of Thrace, most of Macedonia, and Albania to the Bulgarian Tsar John II Asen, whose vassal Thessalonica now became, nor the de facto separation of Epirus, where Michael II, returning from exile, had seized control": I don't think "nor" works by itself here, because the previous negative is hidden in "unable" and the syntactic parallelism is too weak. How about: "Manuel lost Thrace, most of Macedonia, and Albania to the Bulgarian Tsar John II Asen, whose vassal Thessalonica now became; and was also unable to prevent the de facto separation of Epirus, where Michael II, returning from exile, had seized control"?You have "disquieted" twice in a short span in the paragraph about Alexius Slav.
-- Once these two minor points are fixed, and the maps are addressed, I am sure I will be supporting promotion. This is a fine article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- New map added and both of the above points fixed. A sincere thank you for a very detailed review, and for your suggestions. Constantine ✍ 18:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Support. An outstanding article. Note to the coords: I have not reviewed sources or images. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Cas Liber
Looks good. Agree with Mike's points above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- '
' the rulers of Epirus would continue to challenge the revived empire "for what they believed to be their own right to the throne" - I think this can be rewritten so it doesn't have quote marks and uses words more distant from source
- '
- Hi Cas Liber! I've rewritten this. Anything else? Going beyond prose issues, my worry is always whether the article is accessible and understandable by the average reader, who is probably bombarded with unknown names and concepts... Constantine ✍ 11:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, I was waiting until Mike Christie had finished above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Support nothing else to add Mike's suggestions tweaked the prose nicely and nothing else jumps out at me prose-wise...and I suspect it's comprehensive. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Briarcliff Manor Public Library
I've been writing articles about Briarcliff Manor, New York, with the ultimate goal of every article reaching the highest status. I wrote most of this over the course of a week and had it reach GA soon after. I feel that it's comprehensive and ready for Featured Article status. Please don't hesitate to comment, review, critique, or even edit the article. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 02:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Briarcliff_Library_pre-2007.jpg: the FUR presents this as a logo, which it is not - this needs reworking. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Nikkimaria: is it fixed properly now? Thanks--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Certainly better. I would suggest though using {{Non-free fair use in}} instead of the historic-images tag - it's usually applied to images that are themselves of historic significance (eg. File:TrangBang.jpg) rather than just those that depict historic things. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: That makes sense, done. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 02:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Certainly better. I would suggest though using {{Non-free fair use in}} instead of the historic-images tag - it's usually applied to images that are themselves of historic significance (eg. File:TrangBang.jpg) rather than just those that depict historic things. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: is it fixed properly now? Thanks--ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 01:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
From "History", paragraph 1: "World War I delayed the progress of the library; in 1921 it was revived, largely due to the efforts of Mrs. Alfred G. Bookwalter; at the time, the Library Board consisted entirely of women." I appreciate the desire to avoid very short sentences, but the double semi-colon is not elegant. Is there a better way to phrase this? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
From "History", paragraph 4: " In 1959, the library received its absolute charter." What is an "absolute charter"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
From "History", last paragraph: "The library, which had 3,200 square feet (300 m2), had no wireless capacity and poor shelving and lighting, among other problems." It is unclear as to when these problems were highlighted. Given that the subsequent sentence refers to 1980, I infer that the statement applies to 1980 or earlier. If this is the implication, it is unsurprising that the library had no wireless capacity—or indeed internet access at all! Moreover, wireless capacity is not mentioned at all later in the paragraph. (Wi-Fi is mentioned in the subsequent section.) "Among other problems" is somewhat vague. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
From "History", last paragraph: "The community center has been in development since as late as 2013." Why "as late as 2013" rather than "since 2013"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
From "History", last paragraph: "an estimated completion date of 2016 and cost of $1,800,000." The reference is from October 2015. Has the community center been completed? If not, is there a more precise estimate for completion date? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
From "Operations": "As of 2014, the Briarcliff Manor Public Library is open seven days per week, except in August when it is closed each Sunday." Is there a more up-to-date source for opening hours? Most readers won't want to know the opening hours from two years ago. Why is/was it closed on Sundays in August? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @Axl:, thanks for your comments! I fixed the first issue. An absolute charter is a New York State thing; libraries, museums, historical societies, and even public tv & radio stations are registered as educational organizations with NYSED and charters bring all sorts of benefits related to becoming an "official" educational organization. I'm going to look into incorporating this as a note, as it's not really explained elsewhere on Wikipedia. The problems sentence was cited to a 2005 article, which makes sense that no wireless in the late 90s/early 2000s would be an issue, however the library's small size and poor shelving and lights would have likely been a problem for the last 20 or 30 years. I didn't really find it necessary to associate a date then, as long as the reader understands these issues existed prior to the library's expansion. What do you think? I could state "In 2005, it was noted that....", or "In 2005, The New York Times noted that..." The 'among other problems' phrase is vague, however I didn't want to list all the minor problems on the NYT article, and still wanted to express there were more problems than just size, wireless, shelves, and lights; the reader could view the reference to read more?
- I wanted to express when the community center was being developed, and the earliest source I found was from 2013, although there's a good possibility it was in development before then, ergo as late as 2013.
- There haven't been any more recent online publications about the community center's completion date. I'm inquiring about print resources.
- The library schedule hasn't changed (nor has the ref); I'll update to 'as of 2016'. It always closes on Sundays in August for special events to be run, as can be seen here! ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 17:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
-
There needs to be clarification of the meaning of "absolute charter", even if this is just a link to another article or a dictionary definition. Incorporation as a note sounds fine.
-
- The paragraph about the problems needs to be rewritten. If the formal assessment was undertaken in 2005, that assessment needs to be placed in chronological seqeuence within the paragraph. If, in your opinion, the "other problems" are too trivial to be described in the article, then don't even mention them at all. If you aren't going to do this, I could do it.
- It is in chronological order, seeing as the 2005 source was describing problems in the location for its early history (1959-1980). The mezzanine added in 1980 gave it more shelf space, one of the problems listed. I disagree that "other problems" should be removed. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- The dates of beginning and completion of the community center need to be included—this article is supposed to be reaching FA standard.
- Generally it would be good, however you know that nothing in Wikipedia should be unverifiable. The only information I can find about beginning and completion is not verifiable. The information about its planning should be sufficient, and with the actual opening in a week or two, it'll be more complete without a doubt. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- "The library schedule hasn't changed (nor has the ref); I'll update to 'as of 2016'." Why didn't you do it? I have fixed the problem with a reference to the current opening hours. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- The paragraph about the problems needs to be rewritten. If the formal assessment was undertaken in 2005, that assessment needs to be placed in chronological seqeuence within the paragraph. If, in your opinion, the "other problems" are too trivial to be described in the article, then don't even mention them at all. If you aren't going to do this, I could do it.
- Oppose. We have an ongoing disagreement about the presence of "other problems". You do not acknowledge my reasoning for rewriting the paragraph, nor have you accepted my offer to do so. Of course everything should be verifiable, but this does not excuse the absence of relevant information when an article is striving for FA standard. Moreover, the presence of vague or confusing statements is not acceptable.
- I realise that Ɱ has worked hard to bring the article to its current state – thank you for improving the article. Unfortunately I don't think that it reaches FA standard yet. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- " You do not acknowledge my reasoning for rewriting the paragraph, nor have you accepted my offer to do so." That statement is unfair, as not only do I acknowledge by stating that the statements are in chronological order, but I won't take up your offer to change it if I don't think it needs changing... Nor should a minor issue like this be an obstacle for FA, nor a sole reason for an oppose vote. Thank you for your input. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Axl: Upon further review, I have edited that sentence, and as well added the (finally published) completion date of the community center. I hope this fulfills your review responses? ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 03:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for these improvements to the article. However it remains unclear as to when "no wireless capacity" was identified as a problem (and by extension, "poor shelving and lighting"). The start of development of the community center remains vague. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you write historical articles, but there's always information that can't be known or can't be cited. Sometimes it's merely specifics, like the dates you desire. In this case, I don't think any one party could reliably state when wireless, shelving, and lighting became a prominent issue, nor the exact date when planning for the community center began. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't write historical articles (I have reviewed one GA candidate historical article in the past) but I think that describing this article as a "historical article" is stretching the definition. Anyway, I know that you have rigorously searched for sources so I accept that there is information that cannot be found. According to the FA criteria, the article should be "well-written" and "comprehensive". The absence of any possible source to provide missing information is not a reason to bypass the "comprehensive" requirement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Axl: I appreciate your honesty and recognition. I was indicating that the historical section is similar to historical articles, and likewise will always have absences in information. Those types of articles are my preference and what I usually end up writing about, which influenced me to write this article (I've never written one on a library before). My previous FACs allowed for even greater truths to be left unknown; many elements of history can never be known for sure or will never be known for sure, as opposed to topics like mathematics or science. FA criteria on comprehension recognizes this, that the article must neglect "no major facts or details". I don't believe the dates you request are among major facts about the library. Regardless, I'll restate that these issues aren't well defined that I doubt anyone even then could absolutely state when those issues became a problem or when the community center plans were 'officially' started. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't write historical articles (I have reviewed one GA candidate historical article in the past) but I think that describing this article as a "historical article" is stretching the definition. Anyway, I know that you have rigorously searched for sources so I accept that there is information that cannot be found. According to the FA criteria, the article should be "well-written" and "comprehensive". The absence of any possible source to provide missing information is not a reason to bypass the "comprehensive" requirement. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you write historical articles, but there's always information that can't be known or can't be cited. Sometimes it's merely specifics, like the dates you desire. In this case, I don't think any one party could reliably state when wireless, shelving, and lighting became a prominent issue, nor the exact date when planning for the community center began. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for these improvements to the article. However it remains unclear as to when "no wireless capacity" was identified as a problem (and by extension, "poor shelving and lighting"). The start of development of the community center remains vague. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Axl: Upon further review, I have edited that sentence, and as well added the (finally published) completion date of the community center. I hope this fulfills your review responses? ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 03:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- " You do not acknowledge my reasoning for rewriting the paragraph, nor have you accepted my offer to do so." That statement is unfair, as not only do I acknowledge by stating that the statements are in chronological order, but I won't take up your offer to change it if I don't think it needs changing... Nor should a minor issue like this be an obstacle for FA, nor a sole reason for an oppose vote. Thank you for your input. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Support Comments by Sainsf
This look pretty good to go. Just a few ideas:
- I wonder if the year it was founded should be mentioned in the first few lines of the lead rather than the 2nd para?
-
- The second lead paragraph has a summary of the entire history, including all the most important dates. In my opinion, a mention in the first lead paragraph would be more disjointed here. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 06:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, as you think proper. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 06:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- The second lead paragraph has a summary of the entire history, including all the most important dates. In my opinion, a mention in the first lead paragraph would be more disjointed here. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 06:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- delayed the progress of the library, however progress resumed I guess this should be delayed the progress of the library; however, progress resumed
- Was Mrs. Alfred G. Bookwalter on the staff? What was her position?
- On September 22, 1921, the library was registered with the New York State library system, and on March 8–13 of that year, the Briarcliff Free Library was officially opened. Are we going back in time, or is it March 1922?
- Around 1939, the library received recently an efficiency rating Why is there a "recently" here?
- its expenditures for 1951 were $1875.86 I think this is the only figure for which you don't add its modern value.
- Elizabeth Kelly was the next librarian We say "librarian" in the preceding and the following line, better say something like "She was followed by Elizabeth Kelly" for variety.
- The current director is Melinda Greenblatt Since when precisely?
-
- 2011, according to LinkedIn and the website (weak as it mostly relies on the 'last revised' date). There's no more reliable source for that, or for directors between 1990 and 2011, which is unfortunate. Perhaps I can inquire there for its publication. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 06:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not an issue for FAC, can wait. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 06:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- 2011, according to LinkedIn and the website (weak as it mostly relies on the 'last revised' date). There's no more reliable source for that, or for directors between 1990 and 2011, which is unfortunate. Perhaps I can inquire there for its publication. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 06:00, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
That's all from me. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 04:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Happy with the changes. This article has my support on prose. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 06:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Note: pinging other users today for this to receive more attention. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 16:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comments
-
- Intro: Too many hyphens at times (see "young-adult", "local-history")
-
- Done.
- "World War I delayed the progress of the library, though progress resumed in 1921." Sounds repetitive and clumsy
-
- There was some above talk of rewording, and I was happy with the results. How do you think it could be reworded to be improved?
- What exactly does the source say? I'm not quite sure what is meant by "progress" and "progress resuming". The previous rendering said "revived". Forgive me, but I'm going to need the exact meaning in order to suggest an alternative.
- The source (Pattison, 1939) says "The war delayed the library's progress and, in 1921, it was revived, Mrs. A. G. Bookwalter being largely instrumental." Progress is hinted to be in developing the library - building its collection, cataloging, and establishing itself with the state.
- What exactly does the source say? I'm not quite sure what is meant by "progress" and "progress resuming". The previous rendering said "revived". Forgive me, but I'm going to need the exact meaning in order to suggest an alternative.
- There was some above talk of rewording, and I was happy with the results. How do you think it could be reworded to be improved?
-
- When indicating changes due to inflation avoid using "today". Try something like "in 2015" or "in 2016", etc.
-
- The inflation template I use actually auto-updates the inflation figures, so the template recommends using either 'today' or using the currentyear template within. I preferred 'today' considering that the template updates; is that sufficient?
- I'm afraid not. See MOS:REALTIME.
- Well that guideline states "Absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using recently, currently, and so on, because the latter may go out of date." (emphasis added). Seeing as the template doesn't allow those constructions to go out of date, I don't really see an issue here. In many cases I'd change it, but I'm aiming for consistency with Book:Briarcliff Manor, where those articles' FACs and GANs passed with usage of "today".
- I'm afraid not. See MOS:REALTIME.
- The inflation template I use actually auto-updates the inflation figures, so the template recommends using either 'today' or using the currentyear template within. I preferred 'today' considering that the template updates; is that sufficient?
-
- Also, and I know it may sound obvious, but briefly indicate that it's US Dollars.
-
- Done.
- Be consist when using the percentage sign. I see both percent and %.
-
- Okay.
- Full stop should come before the citation at the close of the third paragraph.
-
- That's a really weird instance. The inflation template uses the citation (here, [6]) right after the parentheses, where a full stop and sentence citations would normally follow. So technically I believe the current situation to be correct, however perhaps we should move the sentence citations and full stop before the inflation citation?
- Yeah, I was thinking maybe reword the sentence so it doesn't come up like that. Perhaps "its expenditures were ... in 1951."
- Done.
- Yeah, I was thinking maybe reword the sentence so it doesn't come up like that. Perhaps "its expenditures were ... in 1951."
- That's a really weird instance. The inflation template uses the citation (here, [6]) right after the parentheses, where a full stop and sentence citations would normally follow. So technically I believe the current situation to be correct, however perhaps we should move the sentence citations and full stop before the inflation citation?
Briarcliff Manor Librarians | ||
---|---|---|
Name | Tenure | Notes |
Louise Miller | 1921-1926 | Acting while studying library service at Columbia University |
Elizabeth Kelly | 1926-1927 | Part-time art teacher at Briarcliff High School |
Grace Baird Hersey | 1928-1956 | Mother of Pulitzer Prize-winning writer John Hersey |
Mrs. William Osborne | 1956-1963 | |
Mrs. Robert Widenhorn | 1963 | |
Helen Barolini | 1964-1965 | |
Mrs. Bryden M. Dow | 1965 | |
Bettie Diver | 1965-1968 | |
Charles Farkas | 1968-1990s | |
Melinda Greenblatt | 2011-present | |
Sources: |
-
- "In the late 1900s, videocassettes were increasing in popularity..." I assume you mean "late 1990s"
-
- I'm using 'the 1900s' to refer to the century, which is perhaps too ambiguous. I changed it to 'the 1980s and 90s'.
- In most instances, 1900s refers to the decade 1900–1909. Late 20th century would be preferable since it keeps the intended meaning, but late 1980s and 1990s is fine too.
- I'm using 'the 1900s' to refer to the century, which is perhaps too ambiguous. I changed it to 'the 1980s and 90s'.
- "In 1995 a referendum was voted on for a new library of..." Who voted? The library council? "Was voted on" sounds a bit awkward. Consider changing.
-
- Fixed.
- "Directors": This section appears rather short and doesn't fit cozily with the length of the others. Consider making a list of directors with their years of service indicated in one bar and comments/notes of the brief history of their work in another.
-
- I'm not sure I get what you mean; can you provide a similar structure existing in another article?
- I was thinking of a wikitable with a header reading Name, another header saying Tenure (where the years in which the individuals served would go), and the final one being Notes, where you can provide information relating to the person's time in office. Basically a short list. Was that better? 23 editor (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I get what you mean; can you provide a similar structure existing in another article?
Otherwise, I see nothing wrong. Cheers, 23 editor (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Fencer2013
I checked through the article. The only date that I found that was incorrect was the addition of the mezzanine, which Cheever's book said was installed by Don Reiman, the architect, in 1984, not in 1980. Other than that, the article has all the essential information. If you want to add anything else, there is information about where Mrs. Bookwalter lived and information about Ruth Draper on page 76 of Cheever's book, and information about exhibits at the library on pages 151-152.
- @Fencer2013: That's interesting, because the source I cited (a BMPL publication) says 1980. Link. Though considering the BMPL link gets a few other minor details wrong, I'll take Cheever's word. I wish a c. 1980s source could be found; I just checked Google and the NY Times and came up empty. I'll change the date and add the architect, thanks. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 17:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Support – . Hi, Ɱ. Support as long as you do not revert my edits. All my edits are rock solid and improve the article towards its Featured Article promotion. If you have issues with any of my edits, please contact me, and I will advise you of the exact guideline, policy, or style decision behind each edit I made. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
13:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Coordinator note - Ɱ, has a source review been done that I'm missing? If not, please request one at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. --Laser brain (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose on tone and wording. Unfortunatly the article very often reads as the opening page of a website; i picked up from a short scan, the first para I now just read - "The Briarcliff library is open seven days per week, except in August when it is closed each Sunday.[27] The library hosts four computer workstations and eight laptops, and has its own Wi-Fi network.[28] Hmm. Also, the nominator canvassed me for a quid pro quo source review, which in fairness seems to have been in innocence. But I cant support at this time. Sorry Ɱ. Keep on going however. Ceoil (talk) 03:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Ceoil: Information about the organization's hours and equipment is important, and noted on many other encyclopedia articles. Heck, the article on the US Supreme Court even goes into detail about visiting hours and the like. Plus the tone here isn't at fault; the wording is very neutral and encyclopedic, and there's no way to convey the same information in a manner more neutral than I have. I am disappointed that you refer to it as Canvassing as it's simply not, nor was it inappropriate at all. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 15:14, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, two things. First the article is a credit to you, and I am delighted you have brought it this far. Well done, and you should be proud (I have something approaching a book fetish, and anytime we go somewhere the first things I establish are the locations of the libraries and bookshops, also my wife is a librarian.). Second, I dont think you canvassed me, more that you just want to get things done, which I admire. Sorry if I seemed off in my response, I was conflicted while thinking it through. Lastly, my oppose is "at this time", not indefinite. Its more of a challange, other things I'm reading that I dont like too much are "On September 1, 1922, the Club's library funds were transferred to the Library Committee, and the village government donated US$500 ($7,100 today)[9] to the library in 1924. At that time, it had 1,900 volumes; it grew to 3,000 in 1926 and to around 6,000 in 1939. In 1952, the library had 8,000 volumes, 1,000 of which were in storage due to a lack of shelf space.[1](p62}/. Fact/fact, stat/stat. I prefer more context and a less dry style. I am hopeful you can make this a better article. Ceoil (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Ceoil: I appreciate your changes to correct this, and I made a few further changes. Sources make context difficult, I'm afraid there's not much I could add to make it seem less dry. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hi. Will take another look later tonight. Ceoil (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think the extent of the Westchester County Bike Trail is needed as a separate lead para. Ceoil (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Ceoil: I appreciate your changes to correct this, and I made a few further changes. Sources make context difficult, I'm afraid there's not much I could add to make it seem less dry. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 18:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, two things. First the article is a credit to you, and I am delighted you have brought it this far. Well done, and you should be proud (I have something approaching a book fetish, and anytime we go somewhere the first things I establish are the locations of the libraries and bookshops, also my wife is a librarian.). Second, I dont think you canvassed me, more that you just want to get things done, which I admire. Sorry if I seemed off in my response, I was conflicted while thinking it through. Lastly, my oppose is "at this time", not indefinite. Its more of a challange, other things I'm reading that I dont like too much are "On September 1, 1922, the Club's library funds were transferred to the Library Committee, and the village government donated US$500 ($7,100 today)[9] to the library in 1924. At that time, it had 1,900 volumes; it grew to 3,000 in 1926 and to around 6,000 in 1939. In 1952, the library had 8,000 volumes, 1,000 of which were in storage due to a lack of shelf space.[1](p62}/. Fact/fact, stat/stat. I prefer more context and a less dry style. I am hopeful you can make this a better article. Ceoil (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'd explain, in the text, via a bluelink, or via a foot note, what an "efficiency rating" is; its mentioned twice in one para. Also the word "recieved" prefaces both - vary the wording. This sect seems to contain a stray ref remenant (p61) - "its expenditures were $1,875.86 ($17,100 today)[9] in 1951.[1](p61). Still reading through. Ceoil (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- I don't know what you want me to explain here. The NYSED gave ratings of a library's efficiency; that should be clear from the text. Varied the wording. I don't see a stray ref remnant, perhaps you're not familiar with Template:Rp as part of a citation style? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Note -- This nom has been open over two months without two opposing reviews apparently being resolved, but I'll give those reviewers a chance to re-check the article and see if their positions have altered. Axl, Ceoil? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, I still don't think that the article meets the FA criteria. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Featured article reviews
This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. |
Harbhajan Singh
- Notified: YellowMonkey, WikiProject Cricket
I am nominating this featured article for review because it now falls some way short of FA standards. It passed FAC (review here in 2007 and came through a FAR in 2008. We are struggling on criteria 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d as this article has not really been kept up to date since around 2008. I think we're also in trouble with 2b and 3c. Here is the summary I gave on the talk page at the beginning of May, but these are samples only.
- There are numerous unsourced statements. This is a BLP which makes this a major problem.
- There are prose issues throughout, and I'm not sure this would pass FAC today; lots of run-on sentences and repetitive structures. Someone should look closely at this.
- The lead basically stops in 2008 and has nothing for the last eight years
- "Harbhajan Singh married his longtime girlfriend, actress Geeta Basra, on 29 October 2015 in Jalandhar." is listed in "Early Life"
- There is hardly anything about his career between 2011 and 2015
- The structure of the article is fairly impenetrable.
- The later text is basically prose line.
- Quite a lot of fancruft throughout.
These are the changes since the article was last at FAR in 2008. Unfortunately, I'm not sure this is recoverable as the nominator and lead contributor, YellowMonkey, is long gone and there is a huge amount of work to do. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
George III of the United Kingdom
- Notified: WikiProject Military history
The overcrowd of images out of context and the unsourced content are the most striking, of the content, there's almost nothing of politics and governments of the Monarch, instead there's a timeline of the UK in the period. Just my 2 cents. Frenditor (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- The initial promoter has long since retired - I am not familair with the subject - can you be more specific in political material that might be missing? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- I don't agree with this characterization of the article. There are three sections without images; most sections have one or two images, with only one section (the longest) with three images and one section (on Arms) containing a gallery of five. The only part of the article where text is between images (on anything other than a massive screen) is the first section "Early life", where the first image is opposite the tail end of the infobox. But because the infobox and the images in the first section are staggered, the 30% of readers that use mobile devices should not see text squeezed between two images facing each other. The images are in context: matched by date or subject matter to the appropriate section.
- The "unsourced" material was discussed at the previous review, where I chose not to source it because they are general statements (such as "The Second Coalition, which included Austria, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire, was defeated in 1800") that can be found in any history of the period.
- As evidenced by section titles such as "Constitutional struggle" and "William Pitt", as well as the content of those sections and others, George's involvement in politics and government are covered. DrKay (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
The editor who started this was blocked as a sock. --Rschen7754 14:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. In that case, I think it should either be deleted as WP:CSD#G5 or archived. DrKay (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Look, given that it's here, I can see a few things that need attending. There are some uncited sentences that I will tag, and "kaleidoscope of changing views" in the lead that should be easy to rephrase and dequote. Also the Legacy section has 3 paras that start, "George III..." If these get done I think I am happy to close. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with the level of images, and I suppose given the number of his children we are stuck with the long infobox and awful template. Close, ideally after fixing Cas' points. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Maus
I am nominating this featured article for review because this article is shit. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Curly Turkey - usually I would ask you to clarify which of the FA criteria you feel the article doesn't meet, but given the discussion on the talk page I'm guessing you don't actually believe that. We can certainly run an FAR to deal with Poeticbent's concerns one way or the other, but both of you please keep in mind that FAR is not dispute resolution. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't care what happens to the article. Eveyone who comes across it has some beef with it, and I'm sick of dealing with it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I think Poeticbent has some valid points but if both he and Curly Turkey are too disgusted at this point to engage in this process, I don't see a whole lot of progress being possible on this FAR. --Laser brain (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Awww, was just about to read the comic for the first time... If I get it done before this closes, I might have something to say. But I'm not sure what the issues are. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delist per unsolved problems. At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum in angry exchanges, I find it useful to bring back the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria at this point. The article is not well-researched, not neutral, and not stable. It is a target of ongoing edit wars with enraged participants hiding behind IP addresses in order to stay safe. I do not participate in edit wars by my own volition therefore there's no edit wars from me, which is but an illusion; please read Talk:Maus#FAR for more. The article goes into unnecessary detail where it does not matter, however, it lacks historical context of the Sosnowiec Ghetto in occupied Poland, with the sections on the Maus political impact abroad and surrounding controversy decidedly substandard, as I have already said both at the article talk page and on my own talk page as well. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 17:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Poeticbent: We actually don't declare "delist" or "keep" at this stage. This is for delineating and attempting to fix problems. I've semi-protected the article for three months and will consider indefinite semi, because I don't see any useful contributions at all coming from drive-by anonymous editors. As for your other concerns, there is a question of whether we have any hope of addressing them without the involvement of the primary editors. If not, might as well fast track to FARC. --Laser brain (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- The article obviously should be delisted (and shame on the reviewers for letting this garbage out of the bin), but not for Poeticbent's rationale. Reviewers should be very careful not to take Poeticbent's comments at face value:
- The extremely underhanded changing of "little stereotyping" to "much stereotyping" without comment.
- The reaction to my offer to find a way to work the material on his talk page, which he greeted with threats and absolutely no attempt at any point to find some appropriate way to handle the it (assuming it's even appropriate in this article).
- Anyone considering Poeticbent's concerns should be sure first to read "Contemporary Debates on the Holocaust in Poland The Reception of Art Spiegelman’s ‘Graphic Novel’ Maus" by Tomasz Łysak, an essay in a RS that appears to have been written specifically about Poeticbent.
- There's been a lot of ciriticism of the article, so let's ping a whack of these people: @Cordless Larry, Bus stop, Softlavender, Sıgehelmus, NebY, Only in death does duty end, Volunteer Marek, and Lost in space:. I'm sure I missed someone. Feel free to ping them—we can't let this pile of shit continue to fester with that gold star at the top of it.
- Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Last time I looked at it was like four years ago when it was up for GA and I don't recall having any major issues with it. In fact I vaguely remember thinking it was pretty good.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- As I explained on the article's talk page, I stopped watching it because of the tone of responses I got when I tried, on request, to provide some outside input into a debate. I don't get the feeling that that tone has changed, so I won't be contributing here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- I think the drama police ought to close this RFAR, and that noone should reopen it untill some specific actionable complaints preferably supported by reliable references showing how the article misrepresents the literature about the graphic novel.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Threatening to use the FAR process to push an edit is disruptive. maclean (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- My final comment. I would like to take User:Laser brain up on his suggestion (from above) and fast track this entry to FARC, because there's no hope for addressing my concerns here. I do not understand why there's so much aggression in some of the responses from above. – Reverting my single edit with citation from reliable third-party book of Holocaust history (with one-click) was, and still is, the canary in the coal mine for me. The whole affair makes me remember what happened when we suddenly realized that the article about the SS was controlled and heavily edited by a genuine i.e. self-identified fascist. (It has been fixed though.)
- Our article about Maus is not balanced, and lack the encyclopaedic tone. It is written in a childlike manner (hallmark of all fan-pages), thus ignoring the criticism by published authors who point out that the representation of human beings through anthropomorphic animals: Jews as mice, German gentiles as blockhead cats, Polish gentiles as pigs ("unclean" by virtue, the only ones straight from Goebbels), Gypsies as Gypsy moths, Swedish people as reindeer and the British as fish; makes a connection between cultural identities of these nations and the metaphoric non-human animals in the minds of those who don't like them. It is a gimmick – as the critics point out – making fun of biological determinism by turning racial conflicts into natural predator/prey relationships (none of it is stressed in this article enough). Our Maus article denies the stereotypic connotations of Spiegelman's technique, but also turns that technique upside down. It fails to explain that the author is playing directly into the racist visions of Adolf Hitler. (Robert Harvey presses this point in Art of the Comic Book) The story's moral underpinnings are troubling. In fact, this is why I did not participate in the (quote-unquote) quality drive of this entry before now, even though I was aware of it much earlier. I stopped watching it similar to Cordless Larry, but for my own reasons. Things changed when I realized that Maus is being promoted in the factual Holocaust history articles from occupied Poland. I attempted to help bring some sense to it, and was reverted by "the owner" at an instance. That is why I'm here. For the record, I am not threatening anyone by informing them about my intentions in the follow up to their actions.
- Some comic book critics question the use of the animal metaphor in relation to Holocaust history (Der Stürmer comes to mind immediately). Indeed, some have roundly criticized Spiegelman's use of the device as 'glib and irresponsible', although none of it is in our article. Hillel Halkin, reviewing Maus for Commentary in 1992 wrote: 'The Holocaust was a crime committed by humans against human, not – as Nazi theory held – by one biological species against another. To draw people as animals ... is doubtly dehumanizing, once by virtue of the symbolism and once by virtue of graphic limitations.' Other commentators insisted that fidelity to truth is essential to writing about the Holocaust. – The Sosnowiec Ghetto was destroyed during the courageous uprising in which all fighters perished. Stories of attempted rescue abound. And yet, there were also people like Moshe Merin in there, who aided the Nazis in the hunt for the leaders of the aforementioned groups. We know little to nothing from reliable third-party sources about people in this book. The lack of true historical background to Sosnowiec/Będzin Ghettos trivializes the matter. The Holocaust narrators are bound by an ethical imperative to represent details as accurately as possible according Sara Horowitz (Voicing the Void) and Wikipedia is no different I believe. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 11:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Charles Hatfield, Alternative Comics: An Emerging Literature ISBN 1604735872
- Judith B. Kerman, The Fantastic in Holocaust Literature and Film: Critical Perspectives ISBN 0786458747
- I do not understand why there's so much aggression—you can only be so dense. The aggression comes entirely in response to the bizarre, unprovoked threats and aggreession you've displayed ever since I offered to help you un-botch your ridiculous edit. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- none of it is in our article—holy shit! so you just up and admit you haven't read the article then? One of these critics even gets his photo in the article, and the Hillel Halkin and R. C. Harvey quotes you quote are in the fucking article! Just how blind are your to your own bias? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment – I can't say that I'm an expert on graphic novels or the horrors of the Holocaust, but I decided to check the source behind the disputed "little stereotyping" vs. "much stereotyping" sentence. Fortunately, the relevant page was available to me on Google Books. After reading it, I must admit to some confusion. It may be that the content is completely beyond my pay grade as an editor (it probably is in fairness), but I don't see where proof behind the "much" change is. Perhaps it's at the top of the page, where "one-dimensional animal caricatures and 'bestial' stereotypes" are mentioned, but the context is on the prior page, which I don't have access to. Therefore, I can't be sure one way or the other. Later on the page, I see discussion of how stereotypes are being "mitigage(d)", and how "Spiegelman may do much to reverse a negative stereotype" in one instance. That doesn't match up well with the edit; was there another source that was used for this information? If so, the source should have been swapped when the edit was made. While I have no wish to trivialize Nazi horrors, we do need sources that verify content changes. Then again, I might be missing it because I'm not as familiar with interpreting academic literature as some; maybe it's right under my nose, so to speak. I don't have any further opinion on the article, as I just don't know enough about the subject matter. I do hope, though, that we can get on without calling people's work "childlike" and basically calling people fanboys; that won't lead to the kind of collaboration this site thrives on. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- You don't have to have a PhD to read exactly what is being said and than substitute words which are synonymous to get to the bottom of things. The "owner" of this article admitted on my talk page to have written that sentence himself by saying (quote): "I may have misinterpreted the source..." Here is what he wrote: "The Germans are depicted with little difference between them, but there is great variety and little stereotyping among the Poles and Jews who dominate the story." Little stereotyping implies almost no stereotyping. Alas, depicting Poles as pigs and Jews as mice isn't stereotyping, because Poles are like pigs, and Jews are like mice. Look at the faces of those "pigs". There's "great variety" between them (sure), each one looks like a different filthy monster from Der Stürmer, with a brand new evil expression on his face. The "owner" of Wikipedia article chose to delegate this sort of racist talk to a dark little corner, and (when confronted) follow it with dismissive personal attacks full of hysterical filibustering and exaggerations. You don't have to buy it though. Poeticbent talk 05:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Good God, but aren't you fantastically dishonest?—
- It's telling how you've edited my comment down from "I may have misinterpreted the source or gotten the wrong page", where I alsgo gave the likely pages (and removed the text until I could be sure). Where I may have made a mistake (but probably didn't), you introduced a clear, deliberate, and disgustingly sneaky distortion of the text to push your POV with the change from "little stereotyping" to "much stereotyping".
- The "owner" of Wikipedia article chose to delegate this sort of racist talk to a dark little corner, and (when confronted) follow it with dismissive personal attacks full of hysterical filibustering and exaggerations—interesting (and totally dishonest) interpretation of my comment on your talk page, which really couldn't have been more congenial. I offered to find a way to work these matters into the text, and you responded by threatening to sic the admins on me. Supposedly I'm "aggressive", while Poeticbent has accused me of racism and OWNership and threatened me repeatedly.
- Poeticbent still hasn't bothered to address his bizarre accusations that there is nothing in the article critical about Spiegelman's use of pigs, when there are in fact several such critical voices, include two exact quotes that he accuses the article of lacking. Why do you refuse to address this, Poeticbent? Is it because you haven't actually read the article?
- I see some bizarre behaviour from Poeticbent elsewhere. He had the Treblinka extermination camp article promoted to GA, then after failing to have it promted to FA, had it brought back to FA by one of the supporters of the FA1, and then himself supported the FA2.
- Once again, I urge anyone who feels like tackling this mess to first ttake a peek at "Contemporary Debates on the Holocaust in Poland The Reception of Art Spiegelman’s ‘Graphic Novel’ Maus" by Tomasz Łysak, an essay in a RS about Polish reaction to Maus that appears to have been written specifically about Poeticbent. And be sure not to ignore Poeticbent's "each one looks like a different filthy monster from Der Stürmer, with a brand new evil expression on his face", which says reams and reams about this editor's psychology.
- Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Good God, but aren't you fantastically dishonest?—
- You don't have to have a PhD to read exactly what is being said and than substitute words which are synonymous to get to the bottom of things. The "owner" of this article admitted on my talk page to have written that sentence himself by saying (quote): "I may have misinterpreted the source..." Here is what he wrote: "The Germans are depicted with little difference between them, but there is great variety and little stereotyping among the Poles and Jews who dominate the story." Little stereotyping implies almost no stereotyping. Alas, depicting Poles as pigs and Jews as mice isn't stereotyping, because Poles are like pigs, and Jews are like mice. Look at the faces of those "pigs". There's "great variety" between them (sure), each one looks like a different filthy monster from Der Stürmer, with a brand new evil expression on his face. The "owner" of Wikipedia article chose to delegate this sort of racist talk to a dark little corner, and (when confronted) follow it with dismissive personal attacks full of hysterical filibustering and exaggerations. You don't have to buy it though. Poeticbent talk 05:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- A week has gone by without a single comment from the broader community. What's happening, dear colleagues worldwide? Are you too afraid to dip your finger in this steaming pile of propaganda? Timothy Snyder, Housum professor of history at Yale University and author of seminal Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin wrote in the New York Times Sunday Book Review on June 22, 2012. – And ... no, you will not find his name in the reference section of this star decorated hate speech. But you can read his review online. I'm posting here a few selected samples from a very long essay, but with a sense of satisfaction, because the likelihood of "the article owner" deleting it from here is much smaller, when compared to the complete denial of my right to contribute to "his own article" in mainspace.
In a nutshell, the case against MAUS is that, despite its veneer of sophistication, the book is a rather primitive expression of the author’s prejudices in choosing to portray the Poles as a nation of swine. Furthermore, its portrayal of Poles contains serious misrepresentations regarding their alleged role in the Holocaust. This is contemptible, and unacceptable by Canadian standards.
Depicting Poles as disgusting and brutal animals is eerily reminiscent of the Nazi propaganda newspaper, Der Stürmer. Significantly, this point is usually omitted by reviewers of MAUS, even though the image of fat, fascist pigs permeates MAUS and is all too glaring to overlook. The fact that MAUS employs the same imagery of the Poles as found in Nazi propaganda, where Poles were often referred to as “pigs,” could perhaps be explained, provided teachers and teaching materials addressed this matter squarely. The fact is they almost never do.
Spiegelman does not humanize the Polish “pigs.” He humanizes only his Jewish mice characters, while depicting his Polish pigs essentially as racist stereotypes. By focusing on negative characters like the camp kapos, Spiegelman implies that the Poles, who were also victims of the Nazi regime, collaborated with their fascist enemies. Unfortunately, these crude stereotypes are, for the most part, simply perverse history and would be unacceptable in any other context. — Timothy Snyder, 3. Why is the depiction of Poles in MAUS objectionable from a historical perspective?
- (Google cache) Poeticbent talk 14:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- The viewpoint of Snyder can be added to the article. The fact that it is not currently included is not a major problem, and certainly not a cause for delisting. You need to start taking a positive and collaborative attitude here, for example by suggesting actual changes using the normal editing mechanisms when one wants to include content and perspectives to the article. Your belligerent postures here do not help you in the least. Especially not when several of your claims about the article turns out to be untrue. This is simply a case where you want to fit the article closer to your personal point of view. The correct way to argue that is to use arguments to convince others that it is necessary, not to abuse editorial processes and make enemies out of the people who have worked in good faith to create a featured article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Poeticbent: While I do take you seriously, I have little desire to engage with agenda-driven editors such as yourself because you are incapable of editing from a neutral and dispassionate stance. I doubt you can claim with a straight face that you don't have an agenda and POV here. This is at odds with Wikipedia's mission. I agree with Maunus that Snyder can be added in an appropriate fashion. This FAR should be closed. --Laser brain (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- For the record. The article was promoted to a featured article status at 16:59, 17 January 2013 based on support votes from both, User:Maunus and User:Laser brain, neither of whom edited the article in the process. And please, spare me the personal attacks. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- I did not support promotion. I can see others' points above when they grow frustrated with your inaccurate or dishonest representations of facts. If you see my calling out your agenda as a personal attack, so be it. But I'm still calling it out. I don't blame Curly Turkey for getting exasperated with you, because I'm already almost there just from these minimal dealings. --Laser brain (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- For the record. The article was promoted to a featured article status at 16:59, 17 January 2013 based on support votes from both, User:Maunus and User:Laser brain, neither of whom edited the article in the process. And please, spare me the personal attacks. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - as a completely uninvolved editor, who hasn't even read the article, the amount of snark in this conversation is baffling. It all seems to boil down to: one editor wants some more critical views added to the text that deals with animal analogues. This editor needs to propose some fitting text that can be added (in line with WP:due weight) and be much more specific. It will take much less time than writing long tirades and endless discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- What would you like me to do, User:FunkMonk, "propose some fitting text" to whom?! – The people who refuse to edit on my behalf (like User:Curly Turkey), or those who abuse me verbally on a par, but without ever editing the article? You say, "the amount of snark in this conversation is baffling", but is there an affable and cordial way of talking about racism? MAUS is a Holocaust industry enterprise with a lot of money at stake. Please read Snyder comments on U.S. distribution practices (quote): "MAUS has been taught widely in U.S. high schools, and even elementary schools, as part of the literature curriculum for many years." This sort of thing usually translates into landslide resource revenues. The book is being promoted as non-fiction. Snyder writes: "MAUS clearly cannot be treated as an accurate historical record, although it is passed off as such. The perspective of the protagonist is too narrow and flawed. The voice of the author and narrator, rather than exposing the protagonist’s biases and misrepresentations of the historical record, reinforces them" (end of quote). Look what happened to Norman Finkelstein as soon as he began to expose the workings of similar phenomenons. His tenure at DePaul was denied. – However, I would love to see MAUS article developed like all other Wikipedia articles about highly controversial subjects (including Finkelstein article itself), but it will never happen for as long as this one entry is being walled off from joint editing through a preposterous Feature Article sticker awarded by a good faith mistake. That's why I'm here. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 19:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- And the obvious way to propose changes would be to make a very precise, point by point list of suggested changes on the talk page or here, so uninvolved editors can get an overview and judge for themselves. What you've done now is very counter-productive to your own cause, huge walls of rambling text (referring to older talk-page discussions, therefore hard to follow) with little specific suggestions on how to improve the article. It makes it extremely hard to follow what it is you actually want to achieve. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- You're correct, of course, FunkMonk. I shouldn't let my irritation show, and I should stick to the content. What you point out is exactly why we're spinning our wheels here. We all presumably want to see the article improved if it's deficient, but we've now veered completely off-topic and have had a large paragraph about how Maus is making money by being taught in schools. It's thus far been impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to Poeticbent's commentary. --Laser brain (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- And the obvious way to propose changes would be to make a very precise, point by point list of suggested changes on the talk page or here, so uninvolved editors can get an overview and judge for themselves. What you've done now is very counter-productive to your own cause, huge walls of rambling text (referring to older talk-page discussions, therefore hard to follow) with little specific suggestions on how to improve the article. It makes it extremely hard to follow what it is you actually want to achieve. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- What would you like me to do, User:FunkMonk, "propose some fitting text" to whom?! – The people who refuse to edit on my behalf (like User:Curly Turkey), or those who abuse me verbally on a par, but without ever editing the article? You say, "the amount of snark in this conversation is baffling", but is there an affable and cordial way of talking about racism? MAUS is a Holocaust industry enterprise with a lot of money at stake. Please read Snyder comments on U.S. distribution practices (quote): "MAUS has been taught widely in U.S. high schools, and even elementary schools, as part of the literature curriculum for many years." This sort of thing usually translates into landslide resource revenues. The book is being promoted as non-fiction. Snyder writes: "MAUS clearly cannot be treated as an accurate historical record, although it is passed off as such. The perspective of the protagonist is too narrow and flawed. The voice of the author and narrator, rather than exposing the protagonist’s biases and misrepresentations of the historical record, reinforces them" (end of quote). Look what happened to Norman Finkelstein as soon as he began to expose the workings of similar phenomenons. His tenure at DePaul was denied. – However, I would love to see MAUS article developed like all other Wikipedia articles about highly controversial subjects (including Finkelstein article itself), but it will never happen for as long as this one entry is being walled off from joint editing through a preposterous Feature Article sticker awarded by a good faith mistake. That's why I'm here. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 19:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Bureaucratic creep. Another two weeks have gone by. Everybody talk but nobody listen. I have explained in great detail what is wrong with this article using comprehensive prose. My comprehensive prose is straightforward and clear. It is not a tirade. Suggested WP:BULLETS are not workable, because the coverage of MAUS is flawed to its core and, for as long as Curly Turkey's 'ownership' of this entry is protected by the FA sticker, all WP:RS voices of reason (which I quote, including comments by professional historians such as Snyder, Grobman, and McDonough) will be reverted, and nothing will be improved. I would like to have this article returned to standard editing (so it can be improved) and therefore ask the coordinators at FAR, User:Nikkimaria and User:Casliber, to please place my review at featured article removal candidates. In my substantive comments (from above) and at the article talk page I have raised complex issues about factual accuracy and neutrality. This I have done to the best of my abilities, and critics may say what they like. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 16:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- FAs are subject to standard editing just as all other articles. You just need to get consensus for your suggested changes, which you have failed to do (partly because you havent proposed any concrete changes).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- "I don't like it", is not an argument. The reason you have received no comments is because you refuse the make a concise list of suggestions (which is what we have all been waiting for during these two weeks). It is very simple. "Flawed to its core", allegations of "bureaucratic creep", and other over-dramatic BS means little to nothing without readable suggestions for how to improve the article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- FAs are subject to standard editing just as all other articles. You just need to get consensus for your suggested changes, which you have failed to do (partly because you havent proposed any concrete changes).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- I appreciate you think the article has flaws, Poeticbent, but this is a forum for article improvement, not for dispute resolution, and we're not here simply to remove the "FA sticker". As such, specific and actionable comments with reference to the FA criteria would be far more helpful in gauging next steps. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Venus
- Notified: Saros136, Fotaun, JorisvS, Ckatz, Kheider, Serendipodous, WikiProject Solar System, WikiProject Astronomical objects, WikiProject Astronomy
The article has undergone major change since the latest FAR in 2008 (e.g. [35]). It no longer looks like the same article. There are a few issues that pop out to me - there is an over-use of images and not always in the correct context (one example "Pioneer Venus Multiprobe"). Some sections are very brief and refer to secondary articles without a summary that reads well and fits in well on the Venus page itself. The intro is a little brief and could be better written.Anon 09:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've placed this review on hold at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Coordination for the moment because I was unable to locate the first phase of the review ("Raise issues at article Talk"). DrKay (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- I've updated the talk page Anon 21:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Graeme Bartlett
Some of the images have no alt= text.And some images have alt text the same as the caption. Being the same is not useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
ref "Nature of the Magnetic Field in the Neighborhood of Venus" is fairly incomplete, and with a typo, correct details are here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969CosRe...7..675D- I improved this a little before noticing the FAR; it now appears consistent with what's available through the bibcode, though, sadly, it appears online records for the journal only go back to 2000. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 02:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
it would be good to links some more journals, and publishers in the references - on first occurrences may be.I notice some are now linked, but not most.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
dead link for "Venus Close Approaches to Earth as predicted by Solex 11"
dead link for " Numbers generated by Solex"
the "Compare the Planets" references neither of the facts linked to it.
ref "A. Boyle – Venus transit: A last-minute guide – MSNBC" missing information and is a dead link.ref "See Venus in Broad Daylight!" no retrieval date (it is still there though)ref "The Pentagram of Venus" is a blog, and is missing info, cannot tell if this is reliable or not.
- Fixed. The guy has a wiki page, so he's probably reliable. Serendipodous 19:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
ref Fegley, B (2003). Venus (Treatise on Geochemistry ed.). has "ed.", no page number or ISBN.addedref "title". Retrieved 4 January 2015. is missing detail.addedref "РАН: запуск "Венеры-Д" состоится не ранее 2024 года" should have an English translation of the title.(perhaps an English language source is available)ref "Atmospheric Flight on Venus" is a dead link for me and missing inforefs 166-175 look to be web references and miss retrieval dates and other information.ref "The Magellan Venus Explorer's Guide" appears thrice, but the first time has no page number, and the second time has even less info. (there is no ISBN on the book so its absence is a non-issue)found page numbers in the book, linked online version, and made consistent.This article should link to Venus in fiction possibly with a short sentence on the topic. Look at Observations and explorations of Venus#Impact on literature which belongs more here, than in that article.- I've added a prototype. It may need some holes filled. Serendipodous 20:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Is it good enough? Please let me know before I spend a day at a library. Serendipodous 10:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think the summary is OK. However we should not be using primary references for the first three documents, secondary references that mention the facts would be more appropriate. Whenever the popular culture section develops in other articles, material only referenced to the work it is in gets the chop, and only if others comment on it, is the mention worth having in Wikipedia. I will add these as an issue down below, so that this one can be resolved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Is it good enough? Please let me know before I spend a day at a library. Serendipodous 10:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've added a prototype. It may need some holes filled. Serendipodous 20:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Nowhere does Venus tell us that it appears as a white star. The colour is a basic fact that should be mentioned.
- "thick clouds" composition does not match what the sources say. The sources also mention aluminium chloride, ferric chloride, and "sulfates", partially hydrated phosphoric anhydride and octasulfur. sulfur dioxide looks to be an atmospheric gas rather than a cloud droplet material. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
"Sky and Telescope" is used where the correct name appears to be "Sky & Telescope"fixed Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Page is in this category: category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls so there may be an error hidden in there somewhere.
Citation needed for "Venus's opaque clouds prevent observing the Sun from the planet's surface"
- http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&body_group=mb&sstr=2and http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&body_group=mb&sstr=229 are two different references that seem to result in the same page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Use of thinspace, is this OK? (in the info box)
ISBN format dashes or not?
"Calculate/show" should this read "Calculate and show"? The page is called Apparent Disk of Solar System Object.
In one place we say Cassini–Huygens and another Cassini.Since we use British English, should "center" be replaced by "centre" where it is not a proper noun, or title?" Colonization -> Colonisation" color -> colour (three times)"co-orbitals" sounds a bit jargon-like.
fixed Dawsow name error." destabilize -> destabiliseEncyclopædia or Encyclopedia? two different things used for Encyclopædia Britanica. "æ" look right here.Britannica online encyclopedia needs capitalisation anyway - and is not the name the site uses alsofly-by or flyby? (also fly-bys or flybys)Hitran or HITRAN?
Above spelling issues resolved. Serendipodous 10:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The "Lightnings on Venus studied on the basis of Venera 9 and 10 data" reference is actually in Russian. Did anyone actually locate a copy and read it? In any case the journal title ( Kosmicheskie Issledovaniia) and article title would be in Russian, so see if we can get original. Google suggests " Космические Исследования" An English translation is also published with bibcode=1980CosRe..18..325K
Should "false colour image" be "false-colour image"? (with hyphen in adjective)
Three primary references used in the "In fiction" section should be secondary sources instead.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- V.A. Krasnopolskii or V. A. Krasnopolsky — likely the same author with two transliterations.
MESENGER or MESSENGER ?midday seems preferable to mid-dayShould "Planet-C" be "PLANET-C"?
"in false-colour" should not have a hyphen as colour is now the noun, not part of adjective. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- I have now run this script: http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/view/Peer_reviewer#page:Venus
- It has identified some spelling issues that are not in British spelling:
SterilizationrealizationcivilizationVenera program (should this have "me" on the end?)
Headings that contain the word Venus - "Venus symbol" and "Pentagram of Venus"
- "Pentagram of Venus" is a proper title, and so can't be changed. Serendipodous 12:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
630 nm should have a non-breaking space, and perhaps "nm" should be spelled out as nanometrereferences should not be after a space, eg at "eccentricity = 0.006772" "asc_node = 76.680°" "deep interior than Earth's."
- New dead link :http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1996/96GL01589.shtml for Venusian k 2 tidal Love number from Magellan and PVO tracking data (info) [agu.org]
- dead link for transit of Venus: http://www.transit-of-venus.org.uk/history.htm (domain appears abandoned)
- weasel word "arguably"
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Dunkleosteus77
- The lead is a bit too short for an article of this side. Add a paragraph on space-exploration and/or colonization
- added. Serendipodous 18:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- The slow, retrograde rotation is notable and deserves a mention in the lead. Praemonitus (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Added. 09:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Serendipodous
- The Planned and proposed missions section is basically a list without bullet-points
Keep: I believe this article now meets FA Criteria User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Nergaal
- Are there any Apohele asteroid-like objects that are considered to be related to Venus? Nergaal (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Sir Anon, Graeme Bartlett, and Dunkleosteus77: Have your concerns been addressed here? @Serendipodous: any response to Nergaal's question? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- There are Venus-crosser asteroids; is that what he's asking? Serendipodous 17:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- My main outstanding issue is saying the clouds contain sulfur dioxide, which is not what the sources say. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Which I cannot resolve, because I cannot read the sources. Serendipodous 21:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Google should be able to give you a loose translation if the source is in another language. Right-click the page and there should be an option to translate it. User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- There have got to be other, English sources that discuss Venus's clouds. We shouldn't tear our hair out over this particular source. I'll try to look into this in the coming week. A2soup (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- @A2soup: Any luck? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- Which I cannot resolve, because I cannot read the sources. Serendipodous 21:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so here are relevant passages from the "Venus: Atmosphere" chapter of the Encyclopedia of the Solar System, 3rd ed., edited by Tilman, Breuer, and Johnson (full chapter here if others have access):
"The clouds are approximately bounded by the evaporation temperature of H2SO4 below and the top of the convectively mixed troposphere above. Their composition is primarily liquid droplets of concentrated sulfuric acid, with an additional ultraviolet (UV) absorber in the upper layers and large, possibly solid, particles near the base level, both of unknown composition."
"Sulfur Dioxide
The high sulfur content of the atmosphere, including the H2SO4 clouds, is a powerful indicator of recent volcanic activity, since gases like sulfur dioxide have a short lifetime in the atmosphere before they are removed by interaction with the surface. The measured abundance of SO2 in the deep atmosphere is about 180ppm, which is more than 100 times too high to be at equilibrium with the surface. The time constant for the decline of the sulfur abundance in the atmosphere if the source were removed is a few million years, indicating that the atmospheric sulfur must be of recent origin. Pioneer Venus UV spectra showed a decline by more than a factor of 10 in sulfur dioxide abundance at the cloud tops over a 5-year period, and more recently, Venus Express has also detected very large, long- and short-term variations in SO2 at all altitudes from the clouds to the thermosphere.
The high level of SO2 in the atmosphere is the source for the concentrated sulfuric acid that is the dominant component of the clouds (see Section 4.4 below). Although less well understood, it is probably the nonuniform distribution of SO2 and the formation of trace amounts of elemental sulfur and possibly other sulfur compounds that gives rise to the UV markings in the clouds that the visible face of Venus. Apart from forming the highly reflective clouds that tend to cool the planet, sulfur dioxide is a greenhouse gas contributing to the warming of the surface (Section 6)."
"Cloud Chemistry
The high abundance of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere leads to the formation of the concentrated sulfuric acid cloud layers via a chemical system involving the photolytic destruction of carbon dioxide by solar UV radiation, summarized by
CO2→CO+O
followed by reactions equivalent to
SO2+H2O+O=H2SO4.
This sequence forms the acid near the visible cloud tops, where it combines with other H2O molecules to produce the hydrated acid droplets that are the main constituent of the clouds. The degree of hydration varies between perhaps 10% and 25%, with 20% (4H2SO4.H2O) typical.
A cloud particle of the observed mean radius (∼1μm) has a sedimentation velocity of 7.5m/day at 60km; this velocity varies as the square of the size. Although small, these velocities, aided by coagulation, eventually carry the particles out of the cloud to lower altitudes and higher temperatures, where they will evaporate and, at still lower heights, decompose back into water and sulfur dioxide. Atmospheric mixing carries these gases back upward where they can again contribute to the formation of H2SO4. An important intermediate is the reactive free radical SO, and probably some elemental sulfur is produced. UV spectra (pertaining to the region above the clouds) reveal the presence of small amounts of SO2 shown in Table 14.1, but much less than the amounts that have been measured below the clouds.
Sulfuric acid is perfectly colorless in the blue and near-UV regions, and the yellow coloration that provides the contrasts of Figure 14.1 must be caused by something else. The most likely thing is elemental sulfur, but yellow compounds are abundant in nature, and the identification remains tentative. The photochemical models do predict production of some sulfur, but it is a minor by-product, and the amount produced is uncertain. It is also unclear what constitutes the large Mode 3 particles in the lower cloud. Optical data suggests solid, irregular particles coated with sulfuric acid; the most likely candidate for the solid material is volcanic ash."
I'm too busy with exams to process this all into the article right now, but I think it has the information we need to resolve the issue. I'll be back in a couple weeks to do it if no one has by then. Hope this helps! A2soup (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- I have amended the cloud text, so it would be good if someone can check it out. I have used the newer review article also: "Chemical composition of Venus atmosphere and clouds: Some unsolved problems". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Featured article removal candidates
OpenBSD
- Notified: Tony Sidaway, Risc64, Mindmatrix, Guy Harris, Czar, WikiProject Cryptography, WikiProject Computer science, WikiProject Free software, WikiProject Software, WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Open
Review comments
I am nominating this featured article for review because in the ten years since the FAC and six years since the previous FA review, the article has undergone significant changes (see the article from 2006) and has fallen short of FA criteria in several areas:
- 1(a): Not particularly well-written, mostly bland technical writing.
- 1(b): Not comprehensive, very brief in several sections.
- 1(c): Citations are lacking in several areas, particularly sections 2-4.
- 2(a): Five paragraphs in lead; much of this content probably belongs in the main article but not the lead.
I have notified several users above who have contributed a fair amount to the article, as well as one user who also thought this should be brought to FAR. I also notified the projects that have this article listed as Top or High priority. The user who initially brought it to FA, as well as the user who initiated the previous FAR, are both inactive, and the article only averages one edit every 2.1 days as it was only heavily edited during the initial FAC around 2005-06. However, there should be a few users that I notified above and others in the WikiProjects who would be willing to help improve the article and possibly work to keep it as FA (although it does need a considerable amount of work).
I also have a basic peer review of the article that could improve it somewhat to start:
- American vs. British spellings: License and licence both used in lead
- OpenBSD Project: P should be lowercase
- “M:tier” in quotes: not sure if this is proper
- Component and third party sections: Too listy
- Development, 3rd PP: Inverted quotes (double within single)
Tonystewart14 (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment - Gosh, this really has been battered to death since the last FAR. It's practically unrecognizable and nowhere near even GA status. Lots of unsourced text, lots of choppy sections, probably requires a complete rewrite. --Laser brain (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- My comments are on the article's talk page but in short, the unsourced sections are alone enough work to warrant the delisting. The prose also is a long way from brilliant. I'd be curious what it would be like to rebuild from its 2006 state as opposed to blowing it up and starting over. Good luck to anyone who takes it on
czar 15:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Sometimes I advocate a blanket revert to the last known good state, but that obviously wouldn't be appropriate here because of everything that's probably occurred with an active OS. It looks like Tony Sidaway updated the article quite a bit in June 2012. I'd love to hear their opinion, but it looks like they have not edited actively in recent times. --Laser brain (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- As noted above, I did notify Tony Sidaway and a few others who had made some recent edits. Tony's last edit to this article was in July 2015, so he might still be around and provide some good comments. I think the 2006 version, and to some extent even the current one, could be used as templates for sources and content and build from there. It'll be a lot of work, but doesn't need to be from scratch. Tonystewart14 (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Reading through this article, it's B-class content at best, and probably closer to C-class. There exist gaps in the history section, no section or significant discussion on the features of OpenBSD, the majority of the article discusses more minor aspects (funding, security, etc.). The present content is fine although needing of a copyedit; however substantial expansion is needed to bring this article to even a GA. Esquivalience t 23:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- I also noticed that there are mostly named references, with a few exceptions which were likely added more recently. There were some references added to the lead since the start of this FAR, so if there's a consensus to continue having all sources be named refs at the end of the article, we could standardize this throughout. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm still around. It looks as if this nomination has brought renewed attention to the article, resulting in attempts to improve it. That's good news. On the use of the spellings licence and license in the lede, note that these are the normal British spellings of the noun and the verb respectively according to the OED, which also lists licence as an accepted variant spelling for the verb. I no longer remember whether the article is supposed to be in any particular dialect and I have no strong opinions on which dialect the article should be written in. --TS 01:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
-
- Nice to see you Tony. I agree that User:Michael Reed has done a great job so far and the article is improving rapidly. For the license spelling, I went ahead and changed it to the American version since that was the spelling used in 35 out of 37 instances in the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
FARC comments
- Concerns raised in the review section included prose, coverage, and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
- Michael Reed has done a great job of cleaning up the article. I have also made some changes, and several others have contributed occasionally. I would have to agree with another comment above, however, that the article will probably need a rewrite to be FA-quality. We can use the improved existing version and compare it with older versions to develop a structure for the article that will ensure complete coverage while also being up-to-date. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- Also, I noticed the article has had 175 edits in the past three weeks, whereas the article only had one edit every two weeks or so before. It may be well short of FA criteria, but that's a wonderful statistic! Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Enceladus
- Notified: Drbogdan, WolfmanSF, JorisvS, Volcanopele, BatteryIncluded, WikiProject Volcanoes, WikiProject Solar System, WikiProject Astronomical objects, WikiProject Astronomy
- WP:URFA nom
I am nominating this featured article for review because it's been tagged for update in the atmosphere section, which is very short. Readers are directed to a sub-article Atmosphere of Enceladus, but it seems to contain all the same information as the main article, and so appears somewhat pointless. In my opinion, the gallery section does not add much to the article, and a link to the commons category should be sufficient. DrKay (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Review section
- comments from Graeme Bartlett
- I am looking into this. There do not seem to be many more writings on the "atmosphere", and most do not distinguish it from the plumes. I found one thesis modelling the atmosphere, but does a thesis count as a reliable source?
- One topic missing that I see quite a few papers about is the effect of Endeladus on the magnetosphere, but its own and that of Saturn.
- Another is related, the auroral hiss[36].
- referencing improvements required:
The Blondel, Philippe reference needs expanding with links.Satellites of the Outer Planets: Worlds in their own right needs an ISBN."Cracks on Enceladus Open and Close under Saturn's Pull" has author Bill Steigerwald56 and 67 have a bibcode but no doi (needs a check)Taubner R.S.; Leitner J. J.; et al needs some kind of link and et al should be expanded a bit."Ocean Within Enceladus May Harbor Hydrothermal Activity" should have publisher which is astrobiology, but this is a NASA press release, so there is probably a better source."Our Solar System and Beyond is Awash in Water" is also a NASA press release"'Jets' on Saturn Moon Enceladus May Actually Be Giant Walls of Vapor and Ice" needs author= Charles Q. Choi date=6 May 2015 publisher=Space.com"A Hot Start on Enceladus" needs date March 14, 2007"Atmosphere on Enceladus" needs standard format on date."Enceladus Life Finder" needs fixing, internal title is "ENCELADUS LIFE FINDER: THE SEARCH FOR LIFE IN A HABITABLE MOON" authors are J.I. Lunine, J.H. Waite, F. Postberg L. Spilker, and K. Clark, this is part of 46th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2015)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'll see if I can do something about the references tomorrow. As for theses, I'd say they need some external support (in the vein of other sources citing them) to work in and of itself.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Update, done with a few notes:
- 56 and 67 does not seem to have a doi that I can find.
- The NASA press releases are the sources of the images in question; I've found an article on Nature here about the hydrothermal activity in the ocean.
- I'll see about the auroral hiss and the magnetospheric effects later.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have struck the confirmed fixed refs. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Replaced the press releases with that Nature citation too. The atmosphere will have to wait a bit, unfortunately.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Update, done with a few notes:
- Most images are missing alt= text. Please read WP:ALT before adding text though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- More checking word by word: (using tr "][()\t,.:;\"" " "| tr " " "\n" | sort -u )
There is inconsistent date format. Sometimes we have yyyy-mm-dd form, but it is mostly month dd, yyyy. This applies to access dates and publication dates. eg: 2007-04-15 2008-11-27 2011-12-17 2014-04-03 2014-04-04 2014-04-27 2014-12-17 2015-04-09 2015-04-15 2015-05-08 2015-09-17- There are a couple of nonprinting characters in the dimensions in the infobox "513.2 × 502.8 × 496.6" (surrounding the first and second ×) (these are halfwidth spaces, not a serious issue)
Inconsistent ISBN13, we have 978-1-4020-9216-9 978-1-4244-7350-2 and 9783540376835 (the last form is best)Cassini 's has a non printing character before apostrophe(due to use of {{'s}})Caption at internal structure " mantle/yellow and core/red" style should be " mantle (yellow) and core (red)"infobox mean radius uses Earths and Moons - probably should be Earth's and Moon'sE-ring should be E-RingWe have "g/cm³" (2 uses) as well as using superscript 3 g/cm3 (1 use, but I thought MOS said this one).Two uses of wrong spelling: kilometres(It was convert template doing it, spelling mistake avoided by using |sp=usUsing m/s² in info box instead of superfixed 2Abbreviated journal titles like "Orig Life Evol Biosph" should be expanded fully."Saturn׳s" has non-standard apostrophe" —called libration— " uses spaces as well as m-dash (should be no space?)- I suspect " UV–green–near IR images" uses the wrong kind of dash. It is an adjectival form. (actually it appears to use –) (others use / or ,)
- Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think I got the issues except the inconsistent the dates (MOSUNITS does indicate the superscript standard; probably because it's easier to create that code than to create the superscripted number itself); will need a check on non-printing characters.
- Striking corrected (notice I added more issues after you started work) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Did some more edits to resolve these issues, except for the dash and nonprinting character edits. I didn't find any "kilometres" in the source; I guess a template is causing these issues. Now, for the atmosphere I've to confess that other than using Calabozos and Cerro Azul (Chilean volcano) as templates I've never worked with FAs; is the atmosphere section of Pluto plus the magnetosphere and auroral hiss a good template to follow?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Another inconsistency is the possessive form: Enceladus' versus Enceladus's. I prefer the second, but is that right? Many of the sources use Enceladus' Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- It can be either, but I too prefer the second, because I think it's clearer in written prose. DrKay (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- I personally prefer the first; at least to me it was indicated to be proper grammar. I'll do some other work here in about a week, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- You might like to read MOS:POSS and Apostrophe, especially the section Apostrophe#Possessive apostrophe, particularly sub-section "Basic rule (singular nouns)". It seems that a lot depends upon how the possessive form is pronounced. Corinne (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- It can be either, but I too prefer the second, because I think it's clearer in written prose. DrKay (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comments from Corinne
1) In this sentence in the lead:
-
- Enceladus has a wide range of surface features, ranging from old, heavily cratered regions to young, tectonically deformed terrains that formed as recently as 100 million years ago, despite its small size.
the phrase "despite its small size", because it comes at the end, sounds like it might apply only to the last clause, so is a little puzzling (if it does apply only to the last clause, I don't understand the connection between small size and relatively recent deformation of terrain). I believe you mean it to apply to the first clause, "Enceladus has a wide range of surface features". If so, I recommend putting the phrase at the beginning of the sentence:
-
- Despite it small size, Enceladus has a wide range of surface features, ranging...
2) The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is:
-
- Enceladus was discovered in 1789 by William Herschel, but little was known about it until the two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby in the early 1980s.
You haven't mentioned Voyager spacecraft before this, so saying "the two Voyager spacecraft" assumes that your readers know what they are. I recommend removing "the". You can, and I guess you do, go into more detail about the two spacecraft later, and who's to say there won't be more in the future?
-
- Enceladus was discovered in 1789 by William Herschel, but little was known about it until two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby in the early 1980s.
3) The last sentence in the lead is:
-
- Its resonance with Dione excites its orbital eccentricity, which tidal forces damp, resulting in tidal heating of its interior, and offering a possible explanation for the geological activity.
(a) I was confused by the clause, "which tidal forces damp". It is true that "tidal" is an adjective, so "forces" ought to be a noun; however, "damp" is more often an adjective or noun than a verb, so "forces" jumped in as a verb. It took a re-reading to realize that "damp" was the verb to the phrase "tidal forces". To a non-scientist, even one who knows what the verb "to damp" means, the combination of "tidal forces" and "damp" is so unusual that it is hard to comprehend. I'm wondering if another verb could be found other than "damp" to make this more comprehensible for the average reader. Perhaps "suppress", or "counteract"?
(b) Also, for the average reader, the word "tidal" suggests, of course, "tides", which in turn suggests the presence of a large body of water (or other liquid). The previous paragraph mentioned "a subsurface ocean of liquid water", but no connection between the tides and that body of water was made. If the "tidal forces" are related in some way to the subsurface body of water, that connection should be made clear. Since no surface body of water (or liquid) is mentioned here, the reader will look for it later on. In the section "Orbit and rotation", "tidal deformation" is mentioned in the second paragraph, but no body of liquid is mentioned. If these "tidal forces" and "tidal deformation" have nothing to do with a body of liquid, that ought to be made clear, also.
4) The first two sentences in Enceladus#Orbit and rotation are:
-
- Enceladus is one of the major inner satellites of Saturn. It is the fourteenth satellite when ordered by distance from Saturn, and orbits within the densest part of the E Ring, the outermost of Saturn's rings.
I think the wording of the clause "when ordered by distance from Saturn" could be made a little clearer for the average WP reader. "When ordered" sounds like "ordered from a catalog", "ordered in a restaurant". I think it would be clearer if it were worded something like this:
-
- It is the fourteenth satellite in order of distance from Saturn, and it orbits..."
5) In the second paragraph in "Orbit and rotation", can you put the conversion so that distances in miles are given?
– Corinne (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- 2) Without "the", it suggests that there have been more than two Voyager spacecraft, which is untrue. Any possible futute Voyager 3 would be crystal ball.
-
- I don't agree. Saying just "until two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby" is just introducing the spacecraft since you haven't mentioned them before this. It does not suggest that there were, or will be, more. It is really not good to use the definite article until you have first introduced or mentioned them. Corinne (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- 3) a) I think saying it in the passive does the trick. b) Tidal forces also act on a solid body. The effect is only much stronger if they act on a liquid. For example, solid Mimas has been tidally locked to Saturn; in fact, none of the small regular moons of Saturn are known not to be tidally locked.
- I have copy-edited the article based on several other points. --JorisvS (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Atmosphere section
DrKay's original concern was with the Atmosphere section, which I just removed. I'm not totally sure about it, so see my rationale on the talk page and let me know if you agree. A2soup (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- As we've established, it was not possible to expand the section and I think short sections should be merged into others, which is essentially what has been done here with the material positioned in the Cryovolcanism section. DrKay (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Move to FARC. The prose is poor, using an unnecessarily repetitive and unidiomatic style that is also indicative of structural problems in the article. Because relevant material is deliberately excluded, the subject is not placed in its context rendering the topic non-comprehensive and difficult to follow without following links to other articles. Attempts to address these problems are reverted. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- If by "relevant material is deliberately excluded", you mean the atmosphere apart from the plumes, I have to disagree. That's more a case of "relevant material is not yet known". No argument on the other points, though. A2soup (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, I mean for example that the article says Enceladus is "sixth-largest", "one of the major inner" and "fourteenth" moon of Saturn, but we are not told how many moons there are or how many of those are "major inner" ones. DrKay (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- The problem there is that Saturn has a difficult-to-define number of moons. There are spherical moons, but Moons of Saturn gives 62 moons with confirmed orbits, of which 53 are named. Of course, what's a moon or not is ultimately subjective - the rings are made of zillions of "moons", and how can we define when a chunk is big enough to be a moon? Saying Enceladus is "sixth-largest" with no absolute number specified is actually an elegant solution to this problem. I have addressed the other two concerns you raised by given content for "one of the major inner" and removing "fourteenth". Do you have any other prose concerns? A2soup (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, I mean for example that the article says Enceladus is "sixth-largest", "one of the major inner" and "fourteenth" moon of Saturn, but we are not told how many moons there are or how many of those are "major inner" ones. DrKay (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- If by "relevant material is deliberately excluded", you mean the atmosphere apart from the plumes, I have to disagree. That's more a case of "relevant material is not yet known". No argument on the other points, though. A2soup (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comments by Dunkleosteus77
FARC section
The instability leads me to move here. Concerns about prose, which can be difficult to balance between exactness and accessibility in these articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- What "instability" do you mean? There was one recent not-quite-edit-war (both editors made varied changes that ultimately led to improvement, rather than flat reverts). Also, can you point out specifically what prose concerns you? A2soup (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that they are not edit-warring does not mean there is consensus. Prose is a pretty major issue to try and get right and moving it here means we're not closing this as a "keep", that is all. Further work and continue before editors comment on whether the article should retain or lose FA status. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Lack of consensus is not a stability issue if the article text is stable. But I'm more interested in what specifically the prose issues you see are - I would love to try to address them. A2soup (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- @A2soup: Calling DrKay about these prose issues.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Lack of consensus is not a stability issue if the article text is stable. But I'm more interested in what specifically the prose issues you see are - I would love to try to address them. A2soup (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that they are not edit-warring does not mean there is consensus. Prose is a pretty major issue to try and get right and moving it here means we're not closing this as a "keep", that is all. Further work and continue before editors comment on whether the article should retain or lose FA status. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- @DrKay, Graeme Bartlett, and Corinne: Where do things stand here? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- All the minor issues are fixed, but my major issue still remains, which is incomplete coverage on the topic of its effect on Saturn including auroral hiss and its magnetosphere. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Could we perhaps have declarations from A2soup, BatteryIncluded, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and JorisvS? Thanks. I have no comments on the prose but am not competent to comment on the comprehensiveness, which is the remaining concern. DrKay (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- The issues mentioned by Graeme can probably be easily fixed with some sources and text from them. No opinion on prose, my English skills are not sufficient to comment on them.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:45, 12 June 2016 (UTC)