Comment funny coincidence, my daughter got home from school, amused at the apocryphal story of how Bacon got together with the burglar, and I took a look. I was recently saddened by the death of H.R.Giger and never looked at a Bacon work, but this is great! Proto-Giger! Ok..rant over, on ta read.......Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The material of the small para two in the lead segues naturally on from para one - a it is so small, I'd meld it onto it.
Ditto para 4 onto para 3. (A bit less so but isolated miniparas irk me for flow..)
Bacon presents the figure as a bust and it can clearly be identified as a pope from its clothing. - subjects are switched here - think it'd work better as passive tense in first segment and one subject.....
Cas thanks. Though I'm surprised somebody versed in Saints, The Birthday Party and Swans didnt know Bacon, but then you have educated me on a lot and its all sides of the same thing. Delighted you took something from the page. Ceoil (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on comprehensiveness and prose - the rest is icing on the cake. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Hamiltonstone.
Lead: "The painting drew a mixed reaction from art critics." In context, "the painting" refers to Three Figures...', but that is not your intention, I think.
Clarified now. Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: Lawrence Gowing quote: lacks a close quote mark, and a cite.
Both there now. Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: Without consulting things like Fowler and my Oxford: is it possible for something to be the most seminal? I didn't think there could be degrees of "seminal", by definition.
Hmm. Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead contains text not in the body of the article (at least the Russell quote). Why not have that quote (certainly it is an arresting enough image to be read twice!) in the critical reception section?
1949 Head series: "He told Sylvester that..." Do you think it might help to tell the reader who/what Sylvester was. Biographer? Art critic? Lover? Gallerist? I have no idea.
1949 Head series: "sometimes various images that he painted over the same time", The phrase "over the same time" seems odd. "over time" yes. "at the same time" yes. But...?
1949 Head series: "...grouped for convenience but are internally disparate". Can you clarify? I'm having trouble grasping exactly what is being said about the series here. The sentence begins by saying the series are "not discrete", but if even subsets of the works are "internally disparate", then how are these a series in any meaningful sense at all? Maybe my confusion arises from not understand who was doing the grouping. Is it Bacon? Was it a curator, then or later?
1949 Head series: "the 1948 head". The reader has not been told what this is, and there is no link. We need a little more context for the article. Perhaps the section should begin with something more general about when he began painting "heads" / head series, before we move into what was happening around the 1949 exhibition.
Prose is great from there on. Is it correct that there is only one cite for the para that begins "The six 1949 heads depict isolated figures..."?
I've added a citation to Zweite which covers the same gound, draws similar comparisons, and that I was mindful of. Ceoil (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1949 Head series: "Bacon was ruthlessly self-critical, and often destroyed or abandoned canvasses before they were completed. [etc]" It isn't clear why we are told this. The sentence afterwards does not relate to either Head VI or the 1949 Head series, and it appears we are not being told that any of the works in the series were destroyed or abandoned. Why is this here? (also it partly repeats text found in a later section)
Ive clarified on this. Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now: It is exceptional in his career that works of their relative poor quality survive; Bacon was ruthlessly self-critical and often slashed or abandoned canvasses before they were completed. When pressed again by Brausen in 1953 to produce works for a New York show she had been publicising for a year, he was full of doubt and destroyed most of what he had been working on, including several other popes.Ceoil (talk) 22:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article lacks a section on provenance.
The article gets stronger as it proceeds and is fascinating. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your points are all good; some are very substantive and I need to go back to the sources before replying properly. But thank you indeed. Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a lot of progress, but a few issues crept in during the radical surgery.
"Yet the older masters influence is apparent in many aspects of the painting." Is there a possessive apostrophe missing somewhere here?
The Initial section had more information, but the order was wrong - there was a reference to an exhibition without explanation, which came only two paragraphs later. I have attempted to fix this. But please check my fix - one of the weird things it highlighted was that at one point in Peppiatt it was claimed that he spent six months preparing "with determination" yet a few pages later he showed no interest until six weeks beforehand. I've taken a stab at what was meant, but you might want to check the source to see if I'm right!
Now reading He did not have a grand plan when he agreed to the show, but eventually found themes that interest him in his Head I of the previous year, and executed five progressively stronger variants in the final weeks before the November exhibition,[16][10] completing the series barely in time for the opening.[12]Ceoil (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for a section on provenance...:-)hamiltonstone (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hamilstone, I have most books printed on Bacon in the last 30 years (yeah, I know!), and am not finding anything re price or acquistion date. But have added a sect on provenance, which is short, for now as I dig further. I agree re the Hanover material, and have worked further on your suggestions. Thank you so much for such a thorough reading :) Ceoil (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those changes. I don't agree with every one of your recent copyedits, though many are improvements. I'm a support, but I still do not think a paragraph should begin with "His" - it should have a subject spelled out in some way ;-) hamiltonstone (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see you working on this Ceoil. Is it appropriate to force some image sizes? Usually we don't define the image size per WP:IMGSIZE except for the lede image unless there is some specific details that need to be shown.
Can we even justify the use of 4 (maybe only 3 - see Potemkin comment below) non-free images in a FA? File:Study after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X.jpg does not have a rationale for this use and File:Head (1948).jpg just has a simple generic rationale instead of a specific one and those images should surely also have some critical commentary that helps justify their use.
File:Head (1948).jpg actually seems to be a freely licenced image even though you added a fair use rational last December; it is available at a slightly higher resolution on the commons as c:File:Eisenstein Potemkin 2.jpg which I think the colour is better.
The other 3 images are fine.
I'm sure you can easily fix these issues. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 14:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ww2. I cut the study after Vel, and went with the other version of the Potemkin. I tried removing the force imaging, and while it looked fine in fire fox, the images were totally oversized in ie, while logged in at the default thumbnail size. [1]. Ceoil (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, differennt browsers can act quite differently on images. I've unforced them again but used the "upright" code. They look smaller and fine in ffox and several other Mac browsers but you may not like it in ie (it's not available for Mac anyomre). Try it. The rational for File:Head (1948).jpg is still quite weak and could do with better justification. Otherwise all is good. ww2censor (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
upright works fine for me across browsers thanks. Re Head I; true enough. I added another rational, which might be inelegant and lacking in legalese, but is why I need to include it. What do you think. Ceoil (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy the "upright" formatting works because it still does not force readers into a particular size depending on their browser/screen combo. The rationale for Head I looks fine now. Thanks so much. ww2censor (talk) 08:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment leaning support, a few minor points:
Lede
"the sitter" the figure, correct, rather than the viewer? You might want to set this up by mentioning it is sitting.
Consider dividing the first paragraph after "airless void".
" The painting drew a mixed reaction" slightly ambiguous, as Three Figures is last referenced as a Bacon artwork.
There is no close quote to the Gowing quote.
"Bacon's exhibition a the Hanover Gallery " I would correct this but am doing this offline.
1949 Head
The caption title is the only time you place "1949 head" in italics. In the lede, "head" is in quotes and not italicised.
Consider striking "internally". I'm not sure what it adds.
"opening at Erica Brausen's newly opened" I would change one or the other "open" variants.
The first paragraph mentions the production of five heads, and yet there are six?
"For Bacon the key aspect was that it appeared that the subject felt isolated," I would strike "it appeared that" as surplus.
Description
Was it Eichmann within the glass cage, or the trial?
"late 1930 broadcasters who warned against the impending calamity." late 1930s, I assume. I would make it clearer you are talking about war rather than Holocaust due to the recent Eichmann reference.
Consider reversing the second and third paragraphs of this section. The third paragraph really introduces the scream, yet you discuss it before that.
" about the still" What "still"?
Influences
"although it is a bust" Head Vi, I venture.
Titian is linked twice within a short span.
Critical reception
"When Bacon undertook the series late in 1948" you haven't mentioned this before, just that there was a 1948 head and that the 1949 heads were done under time pressure of the exhibition. You might want to mention this earlier in the article.
Three Studies ..." this has been linked before. Just saying.
"Brusen" Brausen?
"he commanded prices as high as £400 for single works, an unusual price" "prices" and "price" do not agree. And weren't artworks at the time generally sold in guineas, not pounds?
Fixed the prices thing, but re guineas I dont know, perhalps to a certain level. Ceoil (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work, I'm sure there will be no trouble with these quibbles.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt. I have most of these sorted, but need to fill out the article re the 1949 exhibition. The c/e suggestions and reordering observations are very strong; I have a much better ordered lead now, which might keep the notorious Mr Lieber happy, as he mentioned flaws along the same line; I hope now largely resolved. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well if he says that I would certainly listen to him. Could you drop me a line when you are ready for me to take a second look?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The context which has been inserted makes this a much more useable article. A few final points, which Ceoil can clean up at his leisure
”Tangiers” should probably be Tangier.
’’’the exhibition” … "at the Hanover” You have not defined what these mean. You should move the fuller discussion of Brausen, who she was, what she did, etc. which comes in the third paragraph up here.
Head I is linked in consecutive paragraphs
"all pretence at presentation falls away” I think this would be stronger if you omitted “at presentation”
"in a pose" perhaps better "posed".
"an expression Bacon took a still he kept of the nurse screaming" some cleanup needed. Possibly missing word "from" before "a still"?
"and of Velázquez's portrayals of Philip IV, and" I would massage out one of the "and"s. Wouldn't this sentence be better off in the "Influences" section?
"Yet the older masters influence" missing apostrophe
All taken care of I think; and have consolidated the info re Brausen and the Hanover exhibition. Thanks again. Ceoil (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Gowing quote in the lead is long enough to need blockquoting
Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of colwidth
FN2: grammar
Peppiatte or Peppiatt?
FN31: Farr et al?
Use a consistent date format
Tate Papers should be italicized
No citations to Dawson
Gowing is listed as a source and mentioned by name, but there are no direct citations to his work
Hunter Sam or Hunter, Sam?
Thames & Hunson or Thames and Hudson? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think I've got all these. Ceoil (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support a good read and excellent work...Modernist (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a very good and interesting read. Hadn't gone through from top to bottom until today (going on record here to say it's not my favorite image), made a couple of tweaks. Re provenance mentioned above, I took it on myself to search and all I can find is this (not a fantastic source), and the Arts Council website gives the acquisition date. These might be helpful. Anyway, nice work, and a nice way to finish. Good job as always. Victoria (tk) 18:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Victoria. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since I raised the provenance issue, i should add that I'm not expecting it to be long, particularly if the work didn't change hands much. It might only be a couple of sentences tacked on to 'critical reception'. But at present the article doesn't say whether the work was sold at the Hanover exhibition or who to, or how much for; it doesn't say who owns it now (other than the mention in the caption of the image), when they acquired it, or where it is currently hanging. Those are the details I'd be hoping for...hamiltonstone (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hamiltonstone it will be a single sentance; Hanover..Hayward, prob in the lead. I'm thinking more about your comments re context, working....Ceoil (talk)
Sure - just make sure it is in the body text of the article as well as the lead. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hamiltonstone, I've added a short section now on provenance, but even going through many books and articles, was unable to find the date of acquisition. 1952, found by Victoria. Ceoil (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article presents most of what is known about this species of extinct macaw, and includes the best contemporary images of the bird. It is the only extinct macaw known from stuffed specimens, and this article seems to be more comprehensive than even most of those covering living species of macaw. FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I came across this article on the GOCE request page, and I helped out with a copyedit (it was generally well written before I got there). This is a well written, interesting, comprehensive article, and given the talk page discussion it appears that the author has scoured all available sources. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well written and well sourced article. --Carioca (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Fixed on image page. FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Cuban_Red_Macaw_range.gif: the text accompanying this image on the source site suggests a broader range. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not accepted today, it is discussed in the text. FunkMonk (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - looking good but would be nice if all three of the lead paras didn't start with, "The Cuban macaw...." Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 07:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I "parroted" your rejig in the intro, better? FunkMonk (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, support on comprehensiveness and prose - tight little article. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Its relationship with other Ara macaws is uncertain." I realise that Ara is the genus, but a lay reader may be confused by what an Ara macaw is - in a sense I was too, because i would have assumed all macaws were in a single genus. Is this not thecase? Maybe "Its relationship with other macaws in the genus Ara is uncertain"?
Yes, there are several macaw genera. I'll change to what you proposed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
footnote 14 specifies non-English language, yet footnote 3 does not.
footnote 10 - only one page is listed (238) but looking at the original, i think it should be 238-240. Also, something needs to be done about the linked title. "Rothschild's 'Extinct Birds' Extinct Birds Walter Rothschild" cannot be right. The author of the item in the Auk is "C.W.R.", the title i think should be "Recent literature: Rothschild's 'Extinct Birds'".
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I've been trying to make this introduction sound interesting, but honestly I believe that the article being nominated has that taken care of. But I guess it doesn't hurt to try. Being made by Ion Storm, makers of the early 2000s classic Deus Ex, and Daikatana, infamous for being an overhyped flop and having founder John Romero wanting "to make you his bitch", Anachronox is amazing beast in its own right. While it received some positive reviews when released, it failed to keep the company's Dallas office from closing down and resulted in Romero and Tom Hall, co-founder of Ion Storm and the one behind Anachronox, leaving the company. There's many more interesting details about the game in the article, which I believe meets the FA criteria. But since not everything can be perfect, I expect some constructive criticism will present itself to help secure this article a bronze star. GamerPro64 21:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Glad to see this is finally up at FAC. Way back when, I helped User:Zeality dig up many of the sources that this article is based on, but I never got to see it taken all the way. I feel like I should mention, though, that several of those sources went dead when GameSpot enabled robots.txt. All of the GameSpot Designer Diaries are now gone, and (to my knowledge) they aren't available anywhere else on the Internet. Hopefully the information taken from those links is available elsewhere.JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted (see last FAC instructional bullet). Any questions below are rhetorical: I'm looking for clarification in the article, not an actual answer.
Not sure the portmanteau in the title is necessary for the lede. Also I recommend an audio file to go with your IPA pronunciation, if it was necessary to have the pronunciation at all
Agreed, moved the portmanteau explanation to the plot section. ZeaLitY[ Talk - Activity ] 23:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are unnecessary cites in the lede—only need it for direct quotes and controversial stuff for which readers would want a citation anyway
Only one left now for the engine, which is probably the only notable fact requiring a cite up there. ZeaLitY[ Talk - Activity ] 23:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"near the hub of the galaxy's star-lanes": this is unclear—what is the hub? the star-lanes? why not call them jumpgates instead of the in-universe term? I corrected this as I understood it, but I am somewhat guessing here
GamerPro fixed. 23:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Is Sly Boots human? What makes the planet alien? Worth a few words of clarification of this relationship if it's worth mentioning that the planet is alien
Fixed; now "once-abandoned" (since "aliens" doesn't even make sense in this context). Added a reference to Sly as human in his character section.
{{Infobox video game}} uses |media= only where the distribution is ambiguous—not sure it is in this case
The ibox credits need to be checked. E.g., per the prose, Hughes is not the main producer
Fixed producer issue. Also added Ben Herrera to artists section, since he designed all the characters. ZeaLitY[ Talk - Activity ] 23:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"e.g., one where the player pilots a fighter spaceship ...": that's the action but what's the minigame?
Well, that particular one's unnamed. Noted. ZeaLitY[ Talk - Activity ] 23:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Certain maps": what is a map? a level? Also minimize and link the video game jargon on first use. And I think this line is best off as a footnote
Noted what a "field map" refers to in the gameplay section and rewrote as "certain field maps". The term isn't something we've cited in RPG articles before, but it's right on the border between what an uninitiated reader would understand vs. need a reference for. ZeaLitY[ Talk - Activity ] 23:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"A special feature of exploration is the use of the protagonist Boots's camera": doesn't make sense—the camera is a feature of exploration
"when the meter is full, the character can perform an action": such as?
Cut it into the next sentence for better flow. ZeaLitY[ Talk - Activity ] 23:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hitting way too many potholes so far. Can one of the noms give it a good read-through for these types of concerns before I come back to continue the copyedit? czar ♔ 16:05, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Zeality and I fixed your concerns now. GamerPro64 01:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Working on the issues raised so far but hit a bit of a snag as when trying to make all the credits the same with the prose, the reference used for it is down. This is from the fact that Gamespot has done robots.txt on their older references. So I may have to look for another reference which may be difficult. GamerPro64 02:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Update - The robots.txt issue for GameSpot references have been taken care of and can now be read. GamerPro64 22:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Were there once other gameplay images here? I vaguely recall a spacestation or something. I have no idea what's going on in the GroundPound image—it either needs to be explicated in the caption or tossed out for a more representative screenshot. This whole huge game is best summarized by this sole image of an empty battle screen?
I don't remember a picture of a space station. I'll talk to Zeality about possibly getting a new image for the article. GamerPro64 19:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So I uploaded File:Anachronox gameplay.jpg, which I find to be more representative on what happens during the battling portion of the game. GamerPro64 03:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For a ~40kB article, the lede is unproportional. It should have more about the actual gameplay than that it compares to Chrono or FF. Comparatively, a whole paragraph is spent on story. Trim some out of that one and expand the others to be fully representative of the article
Added more to the lead and trimmed up the part on the story aspect of the article. GamerPro64 00:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox individuals need to be either cited in the article or have their own citations nearby. Are there really three artists or is there one lead?
{{Infobox video game}} uses |media= only where the distribution is ambiguous, which it isn't in this case
@Czar: Maybe I'm not understand the issue. What exactly is the problem with the media part of the infobox? I don't know what you mean by the distribution being ambiguous. GamerPro64 18:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution CD-ROM, digital distribution: per Template:Infobox_video_game#media, I don't think the field is necessary czar ♔ 23:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying that section of the infobox should be removed? GamerPro64 01:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of those development quotes need paraphrasing, and consider MOS:Blockquote regarding the three longer ones
The dev section is too long with too much inconsequential stuff: "(booth 7345)", the names next to the maps, etc. Spin-out into its own development article isn't a bad idea, but I wonder how much will be left after trimming the stuff that shouldn't appear in any article
Comment. I realize that obtaining accurate PC sales figures is a dark art, but just verifying - you looked and couldn't find any? Also:
"The game developed a cult following." This doesn't appear to be referenced or elaborated on in the article itself though.
"its developers were disappointed with producer support." Yet later in the article you quote a developer saying "I sing the praises of Eidos for sticking with us through all the craziness—they were amazing." I'm sure the developers would have liked more time / support, but they sound understanding about the amount they did get, not disappointed...
"Use of MysTech and equippable shield cells require NRG, a separate energy reserve" - What's NRG stand for? Or is it just NRG? (I realize that this may be in-game trivia but I was puzzled on seeing the acronym first without having had something like a "Natural Resource Grade (NRG)" earlier.)
NRG stands for "Neutron-Radiated Glodents". Funny how that's a thing. GamerPro64 16:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Hall also drew dramatic inspiration from a scene in Trigger in which the characters discuss the theme of regret around a campfire." - Go ahead and spell out "Chrono Trigger", it's just one extra word. Also... I haven't played Anachronox, but I have played CT, and I'm not sure I'd really call it a "theme of regret" in that scene. Is that really what the source says? (The passage is fine if that's what the Anachronox developers really thought it was about, of course.) SnowFire (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't the one who put the reference in so I don't have the magazine. So I may need to find the one who did to see if its correct. GamerPro64 16:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a scan of the page that talks about it. It's Tom Hall's interpretation of the scene, it seems. ZeaLitY[ Talk - Activity ] 00:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Any thoughts on my first two comments, though? Lots of games claim to have "cult" followings simply because they have fans - I'd be skeptical of including the claim without a really good reference, and there appears to be no such reference at all at the moment. SnowFire (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the mention of developers being disappointed and mentions of "cult classic" in the article. GamerPro64 21:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could have sworn there was a citation for that disappointment that specifically referred to the limited marketing of Eidos as the point of contention. But I can't find it, and the game probably wasn't going to get huge sales numbers anyhow with the outdated engine and offbeat genre. So yeah, I agree with just leaving it out. ZeaLitY[ Talk - Activity ] 23:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: I myself checked to find sales figures on the game with no results. But besides that I believe all your comments you raised have been addressed. Unless you have more you spotted. GamerPro64 01:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still here. Sorry, been meaning to give the article another closer once-over but haven't gotten to it. Call it a weak support then for now, I'll try and come back later and either upgrade to full support or else comment on other issues. SnowFire (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Status: Passed --PresN 19:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Polished the rationale on both of those with references to the article. ZeaLitY[ Talk - Activity ] 19:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now passed. --PresN 23:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Expansion pack: File:Anachronox gameplay.jpg - non-free screenshot, with problems- 1280x960 is not small enough, please get it down to 300x225 or thereabouts like the image you were replacing. Also, the FUR is weird- your minimal use statement says no, then gives a further purpose of use, you don't say why it's not replaceable with free media (no such free media exists for this game), and you don't answer the commercial oppotunities (just say that the image is too low-res to be used for commercial purposes, once you resize the image. --PresN 01:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I made the image 300x225 and updated the FUR. GamerPro64 02:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, passed for that image as well. --PresN 06:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think I've played this one. Anywho, here are some prose comments from me.
Some puzzles require skills such as lockpicking, and each playable character has a unique skill. - rework to remove the duplication of "skills"? Perhaps "Each playable character has a unique skill, such as lockpicking, which may be used to solve puzzles."
several pictures for memories or minor quests. - unclear what "memories" is in this context. Player memory, or "memories" in a gameplay context?
For playable characters and computer-controlled enemies, each attack reduces their number of hit points (a numerically based life bar), which can be restored through healing items or MysTech slags. - could be misread as the act of attacking another character reduces hitpoints (which would be an interesting gameplay mechanic, to be fair), rather than being hit by an attacker
colored bugs - insects? I don't think you'll find much support for "bug" here, as it can be ambiguous (even if that's the term used in the game)
can be found scattered throughout the world of Anachronox - it was a galaxy one second, and now it's a world. Another reason for nixing the galaxy above
it is here that Boots runs his detective agency in the storage space above a bar. - since you haven't introduced Boots in the body of the text, this may not make much sense. I'd have the characters before the setting section, but that's just me
Removed that part. GamerPro64 01:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Due to a freak of galactic commerce, this has become the standard unit of currency for the galaxy. Some areas still use non-digital money. The one-dollar coin is called a "loonie", because it has a loon on the back. - this isn't explicitly the Canadian coin
Re-wored to have nothing to do with the Canadian coin.
Other planets number Sunder, Hephaestus, Democratus, and Limbus. - Are these in Sender one? Also, I don't think "Number" works best here
Fixed and removed "Numbers".
crtystalline - spelling?
I have done a couple of the comments you raised above but I have no clue where this one is in the article. GamerPro64 04:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of the direct quotes in your references. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked to see where to find a quote from this and came across this. Seeing that this Let's Play had some dialogue written out instead of showing every screenshot, I assume that it was an error and that it was also copy-pasted for the reference. And seeing how Krapton appears to be a parody of Krypton, its possible the correct spelling is "crystalline". GamerPro64 04:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I'd guess so. Someone could check it, but considering this is a 70+ hour game... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
29 years old - best not to start a sentence with a numeral
Changed to be in word form. GamerPro64 01:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The team then gains support from Democratus, an eccentric planet boasting a planetary ring and brilliant technology. - the second half of that sentence is redundant to the "setting" section. Or does the entire planet become one character, which could be noted a bit clearer (it is later on, but not in this section)?
Explained better. GamerPro64 01:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't use acronyms like "isn't" in Wikipedia's voice. In quotes, okay, but not in the article proper.
This one I am also at a lose. Do you mean the dialogue that is quoted for the references? GamerPro64 05:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. Assuming you meant "contractions" not acronyms, I'm strongly opposed to this advice. Wikipedia's voice is not some stuffy 1960s BBC announcer. It's perfectly professional English to include contractions. SnowFire (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
in the next universe, - next as in time frame, or next as in spatial position? Ambiguous. And if it is next universe (time), how can it already have happened? Or is previous a mistake?
Fatima his office one night to leave a note of resignation. - missing a verb. I'd split this backstory into its own paragraph
Add verb and split the backstory into own paragraph. GamerPro64 05:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying every time Anachronox is mentioned in the article it should be italicized? GamerPro64 05:38, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, but in one instance you used the word as a word (i.e. "He later compared the name "Anachronox""). I fixed this on my own. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Artist and programmer Travis Doggett agreed that there should be no "elitist" distinction between artists and level designers. - This seems disconnected from the rest of the paragraph
Removed sentence. GamerPro64 04:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff Wand of Ion Storm remarked that Anachronox was being written with female players in mind. - Also feels disconnected from the surrounding sentences
I couldn't find a place for the sentence so I removed it. GamerPro64 20:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hall listed some of his inspirations for Anachronox in mid-2000: "In movies, some inspirational people are Spielberg, Hitchcock, George Roy Hill, Rob Reiner, and now Sam Mendes. Also a big fan of Chuck Jones, who directed Warner Brothers cartoons. Novels: Gateway, Ender's Game, Snow Crash, Hitchhiker's, so many more. Games: Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy, LucasArts adventures (Ron Gilbert and Tim Schafer rock), Ape Escape (buy it now), Mario, Ultima III, Wizardry I, oh, I'm sure I'm forgetting some!" - Although chronologically in the right place, thematically it's not tied in with the remainder of the paragraph
Moved the sentence near the end of the "Conception" section. Does that work out better? GamerPro64 00:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The whole section on the creation of the game reads fairly disjointed.
Part of this is because it's been condensed from a much lengthier original write-up. The rest is owed to my training in the school of Tony1, haha. I try to condense prose into the richest chunks possible without sacrificing readability, and it's a constant struggle. I'll look at it and see what I can do. There was also the usual issue of a temporal write-up forbidding the grouping of similar topics; I tried to strike a balance between both. ZeaLitY[ Talk - Activity ] 23:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of work on the Segue between sentences and paragraphs may help reduce this impression. Right now it feels a bit untidy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure links are on first mention in the body. For instance, Ion Storm is located in #Reception, but your first mention is in #Development
Check the order of your footnotes after sentences (ex: [124][109][123][116][116][117])
Combed over the article two or three times. I believe I got this one taken care of. GamerPro64 04:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are the giveaways really part of "Legacy"? I'd classify them as "release"
Moved some info from "Legacy" to "Release". Even moved some info into "Reception". GamerPro64 04:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Though received well, the game's success did not prevent the closure of Ion Storm's Dallas office in July 2001; - no sales figures, which are what companies care about…
Took out "success" to make it read "Though received well, the game did not prevent the closure of Ion Storm's Dallas office in July 2001." Also, as mentioned above, finding sales figures bore no fruit. GamerPro64 04:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The work was considered the genre's first feature-length production - what genre? You haven't said in the running prose yet
As of 2003, Machinima.com planned to release the film on DVD with extra footage and artwork. - this is really old (11 years). Any more recent information?
I checked to see if they even released it on DVD and can only find forums. I don't even think a DVD of it officially exists physically. Seeing how Machinima.com is stepping away from machinima itself, this one may be a lost cause. GamerPro64 04:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hall remarked in 2010, "If I don't do the game in the next 10 years, I'll just write up the rest of the story and put it on my website for closure, how about that?" - and did he do it?
Seeing that he said that in 2010 and its 2014, and we may have to wait six more years for it to possibly happen, I'm going to say he didn't do it yet. GamerPro64 21:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Har har, I assumed as much... but it would be nice to have an RS stating as much. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added the line "As of 2014, a sequel has yet to be announced." if that works. GamerPro64 04:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Might want to mention that the sequels were nixed before saying "He later stated that he did not regret ending Anachronox on a cliffhanger, as most characters had resolved their inner turmoil.", otherwise it doesn't make much sense. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the sentence. GamerPro64 04:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks like my major concerns have all been addressed, and the prose is nice and tight. Thanks for writing this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there so much primary source text being quoted in a bunch of the footnotes 6 through 29? Per MOS:PLOT, it does not appear necessary, though perhaps it is because extracting information from a multilevel game is more complex? Can an editor explain the rationale?
I honestly don't know how to answer this concern. I wasn't the one who added all those source text to the article. Though I do believe that having so much source text helps with the context and understanding what happens in the section of the game it is used for referencing. GamerPro64 03:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you compared this to some other FA game articles? I'm not a game article reader; as an occasional reader of articles about movies or books, the plot section already seems pretty long, with its three subsections. To then find yet more text in the footnotes seems overdoing it. If someone actually wants to play the game, they don't need the encyclopedia article. I would delete all footnote content that is not required by MOS:PLOT.hamiltonstone (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So comparing it to Halo 3 and Final Fantasy XIII, the text in the footnotes are longer than the both of them. I removed a few sources that I thought to be expendable and unnecessary. However I do believe that the ones for the "Setting" section to be necessary and helps source the section well. Also, I noticed that two of the larger footnotes have used more than once as a reference in the article so I think that it's okay for them to be the size that they are. GamerPro64 03:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me that if this point is resolved, and someone can deal with the fact tag at the end of the Characters section, then this nom might be ready to promote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly have no clue on what to do with that Citation Needed. It was added by Crisco who himself supports the nom. I personally think that having a citation for that part is not necessary but I'm not going to removed the tag mainly because someone else thought it did need one. GamerPro64 04:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added the {{fact}} tag as you are referencing all of the other characters, so I figured it would be best to standardise. It's not quite required by conventions on plots, but since you've already referenced everything else... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well the references used for the other characters was taken from the Anachronox website which has one blank space in the gallery. Makes me wonder who that was for. Wouldn't overall know what to use as a citation for that part in the article. GamerPro64 04:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So I used the first meeting of the character Detta as the reference for that part in the article. Does that work out? GamerPro64 22:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Now I just need to hear back from Hamiltonstone go see if the sourcing has the all clear. GamerPro64 06:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only possible sourcing issue I can see is the text in those early footnotes. I don't have the experience with game articles to call that particular point one way or the other, but the delegates probably do. I certainly think you've explained the rationale, and you've gone over them and trimmed where you think appropriate. That's good.hamiltonstone (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Hamilton and Gamer both have valid points: perhaps the quotes in the sources are more than is needed, particularly given they're in a plot section; OTOH other FAs (not just game articles) have used quotes in citations to help establish the veracity of the sourcing. I'm comfortable going with it as is for the purposes of this review. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think the bolding is called for in these notes.
I agree with you about the bolding for the platform part of the citations. But for Template:Cite video game, the example shown kinda implies that it's all right to bold the names of the characters. GamerPro64 21:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I checked the citations for the footnotes and I have no clue on how the platform part of the citations are bolded. I'm not sure if it's automatic or not. GamerPro64 21:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 80: "Anachronox Rumors Find Some Fact". IGN. 2000-07-12." - looks to me like it has an actual author (see bottom of item) who should be cited.
Added author to reference. GamerPro64 21:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 100: re o b l i v i o n level: is this OK as a reliable source?
I think the source is ok. I think it falls on the line of WP:SELFSOURCE. GamerPro64 21:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References are otherwise generally excellent. Unrelated to source comments: Caption (and indeed the picture itself) for first image (other than one in infobox) "Paco uses the GroundPound BattleSkill" is truly incomprehensible.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, like I said in Czar's comment above, a more representative screenshot may replace the one currently shown. GamerPro64 21:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Fairly short but I think comprehensive, this follows on from Elwyn Roy King, another article on an Australian fighter ace of World War I that I took to GAN a couple of years ago and expanded recently with some new sources. Like King, Phillipps left military flying after the armistice to run a business and raise a family, but joined the RAAF after the outbreak of World War II and died relatively young while commanding a training unit. Thanks to everyone who took part in the article's MilHist A-Class Review not long ago, and in advance to everyone who comments here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images are appropriately captioned and licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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) 13:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki and Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments from Nortonius
Lead
"He finished the war a major, commanding No. 6 (Training) Squadron in England. Leaving the AFC in 1919, he was managing a rural property when he enlisted in the RAAF soon after the outbreak of World War II." I think the beginning of the second sentence belongs at the end of the first: "... in England, and left the AFC in 1919. He was managing a rural property ..." I think you need to clarify where the rural property was here: he could still have been in England.
Tweaked to make clear he returned to Australia after the war.
Early life
Does Australian English have the participle "practicing", or should this be "practising"?
In the middle of the first sentence I would replace "; he" with just "and"; and I think "Successfully applying for a commission, Phillipps departed ..." would read better as "He applied successfully for a commission and departed ..."
Okay.
"the next month" and "the following month" – why not just name the months? I think it would read more easily.
If it's not that big a deal I kind of prefer to use those constructions now and then...
Fair enough – I don't think it's a big deal. Nortonius (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could "was not discharged from hospital" be shortened to "remained in hospital"? I looked at the refs and didn't see any reason why not; I fixed a page number while I was there and hope you agree with the change.[2]
Yep, no prob with that.
Australian Flying Corps
In the first sentence, I think "managed" looks a bit loose, something like "contrived" or "engineered" would be clearer.
Why not?
At the end of the second sentence, I think "to do so" looks redundant given the following: "The official age limit for pilots in the AFC was thirty, but the preferred age was under twenty-three." How old was Phillipps at this point? I would change that to "Phillipps was then aged twenty-five, and the official age limit for pilots in the AFC ..."
Since the bit about falsifying his age and the clarification about the age preference are from disparate sources I preferred to keep the statements separate.
I see what you mean. My main concern is that these statements beg the question of Phillipps' age at the time, which would be a simple statement of fact, no synthesis involved: he left hospital the day after his birthday, and his application was accepted a couple of months later. If you could work that in somehow I think it would be a help to the reader, perhaps add it in the sentence "After getting a taste of flying as a passenger ..."? Nortonius (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, see how it reads now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Phillipps' application was accepted in May ...": I would add the year here.
Agree, done.
"he had been forced to crash-land" – did he have a choice? If not, "he crash-landed". That sentence might read more easily as "Within three days of arriving he crash-landed his Airco DH.5 after it was hit by anti-aircraft fire near Ypres, but he escaped injury; by the time his attachment was completed in September he was leading combat patrols." Or you might split it.
Used your version.
About Phillipps' marriage, I see that St Mary Abbots is linked, but I note that there's a Kensington in NSW: maybe say "at the church of St Mary Abbots in Kensington, London".
Agree, done.
"Rejoining No. 2 Squadron the same month as a flight commander": this looks ambiguous to me (was someone else the flight commander?), and I'd change it to "Rejoining No. 2 Squadron as a flight commander within the month".
A squadron generally has at least two flights, and often three, so yes there would've been other flight commanders.
That's all for now, my ISP's playing up, or maybe my browser. Nortonius (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many tks for your comments so far, Nortonius. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. As my ISP or whatever seems to be behaving itself today, and my comments don't seem to have driven you to distraction, I'll have another look from where I left off. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments from Nortonius:
"strafing and bombing missions in the DH.5" – should that be "in a DH.5", or even "in DH.5s" if he didn't always fly in the same machine, or did they fix up the one he crash-landed, in which he continued to fly? If the latter, and the sources allow it, I think that needs a mention: if not, I'd go with "in a DH.5" or "in DH.5s".
Heh, that's a bit of militarese I guess -- the definite article is often used for the aircraft model even though it's not meant to mean an individual plane. Happy to change to "in DH.5s".
Should "Triplane" be capitalised? There are three examples in the article as I write, all referring to German aircraft. I see that there was a Sopwith "Triplane", where obviously it should be capitalised, but the linked Fokker aircraft is a "Dr.I", where I suppose it shouldn't.
I'm pretty sure Fokker Triplane is always capitalised even though it wasn't the official name.
I take it you mean in the sources for this article – in which case fair enough. Though, if each of the three instances involve Dr.Is, you might change the first to "Fokker Dr.I triplane" and remove the caps from the other two; it would have the benefit of making the type of Fokker explicit, but I'll leave that up to you. Nortonius (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I always prefer to use the terminology in the sources so if they just say Fokker Triplane, which they do in this case, then I don't explicitly mention a model either -- admittedly, I think there was only one model of Fokker Triplane, but it's the idea... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Three eleven-victory aces in a row! Ripping stuff. But I had to read it twice, seeing "eleven-victory" and "eleven victories" so close together: it might be smoother if you slip a harmless "also" in, saying "The feat also gave Phillipps a total of eleven victories ..." Or something like it.
Fair enough, although I'd prefer to avoid "also" in successive sentences. How does ""gave Phillips himself a total..." sound? Or I could say "also gave Phillips..." and then say "further contributed..." next sentence... WDYT?
Sorry, I didn't notice the subsequent "also" when I was looking at that, and agree. It would be nice if any of the sources indicate that this feat sealed the deal for his DFC: then you could say it "also gave Phillipps ..." and "It confirmed Phillipps' recommendation ...", which would be much neater; such wishful thinking(?) aside, I'd go with your second suggestion. Nortonius (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The recommendation explicitly mentioned his four-victory haul that day but it also mentioned another success, so in the end I decided to recast the sentence entirely. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think "second most successful" might be an improvement, preparing the reader for the fact that Captain Francis Smith was "No. 2 Squadron's most successful ace".
Okay -- just trying to think if there should be a hyphen or two in there...
I would much prefer no hyphens, and have just had a look at MOS:HYPHEN: it doesn't seem to cover this precise situation (hardly surprising, though you might compare the example "a very well managed firm" with no hyphens); but I think more careful consideration is unnecessary. Nortonius (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No argument from me! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Phillipps rotated back to England per Royal Air Force policy": "per" on its own looks a bit loose, should that be "as per", or "in accordance with"? I would prefer the latter as a bit more encyclopedic.
Will go the IAW route I think.
I think this is an excellent article. I admit that I've only checked references when I've felt the need. Otherwise it looks comprehensive: for example, it would be nice to know what sort of Albatros Phillipps shot down, but the related reference that I checked didn't say, so fair enough. It's well structured and I've enjoyed reading it: I'd never heard of Roy Phillipps before, thank you for introducing me so concisely to this interesting character. Nortonius (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A pleasure -- in all honesty, I hadn't heard of Phillips myself until I came to WP and began researching Australian WWI aces in some depth. Thanks again for taking the time to comment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing (I think!): the placement of the splendid image of Phillipps with his daughter Helen in England defeats the intended indentation of the "quote" template twice. I think it needs fixing but can't suggest how off-hand, other than to use Template:Quotation instead, but you might not like that for its borders. Nortonius (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I did give the quotation template a try but feel it breaks the flow of the article a bit too much. I grant you the quote template as it is doesn't indent but its font is a bit smaller than the main text (at least with my screen style) so I feel it stands out enough, without looking like a sore thumb... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sore thumbs not required: I think the "quotation" template probably would look out of place in an article of this length, and the text shows smaller for me too. So I'll leave that alone, absent any fix for the indentation from me. No further FAC questions that I can think of, happily changing to "support" given the foregoing. Nortonius (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I made a minor tweak in regards to year ranges, but otherwise nothing really stood out to me. I reviewed this at ACR and it has progressed since then also. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, piling on -- many tks guys! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- Normally I try not to augment content during a FAC but while researching a new article on Phillipps' World War II command, No. 2 Elementary Flying Training School, I did find info re. his RAAF career that I think is likely to be more accurate, as well as more detailed, than what was previously in this article, so I decided to incorporate it sooner rather than later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed number of columns is deprecated in {{reflist}} in favour of colwidth
Edition statements typically aren't italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Nikki, I think I've dealt with these. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about... a man of great brilliance, who rose to prominence in the legal profession on two continents, of whom, by his own choice, we know too little. Senator, Secretary of State for the Confederacy, English barrister: he had an incredible life, but he remains obscure. I have no hopes of doing anything about it except to write him the quality article he deserves.Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of those. Thank you for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great.
Support on prose and images. My prose issues were dealt with at PR last month, and the quality has only improved. Good work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you indeed for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I copyedited the article at Peer Review per my copyediting disclaimer, and it hasn't changed much since then. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minor comments Support from Taylor Trescott
Per WP:INITS, you should have a space in consecutive initials
I understood there was some discussion on this point. Was that the conclusion?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a space in the two instances in the article, unless I'm missing one.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"He also had diabetes." I think you should specify that this developed near the end of his life
Macmillan uses the same word, developed, so I've adopted it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some refs have dates (Meade 1943, Davis 1994) and others don't. Unless there's a reason there should be consistency
There are two works by Meade and two works by Davis. The date is for disambiguation.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Same with retrieval dates
As I understand it, they are not required if a linked work is unlikely to change, as a book or article in its final form. I've removed one, from Ginsburg's speech. If there's a particular one that you think should or should not have one, I'm willing to discuss.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unless it's just my end, the fourth external link is dead
Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support unreservedly. A highly absorbing article on which Icommented in detail at peer revew and therefore have nothing to add here. The story would make a superb film bio – I'm surprised that no one (as far as I know) has thought of it. What are your screenwriting credntals? Brianboulton (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review
The JSTOR sources require subscription templates
According to the linked source, "Catherine" MacMillan should be "Catharine"
Walter Stahr requires a publisher location
Otherwise, all sources are of appropriate quality and reliability and are properly formatted.
High praise indeed thank you very much I've dealt with the matters raised in the source review. I have no screenwriting credentials though a friend and myself have joked about a script. But I agree Benjamin lived an incredible life and the events of 1865 in particular would make quite the film.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have shifted the sub template from MacMillan (which doesn't need it) to Kahn, which does. Brianboulton (talk) 13:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I am working on my iPhone which gets better Internet access. The downside is with the small screen it's relatively easy to goof.--Wehwalt (talk)|
I'm surprised that you consider it is necessary to specify that a subscription is required for JSTOR sources. I had assumed that JSTOR was treated as ISBN and OCLC - the link doesn't allow access to the actual source. Only when the title is linked (using url=) was it necessary to warn the reader that a subscription is needed. Aa77zz (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to make sure Brianboulton sees this as he may no longer be watching this FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The link provides access to subscription holders. Linking the title is another way of doing the same thing. Brianboulton (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I thought I had already added my support, but it seems to have vanished into the ether. To repeat what I thought I had already said, as a peer reviewer I was thoroughly satisfied there, and remain vastly impressed by how well Wehwalt has pinned this fascinating but elusive character down. This is a seriously good article, and I don't know any online rival on the topic, free or on subscription, that comes close to it. FA all the way, and beyond. Tim riley talk 22:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you indeed I appreciate your words and your support--Wehwalt (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
A masterpiece of the Flemish Renaissance and one of Pieter Bruegel the Elder's last paintings, The Blind is notable for it's its unusual, dynamic composition, and may (or may not) contain some kind of political message. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Preliminary comments On a quick look, seems pretty good, but perhaps not using the full range of modern sources, many of which will be in French, Dutch or German. The unusual nature of the painting, as a pretty monumental depiction of a "low" subject one might expect at a smaller size, or conversely an allegory given a very realistic setting, must surely be covered in the sources you have. Landscape with the Fall of Icarus and The Peasant and the Nest Robber are (presumably) earlier stages in this progression. Pieter Aertsen should be mentioned in this connection. Generally, especially as our biography is so poor, the painting needs more explanation in its wider context of Bruegel's work.
You should quickly explain how the Farnese paintings came to be in Naples. I've seen the painting, which is indeed very memorable. The image is unfortunately rather pale - more so than the original as I remember it. I can send JSTOR stuff if that helps. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Okay, I've expanded on the provenance of the work. As a first stab, I'm thinking of replacing the first two paragraphs of "Background" with the following; please tell me what do you think:
Sixteenth-century Europe was undergoing many societal changes: the Protestant Reformation and its rejection of ostentatious religious imagery; the growth of humanism and its emphasis on empiricism at the expense of religious faith; and the growth of the middle class amidst the rise of mercantalism. It was a time of rapid advances in learning and knowledge, and a move towards the empirical sciences—the age of the heliocentric theory of Copernicus and of Gutenberg's printing presses. Several of Bruegel's contemporaries were leading minds in their fields; the cartography of Ortelius influenced the painting of landscapes, and the advances Vesalius brought to the study of anatomy via direct observation of dissected bodies motivated artists to pay greater attention to the accuracy of the anatomy depicted in their works.
Art came to be traded in open markets; artists sought to distinguish themselves with subjects different from traditional noble, mythological, and Biblical ones, and developed new, realistic techniques based on empirical observation. Classical literature provided precedents for dealing with "low" subjects in art. Genre art and its depiction of scenes of ordinary people in everyday life arose against this background.
Pieter Bruegel the Elder (c. 1525–69) had begun his career illustrating landscapes and fantastic scenes in a dense style that earned him a reputation as artistic heir to Hieronymus Bosch. He soon came to follow the example of another master: Pieter Aertsen had made a name for himself in the 1550s depicting everyday scenes in a highly realistic style, such as the detailed array of meat products that dominate his large Butcher's Stall of 1551. Bruegel's subjects became more quotidian and his style observational. He achieved fame for detailed, accurate and realistic portrayals of peasants, with whom his paintings were popular. He painted on inexpensive linen canvas and oak panel and avoided scenes of magnificence and portraits of nobility or royalty. The peasants Bruegel at first depicted were featureless and undifferentiated; as his work matured their physiognomy became markedly more detailed and expressive.
I've stripped out the refs for the above, but I do have refs for it all. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better. Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Do you mean it's fine like that, or is there something you'd add or change? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd appreciate anything you could throw at me. As for the size, I only came across something in passing that it was the largest of the year, but no further details, so I put it in a footnote. I'll see what I can find about the other stuff. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found more than you have now, in fact, though I haven't read them all. Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More Comments
That "Bruegel's was in the collection of Ferdinando Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua, Fetti's patron." (Legacy) should also be in "Provenance". But there seems something of a contradiction here: Ferdinando Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua was only Duke from 1612, the same year as "The Blind Leading the Blind and The Misanthrope were discovered in the collection of the Count Giovanni Battista Masi of Parma in 1612 when Ranuccio I ....". Does this work? Or was it the son's copy in Mantua?
According to this it looks like it was PB the Younger' copy that was in Mantua. Askew on says it was "Bruegel's The Blind Leading the Blind", without stating which Brueg(h)el. FixedCurly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lindsay and Huppé, pp. 384-5 make rather more of the not-very-impoverished clothes of the men. Worth expanding on? Ok, there's more later.
Caption "The Blind Leading the Blind has hung for centuries in the National Museum of Capodimonte in Naples, Italy." - essentially true (2.5 centuries anyway), but note the comings and goings of the French Revolutionary years in Museo di Capodimonte. I don't suppose we know where it was during that: with the king (who took 66 paintings), in central Naples or in Rome or Paris?
Changed "has hung for centuries" to simply "hangs". I couldn't confirm one way or the other where the painting was during the Revolutionary years. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The musical instrument of the leader is not mentioned; apparently a hurdy-gurdy. Some on that here, pp 274-5
I can't find any references to this, but Bosch's print also has the leader carrying a hurdy gurdy. Possibly this says something about it, but I can't access it. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 00:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brown isn't much of a source, & you can get all that elsewhere - eg Lindsay and Huppé, pp. 384-5. I'd drop him.
"The Blind Leading the Blind is considered one of the great masterpieces of painting." well, "often", or "sometimes" maybe, especially when your most recent ref is 1959.
"He painted on inexpensive linen canvas and oak panel" - oak panel was pretty expensive; canvas less so for a successful artist, but not remarkably cheap. What else would he have painted on? I think he sometimes used copper for small paintings - also pricey. I'm not sure what the point is here, or that the ref is expert in artists' materials & their cost.
I've dropped the whole bit about materials; I don't think it was important in the context if they weren't "iinexpensive". Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"By the early Renaissance such painted depictions of saints and miracles fell out of favour, particularly in Protestant lands.[19] Under Catholic influence, the blind and poor were the recipients of alms, but under Protestant thinking, such good deeds were not thought as any guaranteed way to heaven, and the path one's life took was believed the will of God." - could do with a bit of rewriting and linking; would you mind if I did it?
Support Happy to support; per above I have now made some edits myself. Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bible quote external links: I neither know or can easily find guidelines on quoting from the Bible, but it looks odd that we're linking to an external Bible-quote website rather than to a Wikisource or Wikiquote page or similar. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 18:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still use Bible Gateway, for which there is a special template, & is fine for FA. It has advantages over WikiSource, as you can skip between translations and languages very easily. Why should we prefer WMF projects if they are not the best for readers? Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prefiguring the advent of film: Does the painting, from 1568, prefigure the advent of film? OK, Joris Ivens said that "If Bruegel were alive today he would be a film director", but I wouldn't take that seriously. In the lead it reads "The diagonal composition reinforces the off-kilter motion of the six figures falling in progression, a concern with motion that has been seen as prefiguring the advent of film."Bus stop (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the statement really needs the context it's given in the body to be meaningful; there it's attributed to the critcs who proposed it, with their rationales. I've dropped it from the lead. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader has left Commons. Should this be replaced? There are other copies online, but they're all much lower quality. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily - there's a version here, maybe another in GBooks somewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced it with this for now. I can't access what you linked to, and I haven't had any luck tracking down something in the library to scan. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bible.malmesbury.arp.jpg: should include licensing tag for the original work as well.
Sorry, is that from a different review? It's not in the article. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is, in the portal bar at the bottom. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a special tag for works-within-works? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Several. The most likely in this situation is {{PD-art}}, but would depend whether you consider the 3D aspect of the photo original enough to generate a new copyright - if so, then the work and photo should be licensed separately. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close enough. The idea is that PD-art applies if the photo is considered a 2D representation ("a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art"), whereas if it's considered 3D you would use the separate licensing (life+100 for the bible itself, PD-self for the photo). Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a nomination for "featured article". As far as I understand, this is about it being a good article etc. Yet, the justification tells us not about the article, but about the theme of the article "A masterpiece of the Flemish Renaissance and one of Pieter Bruegel the Elder's last paintings, The Blind is notable for it's (sic) unusual, dynamic composition, and may (or may not) contain some kind of political message." Are we deciding based on that or on the qualities of the article? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The qualities of the article, of course. Do you believe it does not meet the criteria? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Curly Turkey. I have in fact looked at the article and made very brief notes that won't mean much to anyone. Unfortunately I don't have time right now. If you want, I can put these on your discussion page and my sandbox for you to try to make sense of them. Or I can just paste them here with the understanding that these are incomplete. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria did above. Still hunting for a source for Brueghel the Younger's copy (and hopefully a better file). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the Gospel of Matthew 15:14 - is this the right format? I think chapter/verse numbers are usually after a simple "Mathew"
inexpensive linen canvas and oak panel - should this be plural?
They're countable when talking about individual items, but uncountable when talking about a material. Either would work in the context, delivery slight, unimortant differences in nuance. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is the earliest surviving painting to depict the Biblical parable of the blind leading the blind from the Gospel of Matthew 15:14. - How does this fit in with the Netherlandish proverbs?
Hmmm ... perhaps Hagen & Hagen meant it was the earliest in which the parable was the main focus. I've dropped it, rather than try to reinterpret their words. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bruegel's son Pieter Brueghel the Younger painted a larger copy with extra details, including a flock of sheep, that hangs in the Louvre. - If we know he added his own touches, how can we be sure the herdsman was in the original?
You can actually see bare traces of the herdsman and the backs of the cattle in the original (it's too bad we don't have a larger image, though). I don't know how the experts know there were no sheep in the original. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, though hidden text might help in case readers get confused by the same point. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Brueghel or Bruegel? (check your footnotes)
Both actually—born Brueghel, he changed the spelling for reasons unknown partly through his career, but his offspring retained the original spelling. A constant source of confusion—notice how Williams Carlos Williams gets the spelling wrong. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just the one point above (wife). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Only one minor issue, introduced in your recent fixes: Pieter Coecke van Aelst should be linked on first mention, not further below. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arrgh—got lost in the navigation, can't tell up from down. Fixed now. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Good read on an important painting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support. Its a fine article, but I'll like to give it another look today or tomorrow. Ceoil (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I dont like the block formatted poems, espically in the final section. I'm not sure how much they add. The article is excellent overall. Ceoil (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have read through a few times, and now a support [my last issue is not a deal breaker]. Nice work. Ceoil (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Hamiltonstone. One quibble:
"He does not dress them in the peasant clothes that typifies his later work". Should read "He does not dress them in the peasant clothes that typify his later work" i think. But the sentence of course begs the question: what are they wearing, and this is not answered, until it is discussed much later in the article - if this sentence is to stand, it should be followed by something, if biref, about what they are wearing.
Thought the article was otherwise excellent. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I've reworded—hopefully the line is better now. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 04:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- Source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
I added a missing ISBN.
re: Hagen, Rose-Marie; Hagen, Rainer (2003). "A Downward Path: Pieter Bruegel the Elder: The Blind Leading the Blind 1568". What Great Paintings Say. Taschen. pp. 190–196. ISBN978-3-8228-1372-0. - this appears to be a section in a book written by the Hagens, not a chapter written by them in an edited volume edited by either them or someone else. So I am not sure what the approach to reference formatting is, that leads to a single chapter being singled out for naming in this reference, but not for any other?
Well, I guess I thought it was more useful to link to the chapter since it was a chapter on the painting, and the book wasn't otherwise used. I've commented out the "|chapter=" parameter. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't seem to be a consistent logic to the decision on whether or not to wikilink the names of publishers - some are, some aren't, and one is redlinked.
In the section on journal articles there are two by Sullivan. One has the journal name hyperlinked, the other not. One has the journal publisher named, the other not, one has doi and jstor codes, the other not. Can this be rectified?
Fixed (though one was from Questia, so no JSTOR code). Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about a film "civilised" enough for European audiences, and thus civilised enough for our Anglophone readers. Want to know more? The link is right above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support from Taylor Trescott
Not much to pick at here. It's short but well done.
Is "Advertisement, Surabaya" the ad from the Courant? The current wording of that caption is a little confusing.
Yes, I've used that wording for most of my recent articles on the period, but I guess the style used in Gagak Item may be clearer (changed). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The review in De Indische Courant was positive, describing Soeara Berbisa as a tense film with humorous moments and beautiful scenery. It ended with a recommendation that young people and their parents see the film." This paragraph seems too short. Maybe it could be combined with the first one in that section, since that is also about the Courant.
open to all ages—would "licensed" or "classified" be more accurate than "open"?
rated for
...Native and Dutch audiences—why is "Native" capped?
Surprised that this has taken so long to come up (considering I've used the term in several previous FAs). "Native" is shorthand for Native Indonesians here. It avoids the anachronism "Indonesian" (not official at the time, but politically charged with pro-Nationalist connotations), the glossing required for "Pribumi" or "Bumiputra" (the Indonesian/Malay terms for Native Indonesians), and the possible misidentification if I name just one of the 600+ ethnic groups in the archipelago. As this is a specific term with a specific meaning, I've gone with "Native" (with a capital N) similarly to how some Americans write Black (capital B) when referring to people of African descent. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Union's second-last —"penultimate"? (not a big deal)
world of indigenous sports—Is your synopsis missing something? The only mention of sport is "The young athlete Mitra..."
As I mentioned at the GA review, the one-sheet doesn't go into more detail about what sport the character played, and I doubt there would have been too many scenes of him playing it (considering how busy the main plot is). Sadly not that much info available; no novelisation AFAIK. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Jim. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, and hope your internet gets better soon. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: a couple of very minor copy edits undertaken—feel free to revert if you don't like them. Very nicely put together and eminently worthy of a gold star. - SchroCat (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Thank you for reviewing, Schro. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sources look to be at the appropriate standard for a film article at FAC, but since all but one are in Indonesian or Dutch, I am essentially limited to quibbles about format.
Although I managed to crack it eventually, I found some difficulty in relating the references to the "works cited". Part of the problem is that some of the references, e.g. 1, 5 and 9, are double citations. This had me foxed for a while; it might be clearer if you divided these references into separate citations.
I prefer combining the footnotes when more than one reference is cited, as I've done in previous FAs such as Terang Boelan. This allows the text to read more cleanly and appears more professional (at least to the average reader) than having [a][1][2][3] — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that Biran 1979 is in Indonesian, like the other two Birans?
Obviously I've not been able to carry out any spotchecks, but other than the points I've raised, all seems well. Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about one of Australia's best-known and commercial wildflowers grown for cut flower production around the world. Damn impossible to grow.....maybe if I buff it to FA I will be able to grow it....anyway, I think it is at or very near FA status so tell me what else is needed. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Banksia_coccinea_(Illustrationes_Florae_Novae_Hollandiae_plate_3).jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag
source updated, link now live, US PD tag updated too. sorry re delay.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Australia_Western_Australia_location_map.svg (source for map): source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments by Jim Just a few quibbles, otherwise very sound Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Book refs. Locations are inconsistent. Some are by country, some by Australian state (both occurring even with Oz sources), at least one missing.
Oz sources all states now. Two missing locations added.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
white or grey sand— neither in the lead or the text is it made clear what property of these sands makes them more suitable than others, presumably can't be just the colour.
need to read up on this - not even sure what to redlink for the moment.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
particularly in the vicinity of Albany— I've been to Albany and Denmark! Anyway, it's not clear why this small town is particularly suitable
Albany's pretty much the largest regional centre..not sure why plants are taller there - sources don't say.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
German botanist Adalbert Schnizlein described it as B. purpurea in 1843.— surely this lonely little para could be rolled into the preceding or following?
Although I highlighted the sand and Albany issues, I appreciate that there may not be simple answers, so I'll leave those with you and change to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment from Hamiltonstone
"Truncate at the apex, they have dentate margins" any chance of wikilinks for either of those terms?
"The distinctive inflorescences are terminal". I don't want to encourage a sea of blue links, but in everyday English, i would read this as meaning that the unique flowerlike bits are guaranteed to kill the plant...
linked first - need to figure out second...."terminal" means arising out of the ends of the stems (as opposed to "axillary" or "cauliflorous") and is clarified in the subsequent clause. So how to incorporate meaning without sounding repetitive....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 07:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that works for me - the word "terminal" is not notable or detailed enough and a simple description is fineCas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"an average count of around 286 individual flowers". Since flowers don't come in fractions (one either has one or one doesn't), how can it be "around" 286?
the flower counts of the inflorescences in the original paper were an estimation - the figure for average was 286±14 IIRC, so I thought "around 286" was the most accessible and accurate without flooding the reader with numbers.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This needs some work: "George placed Banksia coccinea in its own series—Banksia series. Coccineae—within the section B. sect. Banksia on account of a unique combination of characters: the unusual vertical arrangement of flowers on the spike is a trait only seen in the series Quercinae and five species within the series Spicigerae, neither of which shares in whole the branched open habit, broad leaves and very small follicles." I couldn't follow this. I think it's because I thought the full stop after "Banksia series." was the end of a sentence. I still don't get why it's there. Then as a whole, the sentence is too long. Plus the word "neither" is attached to "five", which doesn't make sense... and that's just the problems I can articulate. Can you have a go at completely rewording this passage? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's better - but we still need to get rid of the full stop after the word "series", otherwise it still appears as though that is the end of a sentence. I don't know why it is there since it does not appear to be abbreviating a word - either delete it or change it to "ser." hamiltonstone (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, have unabbreviated and removed some periodsCas Liber (talk·contribs) 00:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the comment above that it seems odd that the colour of the sand is important...did you find anything more out about this?
tricky finding a decent overview - I found this and this but am not confident yet. Damn, need to sort out supporting pages....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This needs tweaking: "Applying phosphite to infested areas has been shown to reduce the mortality rates to around 50%.[39] It has shown some symptoms of toxicity to application of phosphite, with some patchy necrosis of leaves, but the uptake of the compound is somewhat lower compared with other shrubs. Unusually, the symptoms did not appear to be proportional to exposure levels". What is the "It" at the start of the second sentence. The Banksia? The infective agent? And i don't think one shows symptoms of toxicity "to" something. The clause "but the uptake..." doesn't seem to follow from the grammar of the phrases that precede it. And the last sentence appears to be in a different tense to the ones before it. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One more i think. Can i just check... "This immune response, coupled with the fact that it had not been observed in the wild, led them to believe it was not a major pathogen of the species.[41] This species has since been reclassified and named as Luteocirrhus shearii." Can I check that the three words "it" "it" and "this" all refer to the species of Zythiostroma that was subsequently named Luteocirrhus shearii? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yep - would it help to convert the fullstop before footnote 41 to a semicolon?Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 06:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes.
I'm happy with this, but hope that Cas's searches shed more light on the sand colour thing! hamiltonstone (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments from Melburnian.
Looking good, my quibbles are of a minor nature:
Sitting atop 3–5 mm (0.1–0.2 in) long petioles - gives the impression that the leaves are bolt upright
changed to "with" but mused on "on" or "growing from"...none of them exactly right - any suggestion welcome (using "with" as the most apt I can think of)Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Banksia coccinea was described by German botanist Adalbert Schnizlein as B. purpurea in 1843 - sounds like he didn't like the name and randomly changed it just for the heck of it. This needs rewording and a bit of context.
Was tempted to leave it out as it is very obscure and not mentioned elsewhere/ Will look to see if I can find some more info, but for now reworded to give better picture.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 14:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- Closing without detailed source review; nothing leapt out on my quick scan just now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
You meet a man, marry him after four weeks, enjoy it for four days, then farewell him for the Western Front, never to see him again. Meet Hilda Rix Nicholas, one of Australia's most promising artists of the Edwardian era. Her career was ultimately harmed by the emotional trauma of her experience of the Great War, and the conservatism of rural Australia. Like fellow Victorian Florence Fuller, her work lapsed into obscurity, though is now being rediscovered. Like Fuller, Wikipedia had no article on her at all until recently. I hope you find her interesting. Thanks to Casliber and others for comments at GA. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Looked good then and looks good better now..cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
"She was one of the first Australians to paint post-impressionist landscapes" - source?
FN77: publication wikilink doesn't go to the right place
De-linked, there is no appropriate target. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Compare publishers for Hoorn and Pigot. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The different locations faithfully reproduce how the publisher described them in the two books. They were published twelve years apart, so maybe they moved. I have modified the publisher to match, however. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and MoS; I checked one or two sources for paraphrasing and accuracy but most are unavailable to me so couldn't do much there. Also not qualified to judge comprehensiveness and balance, though it seems thorough and I don't sense any biases. Comments. I'll leave notes here as I go through the article. I've completed a pass through; the article is in great shape and I expect to support when the points below are addressed.
"Following the death of her father in 1907, Rix, ...": I think "Rix" is confusing here, since her father was also Rix, and as I read the sentence I initially tried to parse it that way. How about "Following the death of her father in 1907, her mother and her only sibling Elsie travelled with her to Europe ..."? Then you could use "Rix" instead of "she" in the next sentence.
I wrestled with this sentence before. Am trying this. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1926, Rix Nicholas returned to Australia, and in 1928 she married Edgar Wright, whom she had met during her travels in the early 1920s, and the couple settled at Delegate, New South Wales": two consecutive "and"s is ugly -- how about making the last clause a separate sentence?
"Henry was a mathematics teacher, appointed a district Inspector of Schools in the 1880s, and a poet who wrote in support of Australian Federation": the middle clause reads like a modifier of "mathematics teacher" on first reading, to me at least. How about "Henry, a mathematics teacher, was appointed a district Inspector of Schools in the 1880s; he was also a poet who wrote in support of Australian Federation, and he played Australian Rules Football for ..."?
I assume the note on the Austral Salon is in quotes because it's impossible to paraphrase sufficiently, but it reads oddly to have the verb inside the quotes. I think the fact that she was a committee member is essentially unparaphrasable, so you could move the quotes to before "a meeting place", which would look less odd.
"Hilda was enthusiastic at drawing": I don't think "enthusiastic at" is common usage, unless you tell me it's standard in Australian English. Without seeing the source I am not sure what to suggest; but "was enthusiastic about drawing, and particularly liked drawing portraits and figures" might work. Was she taking drawing lessons of any kind, or was this self-taught?
Changed. i don't think we know about lessons at that early stage. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Attending high school at Melbourne Girls Grammar (known as Merton Hall), her art drew praise": dangling modifier; her art didn't attend high school.
Not quite -- we now have her efforts attending high school. Perhaps "while she was attending"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed this myself and have struck; let me know if you don't like the fix. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and the trip threatened never to eventuate": a bit polysyllabic for a straightforward event; perhaps "for a time it appeared the trip might not happen" or "for a time it appeared the family would not be able to afford the trip"?
"Among the many artists painting there was Frenchman Jules Adler, who took an interest in Rix's work, as well as many Australians": the repetition of "many" is a bit ugly. I think the first one could be cut; the second "many" describes a subset of the first, so the reader would understand that both are "many".
The blockquote in the Moroccan section doesn't indent because of the picture on the left. I think it would be better to move the picture of Streeton to the left of the section above, and then move the picture of the detail of Men in the Market Place, Tangier to the right; that would show the indent and would also alternate the images left and right, which is often a more attractive layout.
I don't follow the point made in the sentence that begins "Later that same year, the gendered approach...." Why does the fact that the Australian War Memorial acquired one work by her but not another demonstrate anything about gender? Is it because the picture they acquired was of a woman? If so, I think this should be clearer; I also think that if this is citable only to one source it should be given as opinion: e.g. "Pigot believes...."
In the "Second Trip to Europe" section, "The result of this is not recorded" is not cited. Is that because it's your assertion, since you can find no source? If so I think this isn't the best way to interject this information, because the voice suddenly because that of the article writer. How about a note, instead, which says something like "None of the standard biographical references on Rix record the outcome of the competition"?
"Internationally, as well as those works held by the Luxembourg, Rix Nicholas is represented in the Galerie nationale du Jeu de Paume and Leicester Gallery": I think this would be better as "Internationally, Rix Nicholas is represented in the Galerie nationale du Jeu de Paume and Leicester Gallery, as well as by those works held by the Luxembourg", though that does give a repetition of "by". Perhaps just "as well as by the Luxembourg", since the reader should recall the earlier mentions.
Leaning support, I think the prose could be thighter; its a bit vague here and there, but very much interested. Would like to give this a c/e. Ceoil (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ceoil. Two things for you to check. These are the copyedits in response to Mike Christie's review. This is one making changes to an edit of yours - your expression was an improvement, but introduced what I felt were a couple of stylistic glitches that I wanted to iron out. See what you think, and let me know if you have any other thoughts! PS - yes, the claim re Matisse is weak, but despite Hoorn's extensive research on this connection, she was unable to be absolutely definitive. Given the importance of Matisse in artistic innovation and art circles of the period, the possibility that he had some direct influence on Australian art through this connection with Rix is regarded as significant, hence its inclusion. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for sticking my nose in, but with respect to the claim re Matisse, I think it would be good to clarify in the article why the reference to Matisse is significant -- you explain it here but the article doesn't mention the connection as it stands -- it only connects them by location, not by the possibility of influence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. After much fiddle-faddling, I came up with this. See what you think.hamiltonstone (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me; I won't strike anything as it was Ceoil's original comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support from me, any roads. Ceoil (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to my world, doing articles on early twentieth century artists, where all anyone asks (until I reach FAC) is "can't you illustrate this with their works?"hamiltonstone (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it was taken in Australia - it probably was in fact taken in the UK. It already has a US tag. I've removed the Aus tag.
If it was in the UK, then we need proof of publication (for anonymous works and US works) and/or a date of death of the creator. Otherwise this may still be copyrighted in the UK/US. PD-1923 is only for works which we can conclusively show were published before 1923. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't resolve this issue - the image is held in Australia, but the photographer is unknown so we cannot show conclusively that we can meet the UK or French copyright requirements (the two countries other than Oz where this may have been taken). So I have switched the image out and replaced it with another pre-1923 photo that was taken in Australia and thus meets the US requirements of being PD / not having a restored copyright. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, the new one is fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although it could use some categories. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the rationale for this with Men in the Market Place. The policy doesn't specify a particular level of resolution, and as this is an image of a fragment of the work, it presents no commercial opportunity that I can see. I take the point regarding In Australia.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I downloaded some software that let me change the sampling of a jpeg (i didn't have anything to do that with previously), and have now downsampled In Australia. Strangely, it now looks like complete crap in my own image viewer, but the changes seem minimal when viewed in WP. A mystery to me. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Not seeing the rationale because I accidentally gave the wrong link. WP:IMAGERES says "most common pictorial needs can be met with an image containing no more than about 100,000 pixels (0.1 megapixels), obtained by multiplying the horizontal and vertical pixel dimensions of an image". The current files are 462.7k (In Australia) and 216.4k (Men). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolution doesn't mean the amount of compression, but the actual number of pixels. I.e. 300*400, or 600*720, or whatever. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Changed resolution (not compression) of Men in the market place, and In Australia. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
have removed the Luxembourg facade image (which was pretty useless anyway) and replace it with In Australia so that it is in a more appropriate location. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know the year the work was created, but not when it was first exhibited or published (though it is highly likely to be pre-1923). Per life of artist plus 70 years, this is not out of copyright in Australia.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which would affect the ability to host the file on Commons, but not the English Wikipedia (currently we are only required to follow US copyright law on the English Wikipedia). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But since the work is located in Australia, how would one obtain a non-copyright image in the first place?hamiltonstone (talk) 00:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights ("While Wikipedia prefers content that is free anywhere in the world, it accepts content that is free in the United States even if it may be under copyright in some other countries."). It's a "loophole" (for the lack of a better term) that some want to close but I prefer to have open. Hence why we can have free images of buildings pretty much anywhere in the world (US FOP laws), including featured images of a Russian university. In an art context, we have File:František Kupka - Katedrála - Google Art Project.jpg as an example. To host the image locally as a free file we (Wikipedia) wouldn't need to worry about Australian copyright law... we'd just need proof of publication before 1923. Mind, this certainly passes the NFCC, and it can be kept as a non-free file once it's downsampled. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not sure if I'm missing a point here. I get why Wikipedia would not be breaking copyright law hosting the image. But wouldn't I (being within Australia) be breaking the law acquiring and transferring that image to Wikipedia? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That, I'll admit, is the rub. If we had proof of publication, I could upload a copy to Wikipedia... but it's probably simplest to just keep it as a non-free image for now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images are fine. Do you want me to delete the old versions of the downsampled files? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great, but if you could tell me how to do that / point me to the page that explains how, that would also help, so next time I don't have to ask the favour :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You kinda have to be an admin to delete on your own, but once you are it'll be pretty simple . Otherwise you could tag with {{Orphaned non-free revisions}} — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article for Electra Heart by Marina and the Diamonds recently passed its good article review after my rewriting earlier in April and May. The article now thoroughly discusses its conception, musical direction, accompanying music videos (which were essential in the development of this promotional campaign), and unbiased summaries of critical reviews and sales performance. It is fully supported by reputable sources with inline citations where they are needed. I believe the article is ready for FA consideration, and will be readily available to respond to any comments that come about during this process! WikiRedactor (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: WikiRedactor. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The composition section just reads like another reception section. It's not the place where you should describe tracks as "mediocre electropop". There are no musical samples in the article, nor are there clearly labelled external links for the songs/music videos. - hahnchen 00:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hahnchen: Thanks so much for stopping by and leaving some comments; I replaced the picture of Marina in the "Composition" section with samples of "Primadonna" and "Power & Control", and replaced portions of the section with more in-depth analysis. I also created an "External links" section that features links to all of the music videos released for this era. When you have a moment, I'd appreciate it if you could give me your thoughts on these revisions. WikiRedactor (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm confused by the article's organisation. It starts with the album's recording, and then jumps forward to the release of promo videos and singles. That same section then describes the artwork, before the next one talks about the music. Then we come back to a repetitive ("On <date>, <video name> was released") three-paragraph look at the music videos, sourced almost entirely to the YouTube videos themselves, i.e. primary sources.
Then we come to another section where we look at the singles and the videos. A critical review follows, and then there's a detailed look at the chart performance (already looked at for the singles previously in Release... and Singles...), which is anyway elegantly presented as a table later.
There is simply too much back-and-forth here. All you need to do for an album article is to present the information chronologically—Background and recording; Composition; Release and promotion; Reception. The problem here is that the promotion and commercial-performance stuff is all over the place, spread across the article in four sections. Bring them (videos, artwork, singles, tours and chart performance) together chronologically in one "Release and promotion" section (subsectioned if needed), and you can get rid of all lot of the repetition and back-and-forth.—indopug (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Indopug: Thank you for your feedback, it is greatly appreciated. I've merged the "Release and artwork" and "Singles and promotion" sections into one streamline "Release and promotion" section, which is chronologically divided into "Music videos", "Singles", and "Tour" subheadings. In the process, I was able to remove some redundant information, which gives the article a better flow. I have also tried to mix up some of the more repetitive phrases in the "Music videos" section. When you have the chance, I'd appreciate it if you could take a took and get back to me with your further concerns. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some things I noticed real quick before I take a thorough look at the article:
On the certifications table, insert the parameter "nosales=yes" on Certification Table Bottom as neither certification is based on sales.
Done
No year-end charts for other countries?
Unfortunately not! I double-checked the charts websites for territories where it originally got a weekly chart position, but I couldn't find anything, not even in the UK!
Repetitive use of "Writing for..." well as "from..." on the critical reception section. Some suggested alternatives: "[reviewer name] of [name of source] said/note/etc." or "[reviewer name] editor [name of source] said/wrote/etc."Erick (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done
I'll have another look tomorrow at the article for another check. Erick (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a Support on everything else except for the prose. Not because it's bad or anything, but because I'm not an expert on that area. Erick (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are duplicate links throughout the body of the article. Run a script so you can fix them.
My apologies, would you mind showing me where I can find this?
Lead
Electra Heart is the second studio album by Welsh recording artist Marina and the Diamonds; it was released on 27 April 2012 by 679 Artists and Atlantic Records. ---> Can we get rid of the ; and just merge the sentences?
Done
Contemporary music critics could be cut to music critics only.
Done
Nonetheless, the project was ---> I find Nonetheless redundant here.
Quick comment For me having three audio samples is quite too much. — Simon (talk) 09:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Support Every of your article is just brilliant! Simon (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My idea was to include a brief sample of each of the three singles (all of which are 65 kbps or lower), which all mildly vary in style. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. But all three samples do not follow WP:SAMPLE. For example, the sample of "Primadonna" is 30 secs, but original song length is 3:41 so the maximum length for the sample is only 22 secs. — Simon (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing this out; I've shortened all of the samples to 20 seconds in length. WikiRedactor (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support—It looks like all the issues with the article have been addressed, everything looks good. Great work, Wiki! Giacobbetalk 16:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think the first para of "Background and production" is very quote heavy, especially so due to the inclusion of a quote box. I think you can break down the tumblr thing quote and paraphrase a few bits.
I paraphrased several of the longer quotes.
" it was initially planned to become a three-piece film inspired by American culture in the 1970s, although it eventually evolved into her second studio album" - Does the source really mention this? I am sorry I haven't read the entire thing but I think she meant that the album is supposed to flow like a film?
I clarified the language a bit, hopefully this straightens things out.
" Diamandis stated that Electra Heart was influenced by recording artist Madonna, sex symbol Marilyn Monroe, and queen Marie Antoinette; she described the former as being "fearless" and felt that "it shows that [she doesn't] want to just have fame and success. [She wants] to be a successful artist."" - Here 'former' would refer to both Madonna and Marilyn. Hence you will have to replace former as she seems to be talking about Madge only.
Done.
Yes this article is very quote heavy. I think it needs some paraphrases.
I redid the parts of the "Background and composition" section that you recommended, and I also paraphrased some pieces in the "Composition" section.
Shouldn't the release table of the music videos also contain sources?
I removed that altogether because it looks like it was added in recently that I had not realized earlier.
" although opined that Lana Del Rey was more successful in discussing "love, identity, femininity and America" - this seems wrong. I think it should be 'opining'
The sentences starts off with "Kitty Empire assumed xyz", so I think that the second portion of the sentence should use the past tense of "opine", although I could be mistaken!
How does the quote in the commercial performance section relate to its chart performance? It seems to be more related to public reaction. I suggest incorporating it into the Critical reception section or somewhere and paraphrasing some things she said to give it a little more weight.
I paraphrased what she said towards the end of the "Commercial performance" section and tied it in more directly with its "under-performance" in the United Kingdom, which I think gives the quote a bit more meaning in the section.
I hope you have not directly taken anything from a source without changing the words or putting it in quotes. I suggest doing a run through just to check.
I went through the entire article to make sure that I addressed the excessive quote-farming that you pointed out, and made sure to paraphrase longer quotes throughout.
As soon as these changes are addressed I shall give my support. The only major short coming seems to be the overuse of quotations. Otherwise it's a great article and very interesting to read indeed. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@WonderBoy1998: Thanks so much for your feedback! I believe I've addressed all of your comments above, although if I have missed something you would like to see corrected by all means let me know! WikiRedactor (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay these changes have been addressed well. Just one more thing I forgot to mention is the constant use of "throughout" throughout the article lol. Also this sentence "According to James Christopher Monger from AllMusic, the following track "Primadonna" blended elements of Swedish recording artist Lykke Li with styles reminiscent of British band Coldplay;[14] the pop track blends a "surging beat" with an "anti-chorus structure"" contains repetition of "blend" and "elements of Swedish recording artist Lykke Li" doesn't really sound right. Try using words like "inspire" or why don't you simply make it " blended with styles reminiscent of British band Coldplay and Swedish recording artist Lykke Li" --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@WonderBoy1998: I've mixed up the usage of "throughout" across the article and reworded the sentence that you pointed out above; please let me know what you think of this revision. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I saw the difference between revisions and I am happy with the article now. There is just one place where it mentions "during the album" which sounds incorrect. I'm sure you'll amend it, hence I hasten to support. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I applaud the work you've done, WikiRedactor, and this is quite close to being FA! Here are some suggestions to polish this even further:
"announced her then-upcoming concept Electra Heart" → "first announced Electra Heart"
Done
"although she was denied said option by her management company" would read better as "though her management did not approve" or "though her management disapproved"
Done
Not too sure we need to mention Britney Spears' occupation, and she should only be linked in her first mention
@XXSNUGGUMSXX: Thanks for stopping by, when you have the opportunity please let me know what you think of these corrections! WikiRedactor (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! As for Pitchfork, I was saying that it should be linked in review box and in reception section. However, I just went and fixed that myself and removed extra links to Katy Perry and The Guardian :P. I'll finish with these general notes:
When using multiple refs to the same source (i.e. multiple MTV refs), only the first instance such a ref is used should link the work/publisher
If an author/critic of a ref being used has his/her own Wikipedia article, link to that author's article in the ref by using the "authorlink" field (but only in the first instance this author is used for a ref). If you aren't sure how to use this, I can set it up for you.
@XXSNUGGUMSXX: I've taken care of all of the authorlinks, thanks for pointing this out! WikiRedactor (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! One additional thing I noticed is how "Entertainmentwise" needs to be replaced/removed. After that, I will officially support. Might make minor copyedits myself at some point, but nothing to worry about. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 23:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@XXSNUGGUMSXX: I've replaced Entertainmentwise with Digital Spy, thanks for noticing that! WikiRedactor (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. After some well-done fixes I now officially support :)! Snuggums (talk • contributions) 05:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw this nomination today, you could have asked me to comment. :) Anyway:
In the lead section: "consequently" → "subsequently" (you're implying that she started recording pop music because of her producers)
Done
You should try reducing the "1;2" sentences. There are no problems with those sentences, however you could try omitting the semi-colon and utilizing the gerund more frequently. (almost all the sections in the article contain this sort of sentence)
Done
All the file samples state, in their fair use rationale, that they're all lead singles from Electra Heart... also, they're a bit lacking, they should be stronger (talk a bit about their sound; they're important to demonstrate the album's electropop sonority to the readers, etc). Moreover, are three samples needed (varying mildly isn't justification)? Maybe the sample of "Power and Control" is unnecessary...
Done, although I removed "How to Be a Heartbreaker" instead.
"[...] has been described [...]" (cite The National ref next to the end of this sentence)
Done
"incorporated prominent elements of new wave and indie rock music." → "incorporated a new wave and indie rock influenced sonority" (I think "prominent elements" is a bit weird) [this is just a suggestion]
Done
Is MuuMuse reliable? (this affects a lot of content)
MuuMuse has been discussed in The New York Times, while Stern himself has also contributed to MTV Buzzworthy. It think it is alright to keep its use limited to two song commentaries and an opinion about the album cover, although if this is a sticking point I will certainly find another citation!
"blended" → "blends"
Done
The first two sentences of Composition are structured like "The song/style/lyrics, which critic X [...]". Spice up one of the sentences.
Done
"Cragg also classified" (remove also, it's not necessary to the sentence)
Done
"The sixth track "The State of Dreaming" was seen as a more solemn offering from the record by Monger" (very, very ambiguous sentence. Was "The State of Dreaming" seen by Monger as a solemn offering; was the song seen as a solemn offering by an unspecified entity from an album by Monger; was the song seen from the album by Monger [the list could go on...])
Done
In case you confirm that MuuMuse is an RS: did Diamandis confirm that "The Valley of the Dolls" drew inspiration from the movie? If not, please clarify ["according to (editor) from MuuMuse"]
"placed emphasis" → "[...], according to him, places [...]"
Done
"the clip itself reflects on the earlier music videos" (clarify that it contains excerpts from the videos)
Done
"with Diamandis having tweeted "Goodbye, Electra Heart!" on 8 August" (and when was the video released?)
Done
"; however," (change the semi-colon to a comma)
Done
"acknowledged" → "considered"/"opined"
Done
"Representing The Observer, Kitty Empire assumed that Diamandis' collaborations with Dr. Luke and Greg Kurstin were evidence of "a big label push"; she compared the disc to the works of Perry and Britney Spears, although opined that Lana Del Rey was more successful in discussing "love, identity, femininity and America."" (break the sentence in two from the semi-colon. Did she compare the album positively or negatively to the works of the other artists? If it was negatively, you need to remove the 'although'.
Done
"nearly inducing "physical pain"," (a bit strange)
Done
"under-performance" (remove the hyphen)
Done
"which resulted in its relative under-performance" (another ambiguous sentence. perhaps ", thus resulting in a relative underperformance"
Done
"; in contrast, she felt that her American audience was more receptive of Electra Heart and her evolving public image" (make this a new sentence)
Done
Sorry for the big list! Let me know when you correct those points, and feel free to respond to any of those if you feel they are incorrect. — prism△ 20:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prism: Thanks for your suggestions, please check back to make sure that I've addressed all your comments to your satisfaction! WikiRedactor (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Just one more question: when talking about "The State of Dreaming"'s video, why do you say "effectively" (it's a bit non-NPOV) and say that Diamandis' "alter-egos" are displayed? The only reference you give is the video itself and that's not enough for that. However I do trust you and I won't let this get in the way of this FAC. I give you my support; brilliant work. — prism△ 22:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prism: I've added another reference for the video and removed the word "effectively"; thank you for your support! WikiRedactor (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Electra Heart is the second studio album by Welsh recording artist Marina and the Diamonds, released on 27 April 2012 by 679 Artists and Atlantic Records. Diamandis..." -- I don't think you can just go from "Marina and the Diamonds" to "Diamandis" like that. The uninitiated have to check the Marina and the Diamonds link to find out that what appears to be a band name is in fact her stage name and they shouldn't have to. One way around it might be to recast as "Electra Heart is the second studio album Welsh singer-songwriter Marina Diamandis, recording as Marina and the Diamonds, released on 27 April 2012 by 679 Artists and Atlantic Records. Diamandis..."
Done
Pls review your duplicate links -- you can use this script to highlight them.
Wow, what a nifty little tool! Thanks so much for pointing this out to me.
Has anyone reviewed image licensing?
I'm not sure, although the only two images are the album artwork and a picture of Diamandis that has been released by a Wikimedia Commons user under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.
@Ian Rose: Thanks for your suggestions; I believe I've addressed all of your comments above, although by all means let me know if there is anything else to be done! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All good, especially your variation on my suggestion for the opening. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the album cover is accepted through the guidelines established for US fair use of artwork; it is also of reduced size and would not be able to affect the intended commercial outcomes of Atlantic Records and its subsidiaries.
The second image, uploaded by a trustworthy user on Wikipedia Commons, has a free license and its use is also accepted. — prism△ 16:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The royal baccarat scandal, or Tranby Croft Affair, is one of those particularly British scandals: royalty, high society, no sex, a pantomime villain and some of the finest sideburns seen in legal history. It involved allegations of cheating at a country house game of cards against a wealthy, respected soldier (and philanderer), some poor and shoddy footwork by royal advisers, and a court case at which the heir to the throne was forced to make an appearance. A stellar cast appeared at peer review to give advice and assistance, and I am deeply grateful to @Crisco 1492:, @Cassianto:, @Tim riley:, @Brianboulton:, @Dr. Blofeld:, @Wehwalt: and @Bencherlite: for their time and efforts. Further comments—from them or anyone else—would, of course, be gratefully received. - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comments at PR. The post-PR comments only make the article better. I'll step aside for the image review as I uploaded many of them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Happy with the result of the peer review. One thing though, the trial section still looks quite long, did you shorten it afterwards Schro?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Another peer reviewer, not commenting on images and satisfied that the text of the article meets all the FAC criteria. A splendid read and scrupulously balanced. Tim riley talk 10:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to you all for your care and attention at PR, and again here: it is much appreciated! Doc, yes, there was a little trimming here and there (including a couple of quotes). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
FN97: page?
Not provided in the archive, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FN146: book title should be italicized
Hoyle: spell out county
Lee: volume need not be italicized
Ridley 2004: doi?
Doesn't have one. (The vast majority of DNB articles do, but not all, I understand). - SchroCat (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tremeear: don't recognize the publisher here - is it a reliable one? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, SchroCat - in fact it's a 1900 book from a very good publisher (Canada Law Journal Company) so I've replaced the link and updated the reference thus. Hope this helps. BencherliteTalk 13:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent: many thanks for that, I was trying to work my way through Russian publishers to see what I could find out, but this is so much easier! - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NM, all other points have been done, except where I've commented otherwise. Many thanks for looking over this, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Late to the party, I see. Had my say at the peer review. Excellent article.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even later than Wehwalt, as I was at PR. Support (not including images, which aren't really my strong suit. (Suit - baccarat - cards - geddit?) BencherliteTalk 13:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to you both: your comments at PR were extremely helpful, pertinent, and helped build one of the most complete and constructive PRs I've ever been involved with. Many thanks! (And Bench, suit? Ouch!) cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: I don't often do these, but I've given this a go.
File:RoyalBaccaratScandal.jpg: I am not questioning the PD status of this image, but there is no source information. The source link goes to an unrelated site.
I think the original file came from Life (thus the watermark on the image), but there's nothing on the website now, and the page was never archived, which is annoying. Given it's certainly PD, is there another way we can show this, without the need to link to the Life page? - SchroCat (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is very annoying when this happens – why couldn't the uploader give proper source information instead of a perishable link? I don't think too much can be read into the Life magazine watermark – Life may have reprinted the image at a much later date. It is more probable that the image was originally published in a British magazine, but this might be hard to establish. I wouldn't like to see this article's promotion to FA held up on a technicality; you could temporarily replace this pic with one of the cast-iron images from later in the article, until the question of its source is cleared up. Unsatisfactory, I know, but hopefully only a short-term expedient. Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went with Plan B, and found a replacement, which should suffice. When I'm back I'll have a dig around for a something more concrete for the house party image, and add that somewhere too. - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably your best option for now. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Tranby Croft postcard circa 1920.jpg: No source, no author – so what is the basis for the asertions that the date is "about 1920", and that the author died before 1944?
Swapped. I think the 1920 date comes from the original file on Flickr, but that's about it. - SchroCat (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sir Edward Clarke.jpg: Needs a tag establishing that it is PD in the US. If you want a pic with a definite publication date, this site has an image incorporating the 1890 date, which you could download. It's not as good as your image, but it's safe.
I've gone with another of the Vanity Fair images, which is a nice theme running through the article now. - SchroCat (talk) 04:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All other images are fine. General review to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: all image issues now resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – A truly wonderful article which has been skilfully researched and written by the nom. I have read this twice since my input at the PR and see no further issues. As such, I fully support the article's elevation to FA status. Cassiantotalk 22:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your advice and assistance throughout: as always it's been hugely helpful! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a few quibbles, thus:
I think this sentence needs adjusting: "Despite a strong and well-regarded closing speech by Clarke on Gordon-Cumming's behalf, the judge's summing up—described as biased by some—and the jury found against the lieutenant colonel." It was the jury alone that found against Gordon-Cumming, however much the judge's speech might have encouraged them in that direction
Christopher Sykes had succeeded to the Sykes baronetcy by this time, so ought to be called "Sir Christopher Sykes"
There's a bit of a muddle over dates here: "After it was decided the case would be heard by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Coleridge, during April, his court at the Royal Courts of Justice, London, was converted to accommodate the case, raising the height of the bench and witness box, and installing new seating.[79] In May it was announced that the case would start on 1 June, and that entry to the court would be by ticket only." It's the "during April" that's the bother; would anything be lost be the removal of these two words?
Otherwise, well done in producing such a readable and comprehensive account. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your time and effort here and at PR: I've followed your suggestions here too, with a tweak, an addition and a deletion in that order. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about... a big coin. Really, in its day, it was more considered a known weight of gold as much as it was spending money, because then, twenty dollars was a fair sum of cash. It was only much later that it really was considered a collectable, and one that we can certainly admire for its beauty.Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
One DAB needs to be resolved.
Congress adjusted the weight perhaps "revised" instead of "adjusted"?
the truncation of the head what does this mean? And I haven't been able to spot the initials on the photos either. That's all I've spotted on this pass. I'll make another one later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My eyes hurt. "Truncation" means cut off, that is, where the depiction of the head ends. Look directly above the gap between the 5 and the 6 in the date. Really, it is clearer in the 1904 coin shown further down in the article. I've dealt with the other issues. Thank you for the review and the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review
All images appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any issues on this pass, the thorough reviews by Crisco and Brian seem to have caught everything.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco comments
The coin was immediately successful: merchants and banks used it in trade. - Is the colon the best choice?
Latin American gold coins for that purpose. - do we have something this can be linked to? Sounds interesting.
The Colombian real article is the closest we come, we're talking about the Colombian gold 8-escudo piece, or the Spanish equivalent struck at the colonial mints. [[Doubloon.jpg]] shows it, but the license situation there is hopeless and I wouldn't waste my time adding it.
the Double eagle - Caps in original?
Yeah.
According to numismatist David Lange, "the double eagle was a banker's coin intended to simplify transfers of large sums between financial institutions and between nations". - is this so controversial that we have to both quote and attribute it? Simply paraphrasing might be enough
He's the sole source I have that says it, and his book is a much more general purpose history of the Mint than the specialized books I otherwise used. So yeah, I want to hang the view on him. After all, Taxay's account of the debates does not mention it.
In addition, the head was in such high relief that the coins would not stack. - is this objective fact or Peale's opinion (perhaps as part of an underhanded deal against Longacre)
I've added that it was Peale's allegation, and given what I've put in both Peale's and Longacre's articles, probably inaccurate, but who is going to put a unique coin into a stack to check?
Q. David Bowers - might be worth including "numismatist"? You do later, but first mention is here
I think that's fixed now.
that Liberty's head opposed the eagle
That's a shortened form of Peale's allegation in the previous paragraph regarding metal flow and high points of the coin.
Okay. Glad you got my question. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the specimen sent to Meredith, which is unlocated, and which is said to have been owned in the 1950s by coin dealer William K. Nagy, whose former business partner John W. Haseltine supposedly acquired it from the Meredith estate. - Might be worth simplifying this
I have, though I worry that the point, that this piece is not the one in the NNC, is going to get lost.
One piece, in gilt brass, was later struck for Philadelphia druggist and numismatist Robert Coulton Davis, who had close ties to the Mint. - Perhaps be explicit that this is an 1849 striking?
Inserted.
Bowers, writing in 2004, stated that despite the negative contemporary reaction, the design of the double eagle is very popular among collectors. - specify modern collectors?
"Now" inserted, which I hope in combination with the date, you'll accept.
The section Type III (1877–1907) has some serious whitespace issues.
Is the background leading to the establishment of the SF Mint really necessary? You mention SF in the paragraph before and the paragraph below already goes into more details regarding SF and the double eagle
Since having an efficient way of striking California gold was a major point of the double eagle, I think we can continue a modest amount of detail past "preparation".
SS Central America and others. Ship name should be formatted SS Central America, not SS Central America
Fine.
In February 2013, an 1866-S double eagle with no motto was discovered in the Saddle Ridge Hoard in the Gold Country on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada in California. - since you been talking about the prices of these coins, how much did this sell for?
They haven't said how that one will be sold. They are only starting to sell them. While they say it is valued at close to a million, I'm concerned about puffery. I'd prefer to at least wait for the auction announcement. If they plan to put it in the August auctions associated with the ANA convention in Chicago, there will likely be an announcement soon, if not, we can wait.
An additional leaf was added to the olive branch, making a total of nine, and the shape of the leaves was changed. - did this have a symbolic meaning?
The leaves themselves? Not that I've ever heard.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Double eagles were unpopular in commerce in the South, as were eagles. - Any reason why?
Not seen anything definite on this, but I think it goes back to the private gold coins that circulated in the South in the early 19th century being small. Or perhaps that was symptomatic. The article I read on Peale and the set-up of the Charlotte and Dahlonega mints in the 1830s didn't discuss why eagles were not to be coined there (the double eagle was later).
Both paragraphs in #Replacement begin with dates
Adjusted.
Personally I think both paragraphs in #Replacement could be merged.
On balance, I think one long paragraph is too much. I'd rather keep it split.
Was there any downturn in the general popularity of the Liberty Head double eagle before it was discontinued, or was Roosevelt entirely to blame? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I've seen. The gold coins and the cent were the oldest extant designs, and were clearly available for redesign under the 1890 act. I've never seen any specific complaint about the double eagle dating from that time.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've caught everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All my concerns have been addressed. Fantastic piece of work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you most kindly. I appreciate the high praise indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Some of the technical details in the infobox appear to not be sourced anywhere
FN50: the date given is not the same as that shown in the link - did it change? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed an overall source on top. Apparently the article was updated. I've changed those. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Another competent and informative article to add to the prestigious coins stable. Some mainly minor issues/suggestions:
Lead
"The gold dollar and double eagle were the result. After considerable infighting at the Philadelphia Mint, Chief Engraver James B. Longacre designed the coin...": Two different coins were the result, Longacre designed "the coin". Minor clarification needed
Double eagle, then.
"it began to be issued in commerce in 1850" – slightly clumsy? Perhaps "began commercial issue in 1850"?
Slight modification from that.
Inception
Give year for California Gold Rush, to avoid necessity of consulting link
"McKay introduced a version into the House..." – "a version of the bill into the House"?
Both done.
Preparation
I'm familiar with Peale's peccadilloes from a previous article, but I wonder whether it's necessary to refer to them here? They don't appear especially relevant to the preparation of the double eagle. On my reading, Longacre was the outsider at the Mint because of his association with Calhoun, not because of direct conflict with Peale's activities. Or were there other factors at work? It does seem a little strange that the Mint director and Chief Coiner should deliberately seek to sabotage the production of the new coin, on personal grounds. What were they seeking to achieve?
I had been troubled by the need to recite that story in yet another article (this is now the fourth) on reviewing the article pre-FAC and that was one reason I kept putting off nominating this one. But even though we are heartily sick of the Peale-Longacre conflict, this is the approximate level of detail at which we are covering pre-issue preparations, where information is available. I have cut it back by several sentences which didn't seem to involve the double eagle.
Re what P/P were trying to accomplish: The conventional wisdom seems to be that they wanted Longacre's position left vacant or awarded to someone more trustworthy. Until then, after all, Longacre had not had much to do; the position had been a sinecure for him, allowing him to learn the art of die-sinking. The Contamin lathe had eliminated much of the need for an Engraver, since the early incumbents spent most of their time making new dies by hand. And Peale's personal view (expressed in his 1835 report) was that designs should be selected by competition. Otherwise, I expect that they thought that if a new design was needed, they could have Peale do it or else have it contracted outside the Mint. I am suspicious of the conventional wisdom though, as so much of it seems to come from Longacre. If we can view it as accurate, I suppose Peale felt that there was no urgent need for a double eagle, and once Longacre was fired, they could fix things up. Most of the latter half of the paragraph is personal speculation though.
Grammar: "He enclosed a double eagle, asking that if Meredith approved of the piece, to send word as quickly as possible..." → "He enclosed a double eagle, asking Meredith, if he approved of the piece, to send word as quickly as possible..."
On the same point: do we know how many double eagles were made in 1849? Only a few, I imagine. The last paragraph of the section mentions several, only one of which is known to be extant.
No. They were not regular-issue, as the design had not yet been approved, and would not be listed in the annual Mint Director's report.
A parenthetical note after "Taylor administration": "(which took office on March 5, 1849)" – might be helpful
"He found that Meredith had been lied to by Patterson..." → "He found that Patterson had lied to Meredith..."
Both accomplished.
Design
"thirteen stars and the date – year rather than date?
"year of issue"
Final sentence of first para: as you have previously mentioned the thirteen stars, I sugggest you revise this sentence slightly: "Above the bird, the thirteen stars, representative of the original states, are arranged as a halo, together with an arc of rays".
I've played with it some.
"He did find that the reverse "has some commendable points of heraldic imagery"[27] and that side of the coin is "like the frontispiece for a patriotic brochure". I have tweaked this sentence - see what you think.
Looks OK, thanks.
This design section doesn't refer to the variations that were introduced with the later versions of the coin
No, but the description is generic enough to refer to any of the three.
Type I (1850–1866)
As the section heading includes the date range 1850–66, the reference to minting "some double eagles" at New Orleans in 1879 is a little puzzling. Were these late mintings of Type 1?
Deleted. They were not.
"Only a handful of the Philadelphia specimens were not melted, but by the time word reached San Francisco to stop production, almost 20,000 had been issued." To me, it would seem logical to flip this sentence: "By the time word reached San Francisco to stop production, almost 20,000 of the Philadelphia specimens had been issued, all but a handful of which were melted".
As it is the San Francisco pieces that numbered five figures, I've played with it.
Type II (1866–1876)
Tautology: "An additional leaf was added..."
I've played with it.
Type III (1877–1907)
"In 1876, William Barber..." – maybe just "Barber"
As for almost all of this period, Charles Barber was Chief Engraver, probably best not to confuse anyone coming to the section cold.
It is not totally clear from the text what the 1876 changes made by Barber were, though you discuss the following year's changes in detail.
Played with as well.
Replacement
"Other commissions and cancer delayed his work" – a little stark for my tastes.
Thank you for that indeed. I've addressed all your points, I hope.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I'm happy with your responses, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone for the reviews and for the supports we have three supports an image review and a source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Israel was one of the leading European scholars of the tenth century, and one of the very few who knew Greek. Historians of Anglo-Saxon England have been particularly interested in his career at the court of King Æthelstan. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I peer reviewed and had my few quibbles thoroughly dealt with then. This is a top-notch article, full but not over-detailed, in excellent prose, well illustrated, widely sourced and fully referenced, and well balanced. Plainly meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 20:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why are some short cites in sentence case and some in title case?
FNs 2 and 3 are duplicates, check for others
Further reading entries should identify language. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Thanks very much for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support With a request;
The opening para of the "Background" is unclear, too many howevers, whiles and statements followed by "increasingly challenged" by historians. Ceoil (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I have revised. Does it look OK now?
I'm pretty sure that "mid tenth" should be hyphenated as, unlike "late" or "early", "mid" is not a standalone word
Done.
Israel is recorded as a bishop in the late 940s: does this mean that in the records he was a bishop in the 940s, or that in records of the 940s he was recorded as a bishop?
Clarified that he was recorded as a bishop in the 940s.
When King Alfred the Great became King of Wessex in 871: was he a king elsewhere before becoming King of Wessex? If not, maybe the title should be dropped where he's introduced (either way, I think I'd drop it).
Done.
from the Continent,: should be obvious, but maybe explicate which continent?
Done.
and himself translating works: seems unnatural to me. "translated" maybe?
Done.
inviting foreign scholars such as Israel to England: could it be clarified why Israel was a "foreign" scholar if he was a Breton?
Brittany in what later became France would have been regarded as foreign. I have clarified that Brittany, Cornwall and Wales were Celtic speaking refuges for Britons who fled the Anglo-Saxon conquest of England. (There was also a refuge in northern Spain, but Celtic disappeared there early, whereas it still survives in Brittany.)
The generation who were educated: a chance for WP:COMMONALITY might be to shorten to "The generation educated" ("The generation were" grates against North American ears, not that it's "wrong")
Done
such as Flodoard's chronicle: the chronicle doesn't get uppercased?
Done (and italicised).
Lapidge argues that the bishop of Bangor in County Down, Dub Innse, described Israel as a "Roman scholar", and that he therefore does not appear to have recognised him as a fellow Irishman, and further that Flodoard was contemporary with Israel and may have known him, whereas Ruotger wrote after Israel's death and probably did not have first hand knowledge.: An awfully long sentence. Consider splitting?
Done.
Giving children Old Testament Hebrew names: again, should be obvious, but might want to explicate that this refers to the name "Israel"
Done.
Wood has revived: the wording makes it sound recent. As of?
The reference makes clear that it was in books published in 2007 and 2010. I am not sure it is necessary to give the date in the article.
The longer the article survives, the more such a wording will be out of date. See WP:RECENTISM. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added "In 2007"
Æthelstan's biographer, Sarah Foot: was she Æthelstan's only biographer?
Yes she is.
{{Reflist|2}}: specifying hard columns like this isn't kind to larger or smaller screens—on large screens it leaves a lot of white space, and on small screens it can get squishy; specifying a column width (say 20em, 30em, 40em) allows browsers themselves to choose an appropriate number of columns.
I do not understand ems. Can you advise which I should choose?
An "em" is the width of the letter M in a given font. Any of them "work". Playing around, 25em looks good to me, but I wouldn't try too hard to "optimize" the width, because not everyone views the page with the same font. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few passing comments. I've made a few minor tweaks to the article directly with explanatory edit summaries, which I hope make sense.
Do we need the "sources" section at all? The last sentence duplicates the references; you mention "Gospel Dice" later on anyway; you mention works of his later on anyway; you could easily add a few more words to the "early life" section to explain Flodoard and Ruotgar's mentions, and then remove the whole section.
If the sources section is kept, it struck me as a bit odd to have it so early in the article, before we've even been introduced to Israel.
Section deleted.
"Ruotger's life of Bruno" - any chance of a link to tell us who either of these people are?
He is linked in the lead. As it seems to be preferred practice to link again on first mention in the body, I have amended accordingly. There are further details about Bruno in Later life, where they are more relevant. There is no article on Ruotger, although he probably should have one.
Do we need the full Lapidge quote in the early life section? The first sentence is redundant to what the article has just told us, and the second sentence can be paraphrased or shortened. Setting it out in full gives it confusing emphasis because (1) the article goes on to say that Lapidge doesn't in fact agree with the consensus of modern scholarship, and (2) his is not the only view. You could say something like "Lapidge states that while the modern consensus is that Israel was Irish, the matter has not been properly considered and the evidence points towards him being Breton. He argues that the bishop..."
I have deleted the first sentence. I do not understand your objection to the second sentence - perhaps you could see whether it looks OK now.
Do we have an article anywhere about the bishops/diocese of Bangor, County Down? I can't see anything, which surprises me slightly
I cannot find anything. It appears to have been a very obscure diocese and may have been short lived.
In the next section, you say "Dub Innse, who died in 853, was bishop of Bangor in County Down, Ireland" but you've already told us who Dub Innse was in the previous section.
Didn't he in fact die in 953?
Uh yes! I have deleted the whole sentence as superfuous. His death date is not important.
"Æthelwold, Bishop of Winchester" - is this Æthelwold of Winchester? If so, we have an article about him; he also wasn't bish of Winch at the time, so perhaps reword to say that he became this later?
Yes he is and he is linked earlier as the future bishop. I have deleted the repetition of 'Bishop of Winchester'.
Scholarship: "In the 870s Anastasius the Librarian had to edit his own translation of his translation from Greek" - you've lost me!
Amended to make it clearer - hopefully! I was trying to illustrate how unusual knowledge of Greek was in the period, but I can delete it if the comment seems too tangential.
"commented on them in a manuscript" - commented on "him"?
Changed to 'his works'.
That's all on the prose, I think. BencherliteTalk 09:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your very helpful review. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thank you for your prompt response, I'm happy with what you've done. BencherliteTalk 19:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- Image review, anyone? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only two images, both of medieval manuscripts long out of copyright and appropriately tagged as PD. Photographs presumably taken by the uplooader (perhaps Dudley Miles would add this for clarity). I've added ISBN but a page number from the book for each image would be good too. Otherwise image review looks ok to me. BencherliteTalk 17:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I have added my name as photographer. I had to take the book back to the London Library but I will check page numbers next time I can get there. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's good enough for me, unless anyone else can spot anything blindingly obvious that I've missed? BencherliteTalk 20:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I've put in some considerable labor into the article to bring it from what it was ([8]). I tried to get it to FA maybe a year ago, I don't remember exactly when since it was a long time ago. Anyways, that nomination stalled after only one editor contributed a lot of feedback and eventually supported it after I resolved the outlined issues. I would have pursued another go at FA soon after, but college got me busy. Now I'm getting free time so I thought I would try again as I feel this article is deserving of the status. I do respond speedily. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 02:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comments from JMiall
A review of up until the first large table.
N.B. I only have passing knowledge of cycling and none of the specifics of the Giro.
Previous FACs have wanted sport specific terminology to be explained the first time it is used so I'm applying the same standard here.
I would mention explicitly in the 1st sentence that the Giro is a cycling race.
Fixed.
Don't use the word 'edition' in the lead without explaining it as this is not the normal usage
Replaced with running.
Is it important to mention the details of the first and last stages before mentioning things like the total length of the race or number of stages or competitors?
I added the number of stages and participants.
Is the nationality of the the winners important enough to be mentioned in the lead and is the non-Italian-ness of the top 3 important enough to be mentioned in the 1st paragraph?
I feel it is very noteworthy because of the rarity of the non-Italian sweep podium. It has only occurred I think 6 times in the 96 races.
is the 'famed fourteenth stage' famed due to this occurance, this route generally or is it the fourteenth stage that is famed, wherever it happens to go?
What happened on the fourteenth stage of this race is one of the most defining moments in cycling history. Do you want me to remove the famed from the sentence? Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 05:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it is one of the defining moments in cycling history then why not say this explicitly in the lead? JMiall₰ 06:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does what I have work now? I'm not sure how to phrase it exactly.
I think it is OK now. JMiall₰ 07:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the 2nd paragraph I'd treat it all in chronogical order rather than skipping about.
Fixed.
missing fullstop after 'classification'
Don't know when that one got removed ahah. Good catch
what is a neo-professional?
This is explained in the classification leadership section.
link peloton on first use
Fixed.
is it necessary to mention 180 cyclists twice so close together?
Fixed
Is the presentation of the teams important? If so can we have more information about what happened at it? If not then does it need mentioning?
Fixed, adding a small part about it.
Who invited the teams to compete? Was there anything unusual about the teams invited? Presumably they were all invited to send a squad of 9?
Fixed the first. There wasn't anything unusual about the teams invited and
Who named the riders as contenders? Could this be better stated as something like 'x named y and z as the pre-race favourites for the a and b classifications'
Does 'l'Unità writer Gino Sala, author Bill McGann, and an El Mundo Deportivo writer named several riders as contenders for the overall classification, including Andrew Hampsten, Urs Zimmermann, Erik Breukink, Franco Chioccioli, and Pedro Delgado.' this work better?
Yes, if this the info available. JMiall₰ 07:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
'came into the Giro in great shape' - if it is was just someone's opinion he was in great shape then say so. If he was in great form in previous races then say that.
Fixed
Why didn't the italians realise the difficulty of the stage?
Fixed.
'coming off from a cycling break as a result of injuries' -> 'after a break from cycling due to injuries'
Fixed
'considered by some' - who?
Fixed.
'Many media outlets felt that the overall victory would likely go to a non-Italian rider' - if this is worth mentioning then establish why
Fixed.
when did Moreno Argentin injure his knee?
Earlier in the season, the article doesn't say and I tried searching newspapers about it but no results showed up. Would 'Before he injured his right knee earlier in the season...' work?
Yes, I only meant did he injure it before the race or at some point during the race. JMiall₰ 07:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
what's a categorized climb?
Fixed, just seems awkward to me. Thoughts?
I think it is better. Maybe I'd use brackets. I think it is important to have some explanation as to what it means as I don't think it is clear to all readers what the difference between a categorized and un-categorized climb would be. JMiall₰ 07:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
what's a summit arrival?
Fixed.
It was hoped - by who?
Fixed
you start telling us events from the race itself in the route section
If this is referring to the alterations to stage 11, I thought they were relevant there because the section is called routes and stages and pertains to the information in the table and the route itself, obviously.
The article sections are set out in approximate chronological order (although swapping sections 2&3 would make this closer) so to my eye it makes for an odd story if you put spoilers in the intro. JMiall₰ 06:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is in a good spot because the section goes into the route's details and also has route analysis, so I believe that briefly talking of stage modifications and cancellations to the route in that section is very appropriate even if it is a spoiler, a justified spoiler. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 15:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'the Stelvio Pass, but it was skipped due to snowdrifts that had developed on the pass' - too many passes?
Fixed.
what's Merano 2000?
A mountain, there's no article for it so I didn't link. if that helps
maybe write 'the mountain, Merano 2000' on the first use then. JMiall₰ 06:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
'storied climbs of old' - so is there an article we can link to about these stories?
Fixed.
can we have some more explanation of why italian cyclists were bad at climbs but non-italians weren't?
Fixed
'the team time trial could be a source of some sparks' - is this a quote? if not then it should be reworded, if it is it needs quotation marks.
Fixed.
other than having a lot of climbs how did the route compare to other years? in terms of distance, number of stages, number of time trials? what was the normal number of rest days?
The distance was about 300km shorter than the previous one and had one less rest day and stage. There is no source for that comparison though.
All that's needed is sources for the numbers. Simple maths along the lines of 'a<b' should be fine. See WP:CALC. JMiall₰ 07:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
also the photo of Delgado is from much later. Can you find an image from 88 to use? Or close to then? JMiall₰ 22:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Found one from 93
Can this also have a 'pictured here...' JMiall₰ 07:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
some more comments:
in the 2009 FA article the terms mountain, flat and intermediate stage are used. Is there a reason for the difference?
The organizers used official terms like that nowadays, but there is no way of knowing what they called each stage type so I just classified it by ones with classified mountains or not to be safe.
Why is there no way of knowing? Did they have official stage types then? If not then maybe that column of the table needs a footnote. JMiall₰ 07:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of the articles that I have found online have specific categories for the stages, other than saying which ones contain mountains. To know how exactly they classified the stages would require the manual they give to each rider and team manager before the race with the full layout with the stage routes mapped out and whatnot. This was available for the 2009 page which is why they used such names as "intermediate" due to links like this. I emailed some person about a topic that I did not have enough info on for the 1988 Giro and got redirected to Andrew Hampsten himself he said that he mentioned that he would have to look up something in the race book, but he didn't even have it anymore. To know how they classified the stages would need the race book for official wording and whatnot because none of the articles that discuss the stages give any real particular classification of the stages. I hope that is understandable; it seemed to make sense as I wrote it...
I'd quite like to see a column for the total ascent on each stage as well if the data is known
None of the articles I used or looked at had any specific numbers, later years (mid 90s) of the ELM source I used had some data similar to what you want
it is quite common to see distance vs height plots in newspaper coverage of the tour de france which help to give an overview of the stages. are the same things available for the giro? could you generate these yourself and add to the stage table? maybe some openstreetmap people would help to generate these?
were there any prizes? JMiall₰ 23:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Im sure there was prize money, but I have not seen any sources that talk of the amounts.
and more:
for the caption of the image of Hampsen add 'pictured here on the Tour de France in 1993'.
Fixed.
There are no images from 1988 in the article. Have you tried contacting anyone directly to ask if they are willing to let you use any of their photos? For example Bill Cordero on Flickr has a set of images. There's also things like this photo of Hampsten's bike. JMiall₰ 07:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I briefly talked to the Velonews photographer who had some really good images, but he said I would have to pay for rights. Cordero's photos are also all rights reserved and would likely require money to gain access to them for personal use.
Yes I realise they are rights reserved and that any individual photographer may be unlikely to release photos, but this will have been such a widely photographed event that I don't think it is unrealistic that someone who has some photos might be willing to release them.
I shall attempt to contact Cordero.
UPDATE: Cordero said that he had no problem with me using some photos so I uploaded two photos from his album. Got two pics from the race.
In the race overview I would use riders' whole names on their first use as none have been mentioned in prose for a while. Then surname only after that.
Fixed.
'a team time trial that stretched 40 km' - is this long for a team time trial? could be written better.
was the cancellation of the 11th stage important in the final result? did anyone have a big lead at the point it was cancelled?
Not particularly, the whole peloton was together at the point and likely heading to a sprint finish.
'which had been polluting the Bormida river' - just checking that the italian sources say that they had definitely been polluting the river and not just that the protestors claimed this
Fixed.
'and the fatigue setting in' - unecessary 'the'? or replace with 'and rider fatigue'
Fixed.
'go through with the stage' -> go ahead with?
Fixed.
is maglia rosa the standard english term?
Most commentators use that, but in the lead — where its first used — I have the italian-translation in the text.
'jumped off the front' - ?
Fixed.
'eventually shook the other two riders' - i'm not keen on the language. 'shook off' would be a bit better
Fixed.
'The group rolled into Innsbruck, while Franco Vona made a last minute attack' - this makes it sound like the group were taking it easy while Vona was trying
Fixed.
the end of the 18th stage is listed as both 'Vetriolo Terme ski station' and 'Valico del Vetriolo'. Are these the same place? Check there aren't more like this.
Fixed.
'lightning began to strike and rain began to pour' - the began began makes it sound like a story
Fixed.
'The final podium was rounded out' -> 'The other podium positions were filled'?
Fixed.
Is it possible to say concisely what was tested for in the doping controls?
There was a list of banned substances that the UCI tested for.
The doping section might benefit from some kind of context - did riders test positive in the giro in other years in the same period? or in other races of the same year? did any riders later admit to doping in this race?
Yeah some riders tested positive in the Tour according to this. I added this section during the last FAN process I believe because the reviewer felt it was necessary to have it even if no one tested positive or later admitted to doping in this race.
I'm happy for the content to exist but the section is very short and needs bulking up a bit. Some context would help with this (and is the type of thing an encyclopedia article should be doing anyway). JMiall₰ 07:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After looking through the ELM pages, I found one instance of riders missing the tests and have added that. If that helps.
'a heavy snow cover forced the organization to skip the mountain pass from the stage route' -> 'heavy snow cover forced the organisation to omit this from the stage'?
Fixed.
In the Classification leadership by stage table I would be tempted to shade stage 4b in the winner column to show that this is a team not a rider's name. Also it might be useful to include the leading time margin after each stage. Might make the table a bit busy though.
I feel that this table is fine and any adjustments would take up even more room and its almost cramped already.
why are teams linked in only some of the final classification tables? JMiall₰ 10:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll link those in a second
there is a 1988 image of Milan Jurčo who according to his article was in the 1988 Giro. JMiall₰ 16:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources agree with him finishing where that wiki page says he did. He did not finish the race if he started it.
Some points based google translations of the same article in other languages. I think these sound like they should be included in your article. I'm starting to think that this 14th stage needs its own section and possibly later its own article.
When first writing the race overview the 14th stage was two paragraphs and had much of the stuff you mentioned below and I feel like to add much more detail would place too much of an emphasis on the stage, although I was considering make it it's own page at some point cause almost every article in english is solely focused on that stage.
es:
'Also noteworthy is the performance of Mexican Raul Alcala , co-winner of the race, which finished 14th team' - I'm not sure if they mean it was noteworthy just because Mexicans speak Spanish though.
'Andrew Hampsten, warned by his manager, was equipped with no less than gloves neoprene , a sweater of wool and ski goggles for this ascension'
'reaching ice form changes gears or brakes'
'Johan van der Velde , leader of the mountain to the time, and which crowned the summit first, had to stop a few miles to start the descent, unable to control the bike because of the cold, to ask your athletic director clothes and drink hot tea and brandy. Many cyclists performed the decline in their team cars finished on the bike just the last three kilometers of the stage'
it:
'while some went to meet the principles of frostbite'
nl:
'A number of riders that the entire trail aflegde, filed protest but the judges saw the incident through the fingers' JMiall₰ 18:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
in Jean-François Bernard's article it mentions that he crashed, got injured and withdrew. If this was while he still had a fair chance of winning it probably needs mentioning here. JMiall₰ 07:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've made a reasonable amount of copyediting to this article at the request of the nominator. An important task that needs to be done is to carefully check all of the inline references for validity and usefulness. I feel there is an excessive use of them throughout the article. Many times, a citation is sourced by two or more references without real necessity, and I've seen a few cases where a source does not contain the information that is being referenced. Please, confirm this. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a couple refs from the race overview that I found to be excessive. I used sources frequently when writing to know where what I was writing came from and so that anything possibly needing a source for verification would have it. I, personally, don't believe there are any refs that are used when not pertaining to the info in the sentence. Thanks for the assistance and comments! Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 01:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your method but clearly there are many instances that need to be cleaned up. I'm going to try and point them out to you in my section-by-section review below. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Section-by-section reference review
Teams:
The La Stampa source was used as reference for the participation of 20 teams and the number of peloton riders. My analysis of that source told me that it didn't have that content, so I already removed the corresponding ref tags.
It does specifically refer to twenty teams being invited and nine riders per team when it says "...Torriani invitera venti squadre, con nove corridori..." So I believe the ref should be put back. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 20:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I apologise. Please do revert. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference (lol no pun intended), just point out any sources in question and i'll run through it too. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 20:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really necessary to explain what a "presentation of teams" is?
In the review above I was told to explain what happened at it. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 20:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"... [which are mountains that award mountains classification points]... ". Why the square brackets? Plus, I'd leave only "which award mountains classification points".
"... would keep the race hotly contested to the end.[3][2]" and "The organizers chose to not include any rest days.[3][2]" – Reverse ref tag order.
"... and stage 15, to the mountain, Merano 2000 mountain.[14][15]"
Phrasing suggestion: "Another stage hadwith a mountain-top finish, the demandingwas stage 18, which consisted of a climbing time trial to Valico del Vetriolo."
"In addition, this race contained one fewer stage, but one more set of half stages than the prior year's race.[18]" – Already understood from the previous sentence.
In image caption on Bernard, it's not clear if the "three stages" are the same or not. Also, is Bernard the guy on the left? Signal that with a "(left)" after his name.
"... however, the following day he did not start the leg.[39]" Maybe reinforce the idea by saying that he withdrew from the race?
Phrasing suggestion: "The eighteenth stage, an uphill 18 km (11.2 mi) individual time trial, would prove critical in deciding the overall winner of the Giro, as it was an 18 km (11.2 mi) individual time trial that lead up a mountain.[16]"
The article is missing any kind of post-race or legacy section. Did this race have impact on subsequent Giros or cycling generally? On the careers of any of the people who did well or badly? Were any injuries career ending? Did the competitors or teams give interviews where they assessed their performance against expectations? Did more fans watch in subsequent years? This type of section is standard in FAs about specific sporting events.
I added Breukink and Zimmermann's and Hampsten's in the new aftermath section. I am looking through the articles to find more rider critiques. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 19:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article does a good job of explaining the pre-race situation but doesn't really cover the general context (the 360deg view that is mentioned somewhere). If you look at the article on the charity shield at FAC at the moment I think it does a much better job than this one on this aspect. Maybe the current pre-race favourites section could be renamed and extended by a paragraph? For example the article on Grand Tours compares the relative popularity of the Giro and Tour de France in different decades in the lead.
Would you like me to describe how the Giro is not as popular as the Tour is in many aspects and how riders feel it has harder climbs and roads? This here and this talks about some of what I just said and I would use that in the part if that is what you're asking me to talk about. The first American riders also began to compete in the mid 80s, but I don't know what I could say other than the range of the Giro was expanding into North America or something. This also reinforces how its the second most important to the TOur. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 18:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted more explanation of the presentation of the teams because I'm not familiar with it. In football, a sport I am familiar with, for a major tournament the squad list is often released to the press some time before the tournament and a press conference held at some later point for each team but there isn't any kind of event involving all the teams just before the start of the event. So here who are the teams presented to? The press? The public? Local dignatories? Are all the members of the team present or is it just the manager with a list and a few selected riders? Are the teams already known to the public before the presentation so the presentation is just a formality or is it a surprise? I don't think the article needs to cover all of this, I'm just suggesting that as currently written the information isn't of much use to someone not already familiar with presentations in the Giro. JMiall₰ 15:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message on JMiall's talk page about addressing the issues on June 1, and he/she has since edited wikipedia, but has not responded on here... So what do i do?Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 03:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/support. For what it is worth: in the past I have checked this article for correctness, see for example the talk page, or my edits to this article before the review started. In my opinion, it is comprehensive, well-researched and neutral. The other Featured article criteria (if it is well-written) are harder to verify for me, and since I have followed many cycling races it is impossible for me to judge if this article is suitable for the non-cycling fan, so I will not give any judgement on that. I'll leave it open to the person closing this candidacy to decide how much my support should count; if for some reason I am not allowed to take part in this FAC because I helped editing this article, then ignore my text. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 09:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments from Hamiltonstone. I'm close to supporting. A few queries.
I think the sentence "Breukink had been part of the non-Italian podium in 1987, behind Ireland's Stephen Roche and Great Britain's Robert Millar." can be dropped from the lead, as it is excessive detail for the article summary. However, it is a useful detail that appears to be missing from the actual article text! It will need a citation.
I think the lead would benefit from some mention of the significance of the fourteenth stage in cycling circles. Perhaps something like "The fourteenth stage of the 1988 Giro, conducted in adverse weather including a snowstorm, has been recognised as an iconic event in the history of the Giro."
Because of the structure of the preceding sentence, it is not clear here whether Hinault is talking about himself, or Jean-Francois Bernard: "In addition, Bernard Hinault told him that if he could do well in this edition of the Giro, he could one day lead a team in the Tour de France". If he's talking about Jean-Francois, then it should read: "In addition, Bernard Hinault told [Sala? or Jean-Francois?] that if Jean Francois could do well in this edition of the Giro, he could one day lead a team in the Tour de France"
"In previous years, the organizers had made the race easier for the Italian favorites by disregarding some of the harder climbs." Odd use of the word "diregarding". Do you mean they were not included in the race? If so, suggest you substitute "excluding". Even so, it leaves one wondering what "the" harder climbs are - it makes it sound as though there is a specific list of mountain climbs from which one choses the climbs for a Giro. If that is not the case, then change the end of the sentence to "by including fewer hard climbs".
"The nineteenth stage featured three categorized climbs. Zimmermann attacked on the first, the Duran Pass, and remained out in front for the whole stage. However, he was later caught by Stefano Giuliani,..." Something's wrong here. if Zimmerman remained in front the whole time, then he couldn't be caught later. I'm wondering if categorized climbs (of which there were three) are being confused with the stage as a whole (of which there was just one)?
Fixed, I believe that got messed up through the various edits I've done to the text. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 02:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The organization performed anti-doping controls throughout the race." Which organisation?
File:Urbino-palazzo ducale02.jpg - Flickr origin, licencing reviewed and sound
File:Pédro DELGADO.jpg - own work, no issues
File:Lago del Matese.jpg - own work, no issues
File:Jean Francois Bernard Stage 11 Giro.jpg - non-free use rationale. This is tricky. The nominator/uploader correctly notes that this is currently the only image in the article of a rider during the 1988 race: the others are all taken in different years. At the same time, I note that there is this image of the particular rider at Commons. The question is: does this mean the image meets nfcc#1 (no free equivalent), or not? I'd let the delegate make the call, but an editor could strengthen the case for retaining this image if the article made explicit reference to the team uniform, or to Bernard's membership of the team - provided, of course, there are sources to support such mentions. A point like this would then give this specific image of him more salience, because of the prominent place of the jersey.
I believe this has now been resolved through explicit reference not only to the image's subject but to the team colours shown in the image.hamiltonstone (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:1988 Giro Stage 11 Start Parma.jpg - non-free use rationale. I am not convinced about this one. It shows a general crowd of people and cyclists at the start of a race stage. It could be anywhere, any year. I am not convinced it meets the restrictive criteria 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." In contrast, i would accept that the non-free images of specific, leading riders (eg. the one above) can be defended under this criterion.
Well if this helps, there is a banner in the back that has the logo for the 71st Giro on it, which would specify this edition as well as Podenzana wearing the pink jersey in the center. The photo was also taken on the same day as the Bernard photo. If not, I'll just put back the original image I had of the gavia pass. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 16:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Passo dello stelvio.jpg - own work, no issues
My view is: ditch the Parma Start image, and see if you can tweak the article text to emphasise Bernard's place in the Toshiba-Look team or find some wierd fashion magazine article that tells us how the Toshiba-Look team jerseys got designed / who designed them! hamiltonstone (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC) The changes made mean all images are now appropriately licenced. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So on the team's page it states that who the jersey was designed by, so would I just alter the caption to something like "Jean-François Bernard pictured signing in at the start of the eleventh stage wearing the Toshiba Look jersey that was designed by Benetton who drew influence from the artworks of Piet Mondrian." and then put the source in the caption? Cause if I were to mention something about Toshiba's jerseys in the text I feel that would be out of place at any point in the article... and I also feel that I would need to talk about every other team's jerseys.... Thoughts? Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 16:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, yes I would do something like that. Let me kow when you've had a go at it, and I can copyedit the caption once you've drafted it. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- I'm about ready to promote this but pls review duplicate links (you can use this script to highlight them) and see what's really necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! I've removed all the ones I believed were unnecessary (8ish). Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 12:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about an US Air Force general. He held the distinction of leading the attack on Hiroshima. His article holds the distinction of being the oldest article to appear on DYK. Created in 2003 (while the subject was still alive), it ran on the front page as DYK ten years later in September 2013. I hope it can run as TFA on the subject's 100th birthday in 2015. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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) 21:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion on the basis of prose and comprehensiveness. After 89 comments and 40 edits of my own, I think the prose meets the FA standards. Furthermore, my status as a non-expert on the subject matter has enabled me to point out where further explanation is needed for the average reader. I still think Hawkeye7 could go a little further in that regard, but the most egregious examples have been taken care of. Sometimes less is more, I suppose. In summary, a well-written article. I enjoyed reading it. AmericanLemming (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as I have a current FAC open, I really ought to review at least one other FAC. Since I'm a history buff, I chose this one. I'll review for prose, comprehensiveness, and maybe sourcing/images. We'll see. Feel free to revert any of my copy-edits; I'll leave any comments below. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
The article is mainly about his World War II military career. While I understand that emphasis, I think a short section on his personal life, marriage, and children, say a paragraph or two, would be warranted. For example, I infer that he divorced/was widowed and then remarried, but the article does not explicitly say that.
Yes, it does. Early military career: he met Lucy Wingate. The two were married in a Catholic seminary in Holy Trinity, Alabama on June 19, 1938. Post-war military career: His marriage to his first wife, Lucy Wingate, ended in divorce in 1955. His second wife was a French woman named Andrea Quattrehomme, whom he met during his posting there.Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I was getting pretty tired at the end of the article and didn't pick up on that. Good thing I stopped listing comments where I did! AmericanLemming (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think a "Summary of Service" section at the end (similar to that found in the Omar Bradley article) would be helpful for non-experts like me.
Given that he's best known for piloting the Enola Gay as it dropped Little Boy on Hiroshima, I think a paragraph or two on his personal views on the bombing and the impact the bombing has had on his legacy (for better and for worse) would be warranted.
This forms the last paragraph of "Aftermath". Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I think that additional quote makes a world of difference in helping the reader understand his personal views on the bombing. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
The 308th Bombardment Group and the 6th Air Division both appear in the infobox but not in the lead. How about including a short sentence on each of them in the last paragraph of the lead?
I see he won his fair share of medals. Could we include something about him being highly decorated somewhere in the lead?
No, because it is not true. Four rows of ribbons is unremarkable in the modern US military. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
“Paul Warfield Tibbets, Jr. (February 23, 1915 – November 1, 2007) was a brigadier general” When did he become a brigadier general? The lead doesn’t say.
The article says: he was promoted to brigadier general in 1959. I don't track his ranks in the lead. But we always mention someone's highest rank in the first sentence. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wasn’t the US Air Force technically the US Army Air Force from 1941 to 1947?
The US Army Air Forces was a command co-equal with the Army Ground Forces and Army Service Forces. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“Tibbets enlisted in the army in 1937 and qualified as a pilot in 1938.” This goes back to my comment above: people who don’t know about the US Army Air Force are going to be slightly confused.
Why? You still can do this today. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“In February 1942, he became commanding officer” I’m not sure if this is my personal preference or not, but wouldn’t “the commanding officer” be better here?
It's not the way we'd say it in America, but it may be more grammatical. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“of the 340th Bombardment Squadron, 97th Bombardment Group” I think “of the 97th Bombardment Group” or “part of the 97th Bombardment Group” would be clearer.
Again, it it is formally correct; your version is somewhat informal. Changed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“Eighth Air Force, and Tibbets became deputy group commander” Of the Eighth Air Force, I presume?
"deputy group commander". Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“After flying 43 combat missions, he became the assistant for bomber operations on the staff of the Twelfth Air Force.” What was his rank at the time?
“After the war, he participated in Operation Crossroads,” Could we give a brief description of what Operation Crossroads was for the benefit of the non-expert?
“Later he attended the University of Florida in Gainesville,[1] and was an initiated member of the Epsilon Zeta Chapter of Sigma Nu fraternity in 1934.[3]” Do we know why he attended the University of Florida?
No, he doesn't give any reason for his choice. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“and was an initiated member of the Epsilon Zeta Chapter of Sigma Nu fraternity in 1934” Don’t you mean “became an initiated member in 1934”. Otherwise it makes it sound like he was only a member in 1934 and ceased to be afterwards.
“During that time, Tibbets was taking private flying lessons.” With whom/with what company?
Private lessons. Added: "at Miami's Opa-locka Airport with Rusty Heard, who later became a captain at Eastern Airlines."
“After his undergraduate work, Tibbets had planned on becoming an abdominal surgeon.” First, what was he majoring in, and second, why did he want to become an abdominal surgeon?
I'm not sure what his major was; Tibbets says he was studying "pre-med". I'm uncertain as to whether he needed to select a major before he decided to leave. It was really his father who wanted him to become a doctor. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“He attended the University of Cincinnati for a year and a half” Do we know why he switched colleges?
The University of Florida did not have a medical school at the time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now. I've started listing comments for the other sections in a Word document on my computer, but they aren't as well fleshed out, and I think I've given you plenty enough to work with. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With all of my prose comments above addressed, I will list a few more below. Thanks for responding so quickly! AmericanLemming (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Early military career
This comment is about the last sentence of the previous section. Do we know why he changed his mind and enlisted? Was it just because he liked flying so much?
Tibbets (p. 36) gives three reasons:
He saw physicians dying of overwork and felt that "the demands of the profession were excessive".
Doctors advised him "that the country was drifting towards socialised medicine"
That he was increasingly infatuated with flying, which he thinks was probably the most important reason.
I do not normally ascribed motivations to people, as they are not knowable, even to the people themselves. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“received his pilot rating in 1938” What was his rating?
“Tibbets was assigned to the 16th Observation Squadron and based at Lawson Field, Georgia” Was the 16th Observation Squadron based at Lawson Field or just Tibbets?
The whole squadron. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“with a flight supporting the Infantry School at Fort Benning” This phrase doesn’t make any sense to me. What exactly does it mean?
In military parlance, we talk about "air support", "artillery support" etc. JP 1-02 defines "support" as "the action of a force that aids, protects, complements, or sustains another force in accordance with a directive requiring such action." Hawkeye7 (talk)
“where he met Lucy Wingate” Do we know anything about the circumstances of their meeting? That is, what was she doing at Fort Brenning? Was she from Columbus, Georgia?
She was working as a clerk at a department store in Columbus. (Added this) They met a a picnic double-date with Billy Beasley, as fellow bachelor. Hawkeye7 (talk)!
“While stationed at Fort Benning, Tibbets was promoted to first lieutenant” This goes back to my comment above. Was Tibbets based at Lawson Field or Fort Brenning? Both, maybe?
Yes. Lawson is the air field at Fort Benning. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" In December 1941, he received orders to join the 29th Bombardment Group at MacDill Field, Florida" It sounds like his joining the 29th Bombardment Group was delayed because of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Do we know when he was supposed to join the 29th Bombardment Group?
“forming an anti-submarine patrol at Pope Army Airfield, North Carolina, with 21 B-18 Bolo light bombers.” Do you mean that he led the patrol? I’m a little confused.
Yes. When a new unit is formed, the field officers are normally selected, but then sent to schools. A group of trained officers and NCOs from other units, known as the cadre, converges on the unit's station, and start receiving the equipment. The field officers arrive, and then the rest of the unit, from training centers and schools. Unit training then commences. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, about them being light bombers, the B-18 Bolo article says that they were medium bombers. Which one is it? AmericanLemming (talk) 06:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We'll go with medium. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
War against Germany
The image in this section is out of place. It would fit much better towards the bottom of the “War against Japan” section.
I think it would be worth mentioning the basics of the British/American bombing campaign in Europe somewhere: the British bombed at night, the Americans during the day with fighter escorts. We want to assume that our readers are intelligent but not necessarily familiar with the subject matter.
The use of fighters was a later development. American doctrine at the time held that fighters could not shoot down bombers. See my article on Kenneth Walker, and Reeds on the Bomber MafiaHawkeye7 (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“It had been hastily assembled to meet demands for an early deployment,” Who was demanding the early deployment? The British, I assume?
Hell no. It was the USAAF brass. They were out to prove that a small number of bombers could defeat Germany. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“The group commander, Lieutenant Colonel Cornelius W. Cousland, was replaced” Any reason as to why?
According to Tibbets, the group spent their time drinking and partying instead of training. In the movie, Gregory Peck arrives to find only Major Tibbets on duty. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“Although a bombing failure resulting in numerous civilian casualties” If they hit what they were trying to hit, how does that make the mission a failure? Sounds like “The mission achieved its main objective against stubborn opposition but also resulted in numerous civilian casualties” would be more accurate.
Er, that would be overstating the case. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“the mission was hailed an overall success because it reached its target against stubborn opposition.” By stubborn opposition, are we talking mainly flak or enemy fighters?
From fighters. The bombers flew above the flak, but then the accuracy fell. Their accuracy was far below what the British were getting at night. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“was replaced by Colonel Frank A. Armstrong, Jr., who appointed Tibbets as his deputy.” Any reason why Armstrong chose Tibbets to be his deputy?
We don't know. Because he was the best pilot, or because he was more competent. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“a shallow penetration raid against a marshalling yard in Rouen in Occupied France, with Armstrong as his co-pilot” If Armstrong was his superior, then why was Tibbets the pilot and Armstrong the co-pilot?
Because he thought that Tibbets was the better pilot. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“In the lead up to Operation Torch” Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think it’s “lead up” when it’s a verb and “lead-up” when it’s a noun, like it is here.
“A few weeks later Tibbets flew the Supreme Allied Commander, Lieutenant General Dwight D. Eisenhower, there” There has got to be a better way to word this sentence.
“After Tibbets had flown 25 combat missions against targets in France” So let me get this straight. He flew 25 missions in France and 18 in North Africa?
“the 97th Bomb Group was transferred to North Africa” Why was it transferred? Was it also transferred from the Eight Air Force to the Twelfth Air Force?
“In January 1943, Tibbets, who had now flown 43 combat missions,[18] was assigned as the assistant for bomber operations to Colonel Lauris Norstad” Do we know why he was assigned to this new position?
Doolittle wanted an officer with combat experience on his staff. Also, there was a policy of rotating officers to staff jobs to avoid combat fatigue. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“Tibbets did not get along well with Norstad, or with Doolittle's chief of staff, Brigadier General Hoyt Vandenberg.” Do we know why he didn’t get along with them?
According to Tibbets, Norstad was a careerist, a coward, and an incompetent. He didn't like Hoyt Vandenberg much either. However both eventually achieved four-star rank. I have Norstad's biography here, but it doesn't mention Tibbets. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is about the previous section: “Three weeks later he was named the commanding officer of the 340th Bombardment Squadron of the 97th Bombardment Group, equipped with the B-17D” I’m assuming the B-17D is the fourth variant of the B-17, right?
The sixth. See the B-17 article for details. It was still an early model though. I had trouble finding an image of one. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“Chief of United States Army Air Forces” Was that Arnold’s official title? If not, “Chief” should be lowercase.
It was his official title. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“the aircraft was 7,000 pounds (3,200 kg) lighter, and its performance was much improved.” How so? Did it fly faster, handle better, etc?
“he discovered that the B-29 had a shorter turning radius than the P-47, and could avoid it by turning away.” You seem to be implying that the B-29 was faster than the P-47. Otherwise, what good does faster turning do you?
If the B-29 has a turning circle of radius r and speed v, and the P-47 has radius r' and speed v', the the B-29 will complete its semicircle in πr/v and the P-47 in πr'/v'. So the B-29 will get away if r/r' < v/v'. Where this becomes really useful is later on, where the tight turn helps the B-29 escape from an atomic explosion. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“Tibbets taught two Women Airforce Service Pilots, Dora Dougherty and Dorothea (Didi) Moorman, to fly the B-29 as demonstration pilots.” I’m assuming he taught a lot of male pilots as well? And when you say “demonstration pilots”, you mean that they then showed male pilots how to fly the B-29 as well?
“although it put a strain on his own marriage” Do we know why?
Tibbets felt that it was because he had to frequently leave, and could not confide in Lucy about what he was doing. I thought it was because she was stuck in a hell hole in the middle of nowhere with two creaming kids. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“A rigorous candidate selection process was used to recruit personnel, reportedly with an 80% "washout" rate. Not until May 1945 did the 509th Composite Group reach full strength.” Were they recruiting personnel for the 509th Composite Group or the 1st Ordnance Squadron?
“The 320th Troop Carrier Squadron kept its base of operations at Wendover.” What’s this unit’s relationship to the 509th? How long had the 320th been at Wendover?
The 320th was part of the 509th. It was activated on 17 December 1944. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“On May 6 the support elements sailed on the SS Cape Victory for the Marianas, while group materiel was shipped on the SS Emile Berliner” What does “SS” stand for in this case?
Steam ship. From the names I can tell that Cape Victory was a Victory ship, and Emile Berliner was a Liberty ship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“Project Alberta's "Destination Team" also sent most of its members to Tinian to supervise the assembly, loading, and dropping of the bombs under the administrative title of 1st Technical Services Detachment, Miscellaneous War Department Group.” This confuses me. The article on Project Alberta states that it consisted of 52 members, and this article states that 51 of them went to Tinian. How about “all but one”?
The Project Alberta aricle says Project Alberta was formed in March 1945, and consisted of 51 Army, Navy and civilian personnel. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“Enola Gay was personally selected by him while it was still on the assembly line.” When and where did this selecting take place?
“became furious when he arrived at the aircraft on the morning of August 6 to see it painted with the now-famous nose art.” What didn’t he like about it?
How would you feel if I had "Hawkeye" painted on the side of your car? Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“At 02:45 the next day…at 08:15 local time.” First, what do you think about using 12-hour time here? 12-hour time is easier for the average reader to understand, but 24-time is more appropriate given the military context. Second, are we talking Tinian local time or Hiroshima local time? Or are they in the same time zone?
We went through this already in the A-class review and they had me change all the times to military. (Actually, at the Hood we would have written 0815K.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“A-bomb” This abbreviation seems unnecessarily informal here.
“He became a celebrity, with pictures and interviews of his wife and children in the major American newspapers.” This is the only place in the article that mentions the children he had with Lucy. We should at least list their names and date or year of birth, even if it’s just in a footnote.
No, it mentions them later. Added their names to the article earlier. I know their dates of birth, but am not including them per WP:BLP, as they are not notable. Paul IV, however, is notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“There were, however, no parades or testimonial dinners for him or any of the other Enola Gay crewmen” Any reason why?
No. It probably has something to do with ambivalence about the bombing at the time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“although Tibbets later received an invitation from President Harry S. Truman to visit the White House” Did he accept?
Yes.
Tibbets did receive one invitation to the White House right after the war. President Truman was his host. "We met in an irregular-shaped room," Tibbets said. "I suppose it was the Oval Office. It was short and quick. He offered me some coffee." As they chatted, Truman asked the pilot if anyone was giving him a hard time-saying unpleasant things to him because of the bomb and the hundreds of thousands of deaths it caused. I said, "Oh, once in a while." Truman said, "You tell them that if they have anything to say, they should call me. I'm the one who sent you."
“The 509th Composite Group was not awarded an Air Force Outstanding Unit Award until 1999.” Again, any reason why? National security or some such concern?
No. Most like it was prompted by the 1990s political campaign to have the Enola Gay restored. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“Tibbets was interviewed extensively by Mike Harden of the Columbus Dispatch,” Did Harden interview him in 1975 too, or did someone else do that?
I'm not sure who interviewed him in 1975. The newspaper interviewed him nearly every year for decades. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Tibbets never lived in Columbus, Ohio, so why would he let them interview him? Was Harden a personal friend or something of the sort?
No, he lived in Columbus, Ohio,from when he became head of Executive Jet Aviation in 1976 until his death in 2007. See the Later life section. I think he became a local celebrity. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a general comment about this whole section. I understand that you can’t really add that much more detail without giving undue weight to the less important aspects of his military career, but why did he move around so much? Is it usual for officers to have so many different postings and positions?
Yes. Normally you pack up and move every two years or so. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“but he and his Enola Gay crew were not chosen to drop another atomic bomb” Any reason why?
They held a competition between three crews and another crew won. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“and also became the first commander of the 509th Bombardment Wing, the successor to the 509th Composite Group.” When did the 509th Composite Group become the 509th Bombardment Wing?
It didn't. The 509th Bomb Wing was formed on 17 November 1947 as part of a new form of organisation in which each wing contained a combat group, an airdrome group, a maintenance and supply group and a station medical group. It incorporated the 509th Bomb Group as its combat group. In 1952 it was decided to abolish the combat groups, with their squadrons coming directly under the wings, and the 509th Bomb Group was inactivated on 16 June 1952. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“Tibbets attended the Air Command and Staff School at Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.”
“he was posted to the Directorate of Requirements at Air Force Headquarters” What was his exact role? Director, deputy director, advisor, attaché, etc.
He had to draw up specifications for future bombers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“Directorate of Requirements at Air Force Headquarters” Could you give a brief description of this department? The name doesn’t tell me too much about it.
“When the director, Brigadier General Thomas S. Power,” Was Power the director of the Air Force headquarters or just the Directorate of Requirements?
The Directorate of Requirements. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“who appointed Tibbets as director of the Strategic Air Division.” What’s the Strategic Air Division’s relationship to the Strategic Air Command?
SAC flies bombers; the Strategic Air Division of Directorate of Requirements draws up specs for future bombers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“Tibbets returned to Maxwell Air Force Base, where he attended the Air War College.” So the Air Command and Staff School and the Air War College are both located at Maxwell. What’s the difference between them? Also, I suppose he graduated from there, too?
The Air Command and Staff School is a course for majors that teaches them how to become senior staff officers; the Air War College is for colonels and teaches how to be a general officer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“He then became Director of War Plans“ What exactly did that position entail?
Fawing up plans for a war with the Soviet Union. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“His marriage to his first wife, Lucy Wingate, ended in divorce in 1955” I think a brief explanation of why they got divorced would be warranted here.
If you can find one. A lot of wartime marriages failed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“His second wife was a French woman named Andrea Quattrehomme, whom he met during his posting there.” What were the circumstances of their meeting?
His French friends felt that he needed feminine company, so they found him dates. Andrea was one of them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“This was followed by another tour of duty at the Pentagon as director of Management Analysis.” When was his first tour of duty at the Pentagon?
The Directorate of Requirements at Air Force Headquarters. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“He retired from the United States Air Force (USAF) on August 31, 1966.” The National Aviation Hall of Fame biography says August 31, 1966, but the United States Air Force biography says September 1, 1966. Which one is it?
You normally retire at midnight on either the last day of the month, or your birthday. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Later life and death
“He retired from the company in 1970 and returned to Miami, Florida.” What was he doing for four years? And why did he retire in the first place?
His next Air Force posting was to be the head of the Department of Defense Transportation. He didn't like the assignment and filed for retirement instead. Over the next years he was in chage of the company's operations in Europe. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“after Tibbets re-enacted the bombing in a restored B-29 at an air show in Texas, complete with mushroom cloud.” How do you get a mushroom cloud without a real atomic bomb?
Oh easily. They are most commonly associated with nuclear explosions, but any sufficiently large blast will produce the same sort of effect. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“which attempted to present the bombing in context with the destruction it caused, as a "damn big insult” Did he consider it “a damm big insult” to himself, his Enola Gay crew, or the whole 509th Composite Group, etc.?
“He was survived by his wife Andrea and three sons, Paul III, Gene and James.” You’re correct that the article does name the three sons he had with Lucy. However, the current wording here implies that he had these three sons with Andrea, not Lucy, hence my earlier confusion.
Drive-by comment from May 2
In the "Later life and death" section it says "He had requested that his body be cremated and his ashes scattered over the English Channel." That makes it sound like that's what he wanted, but it doesn't tell the reader whether or not it actually happened. For maximum clarity, you should perhaps change it to "In accordance with his wishes, his body was created..." AmericanLemming (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It could also mean that the editors have an abundance of sources attesting to his 2005 wish, but could not locate one attesting that it actually happened. Happily, I found one, so I have changed the article accordingly. (I became very cautious about such thing while writing about this guy, who have a grave at Arlington National Cemetery, but he isn't in it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing my comment. I am satisfied with the sentence now. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per the essay Wikipedia:Citing IMDb, we cannot use the user-generated portions of the IMDb. However, the footnotes here (FN46-53) refer only to the credits. Since RSN says that "a film is acceptable as a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE for things like the plot, film credits" we could remove the IMDb footnotes and leave the movies and TV shows as their own sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other points addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye, have you had an image review? I may be able to do a prose review too, since you don't seem to have had much aside from AL's review.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. An image review should be fairly straightforward. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commons says it is from NARA (NWDNS-208-LU-13H-5), and admin Rlseve reviewed it in 2009. I've added a link to its NARA page, [10]. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I've clarified at the information talk page a bit more. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, this looks to be good now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prose review from Crisco
I know it's kinda silly to be asking this, but can we reduce the number of "bomb" words in the lede? I count 14.
Reduced by four to ten. This will make the lead much less violent. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a considerable number of redirects in the prose
Tibbets recalled that the city was covered with a tall mushroom cloud when the bomb was dropped. - might be read as the cloud already being there when the bomb was dropped, and not as a result of the bomb
The section #War against Japan could probably be retitled
When the head of the directorate, Brigadier General Thomas S. Power, was posted to London as air attaché, he was replaced by Brigadier General Carl Brandt, who appointed Tibbets as director of its Strategic Air Division, which was responsible for drawing up requirements for future bombers. - so many clauses... could this be split?
his first wife Lucy. - you didn't mention the new marriage yet, so this is jolting~~
The whole "Film" paragraph could probably work a bit further south... it's rather jarring to jump from the narrative to his portrayal in fiction to the narrative
Okay, I have moved it down. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
where he had spent part of his childhood. - is this significant?
Quick response to this point. I added that phrase because I thought it might help explain why he moved to Miami. Yes, I know that it's mentioned in the "Early life" section, but I'd already forgotten it by the end of the article, and most readers don't read the entire article anyway. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We like to help out the people who don't read the article whenever we can. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He later left Miami to return to Executive Jet Aviation, having sold his Miami home in 1974. - when?
I've expanded on this a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 393d Bomb Squadron was one of the two operational squadrons that had formed part of the 509th Composite Group when Tibbets commanded it. Colonel Paul W. Tibbets IV, his grandson and a 1989 graduate of the United States Air Force Academy, commanded the 393d Bomb Squadron, flying the B-2 Spirit at Whiteman AFB, Missouri, from 2005 to 2007. - doesn't really work as a stand-alone paragraph. A footnote, maybe — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a 1973 album by the New York Dolls. It is considered by writers to be one of rock music's greatest debut albums and an important influence on the 1970s punk rock movement and future generations of rock groups. The article is properly sourced and written, appropriately illustrated, and does not leave out any important information about its topic. Dan56 (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"For shock value, the band was photographed in exaggerated drag on the album cover." (while I see where you're going with placing this sentence immediately after the unappealing cross-dressing paragraph, the lead should obey a chronologic order in my opinion)
It flows better this way, though. Although there is nothing at WP:LEAD about flow, nor about chronology. Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe add something like "in keeping with this reputation" or something in that vein. Though how much you can add without getting into WP:SYNTH might pose a challenge.--¿3family6contribs 14:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph is composed of solely two sentences which despite well written, should be split, in order to provide a more articulate and easy read for readers.
Split the second sentence. Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"has since received retrospective acclaim" (wouldn't retrospective be redundant in this part?)
"their style of rock and roll." (as ignorant as this may sound, because frankly I'm not familiarized with rock music, which style are you referring to? This may elicit some doubts on whether you're meaning musical style or their fashion itself)
Changed from "rock and roll" to "rock music". Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"their tour of England" (clarify—is that their own solo tour or were they opening for another band?)
Changed to "while on the New York Dolls' first tour of England". Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
——— Recording and production
The article throughout its body repeats "However," a lot of times. Replace some of those instances with synonyms.
Removed/replaced two of them. Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Although Sylvain said he was not an interfering producer, Rundgren occasionally asserted himself to improve a take." (I swear to God I do not understand this sentence)
Would "occasionally involved himself" be better? Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it "Frankenstien" or Frankenstein?
The latter, fixed misspelling. Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Trash' in the last sentence should be "Trash".
It is, though lol. Dan56 (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
——— Critical reception
"In a rave review" (verging on puffery; let the reader take his own conclusions by reading the bits and pieces of the review)
The characterization was taken from the book (that is, the source that summarizes the review by NME). Also, a previous discussion at WP:MOS (Archive 154) (which I took part in :$) did not come to any conclusion to prohibit its use, just determine on a case-by-case basis. Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, AllMusic is no longer published by Rovi - since 2013 it's published through All Media Network.--¿3family6contribs 14:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed most of the issues raised, did my best to respond to the others, Prism Please correct me if I misinterpreted any of the points you raised, and thanks for starting the review process! Dan56 (talk) 00:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing the points I addressed; I give you my Support. prism△ 19:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Read the whole article twice and i feel that it is well written and well sourced. The lead summarizes the article very well and the prose is well worked and formatted. I don't see any problems with it. So it passes as a featured article according to me.Abhinav0908 (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the New York Dolls recorded their first album at The Record Plant in New York City with producer Todd Rundgren, who was known for his sophisticated pop sound and held a lukewarm opinion of the band." (This sentence is good, but I would consider putting "who" before "held" to make more clear that Todd Rundgren was the one who held a lukewarm opinion of them. Not a huge issue, though, and if you keep it, I would totally understand.)
IMO, another "who" would inhibit the flow of the prose (consecutive "who"'s) and isn't really needed for readers, since Rundgren is the only individual mentioned in the sentence and wouldn't be confused with any other. Dan56 (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda figured that you would disagree. As I said, it's extremely minor. In fact, it's probably better the way it is on second thought. Johnny338 (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
——— Background
"Rundgren, who was known for his sophisticated pop sound..." (This pretty much repeats what is said in the lead. If I were you, I'd consider rewording it to avoid redundancy.)
Would changing "sophisticated" to "refined pop production" suffice? Dan56 (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it gets the same point across while avoiding repetition! Johnny338 (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Consequently, his initial impression of the New York Dolls was a live act more humorous than musical and technically competent only by the standards of other unsophisticated New York bands..." (This sentence seems kinda awkward. I would reword it to make it flow better.)
"...impression of the New York Dolls was that of a humorous live act who are technically ..." Better this way? Dan56 (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph, with Christgau's analysis, seems kinda wonky and awkward. I would consider chopping it, as it seems to border on overkill.
I copy-edited and split the first sentence into two and paraphrased the last sentence in simpler terms. Dan56 (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This looks much better. In the future, because Christgau is known for his, shall we say, "unusual" style of writing, I think it would be better just to quote him rather than paraphrasing him, as it has the potential to kinda stop the momentum of the reading (as the original paragraph here did, IMO). Johnny338 (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
——— Legacy and influence
"Since its initial reception, New York Dolls has been cited as one of the greatest debut albums in rock music and one of the genre's most popular cult records." (This borders on weasel wording. Let the rankings by the different lists and magazines speak for themselves.)
The sources cited explicitly say these things tho and they (writers Tony Fletcher and Stephen Thomas Erlewine) are just summarizing something widespread or common about the album's reputation), so there's no "vague or ambiguous claim(s)". It'd be a weasel-word case if I wrote the above and cited a writer who says "it is one of the greatest debut albums" instead of "it has been viewed as one...", thereby creating the impression of a widespread view rather than just one writer's personal ranking. Dan56 (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha! Blame my lack of experience in that regard. Johnny338 (talk) 23:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of the article looks very good. This is a very well-written article, and I think it deserves an FA nomination. Keep in mind, though, that this was my first FA review, so please forgive me if my suggestions seem unnecessary. Johnny338 (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Np Johnny338, as long as the article looks up to snuff with WP:FACR to you. Dan56 (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can find no other major issues with the article. I must say you have done a very impressive job with it! Kudos! Johnny338 (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I have reviewed the media associated with this entire article, and have passed it in terms of audio file(s) and picture(s). The article looks and reads fantastically.HotHat (talk) 07:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the reasons mentioned above. The article seems to satisfy the FA criteria. --Myxomatosis57 (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note It might be timely to remind reviewers that FAC and the promotion of articles to FA is not based on votes, but on reaching a consensus after critical comments have been resolved and formal checks completed. Reasons for supporting such as "per above" and generic statements like "a quick readthrough reveals no problems" carry little weight are unlikely to be taken into consideration. Graham Colm (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of column width
Done, changed to {{reflist|30em}} Dan56 (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Periodicals without weblinks should include page numbers
I've added the missing pages for the Mojo/Anon.1995 citation ([12]). Are there others? Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do many periodicals split publication date to be half before and half after title? Why is the second part sometimes before and sometimes after the location?
I followed Jerome Kohl's advice for citation formatting when volume and/or issue number of a periodical is not given, which he offered in a past FAC ([13]). Basically, in those cases, the day and month portion of the full publication date is used in the issue parameter rather than the date parameter so that there is a consistent citation style, i.e author-year. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Quietus should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Quietus isn't printed media, it's a webzine. prism△ 12:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:New_York_Dolls_-_Trash.ogg: discussion of lyrics can be done without using non-free media, so this excerpt needs a stronger justification for inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this better, Nikkimaria? I've revised it to touch on more musical/aural qualities. Dan56 (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have I addressed everything Nikkimaria or are there are other things needed to support the article? Dan56 (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I'm impressed with the effort that has gone into this well-written and informative article. It's a great read, perhaps especially for someone like myself who is a fan of the album. I have just a couple minor suggestions:
(1) In the lead: "only charted at number 116 on the Billboard 200". This may just be personal preference, but I tend to interpret "charted at" as the position for a specific chart period (e.g., "charted at number 116 in its first week of release" or "charted at number 116 three weeks ago"), and not the equivalent of "peaked at" or "reached". Could one of those be used instead?
I checked GoogleBooks and found articles/results that use "charted at" with this meaning when referring to peaks for past albums ([14], [15], [16]) More importantly, though, I felt that "charted at" offers the layperson more because the sentence is about charting (plus an opportunity to pipe link record chart), offering more than "reached" or "peaked at" would, IMO. Dan56 (talk) 06:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points, especially the latter. That works for me. Gongshow talk 07:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(2) Release and reception: "It ultimately sold fewer than 500,000 copies." The Rolling Stone source is eleven years old, which isn't to suggest that the album has since passed that threshold, but perhaps the sentence can be changed to something like, "As of 2003, it had sold fewer than 500,000 copies."
At this point the article is in excellent shape. My comments are all minor ones related to the writing.
Support All the issues that I raised are now addressed.
Consistent use of national English
I am trying to remember where I encountered this on Wikipedia, but I thought that in American English, the term "its" is used, while in British English the term "their" is used (as in "its debut album" vs. "their debut album). Forgive me if I'm wrong about this.
I don't know about that, but an article like the Beatles uses "their" a few times in the lead, just as an example. I do know of the "are" vs. "is" difference when referring to things like groups of people, but that's it. Dan56 (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here we are, I found something: Comparison of American and British English#Formal and notional agreement. "In American English (AmE), collective nouns are almost always singular in construction: the committee was unable to agree. However, when a speaker wishes to emphasize that the individuals are acting separately, a plural pronoun may be employed with a singular or plural verb: the team takes their seats, rather than the team takes its seats. However, such a sentence would most likely be recast as the team members take their seats." So you need to make sure all references to collective nouns in the article follow American standards rather than British ones. FYI, The Beatles follows British guidelines.--¿3family6contribs 14:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't? I think all the "their"s in the article refer to the band (a collective noun), while most if not all the "its" refer to the album (not a collective noun). Dan56 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Collective nouns are singular in American English, that's what I'm trying to say. So "its" should be used in place of "their."--¿3family6contribs 15:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But, in order to be consistent, how do I reconcile that with sentences like "However, they were unappealing ... because of their", "Their performance at...". I've looked at most the sentences, and they wouldn't read well if many of the "their"s were replaced with "its", which none of the sources use either for the same reason I suspect--wouldn't "the New York Dolls" be a plural pronoun? Dan56 (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I took some time to think about how the sentences could be reworded, and I'll give some examples:
"However, they were unappealing to record companies because of their onstage cross-dressing and vulgarity, while most record producers were reluctant to work with them." This can be reworded as "However, the band [or New York Dolls] was unappealing to record companies because of the band members' habits of onstage cross-dressing and vulgarity, and most record producers were also reluctant to work with the band."
"The band toured the United States in promotion of the album, but were difficult to market and developed a reputation for rock-star excesses." All that needs to get changed here is "were" to "was."
"According to Sylvain, they were club-going youths who had gone to New York with different career pursuits, and the band was meant to be a temporary project:" This DOES NOT need to change, as it is emphasizes that the individuals are acting separately.
"After the band had signed, Mercury Records wanted to find a record producer who could make the most out of the New York Dolls' sound and the hype they had received from critics and local fans." Change "they" to "the group."
"Mercury booked the New York Dolls at The Record Plant in New York City,[9] where they recorded their self-titled debut album in April 1973." Change to "Mercury booked the New York Dolls at The Record Plant in New York City,[9] where the group recorded its self-titled debut album in April 1973" or something similar.
"Rundgren, on the other hand, said that the band's sensibilities were different from "the urban New York thing" because they had been raised outside Manhattan and drew on carefree rock and roll and Brill Building pop influences such as the Shangri-Las:" Change "they" to "the members."
Obviously this list is not exhaustive, but hopefully it will give you an idea of how to rewrite things. I know it is a nuisance, but the article needs to follow MOS standards of consistent use of national English in order to be a featured article. Once this issue is addressed, I will happily support the article's promotion to featured status.--¿3family6contribs 16:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I wouldn't do the work if needed, but since Comparison of American and British English is still just a Wikipedia article, I thought I'd research it a bit and found this: "Quirk et al. (1972), p. 361, ... 'But even in [American English], a plural verb may be preferred whena plural seems obligatory elsewhere in the sentence : The audience are raising their hands to signify their approval." (Salama & Ghali (1982) American and British English Preferences: Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, Prepositions, Vocabulary) This might explain why I don't recall any sources phrasing the New York Dolls with singular verbs or w.e. Also, I'd imagine it'd make for repetitive, clunkier prose (eg. "However, the band ... the band members..."). Dan56 (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of the exceptions I mentioned above, where the actions of each individual are taken separately, as opposed to all individuals being considered a collective unit. I found a source here from Oxford English Dictionaries that goes over collective nouns. As far as I can tell from everything that I'm looking at, if the term "band" or "group" is used, it's treated as a singular, whereas "band members" or "musicians" is treated as a plural.--¿3family6contribs 13:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I understand. How does what Quirk et al. say relate to "each individual"? Do you mean the example cited by Quirk? If so, I don't see how "The audience..." sentence suggests actions of each individual anymore than the sentences you mentioned above from this article. The sentence from Quirk et al. doesn't use "audience members" or "members of the audience". Dan56 (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am referencing this: "However, when a speaker wishes to emphasize that the individuals are acting separately, a plural pronoun may be employed with a singular or plural verb: the team takes their seats, rather than the team takes its seats. However, such a sentence would most likely be recast as the team members take their seats." I.e. "each member of the team each took their seat." As far as I can tell from everything I have read, when talking about a band, you should use "its" or "it."--¿3family6contribs 23:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I did some digging (see Cognitive English Grammar page 35 and Preparing for Call Center Interviews, and basically what I found is that because the band name is a plural noun - The New York Dolls, the grammatically correct usage is as a plural, i.e. "their", "they", "are". So, in this case, referring to both the band and the band members is grammatically the same. If the band name was a singular, i.e. The Clash, then you would have a difference between references to the band and references to the band members. So, in this case, the article is all set.--¿3family6contribs 00:18, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment above in Pedro's review, I think the two sentences about cross-dressing don't work well together. Could they be blended better? For instance, "However, they were unappealing to record companies because of their onstage cross-dressing and vulgarity, while most record producers were reluctant to work with them. In keeping with this reputation for shock value, the band was photographed in exaggerated drag on the album cover."
I don't think their intention (if it was shock value) is in any source, apart from just why they did it for the album cover. From one of the books cited, I understand that it was Johansen's concept for the group to indulge in overly theatrical showmanship when performing live rather than it be intended to shock people. As far as the lead is concerned, IMO, the two sentences are connected by the idea of them cross-dressing/wearing drag, not why they did it or whether they had a reputation for it. Dan56 (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re-reading it, I think its fine. The first couple times I saw it, it just seemed an abrupt transition.--¿3family6contribs 14:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spacing in final paragraph in Background section
In the main part of the Background section, a sentence concludes with "...signed a two-album deal with a US$25,000 advance." Should there be a space between US and $25,000? Perhaps rewrite as $25,000 USD? I'm not that familiar with the MOS guidelines in this instance.
Looking at the article for US $, the space is included. Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Frankenstein (Orig.)"
This sentence confused me: "According to Johnansen, the band's lyricist and concept leader, 'Frankenstein (Orig.)'..." To me it sounded like "Frankenstein (Orig.)" is a person. I just haven't seen "lyricist" used that way before.
Johansen is the lyricist, so I've revised it to make that clearer. Dan56 (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
The commercial reception is given in the "Release and promotion" section. I know this is a minor issue, but could you perhaps move the information about the commercial reception into its own section. I'd suggest creating a "Reception" section with "Commercial reception" and "Critical reception" as sub-sections.
Well, how the album was received by critics didn't have anything to do with how it was promoted, whereas how it sold is directly related to how it was promoted and how the band's activity (touring, performing live) was received by audiences/consumers, i.e. the people buying it rather than the critics reviewing it. Pieces of the section, like how difficult it was to market the album and how divisive the band was on listeners, would have to be pieced out, and I think there's only a paragraph's worth of "Commercial performance" material--MOS:ALBUM#Article body recommends merging shorter sections into longer one. The way it is now is less complicated and is more suitable for the information available, so I'd like to have subsections only when really needed. Dan56 (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A couple sentences seemed odd to me: "...is the only one "so far to fully define just exactly where 1970s rock should be coming from." "...it is by far the year's most compelling hard rock album and that at least half of its songs are immediate classics..." The present tense here I found confusing. I don't know if you should change it or not, I'm just giving you my impression.
I understand, although the critics were making these claims in present tense (thus contemporary rather than retrospective reviews), and these remarks are introduced by "[critic A] wrote that" or "said that", which should make it known that it is still their wording. Dan56 (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a reader, I just found myself getting confused, so I wondered if you could make it clearer in those sections that it was the reviewer's own use of the present tense.--¿3family6contribs 14:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "wrote that" and "said that" did that, and it's self-evident in quotes like "...maybe the world right now..." and the fact that they wouldn't be writing of the album's quality in past tense, because they obviously think in their reviews that the album is good rather than was good. Dan56 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole, the article is very well written and referenced, and will be a nice addition to Wikipedia's featured content.--¿3family6contribs 17:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about an engineer, inventor and science administrator, who was the head of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) during World War II. Part of a series of articles on the Manhattan Project. He is also known for his work on analog computers, for founding Raytheon, and for the memex, which introduced the concept that we now know as the hyperlink. Article passed GA and A class reviews back in 2012, but it now takes two years to bring an article to FAC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. "His office was considered one of the key factors in winning the war" becomes clearer as the reader moves through the article, but I'm not sure if the meaning is clear in the lead. Also, in American English, if I say I'm going to meet you for lunch, it's clear that I'm not saying "I'll encounter you for the first time" (though I would be!), but "Lincoln met Emerson in Washington in February 1862" means that's the first time they met. Someone has gone through changing every "met with" to "met", and that changes the meaning, or at the very least makes the meaning ambiguous. My understanding is that the rules are different in BritEng, which adds a complication, but not a sufficient complication to justify those edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be! The Wiktionary says that In the sense "come face to face with someone by arrangement", meet is sometimes used with the preposition with in American English. This is also true is AusEng, but here "meet with" means to have a formal meeting — one of those meetings where there is an agenda and minutes. Looking through the change history reveals that change was made by an IP editor from Norway in April 2013. I've reversed it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone wanted a reference for the pronunciation of Bush's first name. I've never heard of that being questioned before. I'm taking the word of the phonologists that the symbols are correct. However, I do know how it is pronounced. You can hear it straight from the man himself through one of the article's external links, thanks to a technology that lets us listen to dead people. (Wind through to the 13-minute mark.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Truman caption should not end in a period
File:DA_Cambridge_c1937.jpg: this is missing a US PD tag, but I'm also concerned about the life+70 tag - who created the image, and what was his/her date of death?
File:Lawrence_Compton_Bush_Conant_Compton_Loomis_83d40m_March_1940_meeting_UCB.JPG: the given source link redirects here - why?
File:Hanford_Site_Selection_Team.jpg: source link is dead
File:Kepler-solar-system-2.gif: source link is dead, needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.
I have no idea. WP:CONEXCEPT applies here. We are not allowed to query decisions made on Commons.
The site imglib.lbl.gov no longer exists. There's a feature that displays a custom site for a 404 error. So instead of getting ugly 404s, we now get helpful spam.
Added a link to another usage. It seems that Wayback is forbidden from archiving the site.
Er, what "decision"? AFAICT it's never been nominated for deletion or otherwise queried on Commons. And even if it had been and was deemed okay, we require that our FAs have appropriately licensed and sourced media. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're still not allowed to dispute Commons, so if they say it's okay, it is. I must confess that I find their ways mysterious. Consider this image, which Commons sources to the Wikipedia. Anyhow, I have switched the image to one with a clearer pedigree. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments from Hamiltonstone
Tremendously interesting character.
Given the article is quite long, i thought this was detail that could be trimmed, from this: "Bush returned to Tufts in October 1914 to teach mathematics for $300 a term. This was increased to $400 per term in February 1915. He spent the summer break in 1915 working at the Brooklyn Navy Yard as an electrical inspector." to this: "Bush returned to Tufts in October 1914 where he taught mathematics, and spent the 1915 summer break working at the Brooklyn Navy Yard as an electrical inspector."
"He received his doctorate in engineering from MIT and Harvard University jointly in 1917, after a dispute with his adviser Arthur Edwin Kennelly, who tried to demand more work from him". This seems to be a bit of a non-sequitur for the reader: I didn't grasp why a joint award of a doctorate would be caused by an adviser wanting more work.
Again on length, I'd suggest that in a bio about Bush, all this detail could be omitted: "Tolman for armor and ordnance, Conant for chemicals and explosives, Jewitt for communications and transportation, Compton for controls and instrumentation (including radar), and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Conway Peyton Coe for patents and inventions."
The stuff about Tizard and the radar problem seems to detour rather a long way from being about Bush - can this be made more concise?
I get the strategic significance and extraordinary achievement of the proximity fuze, but again in a biography of a person wonder if there's a little too much detail about the process of its delivery and the technical challenges that attached. I'd like to see other editors' views, though; I'm open to it being appropriate.
Will try and come back another time. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Made the changes as suggested. Bush's greatest contributions to the war effort were radar and nuclear weapons. The Americans were convinced that they were the most technologically advanced country in the world. The Tizard Mission showed them that they were not. Knowing that they were behind Britain also created doubts that they were ahead of Germany. Bush was behind the creation of the Radiation Laboratory, and the Manhattan Project. Moreover, the scientists who were involved in the former usually moved on to the latter. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nowadays he is most famous for his 1945 prediction that "wholly new forms of encyclopedias will appear, ready made with a mesh of associative trails running through them". Which is what you are looking at. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we take it as read that the navy would have wanted it to work on a metal ship?
In a word: no. This probably comes from being acquainted with minesweepers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those changes, Hawkeye, and your clarifications here. Depending on other reviewers, I'd still like to see the proximity fuze text tightened to focus more on Bush, particularly as you point out that his greatest contributions were radar and nuclear weapons. But I am very happy to wait and see if anyone else thinks the same thing. On some other occasion, I hope I will return and review the rest. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noting what Ian Rose says below, i too feel the memex section has too many quotes. Can I suggest a slimming revision of this:
"He wanted the memex to behave like the "intricate web of trails carried by the cells of the brain", but easily accessible as "a future device for individual use ... a sort of mechanized private file and library" in the shape of a desk.[1] The memex was also intended as a tool to study the "awe-inspiring" brain, particularly the way the brain links data by association rather than by indexes and traditional, hierarchical storage paradigms".
To this:
"He wanted the memex to emulate the way the brain links data by association rather than by indexes and traditional, hierarchical storage paradigms, and be easily accessed as "a future device for individual use ... a sort of mechanized private file and library" in the shape of a desk.[1]
"...physical and medical sciences; he did not propose funding the social sciences.[84] In Science, The Endless Frontier, science historian..." Any chance you can find a way to ditch at least one use of the word "science" in this run of text?
No I can't. Bush says "chemistry, engineering, geology, mathematics, physics, psychology, and the biological sciences". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's something odd about the lack of details in the third paragraph of "later life" (which apparently begins in one's late 50s - yikes). He was a director of a bunch of companies, all pretty serious players in the corporate world of that time. What was he doing there? Do we really know nothing of his contributions when he spent five years as chairman at Merck? Fifteen years with AT&T, armed with all his military connections and knowledge? Was he just warming a chair? I appreciate that, if the sources don't say, then we're stuck, but I find it a stark contrast to the great detail about some of his wartime contributions.
It can be a bludge. You show up once a month or so and collect your money for signing off on things. Zachary devotes 25 pages to 1955-1970, and it's all about contesting his legacy. But this is also because historians of science and us military historians are not so interested. I recall that the books on Ginger Burston overlooked his contribution to horse racing and I had to approach the Moonee Valley Racing Club for information. I'll see what I can dig up. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Found a bit about Merck. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it can be a bludge - but my feeling is that there is generally a lack of scrutiny or analysis of corporate history. Big companies like AT&T transform the world, in good ways and bad, but the amount of effort that is expended by scholars on actually analysing them is pathetic compared to the endless production of historical analysis of every battle, every general and every technology in every war ever fought ;-) Well done you for finding that bit on Merck. If you can find more, do add it in, but I'm a support now. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments -- recusing myself from delegate duties to copyedit/review:
He then attended Tufts College, like his father before him. -- "father before him" sounds almost biblical to me, though I admit I haven't yet come up with what I consider an ideal alternative.
The closest would be 1 Kings 15:3: And he walked in all the sins of his father, which he had done before himHawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you used the section header World War II period for a reason but I'd have thought simply World War II was good enough.
No, it's been that way since March 2007, long before my first edit to the article in April 2012. Changed to "World War II". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bush was fond of saying that "if he made any important contribution to the war effort at all, it would be to get the Army and Navy to tell each other what they were doing." -- was that really Bush speaking, or his biographer relating Bush's thoughts?
That was Bush speaking. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
his critics were right in seeing Bush's attitude as a failure of vision -- personally I'd say that's a fair call but in an encyclopedic article I think such a value judgement needs explicit attribution, or else should be toned down a bit.
Changed to Having delayed its funding, Bush's prediction proved correct in that ENIAC was not be completed until after the war, but his critics saw his attitude as a failure of vision.Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last paragraph of Memex concept is a quote-fest, what appears to be a mix of words from Bush himself and from biographers, so suggest attribution to clarify things.
Otherwise, as long as you're okay with my edits, I'm pretty happy. Structure and level of detail seem fine; I'd prefer to leave image and source reviews to others but will see how things go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review! Nikki carried out an image review (above). Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for responses/changes. Happy to support, on the assumption the source review comes back clear. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review -- In the absence of any other comments I took a quick look at refs -- all look reliable, and no glaring formatting errors stood out. I suppose I'd expect that with all the book sources one of them would have all the details in the Find-a-Grave citation (whose template format is somewhat different to other the other online refs) but I don't think it's a show-stopper. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced it with another source, but kept it in the external links so people can still see the grave. (It would be nice if some Wikipedian would go and photograph it, but Massachusetts is a long way away.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing in main body and moving to ELs sounds like a good solution. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Another one of my German battleship articles. This one had a relatively active career, having taken part in the suppression of the Boxer Rebellion, though she was long-since obsolete by the outbreak of World War I. For what it's worth (wörth?), if and when this article is promoted, it will provide the necessary number of FAs to turn this current good topic into (I think) the second largest Featured topic on Wikipedia. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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) 19:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Some details differ between infobox and text, such as draft
Good catch, I didn't notice the different draft when I copied over the updated infobox from the SMS Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm article.
Be consistent in whether you include states for locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All removed. Thanks Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Hamiltonstone. Not the sort of article I generally review, but i found it well-written and explained. In the 1901-1914 section, is there any link available to explain to a layreader the concept of a "Reserve Formation" or "Reserve status"? I take it the convention with these articles has been not to footnote the facts in the infobox because they are all cited in the text? If so, that's fine. Don't think i can fault anything else. Good work. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Recusing myself from delegate duties, I reviewed and copyedited at MilHist ACR and, having looked over changes made in the interim, I believe it meets the FA criteria as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the mythological Scottish water horse that perhaps still inhabits Loch Ness, not the Australian sheep dog. Accounts of the creature differ so much that it's been quite a difficult subject to make sense of, but here's our effort. We hope you like it. EricCorbett 22:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Possible to make the lead image a bit larger?
File:The_Kelpie_by_Thomas_Millie_Dow.jpg should use original rather than upload date. Also, what was the creator's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. All taken care of now I think. EricCorbett 16:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - taking a look now...will jot queries below....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know we're limited by what the sources say, but seems odd that it is a lowland scottish term yet we're talking about Loch Ness (a wee bit north into the highlands)
The answer I think is that pretty much all of the sources are written in English rather than Scottish Gaelic – in fact I can't remember having come across one written in Gaelic – so the writers/translators would naturally have used the Lowland Scottish term rather than the Gaelic cailpeach for instance probably used by the locals. EricCorbett 10:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
is there a reference calling it a demon? Seems a bit....extreme...
Added a definition of the kelpie being described as a demon. EricCorbett 10:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
as alluded to by Robert Burns in his poem "Address to the Deil" (1786). you wouldn't be incline to say..."as alluded to by Robert Burns in his 1786 poem "Address to the Deil" " (so we can ditch the parentheses?)
The last sentence of the Description and common attributes looks a bit lonely there at the end - also slightly ambiguous as comes right after the progeny bit. I think it'd be better up nearer the top of the segment as it summarises the range of kelpie's temperament well.
In the Shapeshifting section, I'd shift para 3 up to near the top - as it is odd to describe "male or female" up top before this para. Be nice if it can be slotted in there somehow or integrated better.
The nature of the creatures can be categorised as "useful", "hurtful", seeking "human companionship" - in a better spot now...but looks a bit odd plural - can we singularise it?
We certainly can, now done. EricCorbett 12:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you want to add this, but I found this. There is a secondary source discussing Mollie Hunter's use of scottish folklore in her work. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we could maybe incorporate those two books into the Loch Ness section, but I'll wait to see what Sagaciousphil thinks. EricCorbett 12:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I really do dislike 'In popular culture' type sections but I can see adding a couple could be advantageous within the Loch Ness section ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's nice if you can thread them into an existing section with a natural seguing of content. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the constructive comments, Cas Liber. Eric has added some detail about the books to the Loch Ness section. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportOtherwise looking Over the Line on comprehensiveness and prose - I would not see the noninclusion of the two books as dealbreakers as I know folks are divided on these things (I'd put 'em in, especially with independent reviews, but I realise others wouldn't). Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We've included those two books now. EricCorbett 22:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The creature's nature can be categorised as "useful", "hurtful" or seeking "human companionship" -perhaps described rather than categorised would fit better here?
Re-jigged a little to change it to described and included who described it. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"a similar tale also set in Perthshire has an each uisge as the culprit" -Have I missed something? What is an each uisge?
Each Uisge is linked in the preceding paragraph; do you think a fuller explanation might be better there? SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it really needs it but something very basic putting it in context might help.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I' ve added a very brief explanation of what an each-uisge is when the term is first introduced in the preceding paragraph. EricCorbett 22:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aberdeenshire and Perthshire linked but not the Highlands?
"A folk tale from the Island of Barra" -you might add ", in the Outer Hebrides". Is it common to capitalise the Island before Barra too?
Removed initial cap from island and added Outer Hebrides with link. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"A folk tale from the Island of Barra tells of a lonely kelpie that transformed itself into a handsome young man to woo a pretty young girl it had determined to take for a wife. But the girl recognised the young man as a kelpie and removed his silver necklace while he slept, his bridle. The kelpie immediately reverted to its equine form, and the girl took it home to her father's farm, where it was put to work for a year. At the end of that time the girl rode the kelpie to consult a wise man, who told her to return the silver necklace. " Just thinking, when referring to a folk tale isn't it referred to in the present tense, "tells of a lonely kelpie that transforms itself"?
You could well be right. Certainly I'd use the literary present tense when writing a plot summary for a short story, so I guess the same logic applies here. So I've done that. EricCorbett 22:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"after which it is seen to consist of nothing more than "turf and a soft mass like jelly-fish"." Who sees it? Perhaps mention who describes it as such.
The quotation is published in Lewis Spence's The Magic Arts in Celtic Britain, but not being subject to the same rules as we are here on WP he doesn't say where it came from originally. EricCorbett 22:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Sir Walter Scott alludes to a similar explanation in his epic poem The Lady of the Lake (1883)" - clicking Walter Scott I see he died in 1832, is 1883 correct or was it a reprint or what? 1810 seems to be the commonly cited date. You should probably link The Lady of the Lake too.
Thanks, well spotted! I've changed it to 1810, the first publication date of the poem and linked to the article. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Two 30-metre (98 ft) high steel sculptures in Falkirk on the Forth and Clyde Canal, named The Kelpies, borrow the name of the mythical creature to associate with the strength and endurance of the horse; they were built as monuments to Scotland's horse-powered industrial heritage." -I think you should state the sculptor and date of creation here even if not in the lede.
I've added a little bit to it covering these and public opening date (for good measure). SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A most fascinating read Eric and SP, thanks for that.
♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your constructive comments, Dr. Blofeld. I think I've fixed some of the (easier) ones and will let Eric deal with the slightly more complex changes. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to read through the article, and of course for your support. EricCorbett 22:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be "banes", not "bones" in Scots, see here for example. I checked the Walker source you cite and it does indeed have "bones". This is a typo in the source though; it needs to rhyme with "stanes" remember. --John (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC) It looks fine apart from that though. --John (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, John - I replaced the ref to use Chambers as the quote seems to have been slightly tweaked/suffered typos by various authors who have repeated it over the years? SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above tweaks. Nice work. --John (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read through this soon, but at first glance, the article looks a bit bare. Sure this[20] couldn't be added (perhaps under Artistic representations)? Especially since there are no other horse-like depictions in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eric and I did have a discussion about this - The Kelpies are actually not the mythical horse and portray the heavy horse; the sculpture design moved away from the original idea but retained the name. We did exhaustive searches (with some much appreciated help from other editors who work with images all the time) but were unable to find any relevant free images except another Draper sketch. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, considering how much text is devoted to the statue, adding a photo of it would be in accordance with the manual of style, since it wouldn't only be decorative, but would illustrate a part of the text which is important enough to be mentioned in the lead. But it's your decision. Would make the article look nice, though. FunkMonk (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As Sagaciousphil says, she and I have discussed this, and neither of us feel that a representation of the heads of Clydesdale horses is appropriate. I have added a representation of the Pictish Beast though, which we both agreed on. EricCorbett 12:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I was thinking of that as well. FunkMonk (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Bäckahästen" does not need a citation in the lead, it is not controversial. FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he also mentions the name "Bäckahästen" without "the" in front of it once, and that is the other correct way (apart from "the Bäckahäst"). FunkMonk (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The instance where he mentions it without "the" before it is: "Traditionally the kappa, like the nix, bäckahästen, and kelpy, are malevolent ..." - if the spirits were transposed to read: "... Traditionally the kelpy, like the bäckahästen, nix, and kappa" the word "the" would probably not be added in front of "nix" either. As the source never uses "bäckahäst" we would be introducing something not included in the reference. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "Bäckahästen" without "the" would work as well. It doesn't introduce anything new, it is just grammatically correct. But I guess no one cares, so up to you. FunkMonk (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're not concerned with Swedish grammar, our concern is with English grammar. EricCorbett 12:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the lead: "to be wary of handsome strangers" from the article: "to be wary of attractive young men". There should not be such difference in meaning, the lead is just a summary of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked the wording in the body text. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the Columba story supposed to have happened in the River Ness, rather than Loch Ness itself?
St Adamnan in his Vita Columbae says that Columba was sailing up the loch when a monster appeared and threatened one of his monks, who was swimming across the mouth of the River Ness to procure a boat to take them to Inverness. He doesn't appear to say whether the monster came from the river or the loch. Later accounts were quite possibly coloured by the distinction between kelpies that live in running water and water horses that live in still water. EricCorbett 09:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be quite some inconsistency in tense when characteristics and old stories are recounted. Should be the same.
We have been very fortunate to have several of the most experienced, skilled and highly sought after copy editors check through the article already - but I appreciate sometimes the review process may inadvertently introduce errors along the way. Would you like me to prevail upon them to have another look to see if they can identify any outstanding inconsistencies? SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copy editors often miss the tense part. Anyway, some examples:
Present:"The surviving boy is again saved by cutting off his finger, and the additional information is given that he had a Bible in his pocket."
Past:"The spirits had set about constructing a bridge over the Dornoch Firth after becoming tired of travelling across the water in cockleshells. "
Present:"A folk tale from Barra tells of a lonely kelpie that transforms itself into a handsome young man to woo a pretty young girl it was determined to take for its wife."
Past:"One folk tale describes how the Laird of Morphie captured a kelpie in that fashion, and used it to carry stones to build his castle."
Present:"A fable attached to the notoriously nasty creature has the Highlander James MacGrigor taking it by surprise and cutting off its bridle, the source of its power and life and without which it would die within twenty-four hours."
There are several more. A bit puzzling to me, but seems other reviewers have not found it a problem. FunkMonk (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that's because it's only a problem in your estimation? In my estimation the use of tense is perfectly consistent. EricCorbett 12:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the tense different in each example then (inconsistency)? Is there a purpose? FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take just one of your examples then, the one about the bridge. The bridge was constructed in the past, before the "grateful onlooker" came across it and tried to bless the kelpies that built it. Mixing past and present tenses in that short narrative would make it look ridiculous. EricCorbett 13:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, if no one else has brought it up. But you seem to become increasingly agitated, please, I'm not here to sabotage your FAC, so take it easy. FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is also inconsistency in whether dates are given for publications in the article. Would be nice with dates for all such mentions.
I could only find one instance of this and have added the year to the body text. If there are others we've missed please let us know. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other publications: A Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue, The Kelpies Bridge. FunkMonk (talk) 11:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - most of my concerns were addressed, but I must say I quickly grew tired of Eric Corbett's slightly snide remarks here and in edit summaries, so the reason I did not simply withdraw without voting was SagaciousPhil's cooperativeness. FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing like as quickly as I became tired of yours, I'm quite sure. Haven't you got school work to attend to? EricCorbett 17:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
^No wonder we have so few reviewers around these days, and why it takes months for an article to pass. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both are possibly a little colloquial but I don't think their use in this instance is inappropriate as it's recapping a colloquial story. Using 'lad' saves continual repetition of "the child" or "the boy". SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"as in Draper's 1913 oil on canvas" - could it be noted that this is at the top of the page?
It is correctly captioned and quite a dominant image at the size used so I don't really think further notation is necessary. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Kelpies are extremely recognisable, and it would be good if there was at least one image.
I don't see why it would be good to include an image of Clydesdale horses in this article. EricCorbett 15:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As Eric says, we have discussed this (and had help from some very experienced image editors as there are so few free images available) and we felt it was inappropriate to include the pics of the statues. The sculptor and park owners seem to be distancing themselves from the mythical aspect and emphasising that the statues portray the heavy horse industry. Part of a quote from Scott, the sculptor, is "... shifting from any mythological references towards ...". SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few more images to commons from Flickr, so there is a better selection now. John Duncan's painting becomes PD next year, but in general there aren't many PD artistic depections. Jamesx12345 14:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean the two images of the statues of the heavy horses at Falkirk that you just uploaded to Commons? The Duncan painting - even when it does become PD - is again a kelpie depicted as a "nymph" and we already have two of those. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - yes - I also came across this, which is ND, but very different to anything on the page, if permission could be got. There are attractively Celtic carvings among the Aberlemno Sculptured Stones - [21] - and these are also quite a bit older than anything else. Jamesx12345 14:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the effort you're putting into searching for images, Jamesx12345, it is appreciated. Extensive searches have already been done by Eric, myself and another couple of editors (who work with, and source, correctly licensed images all the time), without success. As mentioned, we don't feel it's appropriate to include any pics of The Kelpies at Falkirk as they're depicting the heavy horse, not the mythical creature. The images must be relevant to the article and portrayals of each uisge aren't really applicable either; I only wish we had a talented graphic artist who could do some images for us! I'll let Eric decide if he feels the pictish stone image you found should be considered as a replacement for the Pictish Beast image recently inserted - not in addition to though, or we'll end up with too much emphasis on the Pictish Beast. (Apologies for such a long post!). SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's knock this on the head James. There is absolutely no way that an image of a sculpture of the heads of Clydesdale horses will be included in this article. But if you feel that you have found a better representation of the Pictish Beast than the one currently in the article, and it's properly licensed, then simply swap it. Neither SP nor I are married to any particular image. EricCorbett 17:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not pushing for inclusion of the sculpture in Falkirk - it just so happens that it is much easier to find suitable images. The intertwined ones at Ablerlemno are described as being a Pictish Beast, and an image like this gives a much clearer impression than the Martin's Stone in the article. commons:File:Kelpie at Aberlemno poor quality.jpg has been extracted from an image in commons, but isn't any use in an article due to the quality. SagaciousPhil's suggested image (better here) is much more abstract, and could be added to the article without duplicating anything. Jamesx12345 18:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The image here isn't of good enough quality to do a straight crop and seems to have striations across it anyway. I will try approaching an editor who I know is really good at extracting and tidying images and see if he can manage to do anything about getting a better cropped version of the bottom right of this instead - if he can then it can be used to replace the present Pictish Beast image under 'Artistic representations'. I can't make any promises as it will be dependent on whether he is able and willing to do anything with it. He isn't likely to be around until the early hours of the morning though; all I can do is ask ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 18:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The image has now been cleaned as much as is possible; James, I have swapped it as you suggested. SagaciousPhil - Chat 03:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the clean up that had been done on the image, and after adding it to the article I have looked at it a few times during the day, I felt it still lacked sufficient quality to include. I eventually managed to find a line drawing of a Pictish beast in an 1890 publication, so I have uploaded and cropped that instead. I hope that's acceptable to you, James? SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's good - the plough marks across the other one detract a lot from the clarity, and the highly cropped photo simply has too few pixels to ever be workable. Hopefully some more quality media will be produced in due course.
Thanks for all your help James - as you say, hopefully we will eventually get some more images to enhance the article; it's just unfortunate that is all we have at the moment! SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Nominator(s): → Call meHahc21 02:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Flotilla is a turn-based strategy space combat video game developed by Brendon Chung's video game studio, Blendo Games. It was released in 26 February 2010 for Microsoft Windows, and in 30 March 2010 on Xbox Live Indie Games for the Xbox 360. The game employs Microsoft's XNA game platform, and its development was influenced by cats and board games, such as Axis and Allies and Arkham Horror. The game follows the player in an 30-minute adventure through a randomly generated galaxy. → Call meHahc21 02:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Tezero
I realize this may have been a contentious issue at GAN (I haven't checked), but why are there only two reviews listed? The table seems like a better place for them than the Reception text, which should probably be expanded a bit.
Mainly because I forgot. Updated table and expanded reception section.
"Gamers With Jobs" - decapitalize "With".
Done
"Allen Cook from Gamers With Jobs commented that Flotilla's gameplay setup worked 'as if Homeworld only involved 2 ships and only let you set orders 30 seconds at a time.'" - I've never heard of Homeworld. Looks to be decently well-known among the strategy community, but I'd still prefer the game be introduced somehow. Perhaps "One reviewer compared Flotilla's gameplay setup to that of the 1999 real-time strategy game Homeworld if it "only involved 2 ships and only let you set orders 30 seconds at a time."" would work more nicely.
Hmmm. Used your suggestion but with some slight changes.
"The challenges are tactical battles the player must fight against a variety of different enemies" - I realize that this is correct grammar, but it might be less awkward to add "in which" after "battles".
Done
"'tattooed chicken space pirates or crocodiles suffering from space madness.'" - I'd recommend paraphrasing the quote, as it's not clear who it's from and I really don't see anything too necessary about the precise wording.
Done
"heavier rear and back armor" - is there a difference between the two I'm not aware of?
Oops!
"has contributed to the development of" - I'd change "has" to "had" just so the article doesn't get out of date if Chung later works on significantly more successful games.
Done
"after Pandemic Studios was shut down and around 200 staff laid off by Electronic Arts" - this would sound more natural in active voice.
Changed it to "after 200 staff were laid out by Electronic Arts along with the closure of Pandemic Studios." Help needed :)
"The prototype, a two-dimensional turn-based space action game" - I was under the impression that Flotilla was 2D. If not, please explain otherwise earlier.
Nope. Flotilla is 3D. Let me explain that in gameplay.
"The game includes a limited length of play time in the solo mode" - you've already said this. Knot it somewhere into the next sentence.
Done
"The patch introduced a new "hardcore" mode that could be played without time limits." - again, redundant. Just change it to something like "This was the inspiration for Flotilla's hardcore mode", and use that as either a new sentence or a semicolon-ed extension of the previous sentence.
Went with "and a new "hardcore" mode was introduced"
(image) "each 30 seconds" - change "each" to "every".
Done
Is GameFAQs a reliable source for release dates? I recall some murmurs about that not long ago. If not, I expect you could find a "Flotilla releases this Thursday"-type articles from IGN or something.
Let me check.
Is Gaming Daily a reliable source? It seems to have hidden among the bushes at WP:VG/RS. I've heard of it and no ill thoughts spring at me, but it's worth questioning.
I think it is. I've never seen problems with it, though I can ask around just in case.
The article looks great otherwise. Tezero (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! → Call meHahc21 18:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hahc21: To be clear, I'll support the candidacy if you can provide an answer about the sources. I notice you've edited a bit since I made these comments, so I just wanted to remind you. Tezero (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tezero: I already removed GameFAQs. I have yet to make my mind about GamingDaily. @Sven Manguard: what do you think about Gaming Daily? is it reliable? → Call meHahc21 03:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I checked GamingDaily's about page from the time that the article was written. They had a general editor, a deputy editor, and three writers. I am unimpressed with what I could find on the credentials of the general editor (link to his blog) and even less impressed with the (apparent lack of) credentials of the person that wrote the review (link to his blog). The review itself is passable, but not great.
The issue with removing GamingDaily is that everywhere GamingDaily is used as a source, Gamers with Jobs is also used as a source. Like the GamingDaily review, I found the Gamers with Jobs review passable but not great. However, I found no indication that the person writing the review was a staff writer, and more problematically, found no indication that Gamers with Jobs has editorial policies/oversight.
I'd say remove them both, but that would leave a majority of the Gameplay section unsourced. I would say remove Gamers with Jobs, but that would leave the section heavily dependent on the review from GamingDaily. Ultimately, I am going to decline to give a recommendation. These are not sources that I would use if I were writing an article, but I write articles on XBLA games, where better sources are readily available. You would be better served asking for advice from someone that works in indie game articles, and has a better feel for what level of quality and formal editorial control is acceptable in that area. Sven ManguardWha? 04:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tezero:: Addressed all, I think (source replacement on the way). More comments? :) → Call meHahc21 01:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. Support: I trust that you'll find acceptable sources and, well, if you don't, someone else will oppose on source quality. My other concerns are all addressed. Tezero (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still need to do a full review, but here's a short source review, unindented:
Source review by PresN
To answer the above question: GameFAQs is not a reliable source for anything, including release dates- they're user-generated. Unfortunately, since they share databases, that makes GameSpot game landing pages non-reliable sources as well. That said, you don't usually need sources for dates in the infobox; they're not likely to be challenged. Just for future reference; what you have now is fine.
If you stick |deadurl=no in your citations, it makes the main link the quick-loading live url, not the archive
Gaming Daily - I'm... going to go with non-RS on this. There's no indication that they pay the writers, do any editorial control, exist primarily on their own writing rather than whatever they can get people to submit for free, even have a backing company, etc. Their "write for us" page is dead, but the archive gives no indication either. If you could find any use of their stuff as a source by RS's, or confirmation that they did fact-checking/editing on articles, or prove Paul Millen's personal notability, then you'd be good.
Gamers with Jobs - I feel a bit better about this one, but it's still on the wrong side of the line- a nicer layout and a larger userbase is the only difference. Same deal- find usage of their stuff by RS's, contact them and get them to say that they don't just post whatever, prove Allen Cooks' personal notability, etc.
File:Flotilla - combat (Blendo Games).jpg is freely licensed. It is sourced to a Flickr account, and there is no evidence of Flickrwashing. There is no evidence that the account that released the images is Blendo's official Flickr (and no link to it in the media section of the official website), but no evidence to the contrary either.
I have written to the studio to confirm that the Flirkr account is legitimate, and also to ask for the first image to be released under a free license. As it stands, this article passes media review regardless. This is not a support vote for the article; I don't do those. Sven ManguardWha? 05:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sven Manguard: All these images were given by Brendong Chung after Masem contacted him during the FAC candidacy of Gravity Bone. Maybe Masem can help confirm that. Cheers. → Call meHahc21 23:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the account is legit. I knew Brendan via the Shacknews website and helped guide him how to up these to flickr and license them for our use. If needed, I can submit to ORTS the message chain for that. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: Thanks! Though I admit I'm jealous. → Call meHahc21 00:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The email is already sent. I was unaware of the Masem connection. An OTRS record verifying that the Flickr account is official would be a good thing to have, if it's not too much trouble. Sven ManguardWha? 00:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hahc21 and Masem: - My contact with Blendo Games has been a success. We now have freely licensed cover art for six of his games (including this one), and there is an OTRS ticket on file confirming the authenticity of the Flickr account. Sven ManguardWha? 18:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Hahc21. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please respond below the review and I'll hat my bullets after your reply. Some questions are rhetorical and I'm not expecting answers here but clarification in the article.
copyedit done, in lieu of small suggestions. Some things: "Raindrop" goes in quotes per its own article, direct quotes need immediate citations, I removed some ambiguities, WP uses logical quotation with punctuation almost always outside the quotations
Could use more gameplay summary in lede. More can be added to show why the game was notable.
The purpose of the Gamers with Jobs quote is ambiguous—is he describing Homeworld or Flotilla and why is the quote preferable to just paraphrasing his point?
Coop mode uses a single controller? Clarify
Done
The relevance of the id Tech 2 experience isn't clear
Removed
There is a bit of excessive quoting in the Gameplay section. If it can be made more concise through paraphrase, that's the way to go
In the gameplay section? I think you meant Reception no?
Steam redlink
Already fixed.
The Reception section is a little weak. Why is every reviewer listed in order with its numerical score instead of leading a discussion of the game's major sticking points and points of praise? More can be said by way of paraphrase and apart from the "X gave it # of # and added, QUOTE" format. If multiple reviewers referred to its charm, that can be grouped together in a single sentence.
"but criticized the multiplayer mode": if it's worth mentioning this criticism in the first place, it would be worth mentioning what about it he criticized; matchmaking criticism could be cleaned up too
What did Mike Rose say about the game?
Nothing remarkable. I thought about adding something but Rose only did a brief summary of the game etc.
That Miller quote had two typos [his, not yours] in it... is Gaming Daily reliable? (WP:VG/RS)
Removed, replacing now.
Thank you for using list-defined refs
I love them as much as I love order. It keeps the sections readable.
Release information is not cited in the article (stuff in the lede should be cited within the article)
According to PresN, this is not needed anywhere, but I already cited it in the infobox (maybe you didn't see it)
Is there no mention of how this game relates to Chung's later works? No influence or confluence of style?
Not at all, sadly. Such type of analysis only exists to his Citizen Abel series of games (Gravity Bone, Thirty Flights of Loving, Quadrilateral...)
"in 29 March 2014" constructions should change "in" to "on"
I always get confused with those. Non-native speaker problems.
Good work. Give me a ping when these are addressed and I'll respond and do a source review. I'm also looking for feedback on the Menacer FAC, for those interested. czar♔ 18:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I reworked the Reception section. However, since this is a not-so-famous indie game, there not much that can be done to expand it more. Do you have any more comments? I'd like to know if I have addressed them all. Cheers. → Call meHahc21 19:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unaddressed: there is no gameplay summary in lede, more can be done to show why the game is notable in lede, comment about multiplayer mode criticism. I still think more of the direct quotations can be struck and paraphrased.
I don't know where PresN said the release date doesn't need to be mentioned in the article, and I wouldn't say it's a rule, but this would mean that there is no coverage of the game's actual release in the article (other than professional reviews, not the release itself). In a FA? Why? There is also nothing on porting the game, or the non-simultaneous release? (Also the infobox dates appear to be out of order.)
@Czar: Because this is an indie game. Indie games like this usually receive coverage in the form of reviews and interviews. Only major, non-indie games receive coverage about release dates because publishers are very buzzy about that. This isn't like that. When an indie game is finished, it's released and that's it. Then, reviewers become aware amd write reviews. → Call meHahc21 19:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minor concern, but I don't know why Space Piñata is mentioned in the lede. It's fine with just the description
(Another minor concern: I don't know what's up with the "no include" tags on this review page. The FAC page specifically asked not to use semicolons.)
The noinclude thing is to avoid the headers to appear on the main FAC page. I'm fine if the semicolons are replaced with boldings.
I don't understand why dmy became mdy. I see a strong nat ties argument in the edit summaries, but I think WP:RETAIN takes precedent over the extremely unimportant (not mentioned in the article once) fact that Blendo is based in the US.
Clarifications can still be made to the Gameplay—what is randomly generated (at least link it?) Is there one "the player" or multiple "players" in the Gameplay explanation. I still don't really know how the Gameplay works. Is there a 30-second time limit to enter commands that are then executed in unison? Is the window for movement only open every 30 seconds (briefly) and the movement happens simultaneously? We need much more info about how the controls and core mechanics work.
The prose has become chunkier in the flurry of edits since I last touched the article. Could use a copyedit. Some examples: mixed punctuation inside/outside quotation marks (mentioned in original copyedit notes above), "Before Flotilla, Chung worked on a prototype, a two-dimensional turn-based space action game called Space Piñata, whose gameplay and structure were similar to those of the final version of Flotilla." → "similar in gameplay and structure to the final Flotilla release" and I'd also turn the comma parenthetical to an em dash parenthetical for readability, "Flotilla has a cooperative mode that can be played with an additional Xbox 360 controller, as well as a split-screen multiplayer mode." → "has cooperative and split-screen multiplayer modes that can", etc. I wouldn't say the prose is at 1a professional brilliance yet. I already gave it a look earlier (I wanted to just come back to support) but I'm out of time, so it's someone else's turn to copyedit.
I have to oppose on these quality concern grounds, though I think they're surmountable. I don't want the opp to put the nom in danger, so please ping me to do the copyedit on a weekend if you absolutely can't get anyone else to do it. czar ♔ 14:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look to me like much in the way of copyediting has occurred since this comment, so has Czar been invited to revisit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I asked @Miniapolis:, but I guess she's busy. I'd appreciate if somebody copyedits it :) → Call meHahc21 20:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by review from Chris857
"It also incorporates several pieces of classical music, such as Chopin's "Raindrop" prelude, in its score." - in my opinion, this would read more naturally as "It also incorporates several pieces of classical music in its score, such as Chopin's "Raindrop" prelude." Chris857 (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some stuff I noticed, written as I read through the article from top to bottom.
Is it necessary to include all of its exact release dates in the lead? The infobox has those handled. Perhaps change it to the slicker, easier-to-read, "It was released in March 2010 on Steam for Microsoft Windows and on Xbox Live Indie Games for the Xbox 360."
Done.
Coming into this article as someone who has never even heard of this game, the line in the lead about its development being "influenced by cats" is incoherent to me. What about cats was used as an influence? Their fur? Their sleeping habits? Going to need some clarification.
This is not clear in the source either. However, I have emailed Brendon to know if he can expand a bit on this.
While it would be interesting to find out what he meant, we'll need a reliable, verifiable reference if that information is to be used in an article. An email does not qualify as a reliable, verifiable reference. I think it would be best to remove the cats mention, because it's too confusing and meaningless as it stands.
Actually, I disagree. We can treat his email as a primary source (it is a detail about how the game was developed, so all info about it comes from a primary source, even if published by a third-p source) and add the information to the article. Since the cats thing was used for DYK, I don't think it would be a good idea to remove it from the article.
Also, some redundancy in the first paragraph: the last two sentences begin with "The game", and the second-to-last sentence uses both "development" and "developed". Maybe change "development" to "design".
Done.
The second paragraph states that Chung developed Flotilla immediately after Pandemic shut down. The use of the word "developed" makes it sound like the game was made in a day. Perhaps "Chung began developing Flotilla" would be better.
Done.
What was Space Pinata a prototype of, and who made it? It's not clear.
It was just a game prototype, developed by Chung. Clarified.
Also, as a general rule, formulations such as ", and used" or ", and was included" should be ", and it used" or ", and it was included"—when discussing an object, that is.
Will have in mind, thanks!
What is a non-playable opponent? Is this is same thing as an artificially intelligent opponent? If that's the case, then I recommend the latter wording, as it's clearer.
Changed to The game lets the player and opponents (controlled by the game's artificial intelligence) issue orders...
There are a lot of unnecessary words here: "usually given no more than a few ships to control". Try, "usually controls less than X ships", where X is replaced by the relevant number. To remain grammatically correct after this change, the second half of the sentence will have to begin ", which may be".
The problem is that your suggestion is not accurate. The player is given no more than a few ships to control at the beginning of the game, but they can eventually control more ships later. However, I did not specify this either. I tweaked the sentence now. Take a look.
Thanks for the clarification. I tweak the wording of the new version a bit, but, aside from that, it looks good.
"fixed duration" can be changed to "duration".
Done.
Instead of "a new randomly generated galaxy is created and filled with planets and enemy ships", try "a new galaxy is randomly generated and filled with planets and enemy ships".
Done.
I don't understand the sentence regarding tutorials. Does the player have to play a tutorial each time he or she begins an adventure? Also, what does the tutorial teach?
Tweaked. It teaches the basic gameplay stuff.
If "all planets offer a possible quest", then there is a single quest offered by all planets collectively. Try, "Each planet offers a possible quest".
Fixed.
You write that Flotilla's single-player mode is a "single adventure" that must be replayed; yet, lower down, you write that "a new chapter is added to the player's character's story" upon victory. I don't understand how these two things fit together.
Victory there refers to each challenge within a single playthrough. These are then reset when a new adventure is started. However, the game keeps track of the player's score in each playthrough at the scoreboard.
I see it now. I'll take the blame for this misunderstanding.
You need to merge the challenge-related information at the end of the second paragraph with that at the beginning of the third. As it stands, you explain what a challenge is after you've told us everything else about it. I recommend that you introduce a line break after "being able to freely explore the galaxy", and that you begin the third paragraph like so:
Each planet offers a possible quest or challenge to the player. Challenges are tactical battles in which the player must defeat a certain number of enemy ships. However, ships can only be harmed from behind or below; attacks from any other position will be countered by the ships' shields. Upon succeeding, a new chapter is added to the player's character's story, and the player is awarded with ship upgrades.
Tweaked.
I don't understand this: "the player may not receive the same upgrade by playing the same encounter in two different adventures." Again, you wrote that the single-player mode is a "single adventure". I'm not sure how a single adventure can be "two different adventures", or how the same encounter can play out twice in a randomly generated galaxy.
I think that my removing of the word "single" solved this point. it is not a "single adventure," and I still don't know what I meant by it. Anyways, it's gone :)
How can Chung develop a game "under his video game studio"? Was he developing it in his basement? I'm not sure what this means.
Woah forgot to tweak wording on Dev. Done.
"Chung started coding Flotilla in 2009 after 200 staff were laid off by Electronic Arts as Pandemic Studios was closed." -- "He started coding Flotilla in 2009, after Electronic Arts closed Pandemic Studios and laid off 200 members of that company's staff."
Went with Crisco's suggestion. I don't see why mentioning that 200 staff was laid is important for this game.
"a set of tools focused on video game development created by Microsoft." -- "a set of game development tools created by Microsoft."
Done.
Even in the Development section, the line about cats makes no sense. Definitely need to rework that with more explanation.
Let's see what Chung says about it!
Was Space Pinata the game that he began developing after Pandemic closed, or was he developing it as a side project while working at Pandemic? As it stands, it's unclear.
We don't know when he developed Space Piñata. We only know that it happened before Flotilla.
"acknowledged that the games was" should be "acknowledged that the game was".
Good catch.
"elaborated that althought" should be "elaborated that although".
Good catch x2
"but concluded that it was however a "sadly disposable" experience" -- the "however" is unnecessary.
Already done (by Crisco I suppose)
"Joe Martin from Bit-Tech named Flotilla a " hilarious and brazenly original" game." -- Flotilla is not italicized here, and there's a space separating the quotation mark from "hilarious".
Oops!
"though concluded" -- "though he concluded"
Done.
Thanks for the comments! → Call meHahc21 04:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technical notes
Do you have issue numbers for the Edge, PC Zone, PC Gamer US and PC Gamer UK reviews? Also, I'm fairly certain that the titles of those articles were not all "Flotilla review"--and that three out of four of those magazines list reviewer names.
Let me use my magical-and-resourceful skill to find these. I was not able to do it at first but I admit I was lazy.
JimmyBlackwing: Got the PC Gamer US one. However, the UK one, as well as the PC Zone and Edge ones are really though. Edge is issue 214, but I have been unable to get the name of the reviewer. I asked Future Publishing about it (Edge and UK). PC Zone, I think it is issue number 222. The last issue (225) was released in September, so the May one should be 222. I originally took these reviews from Metacritic, though.
Edge reviews have always been anonymous. I added the PCGUK issue number--and I think you should add the PC Zone number you found. I'll let the rest slide, I suppose.
Flotilla should be italicized in each reference.
Done.
If you provide an archive for a URL that is still online, remember to include "deadurl=no" in the citation template. The SquareGo and Kotaku links are still live, and others might be as well.
I think this was pointed out to me, can't remember when. I'll do it soon.
The cover needs alt text.
The alt text parameter has been deprecated from the {{Infobox video game}} template. I can't add it :(
I wasn't aware of this. Oh well.
Aside from that, it looks fairly solid. I don't know enough about the game to judge the article's completeness, but I've helped with enough indie game articles to know that the average number of available sources is low. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. → Call meHahc21 04:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good. I ran through the article with a little follow-up copyediting, and the prose seems solid enough now. Once you get the last of the technical stuff sorted out, I'll be willing to support. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The deadurl business still needs to be taken care of. Also, I made a comment about the cats line above that I think you might have missed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Took care of the deadurl thing. The one about cats, I commented above. → Call meHahc21 21:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is an American game, shouldn't we be using Month-Day-Year?
Oh well, I use this date format on every article I write. it is consistent with the format used in my country and language. I admit that I hate the MM-DD-YYYY formats (I mean 12-1-2011, for example). I wouldn't mind using the expanded one though.
I meant the expanded one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, I never use it mostly because I dislike the additional comma. Though I wouldn't mind if it's changed. → Call meHahc21 04:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the box art of Chung's other games has also been released under a CC license (in case you missed that)
Chopped the days off the lead, so this is a bit moot.
by cats and board games such as Axis and Allies and Arkham Horror. - I feel like this can be rephrased, like using "as well as" rather than "and" in front of board games.
Done.
single-player mode is framed as a single adventure - any way to avoid repeating "single"?
Removed the "single" from "single adventure". It was nonsense and inaccurate!
Chung started coding Flotilla in 2009 after 200 staff were laid off by Electronic Arts as Pandemic Studios was closed. - why not just "after Electronic Arts closed Pandemic Studios"
Done.
How did cats influence this????
Good question. Asked Chung to see if he can clarify a bit more :)
Charge Shot - what makes this review worth noting?
I mostly use the reference for gameplay details, so I saw no issue by adding it to the Reception section too.
Nope. At least the version I own of the game does not have one. → Call meHahc21 04:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)I asked him about this too.[reply]
Looks like we're just waiting on the cats. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Cat issue is being dealt with appropriately, so I have nothing barring me from support (so long as that email is replaced by a published source). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by DWB
Some of the wording seems awkward, this seems to be partly because there is too little content available to dedicate much space to a particular area so you get one sentence leading into another on a completely different topic. I'm not sure that part can be fixed.
Neither do I, sadly.
I think replacing the Metacritic mention in the lede with a brief summary of the positives and negatives highlighted by critics would be of more benefit than an arbitrary score.
I'll see what I can do.
I think the influences need explaining, especially the cat thing.
Done, thanks to Brendon.
What is "hardcore" mode, what limitation was removed? The time limit?
Yes. The Development section also explained what was it, but I was told to remove it since it was already explained in the Gameplay.
Like the other Chung games, there seems to be a struggle to beef up the critical reception section. Is it possible to find reviews outside of Metacritic to expand on things or give alternate opinions?
Did my best, came up with nothing.
All the images are not Non-Fair Use, so no issue there. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update (Crisco 1492, JimmyBlackwing, Czar): Brendon answered my email explaining the cats thing, and thank god he did. It is now way more clear what he meant by it. So I assume that the cats point is now solved. I did my best to add a proper citation, since this is the first time I do something like that. Oh, he also said that there's not developer commentary for Flotilla. Now, about that copyedit... Miniapolis, would you pelase give me a hand? :) → Call meHahc21 19:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are we allowed to cite emails? Even to the OTRS? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. → Call meHahc21 02:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, since we are interviewing, this would fall afoul of WP:OR. It would be best for Brendon to make a blog post, then cite that per WP:SPS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a video game journalist myself, I could just write a short story about Flotilla and include the commentary he gave me on that email. Though I am afraid that it might be considered as to be promoting myself. However, I just can't ask him to make a blog post, I'd prefer if Sven does it :) → Call meHahc21 04:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... we don't have an article on the site, nor does it seem to be cited here much. I'll ping WikiProject Video games. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the article would just be making publicly available facts from the developer that are backed by an email to OTRS, I'm fine with using it as a source regardless of the inherent reliability of the site as a whole. In this case, I think we'd say that the site is situationally an RS, depending on the author, so the fact we have an uncitable basis for the article from the devs makes it fine. --PresN 14:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As with me. While I personally think Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources are a little too strict, this seems to demonstrate reliability per what official policy is aiming for. Tezero (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will do it that way then. It will take me a bit though. It's not as simple as just clicking "post". Novo has an oversight team that verifies each story for quality (etc), and I also have to write a story-class piece that includes what Brendon said about animals. I hope to have it ready for monday. → Call meHahc21 05:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, not a whole lot of rush. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -- Since Czar hasn't returned to copyedit, and no-one else seems to have taken on the task, I'm recusing myself as delegate/coordinator to go through it myself. Not being much of a video gamer in general, and never having heard of this one, I can only trust that my efforts to make the prose a little clearer haven't altered the intended meaning. One outstanding point from the lead: "its development was influenced by animals" really cries out for some clarification at this point. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Nortonius
I note comments above about awkward text: I wonder if some of the following might help.
Lead
"The game follows the player in an adventure through a randomly generated galaxy." In my world the game doesn't follow the player: I think "The game takes the player on an adventure ..." would be better.
Done.
"mixed to positive reviews": if reviews are "mixed", can't they logically include positive ones? If so, then "to positive" is redundant; and, looking at the Reception section, I think just "mixed reviews" would be better here, and wouldn't detract from the game's perceived reception given the lead's (present) final sentence.
True. Done.
Gameplay
I find this section rather confused and confusing, mainly in the way information is ordered. For example, I think the passage "At the beginning of the game, the player is usually given two ships to control, but more become available as the game continues. Ships may be rotated arbitrarily in any direction." should follow the first sentence in the first paragraph, instead of beginning the second paragraph. Follow me?(!) The rest of the second paragraph is about single-player, whereas I suspect those two sentences apply to the main game (and maybe the single-player too)...? Also:
Does the third paragraph, beginning "Each planet offers ...", describe the main game, single-player, or both? If the main game or both, it should be the second paragraph, not the third.
"... filled with planets and enemy ships" would fit better and be more useful at the end of the first sentence in the first paragraph instead of where it is now.
"... which are carried in a simultaneous and real-time fashion over a period of 30 seconds": something is missing here, and 30 seconds is a "period", so that's redundant. The word "performed" is used in the next sentence: I'd use it here too, saying simply "... which are performed simultaneously and in real time over 30 seconds"; I would also change the next sentence to say "performed over 30 seconds."
"Each planet offers a possible quest or challenge to the player": this is the only use in this article of the word "quest". Is it used in the game, or does the game use "challenge"? If only one is used in the game I would use that, but not both; if both are used interchangeably in the game, I'd add commas so it says "quest, or challenge, to the player"; if both are in the game and mean different things, something is missing from the article.
About the word "possible", I take it that a player can choose which planet to approach: if so, "possible" is redundant; maybe you mean "different".
These suggestions are meant to be helpful, not harsh: I'll have another look and include the rest of the article when you've responded to them, if you like. Nortonius (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I can't see anything wrong with the article. So I will give this article a Support. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 08:34, 12 June 2014 [24].
Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Highly complex triple portrait by Titian, c 1545. I hope it gives insigt into how court intrigue operated mid 16th century, though this is only a glimps. Thanks to Cocolacoste for her dilgent c/e, encouragment and suggestions. Ceoil (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Titian was precisely the sort of man" – this is hard to understand, or am I being especially dim? Should "Titian" read "Paul"? And was he defending the Florentines or they him?
Your not dim. Thats somebody else. Fixed now. Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I have by way of quibbling. I look forward to adding my support. Tim riley talk 19:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A fine article, clear, interesting, balanced, well and widely sourced and – rather important – beautifully illustrated. Pleased to add my support for its elevation to FA. Tim riley talk 07:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are a gentelman and all round good dude in a generally unhappy atmosphere; your support means a lot. Ceoil (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the uploader confused other versions for source; corrected now. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I know little about art, but this reads very well and looks comprehensive. Forgive any ignorance I show in my queries! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Portrait of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese: I assume that this was another Titian, but this is the only image where the artist is not explicitly named in the caption.
Clarified now. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The work is often compared to Raphael's Pope Leo X with Cardinals of 1518–19 and 1511–12 portrait of Julius II for its colourisation and psychological dynamic. Titian had earlier copied the Leo panel, but made subtle tonal changes to flatter the subject.": From my reading of this, Titian did another painting based on Raphael's. Could this be made a little clearer? For example, what was the name of the painting?
I removed this, partly as its incidental. Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and his usual final over gaze or glossing is absent": I'm assuming this should be "over glaze"; I also wonder should it be hyphenated?
Is there anything about how this painting was received at the time? Was it ever displayed?
Nope; it didnt resurface for another 100 years. Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How did it end up in the Museo di Capodimonte, Naples? (This is mentioned in the article, but not the main body) What happened to it in the intervening years?
Very good question; digging. Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Probably once the benefice was granted, he no longer felt there was any reason to remain in Rome and abandoned the composition": I can imagine a few people might have been a little hacked off at this! Did the relationship between Paul and Titian change after this? Could he really just walk out like that?
He could, and did. They needed him more than he needed them, so was holding more cards. He had a few agendas, so was able to walk. Ceoil (talk) 22:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other than these queries, great work, and I'll be delighted to support when these are answered. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sarastro1, working through these, will update. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: An excellent article, and with the qualifications about my subject knowledge made above, I think this meets the criteria. I'd still like to know how it got to Naples and how it resurfaced a hundred years later, but this is not enough for me to withhold my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1, from what I gather, as Titian abandoned it, the picture was though best forgotten by the F family for a century. I'm not sure its provedence is known after that until its current placement, though I have searched extensively, am none the wiser unfortunatly Ceoil (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to be consistent whether you refer to him as Paul or Paul III, or some readers might wonder whether you are referring to different people.
Just Paul now outside of intro and pic capts. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Paul was precisely the sort of man the Florentines needed to defend against French and Spanish threats." Strictly this means that the Florentines were defending Paul but I assume you mean the other way round. Maybe something more clumsy like 'needed to assist their defence'
Reworded per suggestion. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Picture caption: "If not for his appointment, Ottavio had proved himself as a formidable man in his own right, having earned the Order of the Golden Fleece from Charles, and a Chevalier in 1547." This strikes me as an odd wording. How about: "Ottavio proved himself a formidable man in his own right, earning the Order of the Golden Fleece from Charles, and becoming a Chevalier in 1547."
"He took the papacy in 1534." Does someone take the papacy? I suggest "He became Pope."
Yes better. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Both of Paul's grandson's advancements were widely criticised as evidence of Paul's tendency towards nepotism." Apostrophe in wrong place and Paul twice in one sentence. "Both grandsons' advancement" perhaps.
After 1538 Paul only allowed Titian to portray him, but he did not meet Titian until 1543. This could do with clarifying. Did he refuse any portrait for five years?
"he asked that Pomponio would be granted the abbey of San Pietro" I would leave out the word 'would'.
"The abbey was set in grounds bordering his own in Ceneda." Whose own?
"This dramatic colourisation and luminosity can be in part attributed to this design, but is also to the manner" I think it should be "is also due to the manner".
"Although Ottavio was the more able, neither were to assume the papacy after Charles V weakened the Medici hold on the office." Was Ottavio a possibility as a married duke? This comment is not referenced.
I removed it alogether. It was problamatic, as you say. Ceoil (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Ottavio is presented as cold and impervious, but this was likely a device". I would prefer probably to likely.
Agree. Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"At the time of the portrait Paul had convinced Alessandro to retain the post, hinting that he would later succeed as pope – an aspiration that was ultimately frustrated. As Alessandro realised the emptiness of both promises". One hint becomes two promises?
Thank you Dudley. Ceoil (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - with the disclaimer that Ceoil asked me for a preliminary peer review and I made a few edits at that time. I thought then it fulfilled the FA requirements, and after the work done during this review, it's improved even more. Nice job! Victoria (tk) 15:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Victoria, for all your edits and this support. Ceoil (talk) 03:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Driveby In the title, shouldn't "his" be "His"? Indopug (talk) 03:29, 4 June 2014
The sources are about 50/50; I'm indifferent. Let me think. Ceoil (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMO: Good call. Done Indopug. Ceoil (talk) 09:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: the full title isn't used even once after the first sentence. A couple of "the work"s or "the portrait"s could probably be replaced.—indopug (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, rephrased now. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment: In the "Description" section you twice mention the 1543 Naples portrait, yet your caption for the image of this portrait dates it as 1545–46, the same year range as for the "grandsons" painting. This surely can't be correct – unless I'm missing something? Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now dated in the caption as 1543. Ceoil (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportOppose from Hamiltonstone. Beautifully written and carefully sourced piece. A small but crucial element is missing from the body text, though hinted at in the lead. The lead tells us where the work hangs, and makes reference to it spending a century in a Farnese cellar. The substance of the article not only lacks these facts (and cites) but lacks any information about provenance. This would be pretty important information for an old and major work, i would have thought.
Other points:
"He became pope in 1534 when he was 51 years old, so he was keenly aware that age was against him." That seems a typical age for a person to reach the peak of their career - even youngish in modern terms. So it is far from clear why "age was against him". Can you clarify? hamiltonstone (talk) 07:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"in the opinion of art historians Rodolfo Pallucchini and Harold Wethey." There is no inline citation provided for this.
Hi Hamiltonstone. I removed the first claim, and the second is now cited. Ceoil (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...separated by colour and tone." This may be a nitpick - but it is not colour and tone that separates the two halves, rather the two halves are characterised by contrasting colour and tone...?
"he began with a dark background, then layered the lighter hues before the darker passages." I don't understand the use of the term "passages" here.
"...yet x-ray analysis reveals he had originally stood to the right-hand side and was moved,..." Previously, i think all references to the left and right (when talking about the three people in the picture) have been made with reference to position in comparison to the Pope. In this case the reader is a little confused, because he is on the right-hand side of the Pope. You mean, i understand, the right-hand side of the picture, but it would be easier for the reader if all of these orientations were characterised in the same way.
I'm a support if the provenance / exhibition information can be added. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a provenance section. Ceoil (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about... John Tyler, President of the United States from 1841 to 1845, who was eventually the only president buried under a non-US flag. Perhaps most famously the tag line in a political jingle, Tyler served most of Tippecanoe's term and established the precedents for a vice president becoming president that we still observe today. Wehwalt (talk) 04:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I found from doing a peer review that the shadowy Tyler is a much more interesting figure than most mid-19th century political figures, and it is a credit to this article that I became fully absorbed in the subject. First rate political biog, ticks all the boxes – happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you most kindly for your review and support.--Weh walt (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
I think we're OK on that now.
File:Tyler_Daguerreotype_(restoration).jpg: LOC tag has an error message
Not convinced that's from LOC, so swapping it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:John_Tyler_Signature.svg: where was this digitized from?
Beats me. I've asked Connormah, the uploader, for more info, haven't heard back.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's updated it now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:United_States_1842-1845-03.png: what sources were used to create this work?
No idea, sorry. It's validly PD and appears accurate, though the Texas boundaries were presumably researched.
File:Letitia_Tyler2.jpg needs US PD tag
I've researched the matter and it seems it is by an artist, Lawrence Williams, who died in 2003.
File:WHOportTyler.jpg is tagged as lacking source info
Nevertheless, the licensing appears valid.
File:John_Tyler's_grave.JPG: as this is a photo of a 3D work, what is the copyright status of the original work?
It was erected in 1915 and so is PD. I've made changes to the image page.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:William_Henry_Harrison.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I shall get to these over the weekend, unless Designate gets to them first!--Wehwalt (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow Wehwalt, do you ever take a breather? Another 60k article!
Designate did much of the writing. This came to FAC first during the leadership crisis two years ago, and reviewing it then was a pleasure and a distraction during a horrible time. Designate was distracted, I gather, by other things, and it didn't pass, but I remembered it and approached him a few months ago. I filled in the gaps (1840 election) and made the article stylistically smooth where needed, and it mostly wasn't needed. I'm hopeful of doing another one with him.
I love the spirit of collaboration. In that case, Designate, congratulations on a very strong article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"which was carried out by Tyler's successor, James K. Polk. He sided with the Confederate government when the American Civil War began in 1861," - Juxtaposition kinda looks like Polk was a Confederate.
Fixed.
Confederate House of Representatives - Worth a redline?
There's an article. Linked.
Mary Marot (Armistead) - should the "née" be made explicit?
Well, given the rest of the sentence, is it really necessary?
Not really. Just asking your opinion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like to change a style unnecessarily. I'm inclined to let it stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"in so poor a condition as to require a charitable donation from Congress," - italics in original? (just double checking
I double checked too and it seems kosher (note: I do not mind people putting the article through its paces)
states'-rights - I don't think this hyphen is necessary
Gone south.
There seems to be a rather high percentage of sentences starting "he" or "Tyler"
I did some modifying in the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conservative Democrat. - With a capital C? Perhaps link this, at least (though the article uses the small c).
Lower cased.
Presidency of William Henry Harrison goes to his article, and not an article on the presidency itself (small wonder, with a one month term). Is this really worth having as a see also link?
quietly returning to his home in Williamsburg - do we have an article on what the vice president actually did in these years? I mean, I can't imaging Biden spending his vice-presidency almost exclusively in Delawarej
Until the middle of the 20th century, the Vice President presided over the Senate, and that was it. Nixon was really the first modern Vice President, and that is in his article. I'm not even sure if Tyler had an office in the Capitol at that point. I consulted Hatch's book on the history of the Vice Presidency, but he really doesn't have much to say about the duties of the early veeps. Clay had gotten Harrison to call a special session for May, Tyler would have come back then to preside, and of course for the regular session in December.
Richmond attorney - the last link to Richmond wasn't that long ago
I'll be back tomorrow. This is clearly well written, and I doubt I'll have anything but a support once I go through the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review. Can I put in a commercial for the ongoing peer review of Judah P. Benjamin, the next to FAC I hope?
in his hotel room. - Was he not required to do it somewhere... a little more related to the government? Or was the requirement just the witnesses, the legal right, and the oath itself?
Column B. Coolidge, after all, was sworn in by his father, a notary public, in Vermont. LBJ was sworn in by a female judge on a plane. Teddy Roosevelt was sworn in, in borrowed clothing, in a friend's house in Buffalo (though most of the Cabinet was there, as they had been hanging around McKinley's sickbed).
the sales of public land, as an emergency measure - this comma feels funny
Despite not officially recognizing Tyler as president, the Whigs appear to have done so in some of their actions; wouldn't impeachment implicitly recognize Tyler's claim to the presidency?
Plainly with Tyler in the White House, they had to deal with the facts on the ground.
The first paragraph in the Cabinet section is unreferenced
Samuel Nelson to Thompson's seat was confirmed by the Senate. Nelson's successful confirmation was a surprise. Nelson, although a Democrat, - three Nelsons in three sentences?
Florida was admitted to the Union as the 27th state. - worth giving more information?
Not as controversial as Texas.
Early in his presidency, Tyler was attacked by abolitionist publisher Joshua Leavitt, who alleged that Tyler had fathered (and sold) several sons with his slaves. - Do we have a year, at least?
As of January 2014, ... grandchildren - This source is from 2012, yet you're using it to support a January 2014 date.
Confederate flag - link to the article?
Three above dealt with.
The line of quotes in #Legacy would probably do best with references after each
None of the "Tyler was ineffective" academics are given powerful quotes, compared to the more positive views; several of them quoted here are just mentioning what others think. This feels unbalanced. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a powerful anti-Tyler quotation. It's strong enough that I think that is a good balance.
Thanks, I'll work through these later today.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Another great article on a US president. Designate and Wehwalt, you both do Wikipedia proud. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review and support, and for your kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first time doing this, so apologies if I miss anything
How you indicate a book was previously published needs to be standardised
Hatch, Louis C. (1970) [1934]. A History of the Vice-Presidency of the United States (reprint of 1934 ed.). - do you really need to twice mention that it was first published in 1934?
Check the alphabetization of your books
I fixed these, I think. —Designate (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May source - Was there a specific contribution May was credited for?
May's book is pretty short; it's essentially a review much like this article. I used it as a due-weight check, since Chitwood and Seager are so enormous, but I didn't find anything worth citing to May. I would still consider it part of this article's bibliography. —Designate (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My question was more "Did he contribute a certain chapter, or did he write the whole book and the other people edited it?" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote the book. The series as a whole was edited by the other two. —Designate (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Schouler - Do we really need to say "online edition" if it's a facsimile scan of the original book? To me, online edition sounds like an ebook published concurrently by the publisher
What makes this an "article" in the journal sense? This should be formatted as a web citation
It uses the "cite web" template. I still consider it an article, not a "journal article" but an article nonetheless. It's a brief, nonfiction piece of writing collected in a larger work. —Designate (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You should include access dates for all web references, not just Freehling
I think Wikipedia's policy is to ignore accessdates for dated and authored works (books, journal articles, news) that are unlikely to be modified. A biography page with no date or author is more subject to change.
Not quite what Cite web recommends ("Not required for web pages or linked documents that do not change; mainly for use of web pages that change frequently or have no publication date."). However, my personal experience is that there is no such thing as a web page that does not change. I would have lost a lot of Tempo citations when the website went paywall if I hadn't archived them (and they had been stable for years). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I added the rest, but I omitted it from the U.S. Constitution and anything with an ISBN, since nothing will be lost there. —Designate (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Several footnotes use p. when they should use pp. (32 and 45); the reverse is also true (40). This is not an exclusive list; there may be more. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like everything. Good work! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments:
Very nice article. I have only a few comments:
Lede:
"Tyler, born to an aristocratic Virginia family of English descent..." Is the "of English descent" necessary? I can't think of a FFV that wasn't English, unless some Huguenots have escaped my mind.
Start in Virginia politics:
"Tyler was elected by his fellow Charles City County residents to the House of Delegates, the lower house of the Virginia General Assembly." Since you introduce and link the House of Delegates in the previous section, shouldn't the descriptive clause go there?
U.S. House of Representatives
The first paragraph could probably use a link to the Era of Good Feelings to explain why there was only one political party.
"Tyler voted against the Missouri Compromise". Why?
Presidential election, 1836
In a legal writing class, my professor once noted that "pursuant to" can nearly always be replaced with "under". I find the plainer word makes for more natural reading.
Family and personal life
Does the ancestry chart have a source? A lot of them have been removed from non-royals' articles because of this, and because it's not especially notable for a non-royal.
The source was listed in an HTML comment by whoever added it to all the U.S. presidents' articles. I don't like those charts at all, but I'm trying to choose my battles these days. If there's precedent to get rid of those charts, I will gladly do the same here. —Designate (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd pull it just because his ancestors aren't notable (except his father, whom you already discuss in the article). --Coemgenus (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See also:
This whole section is probably unnecessary.
External links:
This section is kind of thick. Do you think you might delete the links to his State of the Union addresses, since they're already linked by the Wikisource box to the right? --Coemgenus (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented the rest of your comments in full. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, changed to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, three supports, an image review, a source review, open for almost three weeks ... sounds like "the ball a-rolling on, for Tippecanoe and Tyler too, Tippecanoe and Tyler too". Well, Tyler anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- Could you just check your duplinks and see what's really necessary, Wehwalt? For instance there's at least three to Governor of Virginia (though admittedly the first is piped). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a tool for that? otherwise I'll try to do it manually--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the organization responsible for the production of the children's show Sesame Street. It's actually a combination of two articles, the SW original article and Funding sources of Sesame Street, which merged with this article after I and a few editors decided that the content better fit here. I think that this article should pass mustard with the reviewers here, though. I look forward to the feedback. Enjoy! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Figureskatingfan. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RE: Lead section
"most well-known" should be "best-known". The superlative form of the adverb well is best.
Image review (I expect to do a full review in due course):
File:TakalaniSesame-set.jpg is non-free, and has no fair use rationale for this article (I doubt that a satisfactory one could be created, as well);
I removed the FUR for the deleted article, and put one for this article in place.
I have some concerns about File:Joan Ganz Cooney.JPG, which I am not convinced depicts a 55 year old woman, as claimed. While the links on the image's Commons page establish that it was published in 1985, I'm not sure that they establish that it was first published in 1985. However, even if it was first published prior to 1985, unless that publication included copyright notice, as I understand it it would now be in the public domain. Accordingly, I'm not opposing on this basis, but would welcome others' eyes.
I think I understand what you're saying. I've searched for pics of Cooney at the same time: it's hard to see her as clearly in this one from 1984 [27], but she looks almost as young; and there's this one from 1978 [28]. I don't have a problem with it; Cooney's always looked that great.
I am confused by the article's organization - top level headings for each of "History", "Early years", and "Later years" seems inconsistent. Additionally, I'm not sure the "explanatory notes" are properly considered "references". Some of the material under "funding sources" doesn't seem to fit that heading - the "music" section specifically notes that musical rights were retained by the artists, so in what sense is music a "funding source" for the SW? Likewise, are licencing fees paid by the international co-productions? Conversely, the "Later years" section includes quite a lot of information about funding sources.
I'm not unopposed to changing the structure. One thing I can do is to make the "Early years" and "Later years" into second-level headings under "History". Would that suffice? I've put all the sections under "References" for other articles; if you like, I can make them all top-level sections, something else I've done. I've seen it happen both ways. Music is a funding source in the sense that as the article states, it attracts the best composers and brings attention to their shows by letting the writers earn royalties. The article quotes Davis saying just that. It was more of a PR move, especially since the CTW was a non-profit start-up at the time. I don't know how more clear I can make it. I can't recall any specific information about how they handle licensing with the co-productions, although I assume that the SW simply lets them use it. There's nothing in the literature that states that specifically, though. I tried to focus on acquisitions and what they sold off in the "Later years" section, to emphasize their ups and downs after the 1990s, so some of it got into some discussion about funding sources. I don't think I'm being repetitive, though.
I'm not sure that the article is currently sufficiently broad. For example, I can't find anything about the Workshop's corporate structure, number of employees, etc. In contrast, something like a third of the article is devoted to the organization's founding - I don't think that the level of detail on that subject is excessive, but I wonder if it could be balanced by additional detail in other areas?
Surprisingly, with all the information out there about Sesame Street, there's very little reliable sources about the SW's corporate structure. Cooney, during her interview by the Archive of American Television, gets into it some, but not a lot, because I think she senses that it's boring and not what people want to hear. I looked at the Workshop's webpage and there's nothing about what you're asking, other than lists of the executive board and trustees.
Another area in which I think detail may be lacking is the philosophy/mandate of the organization. For example, the article mentions that in 1998 the CW started accepting corporate funds - was this a shift in philosophy, or a grudging concession to budgetary realities?
The SW webpage includes their stated goals and their mission statement. Did you want me to include it? I did include more content about the reason they began to accept corporate sponsorship as per your request.
The "Leadership team" section does seem to include excessive detail. I won't die on that hill, but I don't think that the entire board of trustees needs to be listed in an article like this.
I added the list because that's what I saw in other similar articles. I'm not overly committed to it, either; I could just list the more "important" names, but who am I to judge that?
The sourcing appears excellent. While I'm obviously not an expert in this field, and therefore I couldn't say if there are any major sources that have not been used but should have been, this is clearly a well-researched article.
I'll provide more specific comments in due course (assuming engagement from the nominator on what I've said so far). Steve Smith (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"By summer 1970, Dann had made the first international agreements for what the CTW came to call "co-productions"" - source?
Done.
Why do some chapters from Fisch & Truglio use short cites and others full bibliographic info in citations?
Because it's my practice to treat these articles, which are from the "G" is for Growing book, as separate articles. If I cite an article from the book more than once, it gets listed as a short cite; if not, I list the full bibliographic info. This seems to be standard in references in books and journal articles, so that's what I tend to use.
Fn23: don't need italics
Got it.
Compare FNs 29 and 30
They're different sources, but they look like the same because I missed the year from Cooney's foreword in Lesser's book. (Heck, if you write a book about Sesame Street, you gotta get her to write your foreword!) ;)
FN78: page?
Huh? Are you talking about the Cole ref? The page number is there, right before the ISBN like it's supposed to be.
No, it's now FN80, the Carvajal NYT ref. (And why does it have a retrieval date with no URL?) Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The URL went missing; fixed now. Thanks for the catch.
Mahwah or Mahweh?
Mahweh, fixed typo.
"Revelle, et al" or "Revelle et al"? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the APA [29], the accurate usage is without the comma.
Cool, now let's do it ;-) (compare FNs 106 and 111). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments a nice read - just working my way through it. Queries below.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
their first ten years of existence was marked by conflicts between the CTW and the federal government some repetitive words with the previous clause, would be good if could be rephrased. maybe just "between the two"?
Done as per your suggestion.
Is the chronology of paras 2 and 3 in the Funding sources section a bit muddled? Not sure when events of beginning of para 3 are taking place but sound like they predate "By 2008, the Sesame Street Muppets accounted for between $15 million and $17 million per year in licensing and merchandising fees, split between the Workshop and Henson Associates"
I see your point. I switched the paragraphs; is that enough?
Hmmm, not sure - the first few sentences of (what is now) para 2 have no dates, can we get some idea of when these events occurred into the article? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 06:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think what I've done works because para 2 describes practices the Workshop followed throughout their history, except for the last few sentences, which include dates (the early 1970s). I changed the wording slightly to better reflect it, I think. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
but was eventually replaced by Bill Whaley. - not contrastive, should be "and" (?)
Done, thanks.
Surely segments early years and later years should be level 3 subheaders under history?
Yeah, that's what we were talking about above. Since you're the second reviewer to suggest it, it will be done.
Director Jon Stone stated, about the music of Sesame Street, "There was no other sound like it on television". - sentence is clumsy with quotes, and quote is not in and of itself memorable, so I would rewrite - something like "Director Jon Stone claimed the music of Sesame Street was unique on television/ was unlike any other on television". or somesuch
I like that word, "somesuch". I will steal it from you, my friend! ;) Done as you suggest.
I'm not sure the leadership team is an essential part of the article..I think I'd cut it. Or maybe just mention the one or two most senior people, which I think are already mentioned...?Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a repeat request, so done. I wonder, though, if we can put the "Senior management" list in prose form in the "Later years" subsection, and mention a few of the board members? I'll go ahead and do it and see what y'all think.
Tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose - it's pretty thorough but not overinclusive and is an engaging read. I can't see any prose clangers outstanding. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another superior effort by a top-notch editor. But I have some comments to prove that I read it all:
The 2008–2009 recession, which led to budget cuts for many nonprofit arts organizations, severely affected the SW; in spring 2009, they had to lay off 20% of its staff Pronoun confusion: they versus its; should be it had to lay off 20% of its staff. Per MOS:SEASON, it would be better to avoid the idiom "spring 2009". The same in the sentence starting with "Spring 2013", when you say "they" but mean "it".
Fixed the seasons, and then I went through and fixed all the pronouns as per your request.
the show gained attention from marketers who wanted to take advantage of it. The Workshop explored other sources This reads oddly, because it goes on to talk about merchandising. On reflection, the problem with the paragraph seems to be that we are not told what the marketers were suggesting. (Aside: the US government's opposition to free speech is very interesting.)
Not sure what you mean about free speech. This is what I did the the sentences in question; hope it's okay: "For the first time, a public broadcasting show had the potential to earn a great deal of money. Immediately after its premiere, Sesame Street gained attention from marketers, so the Workshop explored sources such as licensing arrangements, publishing, and international sales, and became, as Cooney envisioned, a "multiple media institution"."
In my country, we draw a very stark line between commercial speech and free speech. So "the government's attacks on PBS" will be read as part of a campaign against freedom of speech. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consider moving explanatory note 2 into the text, as it is not a digression. Also, it reads awkwardly for some reason I can't put my finger on.
Done. Changed sentence; hopefully, this is better: "Three international parks, Parque Plaza Sesamo in Monterrey, Mexico since 1995, Universal Studios Japan, and Vila Sesamo Kids' Land in Brazil had already been built."
Yes, that sounds much better. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not participating this year. It was too tough for me. Cheers! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support. A characteristically well and confidently written article on an important subject, excellently organized and formatted. However I'm thinking the prose could use a final once-over to eliminate a tendency to longish, comma-filled sentences. :) Attention might also be paid to bundling the inline citations to the ends of sentences for improved readability. Further, I'm a bit concerned that, while it is an impressive surface overview of the organization's history, goals and accomplishments, the article is noticeably lacking in more specific details of its inner workings, in particular various creative decisions. Shoebox2talk 15:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go over the prose again to deal with the long sentences and the citations as per your request, after I finish dealing with the issues below. As far as the "specific details" are concerned, I see that you have some questions about a few of the Workshop's creative decisions, so I'll address them below. However, as I've stated before, there is surprisingly little information available about the motivations for many of their creative decisions for projects other than Sesame Street. I've included what I was able to find. There's also little information about the Workshop's "inner workings", although I did find a book about Morrissett and his role in the CTW and the Markle Foundation. (Morrissett was director of Markle during and after SS' development and premiere.) I'll add the information I glean from this source tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed adding info from the new source. It addressed some of the issues below, which I'll note as I go through them. I should be able to take care of it, if not this afternoon, definitely by tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some specific issues I've noted:
"Cooney was committed to using television to change the world..." --Not fatally vague given the surrounding details re: her career, but still an unnecessarily meaningless cliche. How about something like "...committed to television as an instrument for sociological [or whatever other, more specific concept] change..."
Sorry, but I think your version is just as much of a cliche. This is what I came up with, hope it's better: "...committed to using television to change society..."
"Founding" -- A more indepth discussion of how the division of responsibilities between Cooney and Morrisett came about (and how Cooney eventually came to take the lead on the whole project) would be helpful, esp. as the preceding section gives the distinct impression that early childhood education and research was Morrisett's particular specialty.
Well, not really; his expertise was fund-raising and getting foundations involved. I think that my additions from the Markle book help address this issue.
I realise this isn't actually the story of how Sesame Street was developed, but shouldn't the circs under which Jim Henson (until then best-known for very adult, anarchistic sensibilities) was persuaded to throw in with this fledgling children's educational non-profit rate at least a mention?
Um, not really. Don't get me wrong; I admire Henson. He's always been one of my personal heroes. However, I think that he gets too much credit for the creation and development of both The Show and the Workshop. He was hugely influential in the creative part of Sesame Street, and that's covered in its article, but he had very little to do with the creation and development of the CTW. He made an arrangement with the CTW for licensing of the characters, and that's described in this article. So I disagree with this suggestion, since it doesn't parallel the facts and what happened. BTW, one of my long-term WP goals is to improve Henson's bio article, which I anticipate will be a huge undertaking, but a real need.
"Although Cooney, due to her professional experience, always assumed the natural home for the show was PBS, Morrisett was open to airing the show on commercial television, but all three networks rejected the idea." -- Awkward and overlong. How about: "Due to her professional experience, Cooney always assumed the show's natural home would be PBS. Morrisett was open to airing it on commercial stations, but all three networks rejected the idea."
Done.
"At first, Cooney did not fight for the position, but with the support of Tim Cooney and Morrisett, and after the investors of the project realized that they could not move forward without her, Cooney pursued it and was named the first executive director of CTW in February 1968." -- Again, awkward. How about: "At first, Cooney did not fight for the position. However she had the support of her husband and Morrisett, and the project's investors soon realized they could not go forward without her. She was eventually named to the post in February 1968."
Got it.
"Dave Connell took over animation and volume..." -- Possibly my unique ignorance only, but what does 'volume' mean in this context? Would 'sound' get the idea across better?
Wow, the word "production" was missing; I have no idea how that happened, honestly.
"Early years": The leap from a sole and sincere (not to say hyper-intensive) focus on children's educational TV to experimenting with adult programming happens wholly without explanation?
Good point. I went back to Cooney's interview with the Archives of American TV and added her explanation.
"Funding sources": The timeline of the first paragraph re: Federal funding is slightly confusing; not sure how Cooney's statement that they were 'darlings' for two-three years meshes with the assertion of an initial ten years of constant conflict.
Well, actually, the statement starts with the word "although", which infers their rocky relationship. I would like to keep this as is.
"Music": "Cooney observed in her initial report that children had an "affinity for commercial jingles", so many of the show's songs were constructed like television ads." -- Besides the fact that 'constructed like television ads' doesn't have much practical meaning (there isn't one particular way to make a commercial), as I understand it the core concept of structuring SS to mimic then-current marketing trends was a keystone of the entire CTW's children's television revolution. Thus possibly deserving more of a spotlight, maybe in the description of the intitial R&D under 'Founding'?
The language used here parallels the source. This section, along with some others, summarizes forked articles; in this case, Music of Sesame Street. I think what you're asking better belongs in that article, and in the main article. Plus, I've never read any source that puts it like that.
"International co-productions": "Dann's appointment resulted in television critic Marvin Kitman, referring to the May 1970 Mississippi state commission decision to ban the show, to state..." Awkward, and ungrammatical. How about: "In response to Dann's appointment, television critic Marvin Kitman said that "[quote]", a reference to the May 1970 Mississippi state commission decision to ban the show."
I believe that I've addressed all your comments, Shoe. Thanks for putting this article over the edge. And thanks for the promotion, which occurred before I addressed Shoe's comments. I'll do another copy-edit in a couple of days. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the latest hurricane in history to strike the United States. It was an anomaly, one of the strongest hurricanes in the month of November and one that proves that hurricane season really does last through November. There was some decent damage in Cuba and Florida, culminating the end to a very rough hurricane season that included Hurricane Elena, Hurricane Gloria, and Hurricane Juan (1985). Enjoy reading! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to invite User:12george1 to co-nominate the article, as I might be too busy to handle it. Also, due to the article being largely done last year, this will not be for the Wikicup. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and the latest hurricane to impact the country on record. " Really don't like this. First, it wasn't the way you worded it as Hurricane Iwa impacted the island on November 24, not November 21. Also, instead "hurricane", you should clarify and say "hurricane intensity" cause you could mean tropical cyclone.
"the intensification of a region of high pressure to the cyclone's north caused Kate to turn westward" what's a "high pressure"? You sohuld link it.
And you "sohuld" know what a high pressure is :P--12george1 (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" and Kate transitioned to an extratropical cyclone a day after exiting the coastline of North Carolina, on November 23." did it exist the coastline on the 23rd or become ET then?
"Kate was the first hurricane along the Florida Panhandle since Hurricane Eloise in 1975.[7] " first hurricane to do what? nominate an article for FAC? :P
Nope, but it seems like Erick 07 was the first to nominate itself for merge :P --12george1 (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and about 500 homes and businesses were severely damaged.[33]" given you say "people and businesses", could you say "buildings" instead here. YEPacificHurricane 03:40, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The cotton, soybean, and pecan crops suffered heavy losses, estimated at around $50 million. Property and utility damage was also estimated at $50 million, and damage from flash flooding was estimated at $1 million.[26]" you use estimated three times in a short period of words, consider mixing it up and saying something like "assessed" or "placed".
"When Kate struck the Florida Panhandle, it became the first hurricane to make landfall in that location since Hurricane Eloise." A year here might be nice for context for those of us who don't know when Eloise hit.
"Waves of 9 ft (2.7 m) waves affected the city's waterfront." the feet shouldn't be abbreviated and you have an extra "waves" in the sentence.
Fixed the extra "waves", but not the feet. The other units of measure in the article are abbreviated, so feet should be too.--12george1 (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:NUM, they should not be abbreviated. Under Units and conversions: "In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times, but symbols may be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly after spelling out the first use (e.g. Up to 15 kilograms of emulsifier is used for a batch of 250 kg)." It's one thing to shorten the lengthy "miles per hour" down to "mph", but even its first usage needs to be spelled out in full per MOS:NUM. The way the example reads, if you're repeating the unit in close proximity, you can abbreviate, but you're not. The two usages of feet are paragraphs apart, so both should be spelled out. Imzadi 1979→ 04:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"destroyed 3,653 mi2 (9461 km2)" again, no need to abbreviate the unit, and it shouldn't be linked.
See my previous comment--12george1 (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See above, and since it's only used once, it needs to be spelled out. Imzadi 1979→ 04:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"34,000 tonnes of sugar"" that should be converted and the unit doesn't need to be linked. Given that all of the other measurements are in American/imperial first, metric second, that should probably be flipped to the same order. (There is an option in {{convert}} to flip the order around.) The following sentence should receive the same treatment. In general, measurements in running prose should not be abbreviated, although mph can be an exception to that. I would look through the rest of the article and allow {{convert}} to spell words out in full.
"About 90% of ..." I would spell that out as "About 90 percent of ..."
Concerning the footnotes, I personally would list cities of publication for newspapers that do not include the city in their names. So The Deseret News would say it was published in Salt Lake City, Utah, while the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel doesn't need a redundant reference to Milwaukee.
FN14, Lodi News-Sentinel (Lodi, California), and FN 15, Gainesville Sun (Gainesville, Florida), are just two examples where listing the city is redundant. Most citation style guides say only to list the city of publication if it's not included in the name of the newspaper, which is why I said the MJS didn't need Milwaukee listed twice. Imzadi 1979→ 01:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like Lodi should be mentioned, since it's not clear it's a city. - who has heard of Lodi here, aside from people from California? :) I'll remove the Gainesville one. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FN 21 is very odd. That's a report, so the title shouldn't be in italics so that it matches the other reports. The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs is either an author or publisher, so it shouldn't be in italics either.
The various Storm Data citations could be using the title of the section/article within the publication in the citation.
Not quite sure I understand this one. The title of the article is Storm Data. All of the data is presented in a list, going state by state. Does that make sense? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the source, and Storm Data appears to be the name of a journal that's subdivided into five articles: "Outstanding Storms of the Month", "Storm Data and Unusual Weather Phenomena", "Storm Summary", "Reference Notes", and "'F' Scale Definitions". Honestly, the footnote should be specifying which of these articles, and the appropriate page range, is being cited. I'll also note that it has an ISSN, which is something a journal, magazine or newspaper would have; articles don't have ISSNs. Imzadi 1979→ 01:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I added the chapter for "Storm Data and Unusual Weather Phenomena", pages, and the ISSN. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:51, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
David Longshore. "Hurricane Kate." Encyclopedia of Hurricanes, Typhoons and Cyclones. David Longshore. New York: Facts on File, 1998, Pg; 208-209. This should be reformatted to match the other citations, and it should have a link added. If a link can't be added, I'd change "External links" to "Further reading" because the heading implies a link should be present.
Changed to further reading, in that case, since I never used it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:LAYOUT, the "See also" section belongs before the References
I switched to an active image, courtesy of Flickr. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A well-written article that is short, comprehensive, and meticulously sourced. I noticed a few mostly minor issues with the prose, and I performed copyedit (diff) to address them (a couple of tiny grammatical things or prose tightening, a couple areas where I tried to clarify minor ambiguity, and a couple of unintended word or sentence repeats); but if you disagree with some of my changes and revert them, I don't see anything major that would keep me from withholding my support for this nomination at this time. Well done! Keep up the great work! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've done a bit of copyediting to resolve some issues with clunky prose, but the research seems strong and I'm satisfied that the writing is generally professional. A few comments, still:
About 90 percent of residents in Florida's capital city Tallahassee, or about 80,000 people, lost power... - the source says "90% of Tallahassee, a city of 89,500, was without power". Given that there is a difference between people without power and customers without power, it might be a bit of a stretch to assume that if Tallahassee has 90,000 people, and 90% of the city is in the dark, then 80,000 people must be without power. Utility companies in the US almost always report outages in customers rather than individuals.
Overall, the hurricane destroyed 325 homes along the panhandle, and about 500 buildings were severely damaged. - this is a bit weaselly in its current state. Ideally you'd want to figure out if it's 325 out of 500, or 325 + 500, or just two sources that disagree with each other (the media isn't usually good with distinguishing between "destroyed" and "severely damaged"). Since I couldn't figure out a way to do that, you might want to try finding a more forgiving way to word this.
Just a suggestion, but I wouldn't mind seeing the Tallahassee damage pic a bit larger. It's probably the most visually engaging illustration in the whole article, and has plenty of resolution to work with. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the third-longest highway in the state of Michigan. Running for over 350 miles, US 31 parallels the Lake Michigan shoreline in Michigan's Lower Peninsula. The highway's current designation dates back to 1926, and like other highways in the state, it was partially converted into a freeway. One segment of freeway built for US 31 has been sitting unused for over a decade now, waiting for the final piece to be built. That section was delayed for many years over a butterfly, but now it's a matter of funding the project. Imzadi 1979→ 05:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (having recently driven through Michigan!)
What are "freeway standards"? Any chance for a note, link, or explanation in the route description section?
"The entire length of the highway is listed on the National Highway System,[5] a network of roads important to the country's economy, defense, and mobility." - it couldn't hurt to add that this is the United States National Highway System. Not everyone knows where Michigan is, and it could be helpful to remind which country you refer to.
"A bit further north" - weasel words
"There US 31 intersects" - add comma
"where US 31 turns northward to bypass the west side of town on its own" - this could be clearer
"US 31 crosses into Antrim County as it runes" - I'm guessing you mean "runs"?
"US 31 terminated at the souther approach to the Mackinac Bridge" - first, you mean "southern"? And second, so US 31 was removed from the UP before I-75 was created?
"at a cost of $97 million (equivalent to $126 million in 2012[72])." - why 2012?
All in all, it looks pretty good! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies, I'm happy! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Replies, in order:
Adding a link.
Actually, the name is just "National Highway System", no "United States" added. In dealing with other US Highways' articles I've nominated at FAC, I had a FAC coordinator copy edit the prose because there were too many references to "US" or "United States" already in the lead, even though I had been clarifying that Michigan is in the US. In this case, that paragraph could withstand an extra reference, so I swapped "US's" for "country's" in that one sentence.
I'm not sure how this is weasily, other than omitting a more specific distance.
Added.
Revised.
Yup, fixed.
Yes, and yes, by about 20 years.
The templates that generate the inflation-adjusted numbers use datasets from the appropriate government agency. In terms of this calculation, it's based on the national gross domestic product per capita, and that dataset for the US is only updated as of 2012 because there is a lag by the agency crunching the numbers. The good news is that each year when updated, year given will also update.
Comments A very well-written and sourced article. I have a few small suggestions to help with the prose:
I'm not sure that "a bit" is weasely, but the phrase appears extraneous and somewhat informal. I suggest dropping it, or rewording by saying "Slightly".
"At that interchange" - Swap "that" for "this" (or "the")
"Continues along" is extra verbiage; I suggest dropping it.
"Just a few miles father east" - the "Just" isn't necessary
"South of the structure it is Bridge Street, and north of the bridge this is Michigan Avenue" - I suggest using parallel construction and replacing "this" with "it"; using "this" is ambiguous.
"The United States Numbered Highway System was approved on November 11, 1926,[1] and US 31 was designated in Michigan..." - The passive voice leaves me wondering who approved the system and designated US 31 in Michigan.
"Early the next year, the route of US 2 was realigned to run into St. Ignace; after the change US 2 and US 31 initially ran concurrently" I suggest putting a comma after "change" and dropping the word "initially"; the next sentence describes how US 31 was then realigned again, so that aspect is covered, but I was confused at first by this sentence's structure suggesting that there was an "initial" state after a "change".
"East of Benton Harbor, the St. Joseph Valley Parkway extension was under study due to environmental, economic, and historical site issues." - When, and by whom? Also, concerning tense, I notice that this sentence uses past tense ("was under study" for environmental issues), but the next sentence uses present tense to describe an environmental issue ("relates"). To clarify, I suggest tacking the phrase "that was studied" before "relates" in this sentence, which also ties back into the studying mentioned in the prior sentence.
", that has its habitat in the area of the proposed freeway." Switch "that" for "which".
"As of 2014, in order to cross the Grand River in Ottawa County" - "in order" unnecessary
"As of January 4, 2013, MDOT had completed work for this new highway, on a bridge over North Cedar Drive," -- suggest swapping "on" for "including"; the "on" made me think that a new list of construction projects was being started (i.e., MDOt had completed work on the highway, and a separate bridge, and separate ramps, etc.)
These are mostly small issues; again, great work on this article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototime: I have made the suggested changes. Thanks for the quick review, and please let me know if anything more needs to be polished. Imzadi 1979→ 06:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! The only minor thing I'd mention is that the opening sentence about the St. Joseph Valley Parkway extension could still use a mention of when the studies were taking place. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All of my concerns have been addressed. The prose is great, the article is well-sourced, the structure is well-suited to the topic, and the article provides a comprehensive discussion of the subject. A job very well done, Imzadi1979! Keep up the great work! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes -- source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess this one gets promoted without the source review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Peresvet was designed to defeat enemy armored cruisers defending convoys of merchant ships, but ended up fighting battleships when she was sent to Port Arthur before the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–05. She was badly damaged in the Battle of the Yellow Sea and was scuttled in harbor once the Imperial Japanese Army could bombard it effectively. She was salvaged by the Japanese and placed into service. She was then sold back to the Russians during World War I and was in the White Sea when the British decided to intervene in the Russian Civil War in 1919. Although her crew had earlier declared their allegiance to the Bolsheviks, they did nothing to stop the British landings. She was eventually scrapped in 1924, well after the British withdrew from the war. The article passed GAN several years ago, but it's been expanded and extensively rewritten using information from new sources. It just passed a MilHist A-class review and should be in pretty good shape although I expect reviewers will still find a few infelicities.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I can't give my support since this is my first FA review. The article is generally excellent, but there are however issues.
The last sentence in the Battle of Port Arthur section reads: "She was hit on 9 August by two 4.7-inch (120 mm) shells fired by a battery with a narrow view of the harbor, but they only slightly damaged the ship". You don't need "the ship" since it's obvious that "She" incurred the damage. After the comma, you could try:
but the damage incurred was only slight
but the damage suffered was minimal
In the Siege of Port Arthur section you have the sentence "The Japanese began firing blindly into the harbor on 30 September and hit Peresvet with at least six 5.9-inch (150 mm) and 4.7-inch shells that day and once more the following day". To avoid repeating the word "day", try:
The Japanese began firing blindly into the harbor on 30 September: Peresvet was struck (hit) by at least six 5.9-inch (150 mm) and 4.7-inch shells and suffered a further hit (strike) the following day.
In the same section you've written "This allowed the Imperial Japanese Army's siege guns to fire directly at the Russian ships and they hit Peresvet many times". This doesn't appear to be sourced. And what exactly does the word "many" mean?
The whole paragraph is sourced to one cite. Russian sources say 44 hits, but may be including near-misses, so I used "many" as a nice way to avoid getting into pointless detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See the Japanese career section. You have the sentence "Peresvet was refloated by Japanese engineers on 29 June 1905 and steamed under her own power to Sasebo Naval Arsenal, where she arrived on 25 August and was renamed Sagami, taking her name from the ancient Japanese province of Sagami, now a part of Kanagawa prefecture." This is too long. Additionally, she didn't take her name -- she was given it. And the name is not from the province: Peresvet was renamed after the province. I would try:
Peresvet was refloated by Japanese engineers on 29 June 1905 and steamed under her own power to Sasebo Naval Arsenal, where she arrived on 25 August. There she was renamed Sagami, after the eponymous Japanese province.
Note to the above: I've omitted "now a part of Kanagawa prefecture" as I don't believe anyone will really care where this province is located.
She sank north of Port Said -- this part of your article is very brief. Has her wreckage been located? Has anyone ever attempted to find it?
There's nothing to report. Nobody's ever mounted an expedition to find her, AFAIK, and her wreck has never been found. Thanks for your comments, you've made some very useful points.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Peresvet1901.jpg: when/where was this first published? The life+70 provision would not have the copyright expiring before the URAA date
Date/place of publication is unknown.
Then how do we know this is free to use? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marius Bar was a commercial photographer, while he didn't necessarily turn his photos into postcards, he did sell them, probably not long after taking them, which would count as publication.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Naval_Ensign_of_Russia.svg: the multiple tags here are contradictory. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, the design of the flag isn't in copyright by Russian law, and Zscout370 seems to actually have made the image if that matters. I don't know that it does, but either way, the image is OK. If Zscout's tag needs to be deleted, that's fine, just let me know.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The image is OK, but if the design is not original enough to warrant a copyright then Zscout's version of the design wouldn't be either. Either of the Russian or ineligible tags would be sufficient on its own, but you can't have both ineligible and Zscout's. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The design of the Peresvet class was inspired by the British second-class battleships of the Centurion class. The British ships were intended to defeat commerce-raiding armored cruisers like the Russian ships Rossia and Rurik, and the Peresvet class was designed to support their armored cruisers." This isn't clear to me. You say that the ships were inspired by the British second-class battleships, which were intended to defeat commerce raiders, and then go on to say that Peresvet was meant for an entirely different purpose (supporting the cruisers, aka taking on the second-class battleships?) It might be better to say that they were intended to counter the Centurions?
That's not explicitly stated in my source, but only implied. And it may be that the Russian armoured cruisers were intended to overmatch escorting protected cruisers and the Peresvet class to overpower escorting armoured cruisers.
"Tensions had arisen between Russia and Japan over their ambitions to control both Manchuria and Korea." This could be a much stronger opening sentence. How long had they had these ambitions? Were these long-standing tensions? I realize that this article isn't meant to focus on those characteristics (and already has good amount of background), but this is the difference between making readers go onto several different articles or keeping them here. :-) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 22:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Typo
I'll reply to your comments on my article later. Meanwhile:
1. You have a typo "against an Mongolian army".
2. Are you sure this makes sense "Her laid down on 21 November 1895 by the Baltic Works in Saint Petersburg and launched on 19 May 1898"? The link in "laid down" points to Keel.
Good catch; that part was changed after the start of the FAC and I didn't notice those issues. BTW, don't be shy about giving it your support if you think the article is worthy of FA status. That this is your first review doesn't really matter. We all had to start somewhere.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What did you like best about the Poltava article, if I might be so bold? I didn't write that one by myself so I'm curious.
2. I am extremely impressed with your library. In due course, I think I'll set up my own user page and do the same.
A lifetime's collecting and it's a handy way to keep the books I use for bibliographies in the proper format instead of trying to remember where I'd used any particular title.
3. Good luck with your nominations! Singora (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And you as well although Singora should be promoted soon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Recusing from delegate duties as I have a FAC open myself at the moment and am therefore commenting on a few nominations... I reviewed, copyedited and supported this at MilHist ACR and, having checked over the changes since then, I think it meets the FAC criteria as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and the Peresvet class was designed to support their armored cruisers." Who is "their"? The previous plural noun is "Russian ships".
The second of the three convert templates yields an exact 1:1. The other two do not.
Which ones do you mean exactly? The ones in the sentence laying out her size?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Construction
Even in passing, I think Fr. Peresvet deserves a better description of the manner of his fighting and dying.
Nothing I have provides any more details; to do as you'd like would be to add unsourced material to the article. Note that his Wiki article is totally unsourced.
"and launched on 19 May 1898" I think you need a "she was" before launched
Battle etc.
"Japan interpreted this as deliberate prevarications" "this" should probably be "these"
While the use of the word "ship" is unavoidable, I remind you there are synonyms to avoid overuse
"Japanese fleet shortly before sunset, as he did not wish to engage the numerically superior Japanese" one or the other "Japanese" can probably be replaced by "enemy" or "opposing"
Return to Russia
She didn't, did she?
I'm not sure what you mean here, use of a contraction?
"the submarine SM U-73" as in the lede, I think you have to say "German submarine".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But I already told the reader that it was German in the lede. Do you think that I need to tell them again? This isn't that big an article.
Thanks for your helpful comments. If you can clarify a couple of your points so I can address them, I'd be grateful, I think that the rest have been dealt with.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am very sorry, I overlooked this one. Please feel free to remind me if this happens again. My concerns were addressed by your edits.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some details, for example initial service date, differ between text and infobox
Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of column width. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I've caught all of these. Thanks for your prompt response.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Colm (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about the 1924 film Greed. It has been nominated twice before and got some great feedback. Alot of the unfinish feedback from the last nomination has been addressed, but I would like fresh suggestions before I or anyone else goes forward. Also, please give me more than four days between an oppose and closing the nomination.Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Laser brain was spot-on in his review during the last FAC, "the article is very good but needs some work on fit and finish".:
Prose: I've done a bit of copyediting but more is needed to smoothen out the writing and enhance the readability.
There are several awkward constructions. For eg, the word use is awkwardly employed to describe the director's stylistic choices: "von Stroheim used this ... von Stroheim used that".
The word film is overused, often several times in the same sentence. Replace some of these with "Greed" or "it".
I think this is taken care of. let me know if you think it needs more.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When you have time go through the writing tutorials at this page, especially the redundancy-removal exercises. Eg: "Robert E. Sherwood also defended MGM's cutting of the film" and "The studio ordered June Mathis to cut it down further;[95] she assigned the job to an editor named Joseph Farnham, Farnham was a well-known "titles editor" who patched scenes together using title cards to keep continuity."
Cast: is this section necessary? There's also the Casting section, and you could just mention the relevant actor names in brackets after the characters in the Plot summary. Also, it isn't really Wikipedia's job to mention every last bit-part role and actor.
I'm looking through some FA film articles. Some have simple cast lists, others don't and include the cast in paragraph form. Personally I don't see what's wrong with the cast list, and I'm not totally sure what the official standards are.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Box office: the two-decimal-place dollar figures are far too detailed. In fact you could round it off to the nearest thousand to improve readability.
Myths and misconceptions: I don't think you should compile the myths surrounding the movie into one big section like this. Better would be a section/subsection for the different (real and mythic) versions of the films. Probably under the Release section. The Turner stuff from Legacy also belongs there. Further, von Stroheim's adaptation of McTeague and June Mathis's undeserved writing credit is neither myth nor misconception. The former belongs somewhere in Production, and the latter with the rest of Mathis's involvement in the Editing section. The sam
Legacy: this is really the only disappointing section in a excellent article. It has a list of several directors and films influenced by this film, but it doesn't say why it was so great. Or how it inspired these filmmakers. Also, we know that initial reception was poor, when and why did later critics change their mind? ("by the 1950s it began to be regarded as one of the greatest films ever made" is not really expanded upon) What exactly did retrospective reviewers, such as Ebert (and Kael, Siskel, Maltin etc?), say about the film?
There's a lot of stuff already in the article about how innovative Greed was—the use of deep focus 17 years before Kane comes to mind—that could be compiled here to make a strong case for how seminal it was.
References: you don't need a ref at the end of every sentence. You can often club them like this or also as recommended by WP:CITEBUNDLE.
That's it for me for now.—indopug (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can work on some of these by this weekend. I strongly disagree with your comment on the Myths and Misconceptions section. One of the most notable aspects of Greed is the mystery of its lost footage. I can search for some more comtemporary (as in from the 1950s and 1960s) reviews. That's a great idea. But I'll work on this in a few days. Thanks for the comments.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll continue working on this through the week, I just need more time.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm going to go over it very carefully tonight and add a Copy Edit tommorrow. I think that the legacy section is improved now. After I add the CE tommorrow I would love some feedback about the progress so far.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I'm only about halfway through, to the "Themes" section.
There are few things in articles about artistic works that I appreciate more than proper background that runs a little before the creation of the work itself, because it anchors the reader in context about the artist. However, parts of the "Background and writing" leave me wondering what would be left to expand in von Stroheim's own biographical article. I'm thinking in particular of the extensive detail about his transferring studios. I feel that parts of the first three paragraphs could be condensed into one or two, although the full writing could be preserved on von Stroheim's own page.
I agree with you that separate casting and cast sections are fine. The text with full historical information has a different value than a systematic list, and different readers would have different purposes and could jump to either section depending on their interest.
I think certain sentences could be condensed or split for clarity. I would double-check for sentences that use semi-colons, passive voice or lots of dependent clauses because they can become difficult to follow. I don't have time right now to comb for these examples, but I may be able to perform a more thorough copyedit if you'd like. To take one example:
"Another point where von Stroheim conceded his initial vision came during shooting of the bar confrontation between McTeague and Schouler; there, the director's desire for authenticity in having a knife thrower actually throw a real knife at Gibson Gowland's head was overruled by Gowland himself, who refused to allow such a dangerous stunt, and so a special-effect shot was used instead."
Could become...:
Von Stroheim also conceded his original vision when shooting the bar confrontation between McTeague and Schouler. The director insisted on authenticity, and wanted to have a knife thrower actually throw a real knife at Gibson Gowland's head. Von Stroheim was overruled by Gowland himself, who refused to allow such a dangerous stunt. A special-effect shot was used instead.
"He later said that he considered it the best role of his career." This sentence is ambiguous in its positioning within the paragraph and content, it needs a little more. Was the actor saying that the filming was fun? That the role was worthwhile despite the struggle? That the final result was excellent and/or he was proud of his performance? That he felt that von Stroheim's unconventional artistic direction was a fascinating experience?
The use of "feet" and "reels" to refer to the length of the film is confusing. That said, I like that you do it, because in historical terms you make it clear that this a historically accurate way to depict the contemporaneous terms that were used. However, I think that you probably need to reuse "note B" more often throughout and be consistent with conversions. For example:
"Despite his original contract stipulating that all films made by von Stroheim be under 8,500 feet, von Stroheim shot a total of 446,103 feet of footage for the film—running approximately 85 hours." We know how long the 446k reels runs, but about how long is the 8.5k?
I'll return to finish soon, hopefully by Friday. In the meantime, I have my own nomination up here that I don't feel bad about shamelessly plugging for critique. Give it a look if you can! Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've done a lot of work on this page and taken both of the contributing editors suggestions, although I still do not agree with changing the Cast or Myths and Misconceptions sections. It still may need anothe Copy Edit, but otherwise I'm open to more suggestions.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of those pre-date any edits I've made. I'm fine with them being removed if requested.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:42, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Greed3.jpg: FUR could be more specific - compare infobox images from other FA film articles for ideas
File:Erich_Von_Stroheim_1_Motion_Picture_Classic_1920.png: can we be more specific on the source? Is this a book...?
Taking a screenshot does not make the resultant image "own work" - the source is the film, so cite that instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- This review has been open almost two months. I haven't closed it because the article's already had a couple of shots here and the nominator has worked diligently to deal with comments as they've arisen. OTOH, I do need reviewers to declare if they in fact support promotion -- or conversely oppose it -- otherwise we're really just engaging in a de facto Peer Review. I'll add this to the list of FACs requiring urgent attention, and see in the next few days if any consensus either way looks like developing, otherwise we'll just have to archive it anyway and try again some other time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Infantile as it may seem I'm beginning to take the lack of interest in promoting the article personally. May I ask, would it be easier for everyone if someone else nominated it? I's be fine with not being attributed wikicredit for this article and just want to see it promoted. I think its a great article that a lot of people other than myself have worked hard on and that its basically ready after some tweaks.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments from Hamiltonstone, beginning from 'Production' section. I don't know what the issue is. I did find some repetition of words in the article, and I think prose problems are always a challenge to reviewers of longer articles. But I thought it was pretty good, and it is an absolutely rivetting story (not the plot - I mean the story of the making of the movie and its fate).
"A thinly disguised ZaSu Pitts to portrayed the woman"...?
Have changed this phrase to " A thinly disguised ZaSu Pitts portrayed the woman so that the audience would see a resemblance to Trina," - there are a couple of extra changes of my own in there, what do you think? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"a knife thrower" should this be hyphenated? I'm not sure
I'm not sure either... anyone? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"silhouettes in darkness". Is that right? An outline can only be a silhouette if the subject is in darkness, while if one tried to see a silhouette in darkness, one would see nothing at all...
Changed to "where characters alternate between being dark silhouettes and being fully lit". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
not sure about the use of dashes in all instances of describing the films length. "the 10-reel version" - yes, but "the original version of Greed was 70-reels"?
I think you're right here; I'm amazed I missed this after going over this section so many times and it being the one of the most important points about the development and significance of the movie. I think I have it correct now. (Basically, lots of - replaced with space characters.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very good points, thanks for spotting these. I think I've fixed three of the four points now. Need feedback from a grammar expert on the knife-throwing thing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has the phrase without a hyphen, so I'm going to take a guess that the nonp-hyphenated construction is the one favored by the knife throwing hobbyists. John Carter (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Useless Comment - Does anyone remember that episode of Cheers when Fraser tries to read A Tale of Two Cities out loud to everyone and all the other characters are bored to death so Fraser starts adding grotesque Stephen King and action movie elements to the book and suddenly everyone is riveted? Would it be alright with everyone if I added an appearance by Pennywise to the plot section?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Um, you mean "I'm Getting My Act Together and Sticking It In Your Face" [33]? Um, considering this might be, based on the kinda limited information on your user page, your first FA, are we supposed to take the title of that episode as being maybe significant here? Tim Curry woulda made an awesome guest star though, maybe for the second season "Homicidal Ham" episode. hereJohn Carter (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Support I believe the article meets WP:FA? now. FYI Deoliveirafan, I would've (remembered and) returned sooner if you had pinged me when my comments were addressed.—indopug (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support (except 1a and 1c) As in the previous two FACs, I support this article. However, I do not possess professional level of English skills, so I am not commenting on 1a. For an user with advanced level of English, the article is quite engaging, and lucid. I did not verify the references; so unable to comment on criterion 1c. Otherwise, the article is very nice, has a fascinating lead. It aroused in me a real interest in this exceptional film. The plot section has been appropriately trimmed. Nice work, regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I supported it last time. I believe that it should be promoted this time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- It seems appropriate that one of the longest films ever made should have generated one of the longest FACs ever... ;-) FTR, given the last one had a source review and spotcheck I'm happy to bypass those this time round. Couple of things: I spelt out California a couple of places it was CA, so pls check for similar instances re. any other states mentioned, and I think it's more conventional to put the Notes section ahead of the References. I'm not going to delay promotion for those, however. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is about a Democratic political convention in the United States' Gilded Age. The Democratic party was working to return to the White House for the first time since before the Civil War, and the Republicans were working to sustain the diminishing dominance they'd held in the federal government since that time. Issues of coinage, tariffs, and Chinese immigration divided the parties and the nation. The previous election had been the closest electoral college vote in American history, and 1880's would have the closest popular vote. It was an interesting and under-studied part in American history, and I hope you'll enjoy reading about this facet of it. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:WHEnglish_photo.jpg: can you explain how PD-US applies? If this is an archival photo, it may not have been published at the time
That's a good question. I'm going to write to the Indiana Historical Society for more information. In the meantime, I switched it out for a pic that had a better license. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:WilliamRallsMorrison.png: when/where was this first published?
It appears in this book, which was published in 1896. I've updated the info on commons to reflect this.
File:1880DemocraticCampaignPoster.png: what is the creator's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was created by Currier & Ives, Inc. The firm existed until 1907. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like a strong candidate, and I hope to get to a full review in due course. One concern right now is the reliance on the Official Proceedings - while I don't have a copy, unsurprisingly, based on the passages of the article sourced to that work, it sounds like it may be written in a somewhat jingoistic fashion. Do we have any confidence, based on that account, that cheers following Dougherty's speech actually persisted for five minutes, for example? Steve Smith (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Official Proceedings is actually a pretty dry transcript of the convention. It doesn't make any judgments or praise the nominee. I mostly rely on it for ballot totals and direct quotes from speakers. The five minutes, in fact, is sourced to a 1988 biography of Winfield Scott Hancock. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After perusing that source for a while, I have to say it's not as dry as I remember. Still, I try to use it only for facts, not impressions or opinions, and I'll be glad to re-evaluate anything sourced to it that a reviewer finds questionable. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reviewing. Looks very good. As I won't have time to continue until probably late tomorrow at the earliest, let me give you the benefit of my few comments to date:
Issues
"to date" perhaps "to that time"
Fixed.
You are not consistent in your capitalization of "presidency"
I think the MoS wants it to be lower-case, so I've changed it to that.
Tilden
"He worked to form a rival faction" "worked to" clauses are generally aspirational, what they hope to do. Here, you are saying what was actually done.
I agree--this is something I've mentioned on other people's FACs in the past. I fixed the one I found here.
A mention of the Democratic price for acceding to Hayes' presidency, that is, the removal of Federal troops from the Reconstructed South, might be helpful.
Good point. I added a sentence about it.
"The effect was the opposite, as the investigation produced more evidence of Democratic calumny than Republican." Isn't calumny rather routine in political settings?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have misused the word! What I meant was skullduggery or attempted bribery. Fixed it. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resuming
Bayard
"One recipient of Tilden's departure from the scene was Senator Thomas F. Bayard of Delaware." Perhaps "beneficiary" instead of "recipient".
Done
"Bayard stacked his years-long advocacy in the Senate for Southern conservatives" for Southern conservatives, or for their policies?
I changed it to "pro-Southern conservative policies".
Others
"In April 1880, a the New York Star " typo. I'm doing this offline so I can't correct it easily. Also, I would mention Payne's background right after the millionaire mention (you do it later in the paragraph)
Fixed
"as a popular conservative from a swing state and a background as an attorney" need a word before "a background", possibly "with"
Fixed.
"moderate on the money question" this may puzzle the reader.
I changed it to "less wedded to the gold standard", which might be clearer, I hope.
"His chance with delegates " chances?
I changed it to "popularity"
Preliminaries
I would mention that the permanent officers were elected by the delegates. You just say "installed", twice.
Fixed.
Balloting
I would mention up front that a 2/3 vote was needed to nominate
Done.
Aftermath
"Democratic newspapers attacked Garfield" whom you have not mentioned since the lede. You need to give a bit of info on his nomination.
Good point.
"rumors of his corruption and self-dealing" I would strike "his". A little too definite.
Done.
"New Jersey and the other Midwestern states " New Jersey? Midwest?
I meant "other" as in "other than Indiana," but, yeah, it does look weird. I took out "other", but now it seems repetitive. I'll fiddle with it more throughout the day.
"By October, they switched to a new issue" They?
Changed to "Republicans shifted to a new issue"
"In the end, the fewer" typo;.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that, and another typo in the same sentence! Thanks very much for the thorough review. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support good job.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
No references for the last two sentences in the first two paragraphs of 'Issues and candidates'.
"The debate concerned the basis for United States dollar's value." I think it should be ' for the United States"
"He also advocated for legislation to reduce the power of monopolies." I would leave out the word 'for'.
These are very minor issues - a first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. I'll have these remedied today or tomorrow. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize that if you used {{sfnRef|Clancy|1958|p=??}} instead of {{sfnRef|Clancy 1958|p=??}}, you could specify | ref = harv and get the same results? Not requesting a change, just offering some time-&-effort-saving advice fo the future.
It took me a while to figure it out, but I do know that now. My next article will probably have that exact format.
No, not really. I did it for a while when it was the hot new formatting trend at FAC, but haven't touched it since. I don't think it adds much for someone using a screen reader to be told that a picture of a man is "a picture of a man."
not worth linking "Civil War" in the lead?
Good catch -- linked it.
The first round of balloting was inconclusive, but when, before the second round, Tilden's withdrawal from the campaign became known for certain, delegates flocked to Hancock, who was nominated.: I had to read this sentence twice to parse it. Could it be recast, and possibly split?
Yes. Changed it to "The first round of balloting was inconclusive. Before the second round, Tilden's withdrawal from the campaign became known for certain and delegates flocked to Hancock, who was nominated."
Debate over tariffs ... to sell goods domestically.: might want to link to protectionism somewhere in there
Yes, I added a link.
This, and Tilden's declining health made many Democrats: either drop the first comma or add one after "health"
I added one to close off the clause.
Tammany ran their new leader: normally groups are referred to in the singular in American English, no? Or maybe change to "a new" and avoid it altogether.
The town? I couldn't decide when writing it, but I'm glad to add the link.
We need attribution for the quotes, and clarification over whether they are quotes from the time, or opinions of the sources. If they're not quotes formt he time, you'll at least need to attribute the quotes, but you might want to consider paraphrasing instead—the act of quoting places a certain weight on the quote which may be undue:
After that, "every delegate was on his feet and the roar of ten thousand voices completely drowned the full military band in the gallery."
was "deliberately vague and general" on some points,
stuck mostly to the message "our man is better than your man".
Fair points -- I think I've better explained the sources of these three lines. Thanks for reading and for the thorough review! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It all looks good to me now, and I'm happy to support. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- Needs a source review for formatting/reliability; I've left a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
FN69, 71: page formatting
Should be fixed now (the numbering changed when I fixed them, because it combined with a properly formatted version of the note).
I'm only citing it for a fact (the election result), which is available elsewhere (though not on the government's website, for some reason). I'll try to find something else to cite it to. OK, I've re-sourced it to mainstream sources. One problem, as Kenneth Ackerman writes in his 2003 book, is that "there remains today a range of published 'final results' for the 1880 presidential popular vote." I've tried to use more recent ones, where possible, which is why I liked Richardson. I'd love to do a thorough study of it someday, but that would probably end up being self-published, too! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
It's been a while since the last one, but this is my sixth FAC so far. This is a quite natural continuation of my interest in naval history and maritime archaeology which began with Vasa (ship) and continued with Mary Rose (both FAs). Kronan is not as well-known and publicized as either Vasa or Mary Rose, but it is in many ways quite similar: an important and prestigious warship that sank tragically, but which has provided valuable historical evidence to scholars today. This article is rather shorter than the ones on the other two ships, but I see that as a natural consequence of lesser notability and that there and less detailed sources.
"Only a few months after the peace of 1658, Swedish King Charles X declared war against once more in an attempt to end Denmark's position as an independent state." – against who? (Denmark, I assume) Why did he do so? The move seems pretty politically inept. Also, the link goes to a French king.
"In the early 1670s, Sweden was governed by a regency council that was internally weak and had difficulties asserting Swedish power abroad." ... so Charles died? Ed[talk][majestic titan] 21:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote[34] the background. I think that should address it. PeterIsotalo 05:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing my comments: further copyedits are needed, e.g. [35]
Can we separate the images? Sometimes you have sandwiches, while other parts have none.
Can you get ahold of any detailed plans for the ship, similar to these?
Can the distracting {{sv}} templates in the references be moved to the end of the lines? It's difficult to navigate the alphabetical order. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 01:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The image situation is not all that good right now. Two rather important pics had to be removed due to being non-FOP models (see discussion below). If fixed one instance, but the images are generally where they are because it's where they belong.
Detailed drawings of specific 17th century ships are extremely rare. No such plans exist, I'm afraid. An unfortunate downside of writing on pre-modern ships. :-/
{{sv}} have been moved. I'm beginning to wonder if they're actually useful when almost all the sources are in Swedish. PeterIsotalo 09:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Try moving them up or down by a paragraph—they won't be too far away from the text they support.
Nice work from Hchc. :-)
I've never used the language templates... the foreign-language titles always seemed enough. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 01:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should fix the image issue.[36] Simply moved down the mockup down to "Crew". There's a hammock in it, after all... PeterIsotalo 12:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note that I still think the background section has some misplaced emphasis on Charles X Gustafs Danish wars. It would be more valuable with a paragraph on the state on the Swedish fleet at that time. I'm also not sure if the regency had so much trouble "asserting Swedish power abroad"; the Triple Alliance (1668) was rather an example of the opposite. The Council was weakened because of a conflict between those who wanted exactly that kind of "peace-keeping" politics, and those who preferred to have a strong ally like France, which could pay subsidies to cover holes in the budget.
I went back to the Rystad and reworked the background (diff in reply above). I tried to put the wars into a wider context (along with the Torstenson War) and I focused on the foreign policies. I'll work on some more details about the fleet next. PeterIsotalo 05:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And here's a paragraph on the navy.[37]PeterIsotalo 14:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The new paragraph is good, but I'd like to see a year for which it is valid. The point about naval stores is somewhat surprising, since Sweden controlled a lot of the trade of at least some necessities like tar and hemp. Also, the note about the old Swedish ships seems to contradict the earlier note about the extensive building programme. Andejons (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Year added, fixed over-reading of source. I kinda assumed it was an issue with stores, but it was really just crappy maintenance. And the building program was in motion, but the Danes were simply better at it. PeterIsotalo 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support with minor comments
A well researched article - I enjoyed reading it.
"Golabiewski Lannby, Monica, (1985) The goldtreasure from the royal ship Kronan at the Kalmar County Museum." - if an English work, I believe the MOS would have the title capitalised, e.g. "The Goldtreasure from the Royal Ship Kronan..." Same for "Franzén, Anders, HMS Kronan : the search for a great 17th century Swedish warship "
I've some concerns over the copyright on the pictures of the models in the museum. One of these is File:Ship of the line.JPG - assuming that the model is in Sweden, I don't think that this is covered by Freedom of Panorama in Sweden, which only covers public art outdoors (according to the Commons website here), and so would still be under copyright by the original artist/modeller. I think File:Kalmar museum Vrakplatsen.JPG would have similar issues. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I enjoyed writing it. :-)
I actually think that this is the way the title is written, but I don't mind standardizing it.
I've actually thought about images of museum models from the perspective, but I've left the issue alone. To me it seems like a very typical "never going to be a problem unless you actually ask for permission"-kinda issue. Do you know of any precedents?
In the UK, it's not normally a problem, since the FoP rules are different (a permanent model of a ship on display inside a museum is covered by our FoP). In Sweden, though, it does appear to be different. I guess you've got two issues here. One is the question of "how likely is the museum to take you to court?"; I'm not a lawyer, so don't treat this as legal advice (!), but my guess is that a typical museum is unlikely to pursue you over such a picture, unless you started to exploit it commercially etc. The second question are the Commons rules on images, which are pretty clear about the image having to be free for use in both the US and (in this case) Sweden - and these don't seem to be free in either, as the US doesn't have FoP for these sorts of models as far as I'm aware. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*whine* Couldn't we just pretend we like everything is alright...? :-/ I know you're perfectly right, though, so I'll just remove the pics for now. I'll leave it to someone else to settle the issue over at Commons.
I know how you feel... the arguments over what to do with UK sourced photographs that are valid FoP in the UK, but not in the US, is still rolling on... :( If you want any help in trying to produce a free diagram of the ship, though, I'm happy to help with Inkscape etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A diagram would be... well... awesome sauce! I possess no skills in the graphics department.
Do you know if there is an ideal cross-section diagram out there for the raw data? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen one, no. Could this help...? I'll see if I can get a hold of the archaeological reports. There might be something in there, but I doubt it.
Whoa... Bodacious! That's really nice of you. You even got the whipstaff in there! One really minor quip: could you shade or somehow differentiate the contours above the open air decks, including the railing?
Should be able to... I've got to catch a flight this evening, but will see what I can do tomorrow evening. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've taken a stab at the shading (it's showing up in the thumbnail of the updated version, but you may need to empty the cache) - I've gone for a light grey on the deck levels - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some disagreement between infobox and cited text - for example, check date construction began. Other details that appear only in the infobox are unsourced
"it took until 31 July 1668 before her hull was launched" - source?
Why do the Kronanprojektet refs appear in the middle of the "E" in the otherwise-alphabetical reflist?
FN2: formatting, and why use a full rather than shortened cite here?
Missing bibliographic info for Soop 2007, Johansson 1993
FN39: which Einarsson 2005?
Isacsson or Isacson? Ericson or Ericsson Wolfe? Gainsford & Jonsson or Johansson? Is Golabiewski Lannby 1985 or 1988? Please check for accuracy and consistency throughout refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should fix the lot. Glete (2002) is full because it's really just further reading. I don't think it really belongs in the reference list. And thanks! PeterIsotalo 22:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
At the Treaties of Brömsebro and Roskilde, Denmark had been forced to cede the islands Gotland and Ösel all of its eastern territories on the Scandinavian Peninsula and parts of Norway. Is there a missing word or two here?
In a third war 1658–60) Sweden under Charles X attempted to finish off Denmark for good. Missing opening parenthesis?
Charles' successor, Charles XI was only five when his father died, and a regency council with the queen mother Hedvig Eleonora as interim regent Missing verb, I believe.
Better, but how about "assumed power" instead?
France promised to pay the war subsidies that were in dire need of only on the condition that Sweden move on Brandenburg in force. Awkward. How about rephrasing it to something like "promised to pay the desperately needed war subsidies"?
had enjoyed sin typo
Despite the recent building program, the Swedish fleet was older and of poorer quality than the Danish fleet, which had replaced a larger proportion of its vessels. Awkward. Rephrase to say that the Danish fleet was newer and more modern or somesuch.
The Swedish crews were also less trained than Danish and Norwegian "less well-trained" or poorly trained.
a lack professional naval officers plagued the Swedish admiralty lack "of" professional. And the lack plagued the navy as a whole rather than just the Admiralty, I believe. More later; it's time for dinner.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Swedish Navy is a proper noun and both words need to be capitalized.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to disagree. If you write about modern organizations, there's usually an official name. But 17th century armed forces didn't have names in any meaningful modern sense. Here's an example of how Jan Glete uses the term.[39] There's no proper organizational term in Swedish. Why would there be one in English? PeterIsotalo 21:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but it's irrelevant to the simple fact that English grammar dictates that proper nouns be fully capitalized. Henry VIII's Royal Navy wasn't really a navy as we understand it, but, nonetheless, its name is fully capitalized in every English-language source that deals with it. Official name doesn't come into it at all.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Royal Navy" is actually a given name, whether it was official or not. "Swedish navy" is not. It's purely descriptive and is inconsistently capitalized in sources. PeterIsotalo 22:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I should add that Henry VIII's navy is what we call the Tudor navy. If we were talking about anything before, say, 1600, "English navy" would be pretty appropriate. Our own article on the Royal Navy dates the actual name standardization to 1660s (and includes a "British navy"). And here are various examples of actual usage of "English navy" in print.[40][41][42][43][44] Same appears to be true for the pre-modern "French navy",[45][46][47][48][49][50] "Spanish navy"[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64] and "Dutch navy".[65][66][67][68][69][70] You can certainly find sources that capitalize the terms, but they don't appear to be as common. If you look around, you'll even see instances of "French navy" that refers to 20th century history. So I'd say the "proper noun"-argument doesn't actually hold up to scrutiny. PeterIsotalo 14:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll respond that proper nouns are amazingly misunderstood in academia and popular writing both as I shake my cane at the kids on my lawn. Check any grammar usage guide like the Chicago Manual of Style.
Plenty of of sources don't see this as a proper noun, so grammars or the Chicago MoS wouldn't matter. Were this an article about modern naval history, I wouldn't argue against your complaint. PeterIsotalo 19:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Until after about 1650 European shipwrights had not begun building three-deckers on a large scale, and the designs were by the 1660s still quite experimental. Awkward.
Both English and French three-deckers were known to be unstable since they were built high, narrow and armed with too many guns. When was this known, presumably after Kronan was built.
In effect they were then rendered into over-prices two-deckers Fix this and link two-decker.
In the 18th century, ships with the same weight of guns as Kronan were built much more heavily, usually from 3,000 up to 5,000 tonnes, which made them much more stable. Heavily is not the word you want to use here. The extra displacement didn't make the more recent 1st rates more stable, but rather that they were beamier with a deeper draft. The ships were probably also more heavily built, but I'm not an expert on sailing warships.
124–126 guns; 34–36 guns on each of the gundecks and an additional 18 in the forecastle and sterncastle decks. Clarify that the 18 guns were split between the forecastle and sterncastle, not each. Also link sterncastle.
Convert a few hundred kg and up to four tonnes.
Convert 30 and 18 pounds
I was under the impression that chain shot was a later invention. Did they recover some from the wreck?
Link pike, boarding axe
Fix this: During the excavations large-caliber hakebössor, firearms were found, similar to blunderbusses.
And this: that 7–10 hectares (17–25 acres or 0.03–0.04 sq mi) of oak forest of hundred-year-old trees More later.
Regarding instability: 17th century shipbuilding was not an exact science and safety margins were horrendous by modern standards. It was always a compromise between a degree of instability and, well, crappy warships with too few guns in wrong places.
True enough, but the phrasing of your sentence is unclear. Did the designers of this ship think that, or are you making a post-facto judgement?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Convert "a few hundred kg" to what? "Few" doesn't divide by 0.453. And tonnes are so close to tons that there really isn't much point in specifying it times 0.9. Both are approximate measurements. And why convert random gun poundage? The general weight span is converted once, but I don't see the benefit of converting it all over the place.
And if the reader doesn't happen to know the conversions off the top of his head, what then? As a matter of courtesy and WP:MOSNUM, measurements should be converted on first use.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added a short ton conversion, but I honestly don't know how to express "a few hundred kgs" as a lbs-conversion. You'll have to help me out on that one. The gun poundage I simply don't agree with. It's not done in similar articles and the approximate span is already given. This is an obvious case of a measurement that is relevant to how powerful the guns are, not the exact weight of its ammunition. If the article was specifically about naval guns and was discussing the ammunition itself, it would be a different matter. PeterIsotalo 12:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't convert the weights then the only thing the reader can assume is that a 32-pounder is heavier and more powerful than an 8-pounder. He'll still have not a clue about how much those cannonballs weigh in terms that he is familiar with. I'd translate a few hundred kg as 4-500 lbs as a rough equivalence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Boarding axe doesn't exist, I'm afraid. A separate article on one seems a bit too specific. It's just an axe. PeterIsotalo 10:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on prose. I see quite a few awkward constructions, including "wasn't", "summer" and the issue Sturmvogel highlights above. Otherwise it looks ok. --John (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the "wasn't", but I don't really understand what the "summer"-comment is about. I'll run through the text again to look for prose problems.
I'd really like some explanation of why it has to be "Swedish Navy", though. Here are further examples of "Swedish navy" in various types of literature, including academic works.[72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79] Note that most of these books mention "Royal Navy" and capitalize it, but consciously avoid it in other cases. This has not been considered a problem in other promoted articles like Mary Rose ("English navy", "Tudor navy"), Vasa (ship), Dano-Swedish War (1658–60), Ottoman–Venetian War (1570–73), Livonian War, English cannon (though inconsistent) or the recently promoted Battle of Öland. There's also Byzantine navy to consider and various other pre-modern naval forces. If it's a formality, what guideline are being invoked?
After a second look, I now think this article needs a thorough, top-to-bottom copyedit to meet standards. --John (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get cracking right away. Could you clarify the "summer"-comment and the capitalization issue, though?
Oh sure. WP:SEASON recommends not using "spring", "summer" etc. to denote time unless the season is important to the event. I can see the arguments for both the capitalised and uncapitalised versions; national navies are usually considered as proper nouns and are therefore capitalised. The fact that the Wikipedia article is at Swedish Navy and not Swedish navy is not definitive but it is another little piece of evidence pointing towards using the capitalised version. --John (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I changed one instance of "autumn". The rest seem fine to me. Could you provide more specific examples?
Yes, I understand that there are arguments either way, both of which are relevant in their own ways. So I'm saying that right now, this is a matter for WP:MILTERMS, not an FAC.
That's fine with me. This oppose stands. This is one of the poorest FAC candidates I have seen for years. I wonder how it got through GA as it does not even meet the lower criteria for that. --John (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific. Your comments are very critical, but not specific enough to be actionable.
Hmm. Did you see the link I posted (twice) above to WP:SEASON? This is part of our Manual of Style, adherence to which is criterion 2. That's an easy one to action; that you have not done so makes me think you are not serious about this nomination. There are an awful lot of instances of really poor writing in the article and it would need some major work to meet 1a, in my opinion. What is the past tense of the verb "to lead"? FAC is not an article improvement process but a peer review, and I do not think this article can be made to pass the criteria without some serious work which I do not think you are able or willing to give to it. --John (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read the link and honestly don't see any problems. That's why I asked for a specification. I just haven't encountered that particular complaint before.
So far, I have trouble spotting the issues you're concerned about. Yes, you've found a misspelling of "lead" (introduced by a passing editor). But I don't see how that's reason enough to talk of "really poor writing".
I took a second look a month later. It was looking much better, though some of the problems I identified a month ago were still there. Here are my copyedits, and I have struck my oppose. I now support. --John (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reassessment and the copyediting. Though I still don't understand why statements like "winter of 1664-65" (timber was always cut during winter, which is hardly common knowledge) or "summer of 1980" (diving seasons are specified, but they're not obvious and seems worth repeating ) are problematic prose-wise.
There's support for that edit at WP:SEASON, though there's no support for it at MilHist generally. (At least, not if all your sources say is that it was winter. If you know the month, it's preferable to give the month, because "winter" can mean 5 or 6 different things.) The other edits seem fine ... questions about any of those, Peter? John made a lot of edits that professional copyeditors are on board with, though some of those calls don't get a lot of discussion on WP, even at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's just the adversity to seasons that baffles me. I've seen the reference to WP:SEASON, I've read it, asked for clarifications and have gotten no explanation. To me 1664-65 is two full years, "winter of" is roughly 3-4 months. The latter is clearly more specific, and is directly related to logging practices. Same goes for "summer of" which is related to diving seasons. Writing "December-February" or "June-August" is just faux specificity. How can winter in Scandinavia be "5 or 6 different things"? Are you seriously saying that someone is apt to confuse this with southern hemisphere seasons?
1. Dec through Feb 2. winter solstice to spring equinox 3. When I lived in upstate NY, no one used "spring" (when speaking informally) to refer to March; it was a winter month. 4. Other geographical locations do the same thing, adopting the names to whatever their local seasons are. 5. The names of the seasons are also widely adopted for specialized purposes. A "spring [military] offensive" happens whenever offensives tend to happen in whatever part of the world you're talking about. Most of what are called "spring semesters" are actually in the winter. And so forth. 6. The seasons are of course reversed in the southern hemisphere, though few people I copyedit for buy the argument that we can't use the names of seasons in Sweden because it will confuse English-speakers in the southern hemisphere (though I know there are a fair number of readers in the northern hemisphere who get the southern hemisphere seasons wrong). Bottom line: "winter" means whatever the writer thinks it means, which may be dictated by local customs, and we're not mind-readers. It's better to give the month if you know it. Having said that ... everything I just said isn't support for WP:SEASON in those infrequent cases where all we know is that the sources say something happened in "winter" ... since we don't know what "winter" means, we can't accurately rewrite that as some other period of time, if we don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 22:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds complicated, but I don't think this is the place to argue it at length, so I'll take your word for it. "Winter", however is actually what Lundgren writes as far I recall, and it's more precise, so I'm restoring that one.
Like it or not, WP:SEASON is part of MoS and MoS compliance is criterion 2 for featured articles. If your sources are imprecise that can be a problem. Does the source explain why felling timber is done in winter? If it does, and this is important, it could be worth a footnote. --John (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Look up the source if you're interested. This is getting too detailed for me.
Some disagreement on the point is reasonable, I'm calling for discussion at WT:FAC#Winter. - Dank (push to talk) 13:01, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good central discussion, good move. Meantime, I would hold out per criterion 2, for full compliance with WP:SEASON. Any instances of seasons should be important and verifiable. --John (talk) 22:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how that is a neutral conclusion of the #Winter-discussion. There's been several explanations on the relevance of seasons already (diving seasons, logging seasons). One can always disagree on these things, but MoS clearly specify that there is room for exceptions. Holding up an FAC on account of this is somewhat out of proportion.
Question What is wrong with this sentence? in the summer of 1986, during the diving seasons, further experiments were done on Kronan. --John (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm, I am still definitely not happy that a Featured Article should contain a sentence like With the help of diving bells, they were able to raise 60 cannons worth 67,000 daler in the eight short diving seasons during the summers (c. June-August) of 1679–86, beginning as soon as the war with Denmark had ended. --John (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here, can you live with this? --John (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just looking at the lead, I find the word "she" used too frequently, in view of the distaste of some readers for the gendered ship pronoun. There are seven "she/her" in the first nine-line para alone, and then one per line. Perhaps these gendered words could be rotated with "the vessel", "the ship", "the Kronan", so it's not hammered at us?
After × 2. Perhaps the second one "Following"?
Failure × 2. Perhaps the second "losses"?
"Yearly diving operations have since been conducted to survey and excavate" -> "Yearly diving operations have since surveyed and excavated"?
More than 30,000 is nicer; but that's merely a personal pref. You could remove "so far" and "of them" and "today". Tony(talk) 08:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting. Here are the relevant fixes.[80] I think the "she" for hsips can be bretty handy at times, but I really don't mind either way. In future ship-related articles, I might consider dropping it altogether.
Peter, I know some people feel strongly about keeping it; but just exchanging a few instances of the word at the opening would be good style whatever the line on this be. I'll try to return on Friday. Tony(talk) 12:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through it. Great article, I think, but from a narrative and prose perspective. I've left a few queries inline. Tony(talk) 07:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As always, great job, Tony. Nice round byte number, too![81] Fixes are here.[82] Thank you very much. PeterIsotalo 13:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment minor notesSupport. Overall a great read. The article is similar in structure, though, as Peter notes, somewhat less extensive than Vasa (ship) (disclosure: which I worked on too) or Mary Rose articles. I think that is not surprising though, it reflects the difference in notability between the ships.
The prose could use some further tightening, I've edited some - and plan on continuing.
The second paragraph of Design has a sentence with two pairs of parentheses which seems a bit awkward.
The section on osteological analysis of the crews' injuries could perhaps be trimmed a bit, especially since the conclusions are so vague it doesn't enhance the readers understanding of what happened during the sinking.
Are there any further details on the armament; poundage distributions of the guns on each gun deck? The article is not very specific, is that because the sources also ditto?
50 years earlier during the time of the Vasa, it was common practice to issue guns to a ship for each mission - was that still the practice? The reason behind the discrepancy between planned and actual armaments might be worth a sentence or two.
Overall, I think it's comprehensive, well-researched, neutral (although none too kind to the Swedes in places, but they probably deserved it) and obviously stable. If the prose just gets a bit more touch up, I'll happily support it. henrik•talk 17:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Long time no collaboration, Henrik. Thanks for the comments! And the copyediting. I've made some adjustments[83] according to your recommendations here. It includes various tweaks, condensing of osteology findings and a brand new table of gun distribution. Lemme know what you think. PeterIsotalo 18:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I unfortunately drifted away from Wikipedia for a bit. :( It's good to see that the place hasn't changed much, and that FAs are still improving; I still hold the long view - so what is a short absence of a year or two? Anyway, I'm happy with the changes you did per my suggestions, and the recent copyediting has raised the article, so I'm happy to support this now. henrik•talk 12:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, at Kronan_(ship)#State of the fleet.These are my edits. I was hoping to go farther, but I didn't understand much of what you were saying in that section, and I've copyedited a lot of ship articles. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. Does this [84] make it clearer?
I'm sick today, Peter, I'll get to this when I can. Anyone else who wants to jump in here, feel free. - Dank (push to talk) 16:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have a few duplinks; this script will highlight them. Some may be justified given the article's length but pls review in any case -- Dutch Republic for instance appears twice in one section.
I saw some discussion of images above but is someone prepared to sign off on the licensing for all images in the article?
John, be interested in having you follow up on your earlier concerns, given the article has had input from Tony, Dan and others in the meantime. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few duplinks are still in, but I believe they are justified.
I'm sure you've used images that you believe are correctly licensed, it just needs confirmation by an independent reviewer -- I've listed a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought of it more as a nudge in the right direction. PeterIsotalo 11:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support listing as a Featured Article. Never knew about the MoS issue regarding SEASON that John brought up above. Considering that this and other issues appear to have been addressed I see no reason to object.--MONGO 15:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Several images overlap with section headers, leading to some formatting issues
File:Stora Kronan.jpeg - Needs a US PD tag. Would be nice to know the immediate source of this file too (i.e. was it from an online source or did someone scan it themselves), though that's not strictly necessary
Not done. PD-100 doesn't apply (Hägg died in 1931). This should be PD-1923 and PD-70 (i.e. two tags). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed up authors there (thought of Axel Zettersten for some reason). Should be done now. PeterIsotalo 06:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All issues fixed. I added Nationalencyklopedin as a source for the territorial map of early modern Sweden. [85] It's a very common historical map found in just about any general work on Swedish history. PeterIsotalo 15:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have misunderstood my concern; it's not the source of the map proper, but the years and clarification included, that is nowhere on the description page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what the source explains. It's the entry for stormaktstiden, the period of Swedish history in question, and in the most comprehensive commercial Swedish-language encyclopedia. It happens to have a similar map as well, which makes it a very good source. PeterIsotalo 17:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images are okay - Looks like a good piece of work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article had a previous FAC which received little feedback and was archived. Instead of going for an instant re-nomination, I opted to work on and bring Sega 32X through FAC instead. It's been a little while, but I've put some more effort into this article since then, including doing some more minor buffs and adding a bit of polish to really make this article shine. It's also a part of the WP:FTC nomination of Sega Genesis as a featured topic, along with czar's ongoing nomination of Menacer. It's good to go and ready for another run at FAC, and as always I welcome all of the feedback I get during this process. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 00:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Red Phoenix. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Reasons for the Sega CD's limited sales include the add-on's high price, lack of significant enhancement to the Genesis console, and lack of ability to function without a console attached." - Carries a slight air of non-neutrality. I'd switch this to a "Writers have cited numerous reasons for the Sega CD's limited sales, such as..."
I've actually decided to rework this into Reception, where I feel it fits better anyway. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 14:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"as well as the controversial Night Trap, which resulted in Congressional hearings on video game violence." - The second clause isn't really necessary, as this has been covered extensively earlier.
"Four separate reviews scored the add-on 8, 9, 8, and 8 out of 10, citing the upgrades it provides to the Genesis and a few select titles, but noted anticipation of upcoming titles for the system" - Slightly awkward wording. How about "Four separate reviews scored the add-on 8, 9, 8, and 8 out of 10; reviewers cited its upgrades to the Genesis as well as its its high-quality and expanding library of games."
"Retrospective reception of the Sega CD is mixed, though it has often been criticized for not offering enough to gamers to justify its steep cost." - How is it being criticized for this a contradiction of its reception being mixed? I'd split this part off into a new sentence with no "though" - either that or mention the CD's well-received, albeit limited, library of titles in the same breath. "Mixed" is accurate, I'd say, but stick with isosceles weighting.
I feel like the Night Trap section might be a little detailed given the low attention paid to the Sega CD itself there.
I've done a bit of reduction, especially in the second paragraph. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 14:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"It was unveiled to the public for the first time at the 1991 Tokyo Toy Show, to positive reception" - Can you elaborate a little?
Added "from critics". The source isn't really much more specific than that. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 14:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The specified limit on time spent seeking the heads versus playing a track was 5 per cent. Some of our video-based titles were running around 90 per cent." - A little unclear. Can you paraphrase this, adding some non-technical context?
I realize this is an important piece of information that one wouldn't want to jettison, but is Man!ac Magazine a reliable source?
Absolutely. Man!ac, now known as M! Games, is a leading video game publication in Germany, published by Cybermedia Verlagsgesellschaft mbH. Its use here is no different than the use of an old issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly or a comparable American magazine from 1995. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 14:24, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Sega CD attached to a Sega Genesis" - The lettering isn't quite visible at current resolution, which isn't a problem, but which suggests that you should specify which part of this contraption is the Sega CD. I'm not familiar with the Genesis, as my first home console was a GameCube and I didn't get into Sonic until the early 2000s, and the average reader may also not be. How about "Sega CD (on right) ..."?
Support; the article looks good to me now. The German publication really should be listed at WP:VG/RS, though, as sometimes that's all I have to go by. Tezero (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VG/RS isn't an all-inclusive list, but I'm sure if more articles use it, it may come up for discussion there. I've been pushing to get Sega-16 on there selectively for its interviews and postings by established video game journalist Ken Horowitz and just haven't gotten it done yet. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 00:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a nice overview that hits all the salient points regarding the addon as thoroughly as current English-language sources allow. I took the liberty of tweaking the language a bit to improve flow in a couple of places, but overall the writing is solid. I hope this gets enough feedback this time to achieve promotion. Indrian (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I hope it does this time too. It'll complete the "Genesis trifecta", as I doubt Nomad, Meganet, or Channel will ever make it here due to lack of sufficient sources and things to say about them. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 00:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should not let personal feelings like those blockade the effort of bringing them here to see what we can't just maybe accomplish despite those things.--SexyKick 01:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, realistically, since those aren't going to be viewed as much as the others, we shouldn't take it as a given that they need to be FAs. (There are already more than enough for this to qualify as an FT, for what that's worth, anyway.) Tezero (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll do the images review for this, and a random source check during the next few days.--SexyKick 21:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This review is long overdue. I'm sorry for not catching it during its last FAC.
As much as possible, please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted (see last FAC instructional bullet). Any questions below are rhetorical: I'm looking for clarification in the article, not an actual answer.
Could save a few syllables by flipping "in Japan on December 12, 1991, in North America on October 15, 1992 ..." to "on December ... in Japan, October ... in North America, ..."
"Utilize" can almost always be "use", same for "allowed" to "let", "put", etc., "employ" → "use" or nothing at all
"allowed for larger games" clarify
I began to go this route, but make a connection between "larger games", "realism", and "Night Trap"—how one enabled the other (in the lede). If you need a source, see my edits on the Videogame Rating Council
"While it became known for several games such as Sonic the Hedgehog CD and Lunar: Eternal Blue" What is "it"? Sega CD? Because the games were anticipated or because the games sold and made it famous? cl (Also that sentence construction doesn't make much sense starting with "while")
"it was announced that Sega's support" by whom? Sega? If so, say so
What is "value for money"? Replay value? Lasting value of the console? Collector's value? Return on investment? cl
Try to avoid "-ing" (gerund) constructions at almost all costs—they were overused in the lede. The sentences you'll make will be tighter
Development
Way too much crammed into this first sentence: "Released in Japan as the Mega Drive in 1988, North America in 1989, and Europe ..." Keep a strong topic sentence for important ¶s
"Shortly after the release of the Mega Drive": is this to say the Japanese Genesis release? If so, say so
Likewise, clarify what's going on with Super Famicom/Super Nintendo names
"TurboGrafx-CD|PC Engine CD": why the latter instead of the former?
"that combined CD audio with visual graphics": what combined? the CD+G? the player? also this phrase can be clarified
Good work. I think the prose is capable of being better. See my review and compare my copyedit diff to see the recurring stuff I'm finding. I recommend reading the text out loud (maybe with every sentence twice) and asking whether every word is essential. That's one of the best ways to make the text tighter. Give me a ping when these are addressed and I'll continue and do a source review. I can also discontinue the review, if you prefer. I'm also looking for feedback on the Deathrow FAC, for those interested. czar ♔ 00:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I apologize for the slow response; I've been sick the last couple of days and took a short wikibreak as a result. In response to your points:
I went ahead and did your suggested flips and removed the season.
Clarified larger games, and removed "realism" as it's not well referenced in the article or in the sources.
Clarified the add-on being known for its games as being well-received.
Someone already got the Sega's support comment.
Removed value for money altogether and substituted criticism of the add-on's high price. I'm not sure how to better word it without going into a longer explanation of how it was quite expensive and didn't have enough good games to warrant spending $299 on top of a Genesis, which is the value for money criticism.
Someone already got the "Released in Japan..." sentence.
I went ahead and fixed the "Shortly after the release of the Mega Drive" and the Super Famicom thing. I had thought that paragraph had been region-specific; it turns out it was not, and neither is the source, really.
I pulled the last phrase about CD+G - anyone interested in the standard can click the resulting link to learn more about it.
A couple of other quick notes:
PC Engine CD is used because the "TurboGrafx-CD" isn't the console being referred to. That wasn't released until 1990, long after the time period we're referring to. The source is specifically referring to the Japanese variant, which was released in 1988, and the sourcing article itself is from 1989. So, in this case this is a region-specific usage; I'll make sure to slip the Japan part in there.
On the topic of prose and reading it over: I'm not exactly of the Ernest Hemingway school of writing. I often find repetitively using the same word over and over (i.e. "use") to make for dull and unengaging prose, and tend to use varied sentence structures (including gerunds) in order to increase sentence fluency, as I do in my own writing. When I read these things over, I don't see it quite the same way and it reads fine to me, and that makes it quite a bit more difficult for me to review it for minimalistic prose. I'm not saying I'm a fantastic writer; only that your recommendation here sort of goes over my head of what I'm capable of completing on my own. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 13:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there's another copyeditor you can recruit then? I'm in the throes of final deadlines, or I'd give it a rework myself. The issue is not to use "use" or bust, but that a fairly complex sentence sometimes benefits from syllabic conservation. "Let" and "put" are also really useful in that they can make a sentence much less needlessly complicated. Re: the other edits—I'd try to work in "realism" as I understand that and the available disc size to be major parts of what led to the violence-related Congressional hearings. czar ♔ 23:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Realism is one aspect, but something this article has been criticized on before on its talk page is that I initially had a large amount of detail on the subject, and was asked to strip it down by a couple of different editors because of its length and limited relevance; essentially, the Night Trap controversy here applies just to it being an effect on Sega CD and its sales. Realism was just as much an issue with the non-CD game Mortal Kombat, and I'm not sure it applies directly to the Sega CD in itself. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 23:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sega CD Logo.jpg - free use due to nothing but stylized text; I think the CD is pushing it but it's still less than some of the examples at commons
File:Xeye.JPG - err, marked as non-Commons CC-3.0, but the source is an ebay image that no longer exists and there isn't even a statement that the uploader was the photographer. The initial upload had a watermark, which suggests they weren't. This should be replaced.
The Xeye image is the only one with a problem; there are some shots on flickr that you could ask the photographer to re-license as CC-by-SA (I searched "Xeye console") --PresN 18:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if it's okay, I went ahead and removed both the Xeye and the Multi-Mega images. On the subject of both, neither really demonstrates "another model", just a regional variant. X'Eye is the same as the Victor WonderMega, Multi-Mega the same as the Genesis CDX, each of which is pictured already. That should also resolve any copyright issues. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 20:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, cool. --PresN 17:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm responding to Red Phoneix's request for input at the Sega Saturn FAC. There aren't many outstanding issues, and I'm short on time, so I doubt much of the following will be especially insightful. Even so, here are a few suggestions:
"As CD-based technology increased in popularity, Sega sought to make a Genesis add-on that used compact discs." This contradicts the statement later in the article that "They planned to increase the system's graphical capabilities, which lagged behind those of Nintendo's competing SNES, and did not have a CD-ROM player in mind." That statement is dubious as well, as we shall see, but it would be more accurate to say that Sega was trying to expand the size of Genesis games, and the increased storage space offered by CDs turned out to be the best solution.
"The Sega CD was redesigned numerously." Awkward phrase.
"Sega announced its shift away from the Genesis and Sega CD towards its new console, the Sega Saturn, in 1995." I'm not aware of such an announcement, nor is any source provided in the body. Moreover, at least one major Sega CD game--Eternal Champions: Challenge from the Dark Side--was released in 1995.
"Criticizing the game library as a whole for its lack of depth and high price of the unit, as well as issues with how the add-on was supported by Sega." I'd like to think a more elegant word choice is possible to convey that the library was not a huge leap over that of the Genesis.
"They planned to increase the system's graphical capabilities, which lagged behind those of Nintendo's competing SNES, and did not have a CD-ROM player in mind." This is a misrepresentation of the cited source, which says: "Originally, it wasn't designed to play CD-ROMs. Even so, the main focus was to increase its capacity." Graphical capabilities are not named as the main impetus for the add-on's creation, and there is no comparison of the capabilities of the SNES and the Genesis anywhere in the article.
In the section where you quote Latham (incidentally the producer of Eternal Champions) on Sega of America's dummy unit, I would suggest including a bit more of his analysis: "Our take on it was one of wonder from a product development side, but as soon as we started to program for it, I think... that sense of wonder went away quickly. It was literally a mass storage extension of the Genesis. It wasn't a new system... It did have small expansion abilities, but they were not significant." On the other hand, Latham's more recent comments have been less harsh: "I loved the Sega CD. I always thought the platform was under-appreciated and that it was hurt by an over-concentration of trying to make Hollywood interactive film games versus using its storage and extended abilities to make just plain great video games."
"Well-known titles include the critically acclaimed Sonic the Hedgehog CD and Lunar: Eternal Blue." You might want to supplement the two sources listed here to justify the term "critically acclaimed". I'm also not sure why Eternal Blue is more notable than Lunar: The Silver Star. I understand that there is less to say about the Sega CD's library than the Saturn's (and the "Game library" section in Sega Saturn is more detailed than a lot of other console articles), but if I were doing it I would have gone a little more in-depth on the Sega CD's library. Suffice it to say that Eternal Champions was a big deal back then, although I haven't done enough research to provide sources; the Game Informerreview archive suggests the game received a 9/10 in the April 1995 issue, but I wasn't able to find a copy (GI's 100th issue gives the same score, though, which suggests that this is not one of the errors that occasionally creeps into their archive). Other notable games mentioned even in the handful of sources used here include Final Fight CD (notable because Sega actually created Streets of Rage to compete with Final Fight) and Hideo Kojima's Snatcher. A large number of PC adventure games were ported to the system as well. Again, just things to consider; I expect sources are out there if you're willing to do a little digging. (I'm assuming that a lack of sources is why Allgame's estimate of at least 140 games released in the US market is why that figure is used despite the well over 200 games documented in List of Sega CD games.)
Combining two points into one: "They planned to increase the system's graphical capabilities, which lagged behind those of Nintendo's competing SNES, and did not have a CD-ROM player in mind." That's not one of mine... but I've fixed it. On the topic of "seeking out a device that used compact discs", this might be best explained by the Kent and IGN sources which explain the situation starting with the phenomenon that compact discs became. I'm not sure that that's an incorrect statement as with the emergence of CD-based technology, they certainly did seek to make a CD-based expansion as the means to the end. That being said, it certainly is confusing as it is, so I've straightened it around some to remove this.
"Numerously" - ha, now that's an unusual word. Reworded.
I've tried to lighten up the last sentence of the lead.
Altered "announced" to "shifted", which is what the source actually said.
"Critically acclaimed" is a little much, although I'd be willing to bet I could find Sonic CD reviews everywhere. I've removed that phrase. Eternal Blue is noted over Silver Star because it's on the 1UP source; it's not really about one being more notable than the other but as being examples of recognized titles in retrospectives; which tends to be a good way of finding the titles that stand the test of time. Unfortunately, my access to period based sources is very limited; I've been out of college for the past two years and have no access to paywalled sources. I have requested HighBeam access but am still waiting on it.
On Latham - fantastic new quote you have there. I think that will go well with the Bayless quote already in the article at the bottom. I'll see if I can plug the other one in earlier, too.
I have been led to believe, by an unreliable website, that the December 1991 issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly contains an interview with Tomio Takami, who is described as the "creator" of the Sega CD. My efforts to track down the issue have been unsuccessful. I have debated whether I should mention this here, but I suppose if I do someone else may investigate the matter with greater success than I.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have the issue shortly and will take a look czar ♔ 22:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two page article: [86] Link will be up for 24 hours czar ♔ 00:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! There is some good information in there which should improve the accuracy of the "Development" section.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've revamped the section accordingly. Note that earlier experiments may not have been based on CD-ROM technology, but Takami's discussion of the Sega CD project appears to start with the decision to make a CD add-on to compete with NEC.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't, but unfortunately it's not really sourced elsewhere. WP:SUM allows for simple mathematical calculations, which is what's used in the list. Here's the problem, and I encountered it working on all three of the games lists: there is no single source that lists all titles in all regions. Allgame's figure I can bet are North American only, as it does tend to be a US-centric site with some European and much less Japanese - it listed only NA and PAL titles on its corresponding games list, and I had to finish the list article with a source from Sega that listed all Japanese titles. On List of Sega Genesis games, I had to spot-in sources for more titles like Uzu Keobukseon, a Korean exclusive published by Samsung. The "over 140" comes from the Allgame article itself and not counting its list; perhaps simply removing this would be best? Red Phoenixlet's talk... 18:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the featured list is accurate, doesn't it establish that there were over 200 games for the Sega CD? Sega Genesis doesn't have any regional qualifiers when referencing its library of over 900 games, so I'm not sure I fully understand your objection. Either way, I may make a few minor enhancements to the "Game library" section, based on whatever good sources I can find. I'm still not satisfied with the summary in the lead; I know you feel my version was based on original research, but the sources do note that the Sega CD's library was filled with scarcely improved Genesis ports.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, this is really your baby. I'll just point out a couple potential sources here:
[87], [88], [89] Evidence that Lunar: The Silver Star was well-received at the time.
[90], [91]Silver Star mentioned in "Top 200 Games" list, PlayStation remake included as one of the best games for the system.
(edit conflict)On the contrary, TTAAC. I'm more than glad to allow you to touch this if you feel it will help; unfortunately my time is becoming more limited this month. I work as a manager in a big box retail store, and we have a full store inventory in less than a month, so that will consume a lot of my time until mid-June. I will watch out for perceived OR, of course, but you're more than welcome to help if you would like and feel it would improve the article. Your access to sources seems to exceed mine by quite a bit, or at least your experience with the console shows - I've never owned a Sega CD and I was young when it was cancelled. On the regard of the number of titles; there's really no objection, I'm just not sure how we'd be able to cite over 200 games without a source that explicitly says that in this article. I'm sorry I linked the wrong link above; it's actually WP:CALC I'm looking at. About the best I can think of is to cite all the games lists cited in the list article, but that may be a bit much for WP:CALC in terms of cross-referencing the sources. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 03:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've gone ahead and added a number of sources. The only source I wish I still had was GameSpot's "History of Sega Fighting Games," which had some good coverage of Eternal Champions (including how it was killed off to avoid competition with Virtua Fighter, even though Sega was putting out competing 3D fighters like Fighting Vipers and Last Bronx at the same time), although I can't recall exactly what it might have said about the Sega CD version. I searched for and found it when researching Sega Saturn, then it died on me all over again.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I'm more than happy to Support this article's FA candidacy. I had to look for issues to justify commenting here, and Red Phoenix addressed all of them quite promptly. I would still support it even if some of the changes I made to "Game library" (where my edits have been relatively minor) were reverted. The only section that I thought really needed work was "Development", and the Takami article provided enough juicy information to rectify all of my concerns.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
I've seen a couple of undertakings above to complete a source review, so if someone could get that done I'd appreciate it.
I'd expect to see the first paragraph of Development end with a citation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The latter part has been fixed, and I've also left a request at WT:VG for a source review. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 22:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review by PresN
There's been some spotchecking above, so I'll just stick to the sources themselves.
I'm not seeing any non-RS sources- Sega-16 is the closest, but that one's covered by Ken Horowitz's personal notability, as recently discussed at WT:VG.
There's a bunch of formatting problems though. You seem to be going with the "link every time" pattern rather than the "link just the earliest cite" pattern, so I'll stick with that.
1- italicize Retro Gamer, as it's a magazine, and link Imagine Publishing
Consider archiving your references via WebCite.org or web.archive.org or similar- websites go offline or change all the time, and can thereby gut your article by destroying all your sources. Particularly GameSpot, since that site is actually closed.
Note: GameSpot is my fault; I should have made a mirrored version when I had the chance. Although I suspect that link may start working again at some point, as GameSpot hasn't been consistently down.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: I actually prefer the "link just the earliest cite", so I'll go with that if that's cool.
Removed link for Imagine Publishing from later source and moved it to first one.
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
. Otherwise you could tag with {{Orphaned non-free revisions}} — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Kelpies_in_Falkirk.jpg){kind=link}
![[21]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3403/3436215032_8f186fafab.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[27]](http://muppet.wikia.com/wiki/Joan_Ganz_Cooney?file=Jgc_random_house_01_sized.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_map.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_deck.JPG){kind=link}
_en2.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_%2B_Mega-CD_II_(PAL)_%2B_32X_(PAL).jpg){kind=link}