This article is about something new, something that, AFAIK, we've never featured before: a film production house outside the US. Union was only operational for two years, and in that time they were fairly productive. However, owing to the Japanese occupation of the Dutch East Indies, the company was shut down. Over the succeeding 70 years the vast majority of information on Union (and other production houses) has been lost. The occupation, the National Revolution, and almost three decades in which the idea of documenting cinema history was considered laughable (Misbach Yusa Biran, when establishing Sinematek Indonesia in 1975, was reportedly told he was crazy several times), coupled with the fact that most of Union's key people had died or were unable to be located when the documentation process actually began in earnest, means that what does survive is mostly limited to press coverage. Herein lies the rub, which may strike some as odd: this press coverage was almost exclusively about the films Union produced.
Union has pretty much been forgotten, and what you have here is a more detailed overview of the company than any source of which I am aware. It may be a fairly short read, but comprehensively covers the sources. This article has had a GA review by Vivvt and a PR by Cassianto, Wehwalt, Sarastro1, and SchroCat. I now present it to you for review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was one of the peer reviewers. Short but comprehensive.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help at PR and the support! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support likewise, I was a happy camper at peer review where all my comments were addressed. This is a very informative article and although short, is utterly comprehensive IMO. Cassiantotalk 15:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words and review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: And he does it again... I was another peer reviewer, and had very little to complain about. It's a little short, but I have no doubt that this is as comprehensive as it possible right now. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all of your help. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done.
Location for Biran 1979? Language for Biran 1979?
Why do some Kranten links include retrieval dates and others not? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This has been honed by its author and peer reviewers to the stage where I can't see anything worth criticising. Incidentally, what are the chances of two current FACs having (different) links to alang-alang? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not that big; mind, we don't often have two articles related to the Malay archipelago nominated at the same time. Thanks for having a look! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent work and very comprehensive article. --Carioca (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- I've checked the images myself and am satisfied they're licensed correctly, so we'll call it a day here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 29 May 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) 11:47, 29 May 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.
Found this topic at FAC at the French Wikipedia. I believe even the most ghastly subjects deserve decent articles so I started a translation since we only had a bare stub. I didn't know the psychic toll it would take to stare into the face of horror day after day but I emerged from the other side and believe this is now ready for review against the criteria. There are unfortunately no usable photographs at this point, though the author of the French article, User:Totodu74 (whose contributions made mine possible), is attempting to contact the photographer who snapped the second image listed in external links, to ask for a CC release. You might notice that the article is a bit short on certain areas that often get treatment. This is the result of there simply being no information out there, on, for example, feeding, nesting, breeding, moulting and so on. I learned a ton translating and expanding this, as only such a research and writing process in a topic area you've never focused can impart. Hope you find it interesting (and not too horrifying).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed this before it came here, so not much to add now. A few nitpicks before I support
nominate species —I'm not sure there is such a thing, and the link goes to "nominate subspecies". former nominate subspecies perhaps? or rephrase
One recognizable feature of Przevalski's Nuthatch is that they lack the eyestripe common to most nuthatch species.—"it lacks", or pluralise Nuthatch
The specimen was captured on the outskirts of a forest, on a ridge between two valleys, where he stood on a dead branch from which he launched in pursuit of insects in flight —"it" not "he". There is no indication that the nuthatch was a s male, and "he" conjures up an image of Ludlow leaping off the branch to catch flies
Your capitalisation of journal titles is inconsistent. Even if you have followed the original, they should all be sentence-case here
@Jimfbleak: Thanks for looking again, and the help. I've addressed all of the issues above. "Nominate species", by the way, is used, à la a few thousand Google book hits, but certainly not as commonly as "nominate subspecies". I have modified in all places.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sitta_przewalskii_Keulemans.jpg needs US PD tag
So does File:SittaLeucopsisGould.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: The authors of both illustrations died more than 100 years ago so I have changed PD-old-70 in both to PD-old-100. Thanks for looking.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(One recognizable feature of Przevalski's Nuthatch is that it lacks the eyestripe common to most nuthatch species.) - why is this in parentheses? I think we can lose them.... ok.
Hey Cas, thanks for taking a look. It wouldn't do terrible violence to remove them but I really do think it's properly a parenthetical. The rest of the paragraph is a general description of nuthatches – an overview of traits shared between species of the genus. The line about this nuthatch is a qualifying, explanatory remark breaking away from the general to comment on the specific.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't start a para with an abbreviated scientific name.
Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Otherwise looking pretty good - sorry re delay in returning. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Comments. A very good article. Just a couple of minor quibbles.
"turning to a rich cinnamon on the underparts that intensifies on the sides of the breast." I had to read this twice as "that" appears to refer to underparts. I would suggest "turning on the underparts to a rich cinnamon that intensifies on the sides of the breast."
Hey Dudley, thanks very much for coming by. I've changed it to "that intensifies in color..." I think that that addition provides the context so that what "that" refers to is clear. Do you think that that's so? I fiddled with rearranging it to some form of "turning on the underparts..." but the more I read it, the more it sounded strange to me (though it could be something like that effect you get when you say a word over and over and you reach a point of dissonance where it loses it meaning?) Anyway it feels like we're implying with that phrase that the underparts are a lamp were switching on, we're doing something perverse to the bird, or Timothy Leary is stopping by.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The bird is endemic to areas in southeastern Tibet and west central China, where it is found in eastern Qinghai, Gansu and Sichuan among other areas". Wordy and repeats "areas". Perhaps "China, including eastern Qinghai..."
Comment—I stumbled here from my nomination, and I'm curious what the status is of updating this article to comply with the updated MOS guidance on capitalization of bird names at MOS:CAPS#Animals, plants, and other organisms? For technical reasons to do with the open FAC nomination, I can foresee that the article can't/shouldn't be moved, but the text within the article can and should be updated at the present. Imzadi 1979→ 02:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've been thinking about that, having learned about that discussion just a few days ago. I suppose I've been wondering if there's going to be a push back once large scale moves and article reformation begins but the edits are not difficult, and easily reversible.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979: Done. I moved all the articles on other birds that are mentioned in this article as well, so the changes would produce no redlinks or need piping to articles that should be moved anyway. I am only not performing the move of this now because I'm not sure if that would play well with this open FAC (or cause a problem with the bot), but the closer can move it, or I'll move it immediately after a close, regardless of result.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
You have some duplinks. Pls review using this script and see if any are really necessary.
Could someone conduct a source review for formatting/reliability? If no-one above can volunteer soon, pls list a request at the top of WT:FAC.
I checked the following for accuracy and phrasing: OED, de Hoyo, Harrap, Jobling, Dresser and Collar Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence "A molecular study conducted in 2014 may provide some clarity" is uncited. Do I gather that the info re. Pasquet et al in the following paragraph is to do with that study? If so I'd suggest tying them together more clearly.
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) 10:21, 29 May 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 Empress Matilda, variously the Holy Roman Empress (or so she claimed!), and a contender for the throne of England in the 12th century. One of the few female war-time leaders of the medieval period, even at the end of her long life she was felt to still be a powerful personality, and clearly "of the stock of tyrants". I believe it captures the current academic literature on her life, and is now of featured article standard. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"border with France": After I moved things around, I couldn't fit that in comfortably; is it important? (And if so, why?)
"as a result of": the prose would be improved (details on request) by rewording a few of these, particularly where you use the phrase more than once in a paragraph. "After" sometimes works.
I've gone through it again, making some edits. Still supporting. - Dank (push to talk) 19:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I've made two minor amendments, but looks good. I've culled some of the "result of"s, as per your recommendation. Many thanks, Hchc2009 (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
By ODBN, I assume you mean ODNB? If so, why do you sometimes use that notation and other times include the full citation in footnotes?
Check alphabetization of Bibliography
Be consistent in whether you use London, UK or just London
Bowling Green State or Bowling State Green? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki, should all be done now. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Johnbod I don't have time for more at the moment, but a read of the first few screens shows some fairly obvious missing links, & a few prose points, as well as historical issues over phrasing. Generally looks pretty good, but needs a polish. Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now To be clear, I will resume reading the article after being told the polishing has happened, which it hasn't yet. Not yet at FA standard. Please don't ask for a list of "examples" (though there is one example below). That's the nominator's job, not the reviewer's. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - we're all volunteers here. I won't press you for any details John. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I supported this at the A class review, noting that it was "A well-written and thoroughly researched article". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quick citation comment: Chibnall, Marjorie (2004–13), "Matilda [Matilda of England] (1102–1167), Empress, Consort of Heinrich V", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, retrieved 22 December 2013. is repeated over and over in various footnotes. Might it not be more advisable to move it into the bibliography and supply a shortened "Chibnall 2004–13" in those footnotes? As it is, it's the only full citation like that, and it just sticks out like a sore thumb in an otherwise tidy-looking list of footnotes. Imzadi 1979→ 05:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
One more thing: "New York City" isn't the name of the largest city in the US. It's just New York, and traditionally in citations it does not need its state ("New York, NY") appended. Imzadi 1979→ 05:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Imzadi, NY fixed. The pattern used in the citations is for books, journal articles, etc. to be listed in the bibliography, and for web pages etc. to live as cite webs in the footnotes. Unusually, this article only has one web source, which is why it stands out - but it does follow the pattern used in many other "English medieval kings" biographical articles, and makes it easy for other editors to add in new webpages. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I have three minor comments:
In the "Death of Henry" section, we are told she "chose to return to Normandy" but then confusingly that she went "back to England" in the next sentence.
In the "Disputes" section, "Normandy castles" might be easier to read as "castles in Normandy".
Note 7 appears to be incomplete. It can probably either be cut completely since the timing is only implicit in the sentence anyway or expanded to explain who says what/when.
With regard to Johnbod's comment above, the prose distinguishing between the many Matildas and at least two Henrys might bear more polishing, but generally I had no trouble following the narrative or understanding the history so am happy to support. DrKiernan (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All done - thanks Kiernan. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't pick fights where none exists. DrKiernan (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - reading through - will jot queries below. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Sutton Courtenay article states that she was also thought to have been born in Winchester (?)
There's a tradition in older histories for Winchester, possibly inspired by a slightly dodgy/romanticised piece of writing by the chronicler Wace, but the records now available to historians place her mother pretty convincingly at Sutton Courtenay, and both the current "standard" biographies of the Empress Matilda and her mother, therefore go for Sutton as the birthplace. Do you reckon it would be worth expanding the footnote to explain? Hchc2009 (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think it is worth a footnote, otherwise I suspect some well-meaning reader will add it at sometime. Also interesting how these stories develop. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will draft and add one in. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first couple of sentences of the Marriage to the Emperor could do with some massaging. I'd make the subject of the two parts of the first sentence align - so something like, "In late 1108 or early 1109, Henry V, then the King of the Romans, sent envoys to Normandy proposing that Matilda marry him, and wrote separately to her (royal) mother on the same matter."
I'd change the beginning of the next sentence to:, "The match was attractive to the English king....." (yeah I know they're different Henrys but I think it is kinda jarring to read)
Definitely; changed. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
''Political conflict began to break out across the Empire shortly after the marriage - why not just, "Political conflict began broke out across the Empire shortly after the marriage..."
the inheritance to the English throne - hmmm, I think I'd say either "the inheritance of the English throne" or "the succession to the English throne" - but not hwat is currently written
In 1138, Robert renounced his fealty to the King and declared his support for Matilda, triggering a major regional rebellion in Kent and across the south-west of England, although Robert himself remained in Normandy. - is the renouncing of fealty after the rebelling or the same. If the latter then is duplicated and sentence 1 and 3 of this section should be merged.
The renouncing of fealty was a separate, precursor event to the rebellion; I've tweaked the text to try and clarify this. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would flow better if sentence 2 (who/what he is) were moved to sentence 1 and then sentence 1 came next and sentence 1 and 3 were rejigged to flow sequentially and remove one instance of "In 1138,". I am happy to try but does that make sense? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can see what you mean... Do you want to give it a go? Hchc2009 (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Something like this, though I don't know enough of the background to massage the events, but at least they are next to each other to give some sort of sequence. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the full details of the truce are not known, - change to "agreement" as truce is repeated from the sentence before (and we're interested in what folks agreed to I guess...)
Finally, overall a good read and I think I support its promotion. I think there is a little kneading of some of the paras in the some of the conflict with Stephen segments where names are a bit repetitive but it could be argued that ambiguity would be introduced if reduced too much, but i can't see any prose clangers outstanding. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
You do not explain that the Duchy means Normandy, which might confuse some readers, and are inconsistent whether Duchy is capitalised.
I think it would be helpful to explain the descent of Stephen and William Clito in order to clarify the nature of their claims.
I've expanded a bit - see what you think. Thanks for the feedback so far. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have the impression that it was the increasing power of the church in insisting on legitimate marriage and succession that would have barred Robert of Gloucester from the throne, rather than English tradition. However, you have to go with the sources.
I have changed one reference to Stephen to make clear that he was Henry's maternal nephew - of course change this if you are not happy with it.
No problem on my side! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Henry convincingly argued that the late King had been wrong to insist that his court take the oath, and suggested that Henry had changed his mind on his deathbed." This is a bit confusing as it refers to two different Henrys.
"to counter the growing Angevin power in the region" - most readers will understand Angevin but it might be better to explain the term.
I've built in an explanation and a link - see if you think if it works. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In England, Stephen's reign started off well, with lavish royal courts" - courts does not sound right to me, but maybe this is my ignorance.
I think it's technically correct, but you're right that it is distracting - I've tweaked a bit. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a general comment, this is an excellent article and clearly of FA standard. I would however have liked to see a bit more on her character and achievements, as discussed for example in the second and third paras of 'Character, historical significance, and posthumous reputation' in the ODNB article.
I'd toyed with whether I'd got the character description balanced right when I was doing the first draft; I think you're right, and will have a look and see if it can't be built up a bit. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: A very enjoyable read, and I think this will make a very worthy FA. I have just a few comments before supporting, but my support does not depend on agreeing with everything I say! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The section on "Marriage to the Emperor" is not just about her marriage to the Emperor! Maybe a broader title here?
Hmm. I'm less certain there's a problem there; did you ahve something specific in mind? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in particular, and not a big deal anyway. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also in this section, I wonder how typical Matilda's influence/actions as Empress (or whatever she was!) are? Is it worth adding a touch of context? Was this normal, or does it reflect something about her?
I'd like to be able to come back with a snappy "ah, I can tell you all about that", but I'm not exactly sure. :) I'll dig around and see. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1122, Henry and probably Matilda were at the Council of Worms, which settled the long-running dispute with the Church by Henry giving up his rights to invest bishops with their episcopal regalia.": This one clangs a bit. I think it tries to do too much in one sentence, and it may be worth splitting. I also wonder what the general reader might make of "Henry giving up his rights to invest bishops with their episcopal regalia" without further comment; with no background it seems a rather silly and minor point. Perhaps a note?
I've broken in half, and linked the dispute bit. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In early 1122, the couple travelled down the Rhine together as Henry continued to suppress the ongoing tensions": I'm not sure "tensions" is the right word here.
"Now aged 23, Matilda had only limited options of how to live the rest of her life.": Doesn't quite sound right; I wonder should it be "limited choices regarding how to live the rest of her life" (and switch "choices" in the next sentence to "options") but not completely convinced that would be an improvement.
I've tweaked; see if you think it works. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Third paragraph of succession crisis: Perhaps a few too "may"s here?
May be so... :) I've trimmed. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"There was the slight problem that Stephen had sworn to support Matilda in 1127": Slight suggests a hint of POV here.
SImilar to above, the "Battle of Lincoln" section is not exclusively about that battle, and I wonder if a more generic title is needed? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I think there is one remaining comment of mine (about how typical Matilda's actions were as Empress), but assuming that is addressed, I'm happy to support. This is an excellent article and easily meets the FA criteria in my view. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes -- aside from resolving Sarastro's recent comments, it looks to me like we need:
An image review
A quick check of half a dozen or so duplinks to see if they're necessary
Plus it might be worth paging Johnbod to see what he thinks now, given that a fair bit of work has gone on since he registered his oppose. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NB: There's also the general point on needing a bit more on her character, made by Dudley. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Following up, assuming the duplinks have been reviewed, Johnbod has been pinged to take another look, and Dudley's point has been actioned, then I'd expect to promote this in the next day or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've now expanded a bit to cover off Dudley's point. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Checked duplinks and pinged Johnbod? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there's a tool for detecting duplinks, happy to apply it! As noted above, I stated I wouldn't push Johnbod for any more detail on his concerns, so I haven't pinged him. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By which I presume he means no, he hasn't read through for missing links. My (certainly fairly minor) issues with the openbing sections all seem unchanged, and Investiture Controversy, mentioned above, is still not linked. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See here for the duplink checker. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see anything wrong (but recall I don't look at links) after I went through the first time, and again after Johnbod indicated problems, but I just caught a missing "and" and a subject/verb disagreement in the first section. I'll go through it again. - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Checker installed and applied, cheers! Hopefully all caught now. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Probably worth identifying in captions what the red dots on the maps represent. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And a reference found to answer Sarastro1's question. Hchc2009 (talk)
Support. A first rate article. I do not seem to have looked at the notes before, and I have a few minor points.
Note 6. *"The chronicler Hermann of Tournai gives an account that Matilda gave birth to a child who died, but this account is uncorroborated". Repetition of account. Perhaps "Tournai stated that".
Note 7 "William of Malmesbury described that those present recognised Matilda as the legitimate heir on the basis of her paternal and maternal royal descent; John of Worcester described the inheritance of England as being conditional on Matilda having a legitimate male heir;" I do not like "described that those present", and described is repeated.
Note 14. "Edmund King disagrees about that the Empress received an invitation to Arundel, arguing that she appeared unexpectedly". I do not like "disagrees about that".
This article, which is clearly and rightly on its way to FA, starts off with a bit of a facer: "also known as the Empress Maude". It's the last time the name Maude is mentioned in the article, and one is left wondering why she was also known as the Empress Maude. (I have read my Sellar and Yeatman, but...)
I've added a footnote. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I've wondered very vaguely about the matter for nearly fifty years on and off, and now I know. Tim riley talk 12:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Death of Henry
Archbishop Adalbert subsequently convinced Matilda to give him the insignia – the Americanism "convince to" is a surprise here. Anglice, "convince that" and "persuade to". (And at "eventually intervened to convince her to go along with the engagement" later)
This is a very fine article and a pleasure to comment on; more from me tonight or tomorrow, I hope. Tim riley talk 16:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried and failed to find fault with the rest of this article. May I make just one general and one particular suggestion? As to the former, you are as susceptible as most of us to the lure of the word "however", which nine times out of ten weakens one's prose. There are twelve "howevers" in the article. In such places as "Henry's plans shifted, however, when the Empress Matilda's husband, the Emperor Henry, died" and "In the event that this failed to happen, however, Matilda was now Henry's preferred choice" I'd recommend excising them. The one particular point I'd add relates to the "Government, law and court" section, where "she did not have her own personal chancellor" doesn't convey much unless we know what chancellors did in those days. Presumably some sort of royal chief executive, but a few words to put them in context would be welcome. But these are trivial quibbles, and it gives me much pleasure to support the elevation of this fine article to a deserved Featured status. I learned much and enjoyed the piece greatly. – Tim riley talk 12:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim! My natural tendency is to reinforce any sentence with "however", which isn't always great practice! Copy-edited as you've suggested, and I've explained a bit on what the chancellor did. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:13, 22 May 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) 10:32, 29 May 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): Evad37[talk] 06:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Clackline Bridge, Western Australia's only bridge to have spanned both a waterway and railway. It is a heritage listed structure with a unique inclined curvilinear design, formerly carried Great Eastern Highway (my most recent FA), and recieved various upgrades and improvements since its construction in the 1930s. The article itself has been similarly upgraded and improved through a successful GA nomination, Peer Review comments, and copyediting [5], and I believe it meets the FA criteria. - Evad37[talk] 06:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - Evad37[talk] 03:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This looks fine to me, with a high level of detail for a relatively minor structure. The one thing that I think would improve it would be a photograph showing some of the timber piers, since they seem to be a key to its heritage significance. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@hamiltonstone: I was at Clackline today, and took a number of photos. I have uploaded them to Commons, and added one to the article in place of the external media box. - Evad37[talk] 15:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through now. Will jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The bridge was designed in 1934 to replace two dangerous rail crossings and a primitive water crossing. - "primitive"? do you mean "rudimentary"? (primitive makes me think of evolution...)
The bridge underwent various improvement and maintenance works since then, - the since suggests a better tense would be "The bridge has undergone various improvement and maintenance works since then,"
:(23.6 in × 5.9 in) - surely you can say, "(23.6 × 5.9 in)" for this and the other similar?
Support on comprehensiveness and prose Otherwise looks good. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All done. To avoid {{convert}} repeating the "in" (unit), I had to change "×" to "by", but the meaning remains the same. - Evad37[talk] 09:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As there haven't been many comments here, I have left short, neutrally worded messages at relevant wikiprojects [6][7] - Evad37[talk] 11:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the joy of placing minor structures in context in a wikipedia article such as this one is realising how important the bridge was at the time of construction, and how easily it is for recent perspecives to assert the minor nature in comparison to the new road structure adjacent. It was in historical context a vital point of the major transport form the wheatbelt had for over 50 years, until road started replacing rail for the agricultural transport mode. Clackline (and Spencers Brook) were vital and essential junction points at the heart of the railway system for the whole state, and the article serves a significant indicator of how so few structures like this still stand, specially considering the more recent road and rail operators penchant for removal of anything that is not 'functional' in their operations. Also as similar communities along the Great Eastern Highway show, heritage structures need good explanaion in view of the lack of adequate offline and online materials easily available - no passerby subsequently goes to a local library to check 20 or 30 year old pamphlets to clarify what they were just looking at at 110km/h
I look forward to similar high quality articles on similar remnants of the transport system and its vestiges of the wheatbelt with anticipation. satusuro 00:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify the support - the nature of technological heritage interpretation is not something that is ever extensively explored in public domain materials - either in engineering or heritage publications in Western Australia, one of the few, is a survey that ended up as a list of 'bridges' in Western Australia in Battye library, and it is an inadequate document with literally nothing more than a list with a limted details and poor photography. To have an article like this is close to unique in focus and approach that really cannot be found in generally available materials. satusuro 13:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable on the subject matter to comment on how comprehensive or well-researched the article is, but it certainly meets the style guidelines and is well-written from grammatical point of view.
I have made a couple of recent minor changes, and there is one outstanding question about one of the article notes - Talk:Clackline Bridge#"In tern"?. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied to Mitch's question on the articles's talk page - Evad37[talk] 00:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled here from my nomination, and I'm limiting my comments to sourcing.
I would update the case (capitalization) on article titles to use a consistent style. That falls within a minor typographic change, and I'd note that the APA style guide says to cite titles in a specific style regardless of how the publication titles things. (This also applies to the entry in the "Further reading" section
On FN10, ABC News should not be in italics because it is a division of a company. As such, it's a publisher, not a publication.
On FN11, I would drop the link for the location; other locations are not similarly linked.
On FN13, I would use {{cite press release}}. Additionally, I wouldn't make the assumption that Judi Moylan wrote the press release herself since it was probably written by a staffer. If she is going to be listed as the author, that's where the wikilink is located. I would also amend the publisher to "Office of Judi Moylan". (At least here in the US, we'd refer to the "Office of John Smith" for our congressmen and other representatives.)
All in all, it's just a minor bit of tweaking to polish the citations.
In looking at the photos and their captions:
"View along Clackline Bridge in 2012, with the Goldfields Pipeline visible in the background."
"View of Clackline Bridge from below, showing the structure of the bridge and piers."
"Clackline Bridge, with the Great Eastern Highway bypass on the left."
These are not complete sentences, so the captions should not end in terminal punctuation. The others look fine.
I have put all the article titles in sentence case, apart from proper names (Register of Heritage Places, Road Information Mapping System, Clackline, Clackline Junction), and made the other changes you suggested - Evad37[talk] 04:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While MOS:ALLCAPS explicitly allows conversion of all caps headlines to sentence case, I'm not sure that conversion of an external source from title case to sentence case is appropriate. Accuracy may be more important than stylistic consistency. This is particularly the case for [8], where Moylan may have been referring to a bypass that was to be explicitly named "Clackline Bypass". In [9], the header is all caps, but the footer is title case. In [10] the header and footer are both title case. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:CT would seem to prefer title case, but other provisions of our MOS do no just "allow" conversion from all caps, they require it. As for the stylistic consistency, APA style explicitly requires article titles in citations to be rendered in sentence case, even in publications that themselves use title case in their own article titles. This form of stylistic consistency is important at this level of writing, and certain clues within the text of the source will provide the basis for determining if the author is implying a proper name or not. (I hope we aren't citing sources written I all caps or that have their body text in title case.) Imzadi 1979→ 12:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
our MOS do no just "allow" conversion from all caps, they require it I'm not disputing the conversion from all caps, I'm disputing:
the conversion from the "title case" of [11] to sentence case. Given that "constructed" in the source is not capitalised, it's not clear that the original is actually title case, so changing the case of "Bypass" may change its meaning.
the conversion to sentence case instead of title case for [12] where the footer shows the document name in title case and [13] where both the header and footer are title case (not all caps, so not requiring changing).
APA style ... We're following Wikipedia's style guide, not APA's. Is there something in MOS that says we must follow APA?
I agree that stylistic consistency is important, but so is accuracy in quoting. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITESTYLE says "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style". Using sentence case or title case is a stylistic choice, especially when the title is present in all-caps. As long as proper names are capitalised, then the meaning of the title doesn't change. Reading through Moylan's press release again, I think it is at least ambiguous as to whether she was referring to a bypass that was to be explicitly named "Clackline Bypass", or whether the capital B is for emphasis or in error. For example, she "announced today that a Clackline Bypass and ...", and later, "The Clackline bypass entails...". However, given that it is ambigious, perhaps it would be better to retain the capital letter. As for the others, sentence case doesn't change the meaning, but does allow for consistency in citation style. - Evad37[talk] 02:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the capital B in the Moylan reference - Evad37[talk] 01:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My reference to APA style was to illustrate a point: changing case for a citation is a common typographic change. On that note, my presence here is no longer required. Imzadi 1979→ 02:43, 25 May 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) 10:28, 29 May 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 rather unpleasant cricketing despot and former England captain. His name may be familiar to cricket followers for various reasons (especially those of a certain vintage) and I hope this article summarises his length career accurately and fairly. It is currently a GA and had an excellent PR. Any further comments or suggestions gratefully received. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – We have here on the one hand a nasty piece of work, viz Sir George Allen, and on the other hand a very fine piece of work indeed, viz this article. It is comprehensive, well and widely-sourced and referenced, in first rate prose, and is magnificently (I am tempted to say, miraculously) impartial. I had my say at the peer review, and on a re-reading for the present review found nothing else to remark on except to give my hearty applause. – Tim riley talk 19:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support and your kind words. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. I got no comments on your images. Placement is good, copyright is good, and your captions are correctly punctuated. Thank you for spoiling me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and images. Good work, solid article, perfectly fits the definition of neutrality (a reader should not be able to determine the view of the article's author(s)). I don't see anything more that I can add to this article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your image review, your help and your kind words. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support—had my say at the PR and it looks ready for FA in my book. Very well done Sarastro! —Cliftonian(talk) 10:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged for all your help! Sarastro1 (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I can only really echo what others have said; I, too, was a peer reviewer, I made all my comments there, and they were speedily and properly attended to. I still have private reservations about the use of the nickname in the article's title, without any indication that "Gubby" was not his real name, but I accept the reasoning (Cricinfo heads its article "Sir Gubby Allen", which strikes me as truly absurd). I'm sure that Allen cared a lot about cricket; unfortunately he was too blinkered and too stupid to realise that his efforts to shield cricket from the ramifications of the modern world did the game, and England's standing within it, much harm. This is another high class cricket article from the Sarastro stable, and I am consistently impressed by the meticulous research that makes these articles so valuable. Brianboulton (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and these very kind words. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review:
No spotchecks done
All links working
All sources appear of appropriate quality and reliability
Ref 43 requires "pp" not "p"
Ref 214: Clarify the nature of this source. If it is a chapter of Quelch's book, this needs to be specifically stated.
Got these two, thanks for the source review. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Another peer reviewer here who liked what he saw a lot. This is another classic in the Wikipedia cricket collection, and I'm happy to support it. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged for all your help. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Excellent work and solid article. --Carioca (talk) 19:54, 23 May 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) 07:44, 25 May 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.
Now you see it... Read about the German ornithologist who braved the insect-ridden thorny swamps of Halmahera, half-naked and barefoot, in search of this elusive flightless bird. This is a short article, despite the discovery of a nest in 2010, since much of the rest of the rail's behaviour remains unknown.
Thanks to Crisco for helpful comments prior to this nomination, and for his input on the geography of the Indonesian island. Delegate permission has been granted to run this now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sago Palm Trees ESP PNG.jpg - Copyright-wise this is fine. However, I feel it may look a little better if you move it into #Behaviour (considering how important sago is in this article, that shouldn't affect the illustrative value). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for image review. Templated and moved as appropriate Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I'll wait for Syamal's suggestions to be dealt with before supporting, as Syamal is much better versed in the field than I am. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More sources to review and incorporate
de Haan, G. A. L. (1950) Notes on the Invisible Flightless Rail of Halmahera (Habroptila wallacii Gray). Amsterdam Naturalist 1: 57–60.
Jeremy J. Kirchman (2012) Speciation of Flightless Rails on Islands: A DNA-Based Phylogeny of the Typical Rails of the Pacific. The Auk: January 2012, Vol. 129, No. 1, pp. 56-69.
PS: I have incorporated most except the first which I do not have access to and appears to be an important one. Shyamal (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I've been out all day, out again tomorrow, so it will probably be Friday before I get time to take a look Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd seen the Storrs Olson ref and decided that it was peripheral to the article, I accept that was a bad call, thanks for fixing that taxonomy section. Schnaitman was originally used in the article, but, as you say, it's not reliable (Ripley was also used, obv reliable but could all be reffed to Taylor, which is more recent). Thanks for the Heinrich paper, I've rolled that it with Taylor's voice comments (in Description) to avoid having calls in two sections. I suspect that if we can get de Haan, it's likely to be a disappointment. Taylor, HBW and Birdbase all referenced this paper, and considering the paucity of information prior to Bashari and van Balen, it's difficult to think that it said anything of great import that they chose to omit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possible that Haan does not add much but let us see if someone can locate the three pages. Shyamal (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
De Haan added now, not sure that local names are in the best place, feel free to move if you think they would be better elsewhere Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a comprehensive review of what is known. Shyamal (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for help and support, de Haan was actually quite interesting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Couple questions from the De Haan source
He mentions sending a specimen to Amsterdam. Would this have been stuffed? Relatedly, and I probably already know the answer, do we have any captive specimens?
It would have been stuffed, since he was trying to get good skins. None in captivity AFAIK. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that it may, apparently, try to claim areas that were once settled by humans? (he saw it often in "neglected native plantations")
de Haan confused the call with that of another rail, it doesn't occur in alang-alang or mangroves, and I wouldn't trust him on that either Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The specimens he talks about really don't seem to run away when danger approaches... anything explicit about its movements? He suggests that water isn't really much of a hindrance — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:43, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't expect water to be a hindrance for birds in this semi-aquatic family. I don't read it like that, the birds he got close to didn't see him, and the one that did ran away at high speed. It's the pittas that approached closely Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has mainly dark slate-grey plumage, and the bare skin around its eyes, the long, thick bill and the legs are all bright red. - bit run-on-y with the shift in subject - I'd align the subjects - "It has mainly dark slate-grey plumage, and bright red legs, bill and skin around its eyes." Or Its plumage is predominantly dark slate-grey, and the bare skin around its eyes, the long, thick bill and the legs are all bright red.
tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose, pending on what other folks think. I can't see any outstanding prose-clangers or omissions. reads nicely. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FN2: link provided gives different bibliographic information than included in this citation; we're also missing year and location
I've corrected the link and added location and year. The most recent recommended citation for HBW hasn't reached this page yet, but the editors are as listed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BirdingAsia or BirdingASIA? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for improving knowledge on this bird whith the tuk tuk drumming call which I met three years ago! I am not familiar with biology specialties, just a common reader ;) - Minor question, in Description: * The sexes are identical in appearance, although the plumage of fledged immatures has not been described. - how is that "although"? I fixed the name to lowercase once. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for support, sorry about your long wait. replaced "although with semicolon Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:06, 22 May 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) 07:28, 25 May 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... Babe Ruth. That's about it, really.Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Driveby should the nicknames be given so much prominence? They are both bolded and in the first sentence (I think they should be neither). It's weird that the (unacquainted) reader comes to know of them before he learns that Ruth was a baseballer.—indopug (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the subsections under "New York Yankees (1920–1934)", 1) can they descriptively titled? (else, they're just arbitrary) 2) can they be made more evenly sized?—indopug (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was usual to put nicknames after the name, or born as names, etc. I'm open to alternatives. Regarding the years, they generally track the Yankees' (and, mostly, Ruth's) success, the initial pennant winning teams, 1924 and 1925, when they did not win, the peak years of "Murderer's Row", the pennant-winning 1926 to 1928 squads, and the final fairly lean years. I can make up names to put in there, but the years will still need to be in there. I don't see how to even them out in length, given that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just retitle them then, don't worry about resectioning.—indopug (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And is there any way to cut down on the absurd number (I count 15!) of nav templates at the bottom of the article?—indopug (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed the navboxes and named the subsections.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment: I wonder about the first paragraph of the lead. "Ruth achieved his greatest fame as a slugging outfielder for the New York Yankees" loses me by using "slugging" (is this the baseball technical term, or a more general descriptive term" and then we go into "He established many MLB batting (and some pitching) records, including career home runs (714), slugging percentage (.690), runs batted in (RBIs) (2,213), bases on balls (2,062), and on-base plus slugging (OPS) (1.164)" which reads like a sea of blue and makes the general reader like myself a little dizzy. But then the rest of the lead is a frankly brilliant read which is accessible to everyone. I'm not suggesting removing all baseball technicalities (and given the rubbish that I write about, I'd be on shaky ground!), but it seems a shame to bog down the first paragraph when this will be the first thing that the reader comes across. Could we cut a couple of the records and just leave the easy-to-follow ones like home runs and RBIs? Just my view as a non-baseballer, and feel free to disagree. I hope to get to the rest of the article this week. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I cut those records, the baseball people will oppose for not including modern statistics, such as OPS and OPS+. I believe that's happened in other articles. On slugging, I do see your point. This article uses baseball lingo extensively. I am anxious to accommodate all comers to this article. But if I don't use baseball lingo, it will be very noticeable. "Slugging" refers to his ability to hit home runs. I would urge reviewers to compare to other baseball FAs, and also to the other baseball articles presently at FAC for comparison.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been active at FAC for some time, but I can't help but get involved with this one, given my Yankee fandom. If I reading this FAC correctly (I think this is the one you're talking about), the reviewer is complaining about how modern stats weren't being used at all. If you put/have the records in the body, perhaps in the Legacy section, and leave only the higher-profile ones in the lead, I don't think that anyone will feel cheated. I've done a few copy-edits so far and plan on doing more; it's a good read so far, and the coverage appears to be solid. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the commenter in that other FAC regarding advanced statistics, here are my thoughts on this article. I think it is good to take a middle ground approach. There is no need to over burden the lead with advanced statistics that may turn off the general reader. I do think, however, that the article currently does not do a very good job of discussing his statistical legacy. Whether you go with traditional statistics or sabermetrics, there is really no one in baseball history that has ever approached Ruth at his peak. I think this article would benefit from a section going into more detail on this. Its not about just throwing a bunch of numbers out, but more about explaining how certain authors have analyzed these statistics to determine Ruth's value as a baseball player. The reliable sources certainly exist to analyze Ruth in this fashion. On an unrelated note, I see that the article touches on the changes to the baseball that helped inaugurate the live-ball era, but I believe a far more significant impact resulted from the death of Ray Chapman in 1920 and the subsequent banning of the spit ball and more frequent replacement of beat up baseballs during a game. Indrian (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What sources would you recommend for such a section? I did not attempt to get into the advanced statistics, which frankly I'm not terribly familiar with (I have a couple of elderly copies of James books, and I think my SABR membership hasn't expired yet). As for the live ball era, I grant you those were factors (though given that the spitball was restricted after 1919 and existing spitballers were grandfathered, that was a more long term effect that probably didn't affect Ruth too much in 1920 and 1921). Keep in mind there are already concerns expressed that the article is a bit opaque to the non-baseball fan.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding statistics: I think it's best for Babe Ruth's main article to be accessible to the general public, considering his prominence even to this day. A stand-alone list for his career statistics (Career statistics of Babe Ruth or something) would probably be warranted, considering how much discussion of him there is and how long such a set of statistics would be. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Indrian's comment, I've added a Bill James book and borrowed from his discussion of those factors, which are quite interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A formally posed baseball team photo would have been used in team publications and released to the newspaper at the time.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping for something a little more concrete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well, I'm looking for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped for a different one I just pulled in. Could you check that as well?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Babe Ruth Culver Service Photograph, 1916.jpg - The stickers on the back of the image (see source) are clearly much more recent than 1916 (among the most obvious signs are the 10 digit phone numbers, computer printed sticker, and Babe's year of death). Do we have any proof this was published before 1923?
Swapped for another baseball card.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Babe Ruth circa 1920.jpg - Two issues here: First, this is only circa 1920... anything more concrete? Thompson clearly asserted his copyright (see source), so a post-1923 publication will throw serious wrenches into the works. Second, the auction clearly states that this is a "personal photographer's copy", suggesting it may not have been published; proof of publication is needed.
Cut. We have a portrait a couple of years earlier, we don't need this.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:1927NYYankees5.jpg - What exactly does this image add that text alone could not convey, and which the lack of inclusion would be detrimental to a reader's understanding of the article? (NFCC#8)
It's probably PD but I don't want to deal with finding a 1927 Yankees publication. Cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Babe Ruth Gov.jpg - Got a link to a description page or something, rather than the image itself?
It seems trivial. Cut.
File:Babe Ruth 800.jpg - I think the carving passes the threshold of originality for the United States, and thus (if this is still copyrighted) it would need freedom of panorama to truly be free (since it is a relief, it would not be covered by US FOP). When was this grave erected? Any evidence that a copyright notice was included or not included (if the grave was erected in the 1940s)?
Cut. I don't see what it adds.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It had to be made in 1948 or 1949, as it was erected in 1949. There is a Babe Ruth Memorial registered as an artwork for copyright in 1948, but I checked copyright renewals for 1975, 1976, and 1977 and saw nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There don't seem to be any relevant copyrights for 1954 or 1955 or 1956. I didn't look before that because the Orioles were in St. Louis before 1954.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:2Ruth1948April.jpg - I don't think this meets the (admittedly very strict) criteria for press agency photographs. NFC calls for "sourced critical commentary" (emphasis mine, in the line "Note that in the case the image is from a press agency and is not itself the subject of critical commentary it is assumed automatically to fail the second test of 'respect for commercial opportunity'." Critical, meaning analysis of the photograph itself, like in Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Here, the photograph is simply given the line "The photo of Ruth taken from behind, standing near home plate and facing "Ruthville" (right field) became one of baseball's most famous and widely circulated photographs, and won the Pulitzer Prize", essentially stating "it exists, it shows this, and it won a prize". It is not the critical commentary called for by the NFC. That being said, I don't doubt such commentary could be found and included, assuming you did not consider it WP:UNDUE — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got everything if not I am sure you will tell me. Thank you for the image review. I am traveling until after next weekend and will have limited internet for part of it. All comments will be addressed, I am just juggling too many things right now. Bear with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
stellar left-handed pitcher for the Boston Red Sox, - isn't stellar POV?
Only if there is disagreement on the point. I do not know of a school of thought that Ruth was other than a top figure.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
learned life lessons - this feels very empty
Do you have a suggested alternative? Clearly Matthias taught Ruth more than how to hold his shoulders while swinging the bat (or whatever).--Wehwalt (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, but these unspecified life lessons were not as pertinent to his later notability. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Brother Matthias is part of the Ruth legend, and that it should be said that Ruth carried away more than baseball skills from St. Mary's.
After that season, Ruth was controversially sold by Red Sox owner Harry Frazee to the Yankees. - Perhaps rework as "After that season, Red Sox owner Harry Frazee controversially sold Ruth to the Yankees." so that it's easier to parse?
Done.
legendary power - legendary is also POV
The article touches on the legend of Babe Ruth and his home runs in several places. I do not know of a contrary school of thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably go with direct quotes then. Sources may agree on a POV, but that doesn't mean we have to follow them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How are we superior to the sources? I think the legacy section goes there. I just don't think it's worth a direct quote when I don't think there's much debate. Certainly not in the lede.
I don't think I said we're superior to the sources. The thing that differentiates us is that we have to follow WP:NPOV, whereas the sources do not. WP:YESPOV, especially point one, is the main issue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
including as a lightning rod salesman and on Baltimore's streetcars, - as a what on the streetcars?
We don't know. Just that he worked there.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we link all positions upon first mention?
Regardless of when he began to win his first wife, - "he won his wife"? Em, no. Even if they just met, you don't talk about love at first sight or anything like that. That being said, that a woman is said to be "won" like a trophy is sure to draw fire.
The Babe Ruth Story - I think usually the year of production is put in parentheses after the first mention
no decision - link?
Done.
who played under four managers who are enshrined in the Hall of Fame, always maintained that Carrigan, who is not, - I had to think about it a bit to realize that you meant Carrigan is not in the HoF
Done.
To keep Ruth and his bat in the game, he was sent to play left field, but Bush retired the side to give Ruth his second win of the Series and the third and last World Series pitching victory of his career, against no defeats, in three pitching appearances. - this should probably be split
That's an interesting headline. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Babe Ruth Day" at Fenway Park, Ruth won the game in the bottom of the ninth, tying Williamson. - two things: was it BRD at Fenway Park when Babe was batting (as the text seems to say), and this sentence isn't explicit about him hitting a homer
Up to date except for the first link of positions, which I will have to go through in detail. Thank you for the review comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the New York team's principal owner, brewer and former congressman Jacob Ruppert - Sounds as if he was congressing and brewing for the team as well.
I'm not clear what you mean by that. There is only one venue to be a congressman in. The Ruppert Brewing Company was well known.
Frazee sold the rights to Babe Ruth for $100,000, the largest sum ever paid for a baseball player. - recommend adding "at the time" or "adjusted for inflation" before "the largest" (whichever is correct). I'm pretty sure million dollar contracts are relatively common now.
"to that point" added.
next Summer - caps in original?
Yes.
and lead baseball with 40 pennants and 27 World Series titles in their history. - I'm assuming this is meant to be present tense, but that is not clear from the sentence
Well, it's not "led", and I assure you it is not a typo. I don't think it necessary to add a date. If the Cardinals get close in a decade or two, we can reconsider.
After the month of April 1920, - what is "the month" adding?
Cleveland, winners of the 1920 World Series. - didn't you already mention above that they had won?
Only the league, I did not mention the World Series
The largest sum ever paid a ballplayer, - this too; at the time, or adjusted for inflation, but certainly not meaning no ball player since has received 52k a year.
bingeing - I belive binging is the correct spelling; Google says so too
his normal production - Production? Is this the best word?
As good a synonym as any, I think.
Games Two and Three - correct caps?
Yes.
According to Appel, "The 1927 New York Yankees. Even today, the words inspire awe ... all baseball success is measured against the '27 team." - might be worth including the year for "today"
I don't think the '27 Yanks are going to be ill-regarded anytime soon. I think baseball fans would think it odd, as if it's going to change. There have certainly been other great baseball teams, but I do not think even some great team of the future would entirely displace Murderer's Row.
by as much as 17 games. - what does "as much as" add here?
More than likely. Baseball reporters were fairly discreet at the time, and the tale has since grown in the telling. I think it is best left so. The reader knows they were not pleasantries.
If Ruth's sale to the Yankees is credited for causing the Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, this may be worth mentioning
It would be hard to trace directly. Except in the late 40s and late 70s, the Red Sox and Yankees have rarely contented for the pennant at the same time until the last 15 years or so.
I only mention as that article has several sections with Ruth in a prominent position. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one spoke about the Curse of the Bambino until the Sox blew it to the Mets in '86.Wehwalt (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ruppert offered to make Ruth manager of the Yankees' top minor-league team, the Newark Bears, but he was talked out of it by his wife, Claire (Helen had died in 1929), - he was talked out of it sounds as if Claire told Ruppert to not do it, rather than Ruth (the subject is "Ruppert")
stood as a baseball batter and launched some massive shots around the field, destroying the bat in the process. Although Fairfax regretted that he could not have the time to make Ruth a cricket player, Ruth had lost any interest in such a career upon learning that the best batsmen made only about $40 per week. - shame we don't have any documentation of this on Commons. It sure would be a sight to behold!
Regrettably, unless they were published in US papers, they would most likely be non-PD as, after all, this was only 80 years ago.
first base coach - Shame we don't have anything that can help explain this for non-baseball fans
The nuances of why Ruth was sent to coach first base rather than third base regrettably will escape the non-baseball fan. But if they've slogged through this far, perhaps they've picked up a thing or two.
Ruth's lifestyle was seen as a reason for denying him a managerial job; Barrow said of him, "How can he manage other men when he can't even manage himself?" - I'd put this with "Creamer believed Ruth was unfairly treated in never being given an opportunity to manage a major league club. The author felt there was not a relationship between personal conduct and managerial success, noting that McGraw, Billy Martin and Bobby Valentine were winners despite character flaws" to be honest.
and which is often called by his name - is this necessary for an article on Ruth?
I'd let it stand. The two men are closely associated.
the gift was accepted by the captain of the Yale baseball team, George Bush, who would later become President of the United States. - feels somewhat trivial.
I personally agree, but that was added by someone else and I know it ticks people off when I remove their stuff, so in close calls I just try to make it fit. If you object strongly I will remove it, but that's my policy.
I've removed it as trivia, so you don't have to deal with it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
a biopic about his own life. - what does "own" add here? Since we've mentioned the manuscript already, I doubt we even need "a biopic ..."
Cut.
Lou Gehrig Day - this should be linked on first mention, not in the personal life section
Although he was married ... - this sentence would tie in well with the "repeated infidelities", particularly as it is essentially a one sentence paragraph
the bunt, and the hit and run. - consider linking
Henry Aaron - whey Henry and not Hank? I mean, he's best known as Hank.
I know, but again on balance, due to the race issue I'd rather not address him by nickname on first mention.
Do you have a link to something that can give me more context? I'm curious now. I looked through Aaron's article, but couldn't find an explicit relation between Hank and race; the closest our article comes to this is "Braves' public relations director Don Davidson, observing Aaron's quiet, reserved nature, began referring to him publicly as "Hank" in order to suggest more accessibility", but even then it's reaching. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not that specifically, I just mean that given what Aaron went through, well, I prefer to use the proper name. Probably it's just me.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
is probably even more popular today - another phrase which would work best with a concrete time frame, especially as the book is almost ten years old
Montville's book is dated in the previous paragraph.
Ruth has been named the greatest baseball player of all time in various surveys and rankings. - rather than 5 or 6 "In XXXX," sentences, could we have some variety?
Well, I've made the sentences a bit less monotonous.
Claire Ruth (widow) - Is "Widow" necessary?
Possible duplicate links: International League, Philadelphia Phillies, Chicago White Stockings (Cubs), organized baseball, Hot Springs, Arkansas, Grover Cleveland Alexander, Pittsburgh Pirates, Philadelphia Athletics, Chicago Cubs, Cleveland Indians, Cincinnati Reds, Detroit Tigers, Forbes Field, Walter Johnson, The Babe Ruth Story — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed most of those, those that remain are double linked for a reason, mostly because we cannot depend on keeping readers thought the article. I think I've caught everything but as I am careless it behooves you to check. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and images. A massive article on a massive subject. Good work, as usual, from Wehwalt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words. I am grateful for your reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the article mention that Babe Ruth appears on a U.S. commemorative postage stamp, issued in 1983 , and also on baseball cards which are highly collectable and rather expensive btw. Seems these items would work well in the legacy section. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stamp maybe, baseball card seems like everyone's on a baseball card. I'm familiar with the stamp. Let me look for a RS on that. I'm behind on this review but hope to catch up next couple of days.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of baseball cards, haven't gotten to the stamp yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mention of stamp added.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Some of the stats in the infobox do not appear to be sourced in the article text
I answer this one separately. I sourced them, rather than inserting them in article text, as I am sensitive to concerns about lists of statistics being boring to read. My sourcing was reversed as clutter. After considering the matter, I agree. Babe Ruth's career statistics need not be sourced, and the interested reader has other statistical resources available to him. We do not pretend to be the back of a baseball card!--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FN79: page?
FN151: page(s)?
FN172: why does this publication include location when other periodicals do not?
FN180 and 181 appear to be the same source
Be consistent in how multi-author works are formatted
FN183: why is this cited by publisher rather than publication?
FN206: accessdate?
FN208: where did you access this source?
FN212: why does this include ISSN when other periodicals do not?
No citations to Weintraub. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, due to lack of internet access, I will do this (and other remaining comments) on the weekend. Sorry about the delay.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's done. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I was one of the peer reviewers, and had my quibbles and queries (all minor) thoroughly dealt with then. This article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 15:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions there and here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm up to date. Waiting for additional feedback on the statistics issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I know nothing about baseball but, like about 99.5% of the western world, I'd heard of Babe Ruth and had some idea of his impact on the game. The detail in this article was a revelation when I read it at peer review, a fascinating life story very thoroughly researched and put together with great care. I had plenty to say at the peer review, and I've nothing to add, although I think a subject like this will always provoke comment and perhaps controversy. I look forward very much to the article regaining its featured status. Brianboulton (talk) 06:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I've read down to the end of the Boston section so far, and this is marvellous stuff. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"He rarely was visited by his family; his mother died when he was 12 and by some accounts, he was permitted to leave St. Mary's only to attend the funeral.[12] How Ruth came to play baseball there is uncertain; by one account one of the misdeeds that led to his placement at St. Mary's was repeated breaking of Baltimore's windows with long hits while playing street ball": Could we avoid the repetition of "by some/one account(s)" here? This wording is also used at the start of the Baltimore section. (And is it worth saying anything else about these accounts? Contemporary, press, historical, speculative...?)
I think contemporary to Ruth's career, though not necessarily to the moment. Ruth's fame caused a number of early classmates, teachers, and others to go into print, and others told tales to sportswriters. I'm not sure that anything could be added that would be helpful.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The early years section contains several sentences of the type "and his running and hitting styles would closely resemble his teacher's". There is nothing really wrong with this wording as used here, but as "would" crops up six times in this section, I wonder do we need a little variety?
I can't help but notice the contrast to what is known about some of cricket's legends such as Bradman, Jack Hobbs, or WG Grace, where their childhoods and early lives are documented in mind-numbing detail! (No action required here!)
"Ruth hit a long home run to right": Should this be to the right, or is it baseball-speak?
Baseball talk. I think no link is needed.
"...which was locally said to be longer than a legendary shot hit in Fayetteville by Jim Thorpe": Do we need shot and hit in this sentence?
Shot is synonym for home run, hit is a verb.
"The competition from the Terrapins caused Dunn to sustain large losses": Perhaps specify financial, rather than competitive, losses?
Given that the source of the problem is lack of attendance, I think it is understood.
"As a batter, in his major-league debut, Ruth went 0-for-2 against left-hander Willie Mitchell": Is there a link for 0-for-2?
"Ruth finished the season with a 2–1 record": And is there a link for the win-loss format?
"and after some good relief appearances": Link for relief?
The above three are dealt with by insertion of pipes.
"and Ruth's majestic shot awed the crowd": Majestic hardly seems a neutral description!
I understand the POV rule as not letting us take sides on disputed points. I do not think it bars all but bland adjectives. A home run hit into the upper deck of the Polo Grounds especially when such a feat was very rare would come across as majestic. I am unaware of a contrary school of thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A very interesting and well-written article which I am more than happy meets the criteria. The following points do not affect my support and are only suggestions. Great work. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"taking three out of four from the Red Sox": Is there a link for this term (I've never heard it before, and I've read quite a few baseball articles on here)?
I'll change "taking" to "winning".
Could the long Montville quote be attributed in the text?
The "Ruth knocked out" image caption really needs a reference as the events are not referred to in the text, unless I've missed them.
As it happens, there's an article in the NYT on that the last few days.
"with a runner in scoring position": Is there "a" missing before scoring, or is it more baseball-speak? (no problem if it's the latter)
Baseball idiom.
"According to Appel, "The 1927 New York Yankees. Even today, the words inspire awe ... all baseball success is measured against the '27 team."": I think it may be worth dating this quote to give context to the "today" part.
My difficulty with this is that I just don't think the view of the '27 Yankees is time related. They will most likely be considered great next century. There are certainly other great teams, such as the '61 and '98 Yankees, the '76 Reds, the A's teams of the early 70s, Connie Mack's teams of 1910-14 and 1929-31. But as the 27 Yankees nor any member of them are around to cause their reputation to be diminished, and they cannot play off against other great teams (away from the computer). Any more than Grace, whom you cited, is likely to be diminished though other greats will arise. Would it be proper to say "As of 2014, he is considered a great cricketer".?
I wonder is there scope for a "technique" section, or even a comment somewhere. Why was he so good? Is there anything which puts him into a statistical context: how far ahead of his contemporaries was he? And is there anything which judges how good was he as a pitcher? As I say, these are just suggestions and feel free to disregard them. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it's made fairly clear how far he advanced the home run records. I could add the famous stat that in 1920 he hit more home runs than any team in the American League he was not playing on. There are a fair number of statistics for pitching metrics, wins over replacement for example, that might be helpful but then I would hear from those who see no need for such statistics. It may be best if this was a matter for the article talk page, or, alternatively, the baseball wikiproject if uniformity is needed. Thank you for your comments and your kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the discussions of Ruth in one of Bill James's books, and I don't find any statistic really helpful. Babe Ruth leads in win shares, but the amount of time it would take to explain that to the reader means it really isn't that helpful. I suggest again that this be left as a matter for the article talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: At this point, reluctantly, I'd oppose a FA. I'm not merely startled, but astonished, that a four paragraph lead has just one in-line citation. There are many statements in that lead that are uncited, among them being that Ruth is considered the greatest player of all time, one of the greatest sports heroes in American culture, that he was a larger-than-life figure, that he had a reckless lifestyle marked by drinking and womanizing, and so on. There is no way that any article should have such strong statements go uncited, let alone the lead of a Featured Article. Ravenswing 07:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand, Ravenswing. The citation in the lede is due to a fact not in the body being cited, that is, the statistics and in particular the OPS and OPS+.. This is perfectly appropriate. Where to put those statistics is still in play, but the lede is MOS-compliant, in my view.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the fact that WP:WHYCITE (part of the guideline Wikipedia:Citing sources) states explicitly "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article..."; almost all of the information in the lede is referenced a bit further on. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so, and I have sourced the bit that is not in the body (principally the OPS stats). Although I said above that Babe Ruth statistics in general do not require citation as there is no dispute about them, OPS is obscure enough that in an excess of caution, I cited it. It would probably be best if Ravenswing took another look at the situation.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While we have the minimum customary qualifications for promotion, I fully understand that because of Ravenswing's oppose, even though it is not actionable (I could remove the OPS stats and cite from the lede, but what then?) and not consistent with WP:LEDE, the coordinators want to wait on this one. I'm in no hurry. July 11 still is a ways off.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- I don't think there's any reason to wait. The oppose is well-intentioned but is a non-issue and therefore unactionable. I would've liked to comment myself as an Aussie with some rudimentary knowledge of baseball and its history but I think that would be a bit indulgent -- the article has been written and reviewed by some of FAC's most experienced editors so I don't think it needs me to join in and thereby recuse myself from delegate duties. N.B. I did note several duplinks but I see the question has already been raised and, given the article's length, I can well believe those remaining are justified. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:49, 25 May 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) 06:53, 25 May 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 landmark piece of U.S. federal legislation that is a signature achievement of the 1950s-1960s Civil Rights Movement. It is a subject that continues to be of great importance to elections today and is currently a hot topic in Congress and federal courts. The article covers the Act's background, legislative history, provisions, impact, and constitutionality. I have worked on this article extensively since last June (and created two child articles), and it is now comprehensive and thoroughly cites to reliable sources. The article was promoted to GA status after a rigorous review by RJaguar3, and after further polishing, I believe the article now satisfies the FA criteria. I welcome any further feedback; thank you for your time! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meticulously well-sourced and good layout. Quite thorough and comprehensive. Great use of structure to organize and present the material on an important subject matter in an educational fashion. Thank you for contributing this quality improvement project to Wikipedia. — Cirt (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is quite good and well-organised as Cirt says. The prose can become a little verbose at times, so it needs a copy-edit. I have already taken a shot at trimming the Background section.
Looking at the references though I see a potential issue: why are so many court cases and legislations directly used as citations? They are primary sources and us interpreting them directly (rather than via reliable secondary sources) could original research rules.—indopug (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help copyediting, indopug; I agree with most of your edits thus far, though I'll take a more thorough look later today. Primary sources are cited for the sake of completeness and so readers know where to find them; they don't replace secondary sources, but supplement them. According to MOS:LAW, "Where both primary and secondary sources are available, one should cite both." I've tried to follow this to the letter, and outside of a couple direct quotations, every piece of content that cites to a legal primary source also cites to a secondary source. If one were to strip this article of all of its primary sources, the entirety of it (outside of a few direct quotations) should continue to stand. With that in mind, I may restore some of the constitutional citations you removed from the Background section; any interpretation of the constitution that may exist there is supported by the secondary sources cited within it (Bending Toward Justice; Senate.gov). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 13:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your comments, indopug; and your edits were helpful! I made a few changes I'd like to explain here:
I restored a legal primary source in light of the above reasoning;
I restored a few wikilinks. Although everyday words, I think "voting" and "elections" are, as stated in WP:OVERLINK, "particularly relevant to the topic of the article", while "legislation" and (especially) "literacy test" aren't everyday terms and could benefit from wikilinks.
In a couple instances, I restored the common names of laws, such as "Civil Rights Act of 1964" (which is both the Act's common name and its official short title) versus the "1964 Civil Rights Act" (uncommon). Also, I'm not aware of many instances in reliable sources where the names of constitutional amendments are shortened to simply their number (e.g., "Fourteenth"); usually, the shortened name contains the number and the word "Amendment" (e.g., "Fourteenth Amendment"), except occasionally where multiple amendments are listed directly one after another (e.g., "Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments"). Relatedly, I restored the fuller quote from the Fifteenth Amendment, for that Amendment is very important to the VRA, and it bars more than only disenfranchisement--it also bars "abridgment" of the right to vote, which the fuller quote portrays.
I restored the names of the "Civil Rights Division" and "Commission on Civil Rights". Although it uses less words to refer to them as simply "a division" and "a commission", I think it's less helpful to readers to be that general.
I'm happy to further discuss these points or any other feedback you may have. Thanks! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, I've put the article through another copyedit over the past couple of days, which I hope resolves the verbosity concern. Did you have any further feedback, Indopug? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 20:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to take another look over the weekend.—indopug (talk) 08:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
File:Lyndon_Johnson_and_Martin_Luther_King,_Jr._-_Voting_Rights_Act.jpg, File:Bloody_Sunday-officers_await_demonstrators.jpeg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Captions and source links are now fixed. Thanks. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph 3 of the intro's kinda long. I'd split it at "The formula was originally".
I trimmed the prose a bit and split the paragraph into two. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it be "linguistic minorities"?
"Linguistic" does sound like a more natural adjective, but the Act uses and defines the term "language minorities", along with the secondary sources that describe it. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the citations in the intro seem to bolster uncontroversial claims. Consider taking a few out.
"Section 5 and most other special provisions apply to jurisdictions encompassed by the Act's "coverage formula", which is prescribed in Section 4(b)." - I'm not sure it's a good idea to include this in the intro, given that you don't elaborate on it. Your call.
The next sentence does mention that the coverage formula encompasses jurisdictions that engaged in the most egregious discrimination. Elaborating much more than that would probably be too in-depth for the lead, but its inclusion in the lead is pretty essential, given how much the provision is discussed in the article's body. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Southern states generally sought to disfranchise racial minorities during and after Reconstruction" - Not sure what "generally" does here. Are you generalizing Southern states or the time period? Try to reword this.
"thus excluding many African Americans whose grandfathers had been ineligible" - May be obvious, but consider mentioning that they weren't eligible because they were slaves.
It actually used to say that, but even free African Americans during the era of slavery were ineligible to vote. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"that the denied voter-registration applications" - Kind of awkward to use "denied" this way; I'd change it to "unsuccessful".
"thousands of hours" - Can you put this into days, months, or years? Is it man-hours? I don't have an intuitive idea of how long thousands of hours really took, as I don't know how long these people's work-days were.
The source doesn't specify the work-day length, but I replaced "thousands of hours" with "months", because even assuming they worked 24 hours a day, it'd take at least 3 months for "thousands" of hours to go by. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Act also included some voting rights protections; it required" - should be a regular colon
"particularly Selma" - I'd add "the city of", as at first glance it looks like Selma could be a person or event.
Done.
"violently resisted African-American voter registration efforts" - a little vague
Concrete examples of violence (MLK's and protests arrests, Jimmy Lee Jackson's death, Bloody Sunday) are given later in the text, so I'm not sure it's better to delve into specifics at this point when the idea of violence is being introduced. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"explained that in Selma" - I'd put a comma after "that" to curtain away the implication that James Forman explained "that", i.e. the topic of the previous sentence, i.e. the aforementioned police violence - basically, to make sure the reader knows that "that" doesn't have an antecedent. Hmm, does this make sense?
I reworded to hopefully remove any such confusion. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Malcolm X" - preface this the first time with "Civil rights activist"
That's all for tonight. Now I'm off to play Thomas Was Alone, where all colors live in harmony! Tezero (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with all of those, so here's another batch:
"to covered jurisdictions" - Shouldn't it be "cover"?
"Covered jurisdictions" refers to those jurisdictions encompassed by the coverage formula, as defined in the preceding sentence. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution" - should probably put a comma after "2" as it's a long sentence and the reader might get lost
Under most legal citation styles, commas aren't appropriate after the section number of a statute/constitutional provision unless there's a subsection/clause that comes after it in the citation. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Initially, the conferees were stalemated." - Is this a typo? I don't know the middle word.
"Conferee" generally means "a person who attends a conference", and more specifically in this case, "a member of a conference committee". But you're right, it's an uncommon term term; I've replaced it with "committee members".–Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
""Language minorities" means "persons who are American Indian, Asian American, Alaskan Natives or of Spanish heritage."" - Is it necessary to state this again?
I think so; although a large part of the 1975 amendments, it's also a central component of both the general provisions and special provisions. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2013, courts began to consider various challenges to voter ID laws brought under Section 2." - Might help to elaborate for a sentence or two.
Done -- I've been meaning to add some info to that sentence the past couple of days anyway, given a recent court ruling on the subject. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"acting under color of law" - ...What?
Ah, good point; I've made the term "color of law" a wikilink to that term's article. I may see if I can make it any more clear in the article text too. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Two provisions in Section 11 address voter fraud" - I think this should be prefaced with a "However" or something, as it relates to protecting not voters, but elections' integrity at the possible expense of voters' free choice (granted, not a choice that they legally should be making).
Well, without getting too much into theory, many would argue that restrictions on voters that protect election integrity are designed to protect voters, because any time a fraudulent vote is cast, it essentially cancels out someone else's legitimate vote. I'd rather avoid any implication that Wikipedia is taking a "side" on that controversy. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Bail in" - Shouldn't the section title be hyphenated?
When used as a noun, "bail in" is hyphenated... and you're right, its use in the section title is a noun. Fixed. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, good so far. More comments:
"criteria used was outdated" - number
Fixed. 06:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
"remain valid law" - seems like a value judgment; I'd change it to "are still considered constitutional" or something.
Well, if I might push back just a little on this, "valid" and "invalid" are pretty common adjectives used in legal sources to describe whether a particular law is enforceable or constitutional (e.g., "a court invalidated the law") without meaning to convey any value judgment that is independent of the court's opinion. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Under this standard, a voting change that results in discrimination, but does not result in more discrimination than before the change was made" - Kind of unclear; the voting change wouldn't result in discrimination; it would just allow some to continue.
I see what you're saying, and I did have some trouble writing this sentence. This may be semantics, but the way the courts and secondary sources have described retrogression has been of voting changes "resulting in" or "causing" new discrimination, not in allowing pre-change discrimination to continue. I'm not sure that's the best way to explain it, but I think using "allow" may somewhat change the meaning from the sources. To try to make it more clear, I switched the first "results in" to "cause"; does that help at all? –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"correct interpretation of "discriminatory effect"" - consider prefacing "discriminatory effect" here with "the phrase" so it's clear they're not interpreting the effects
"decreases the ability of a minority group" - Seems to contradict the next sentence the way it is; I'd stick "overall" before "ability".
Hmm, I think the problem might be that "decreases the ability of a minority group to elect its preferred candidates" wasn't adequately explained. I've added to the end of that sentence the following "such as by decreasing the number of minority-majority districts". Do let me know if it still needs some work. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Bail out" section title - no space, as with "Bail-in"
Ah, yes, good point... and to make things more confusing, sources generally style it differently than "bail-in"... the noun form is usually given as "bailout" (one word, no hyphen), while the adjective form is given with a hyphen ("bail-out provision"), and the verb form as two words without a hyphen ("bailing out a jurisdiction")... but yes, presumably the section title is a noun, so I've fixed it to be the noun form ("bailout").
"After its enactment in 1965, the law immediately decreased racial discrimination in voting." - Nebulous and borderline POV; be more specific or mention the author who thinks so.
That's meant to be the topic sentence of the paragraph, which gives the specifics of how the Act enabled racial minority voter registration to skyrocket in 1965 and beyond, increased the ability of racial minorities to get elected to office, etc. I can see how the statement may appear subjective, but it reflects the details included in the paragraph and is supported by a virtually uniform consensus among reliable sources (including sources biased in favor of the Act and sources biased against) that the Voting Rights Act has reduced voting discrimination. Thus, I'm not sure it's a POV statement. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"interposed Section 5 preclearance objections to dilutive annexations" - Difficult to follow.
"eventually, the Democratic Party's" - can you specify a "By (year),"?
Actually I've gone ahead and deleted that bit as repetitive, because the conclusion of the paragraph mentions it (and includes a year range). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"who attained a sixth-grade education in an American school in which the predominant language was Spanish" - Tense should probably be present perfect. These schools still exist, right?
Good point; the tense should probably be present tense actually, since the provision is still in effect. Fixed. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"summary affirmances" - ?
Attempted to clarify what that means; let me know if it's still confusing. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"indicated in dicta" - Not a well-known term or easy to guess the meaning of; I took AP Gov in high school and I've never heard it. It'd be a nice idea to stick "in passing" or a similar brief summary in parentheses.
And... there you have it! The article's quite polished overall. Tezero (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your feedback! As a lawyer, it can be easy to slip into using unfamiliar jargon or phraseology, so I greatly appreciate your comments on how to improve the article's readability. :) –Prototime (talk · contribs) 06:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a comprehensive and well-crafted read on a topic more important to general knowledge than any of those I've worked on, likely one of the best resources for the topic on the Internet. It was quite good even before I showed up, though I'd like to think I've helped a bit. Good luck in future endeavors. Tezero (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments—I stumbled here from my nomination, and I have a few comments related to the citations.
Sources that link to PDFs should consistently note the format. Several do, but several do not.
FN120 does not have The New York Times in italics.
Ditto FN130 and The Wall Street Journal in FN131.
In FN134, CBS News shouldn't be in italics since it is the name of a division of CBS Broadcasting. As such, it's a publisher, not a publication.
Now, the footnotes lack publication locations on books, but in the "Further reading" section, they're present. Personally, I would add them where missing, and not wikilink them. (If including the state name, I would also advise that the state names be abbreviated.)
The last entry in Further reading has "Columbis University Press", which should be "Columbia University Press".
This is all fairly minor stuff, and otherwise the sourcing looks good. NB: I did not perform a spotcheck for accuracy, plagiarism or paraphrasing. Imzadi 1979→ 03:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your source review, Imzadi1979! I've addressed all of your feedback. I did have one question about FN134 (which is now FN135, after a new FN9 was just added): do you know what should be listed as the "publication"? I had thought that the title "CBS News" applied to both the publisher and the publication, and I'm not sure what else to put as the publication, if anything. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not all news articles will have a connected publication. For example, where I am at the moment, we have two local TV stations. WLUC-TV named their website Upper Michigan's Source, while WBUP-TV has not explicitly named its website. If were citing the former, the footnote will have " Upper Michigan's Source. (Negaunee, MI: WLUC-TV)." while the latter would just have "Ishpeming, MI: WBUP-TV." In looking at the source used here, I can't see that they've attributed it to one of their specific news programs, any of which would be a publication, so in this case it would go without an explicit publication in the footnote.
One quick suggestion to add some further polish to the citations. Right now there is a mix of Title Case vs. Sentence case in the titles of the sources. One (FN133) uses ALL CAPS, which must be reduced to either of the other cases per the MOS, but the rest should be harmonized to a single style. Such a thing is a minor typographic change, so we need not worry about reproducing how each publisher formats headlines. (APA style explicitly says to use Sentence case in article titles, for example, even though many APA-based publications will use Title Case on their own headlines.) Our MOS is fairly neutral on which style to use, although MOS:CT (composition titles) does seem to prefer Title Case. Imzadi 1979→ 22:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Imzadi! I've standardized the source titles to title case. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I stumbled here from my FAC and thought I'd comment, since I know a little bit about the topic and wanted to participate in the FAC. Really, it's a great written article, and I have very minor nitpicks that don't affect me supporting it.
Not to be nitpicky, but could you get a source that specifies that this is a landmark piece of legislation? I don't see one now.
Any update about the "Voting Rights Amendments Act" of 2014?
"or use of at-large/multimember elections" - are you opposed to using "or" instead of the slash?
Thank you for your support, Hurricanehink! I've fixed the issues mentioned in your first and last comments. Concerning the Voting Rights Amendments Act of 2014, I'm afraid there's no additional update beyond what's already mentioned in the article about it being introduced; that may change if a Congressional committee decides to hold a hearing on it. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 19:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Keep up the good work on such important topics. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:46, 23 May 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) 06:02, 25 May 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): czar ♔ 21:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a quick and neat little read: Deathrow, the 2002 ultraviolent futuristic rugby alternative sports game that combines hockey, basketball, and a gang fight. Reviewers commented on its edginess and compared it to a tradition of futuristic rugby alternative sports. And boy did they love the cursing. Almost everyone commented on the game's frequent f-bombs, which became perhaps its defining characteristic. The IGN reviewer called it "best use of endless cursing in a game... ever" and the EGM reviewer could tell the developers were European because of the "awkward, over-the-top expletives in obnoxious American accents" paired with rugby. The prose flows nicely and it says just enough about the core encyclopedic subtopics without going into excessive detail. Thanks for taking a look czar ♔ 21:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Czar. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is one I've noticed going back months into the past, so now's the time to voice it: Why is "alternative sports" linked just to "sports game"? Why link it at all, since "alternative sports" doesn't seem to be a common classification?
"as an Xbox gaming system exclusive" - Nonstandard; try "as an exclusive for the Xbox game console".
"Development started in May 1999 as an online PC game" - Spurious grammar; the development wasn't an online PC game. I'd change it to "The game began development in May 1999 as an online PC title".
"Set in the year 2219,[1] Blitz is the world's most popular sport" - Also questionable; Blitz, the sport, can't be set in a year.
"The game won the TeamXbox 2002 Breakthrough Game of the Year award and the IGN 2002 Best Game Nobody Played." - TeamXbox and IGN should be linked, and those award titles should likely be in quotes.
"Xboxes" - I know what this means, but it's not standard, I think. Switch to "Xbox consoles" or the like.
Is "fun" really a notable feature of the reception to mention? This goes for both the lead and Reception.
"Some critics felt the game's use of profanity" - Probably worth a mention just how frequent and perceivedly awkward the profanity is; currently the sentence comes off like some critics thought the profanity was a genuine positive rather than a "so bad, it's good" quality. Or am I interpreting it wrong? (This too goes for both loci.)
I feel like the game's plot may not be covered in enough depth. My impression is that it's as fleeting and dismissive as even our coverage of main-series Pokémon plots.
Current ref 27 ("Pittsburgh Post-Gazette "Deathrow"") has some URL issue at play.
"for its additional power" - Compared to what? Maybe the PS2 and Dreamcast, but the Xbox wasn't any more powerful than the GameCube or, as is my impression, contemporary PCs.
"The characters are made of over 7000 polygons and 55 bones" - Each? If so, say so.
Merge the second and third paragraphs of Development together.
"ties go to the incumbent team" - Confusing; incumbent by what metric? Having won a majority of the rounds already played that match? If so, what if the two teams are tied by wins (1 or 0 wins each) before tying a round?
Second paragraph of Gameplay's rather long in general. I'd split it such that the nascent third paragraph begins with "There are 150 unique".
Are you sure those comparisons are necessary for Gameplay rather than Reception? I could go either way, but I'm uneasy.
"Racer also found the music generic, and the voice acting good" - Rephrase; this should be a contrast.
Can you briefly explain somewhere in the article on what System Link is?
"IGN described the controls as "relatively simple" and easy to understand within a single game" - This is not appropriate anywhere outside Reception.
"An overcharged shot will electrify the player" - Then what? Is the player stunned for a few seconds?
Is "Sequel" relevant to Reception? I'd prefer it stood on its own as a level-2 section.
"The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Troy Oxford also connected the profanity to the game's "'M' rating"" - Unnecessary.
Not too far overall. I'll keep this watchlisted, obviously. Come over to Wisps' FAC if you have time. Tezero (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved all. Some feedback: I kept "alternative sports" because it's what sources used the most (and is synonymous with the "extreme sports" genre, which is linked to sports game the same way). The "Xbox gaming system exclusive" is fine, grammatically. IGN/TeamXbox are linked in the preceding sentence and I'm not familiar with the rule that would put the award titles in quotes. (It's like winning Best Actor at the Oscars.) I don't think "Xboxes" is an issue since its parent does it too, but I changed it. I believe "fun" is supported, but don't have an opinion on it so I struck it for now. (No fun.) Re: profanity, there was a section on it starting with, "Goldstein regarded Deathrow's profanity as ...", unless you wanted more. I don't think there's any more to the plot worth elaborating. Racer line isn't a comparison but a listing of what Racer found, so should be okay. I believe "System Link[5] with up to eight players across up to eight Xbox consoles" covers what you want to know about that. IGN "simple controls" in the Controls section is absolutely fine by my eyes and I don't know why it'd be treated differently from, say, how IGN might explain that the easy mode is really easy. Especially if it's corroborated, it's most pertinent where it is. I kept Sequel level three because it's more about the interest surrounding a sequel than one planned. czar ♔ 22:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I missed the earlier links to IGN and TeamXbox. I'd still prefer quotes around the award names as they're not linked and are nowhere near as well known as ones like Best Actor, but I won't withhold support for that. My only real remaining concern is about the controls' simplicity; I really don't favor including a statement about the controls being simple, nor would I a statement about the easy mode being easy. At best it's unnecessary; at worst it's a value judgment. Tezero (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall any VG articles using quotes for awards. I know I just copyedited GTA V, which had a whole section of unquoted awards. I see value in including a description of the controls as "simple" in a section that describes the controls, but I'm cool with deferring to your adamancy on this one, since it's not worth pursuing further and I trust your judgment. czar ♔ 01:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. That's fine; if someone else decides, with a good reason, that it's better and adds it back, I won't rescind my support or anything. Not a huge deal; just doesn't seem encyclopedic to me, but hey. Tezero (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Deathrow (Xbox) PAL cover.jpg - Fair-use video game cover, shrunk in size, FUR filled out (minimally- I'd like to see the other fields filled out)
File:Deathrow (Xbox) screenshot.png - Fair-use screenshot, only one in article, shrunk in size, FUR mostly filled out- please fix this. Also... it's a screencap from a youtube video? Blurry- try to find a better one.
@PresN: The screenshot's the best available. All others I've found are either even lower res or the same quality. Filled out other fields even though "n.a." is the Upload Wizard default for that template. czar ♔ 05:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have previously reviewed the article for its GAN. It looked good then and it looks great now. I only have a couple of things to note.
The game is introduced as an "alternative sports game", but this is never developed or sourced in the body. You have explained the mechanics well in Gameplay, but you could reintroduce "alternative sports", source it, and use that first paragraph as an explanation.
I'm still unclear on what is meant by "crowd-pleasing". What actions does the player perform to fill up the meter?
In Controls, there are a lot of sentences starting with "The". Introducing some variation would help the prose flow a bit more.
"A multi-disc gameplay option and an Extreme difficulty are also unlockable". First time you've introduced "difficulty". Could be jargon. You could explain what "difficulty" means, probably in terms of bumping up the AI intelligence. Wikilink it?
In Development, the method to implement downloadable content could be explained. The source talks about an "Upgrade" mechanic. Can you develop that into the article?
"Two IGN staffers predicted the game to be a sleeper hit." → Doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the paragraph to me. Both sources go into a little more detail about why it will become a sleeper hit, so you could develop on that point. Would it perhaps fit better in the last paragraph? CR4ZE (t • c) 05:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, CR4ZE. Good points. I think I've addressed them—can you take a look? And since you've already started, might you have time to do a quick source review? czar ♔ 13:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The additions look great. You probably could remove the footnotes after "to be a sleeper hit:" as they're cited again just after, but it's not a requirement. I'll be checking through sources today or tomorrow. CR4ZE (t • c) 01:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's no description of who "Crushers" are in Gameplay. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
I conducted the review on this version of the article. I checked through all 33 sources including print mediums. It's a good thing you archived the online sources because some appear to be down.
Source 6 supports "alternative sport". I wouldn't consider it a great choice, and having researched online, I'm not seeing any reliable reviews refer to Deathrow as an "alternative sports" game. It's only ever a sports/action game. The wikilinked article, Sports game, gives no mention to an "alternative" genre. I am seeing a strong case for the removal of "alternative" unless you can find some more concrete support.
I have to agf on all of the subscription sources if there's no free way that I can check that information. In the interest of transparency you might want to try and locate other editors who have subscriptions to the websites you've used.
Source 16 supports the second paragraph of Development but it never mentions polygons, bones etc.
That's it as far as I can tell. Good work. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I believe I've corrected the above, if you'll take a look. Let me know if you'd like me to send along some of those subscription/offline refs for the sake of the source review. czar ♔ 04:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's possible, I would like to see the subscription refs for transparency's sake. When I reviewed the GAN a few months ago you provided me with the offline refs so I've been able to double-check them again anyway. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your mail function is disabled, so here's the temporary link: [20]czar ♔ 04:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thanks, everything looks good. CR4ZE (t • c) 05:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Does this nomination need anything else? czar ♔ 05:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Two supports isn't really enough. Least, Ian Rose said it wouldn't be back when Channel was only at two. Tezero (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was my understanding that it's less the numbers than the quality of the reviews and consensus czar ♔ 05:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quality of reviews and consensus is indeed vital. That said, while a 'required' number of explicit supports is mentioned nowhere in the FAC instructions, the convention has always been a minimum of three, assuming they're offered as part of a comprehensive review based on the FAC criteria. In other words, one-word or 'drive-by' supports don't count, any more than one-word or drive-by opposes count against. In fact based on a sampling I took a few months ago, the average number of supporting comments contributing to an article's promotion is more like four. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All right, I'll bite. I owe czar a few favors anyway, so I might as well lend a hand.
Gameplay
"while avoiding full-contact from their opponents" - The linked article mentions full-contact as any sport where players impact force on others. Is this a punch, a tackle, a block, or another type of contact? As worded, it's a bit ambiguous.
There's a few instances where citations appear mid-sentence without any punctuation to separate a phrase. I've had some wonder as to whether or not that is proper style; I would personally prefer to see citations at punctuation points, although not necessarily at periods, to increase readability and aesthetic.
"there is no pause in-between points scored" - What does this mean? And why is "in-between" hyphenated?
"The game's artificial intelligence" and "The game allows"... Two sentences in a row that start practically the same way reads choppy.
Why is "play-style" hyphenated? This doesn't look to me like it fits MOS:HYPHEN as a compound modifier or a prefix.
"half regular, open stadiums, and half with environmental obstacles, such as the underground mines." - This needs a little clarity. Do we have half-regular stadiums, open stadiums, and half with environmental obstacle stadiums, or half "regular, open stadiums" and "half with environmental obstacles"?
"A powerful shot, called a Deathrow, is incapacitating when aimed at a player." - Does this mean it incapacitates the player shooting or the player being aimed at?
Development
"Character faces can add additionally express emotions like happiness or anger, and feelings of pain." - "Add additionally?" Is this a typo or am I missing something here in the meaning?
Reception
The first paragraph of the reception mentions a lot about the game being under appreciated, with IGN even calling it the "Best Game Nobody Played". Is there any reason given why this might be, or anything on its sales to support this?
Sequel subsection - very little of this strikes me as being about a sequel in itself; only the first half of the one paragraph really talks about it. Maybe the subsection can be removed? It's usually not great form to have one subsection by itself inside a section header.
Lead
"There is no sequel planned, and Southend dissolved in 2013." - This feels rather dry to me, especially while there is elaboration on the sequel in the article. If you get rid of the sequel section as suggested above, this could disappear altogether, but even if you keep this detail, it feels very abrupt at the end of the lead as it reads.
It's very good, czar. Very close to FA. Having read this and contrasted it with Sega CD and the FAC review there, I can see we have very different styles of article writing, but I've tried to keep stylistic comments to a minimum here and just focused on that which I feel would legitimately improve this article while remaining within the MOS. I look forward to your responses. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 15:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Almost forgot as well: per the rules, I have to declare that I am also an active participant in the WikiCup. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 15:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Phoenix: Thanks for the review. The answer to your first Reception question is the "sleeper hit" paragraph near the section's end. I like the end of the lede because it underscores that the franchise is dead with great economy of words. Re: the ref placement, WP:REFPUNC is okay with it (uses it in one of the examples) and the WP:CITEFOOT guideline says it's fine for source integrity. "In-between" is the standard usage in NOAD. Not sure what you mean about stylistic differences, but I'm curious (if you want to elaborate). And I think I've addressed everything else—let me know what you think? czar ♔ 15:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response, czar. Going point by point here on your responses: I see now the sleeper hit section, which somewhat felt like it was hiding, but it's there. That comment can safely be struck. Re: "the franchise is dead with great economy of words" - do we have a reliable source that no sequel is currently planned? No sequel has been released, that much is certain, but without a reliable source we really can't directly say that no sequel is planned, and we can't assume that the studio collapsing has ended the franchise. For all we know, knowing that the Southend staff was absorbed into Ubisoft Massive, it may be something they're planning to do someday but hasn't received any coverage (not to mention years alone have little bearing on the death of franchises in video games; note Kid Icarus as an example with a 21-year gap between releases, or Metroid after the departure of Gunpei Yokoi from Nintendo until its revival in Metroid Prime). We don't know that, of course, but we don't know the opposite either because it's not directly stated in a reliable source. It's going to be important to be cautious with such wording to avoid potential WP:NOR issues. Thank you for finding the relevant guideline on ref placement; I've been looking for it for the last couple of days in regards to other reviews and couldn't find it. I still don't feel comfortable with such usage myself, but if it's in the guideline (and it is), I won't let it hold me back from supporting this. In regards to "in-between", does NOAD allow it for usage as a preposition? The hyphenate is certainly a valid adjective, but it's being used as a preposition in the above sentence. Though I would trust NOAD above Wiktionary, compare in-between and in between on Wiktionary, and note the two different usages. On stylistic differences, that's a conversation for our user talk pages as casual discussion, I am sure; it has no bearing on this review and was merely an observation of my own curiosity. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 17:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Phoenix: Good points, cleaned up. Thoughts? I struck the "in-between" since it sufficed without the prefix, but MW would use the word without the hyphen for a preposition. Anything else? czar ♔ 17:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looks good, czar. I too would use "in between" without the hyphen as a preposition, and agree with MW on that. That is the proper usage, and also what Wiktionary says too. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 18:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- just a minor formatting point, the usual thing with multiple citations is to list them in chronological order, see "and Speedball,[5][4][8]" and "The reviewers bemoaned its high difficulty curve,[5][4]" as examples to review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Is that a friendly suggestion or a requirement? It hasn't been an issue for me before (and I don't see a rule for it). For the reader's sake, I prefer to cite footnotes in declining relevance instead of ascending numerical mention. czar ♔ 01:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
czar, not that it really matters in terms of a review and I don't know if it's in policy or not, but I can tell you just from experience of having it happen to me that anyone using AutoWikiBrowser can and will shuffle it numerically, so regardless it may be difficult to try and maintain descending relevance. Red Phoenixlet's talk... 02:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not required. If they're just in random order I would rearrange them for neatness, but if you've an actual reason for the order used then feel free to stick to it. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a requirement -- I used to order multiple citations according to what part of a compound statement they supported, but gave it up as I don't think the average reader cares enough about the citations themselves, they'd rather just see that the statement is cited and that the cites look like they're arranged in a logical order. It's simply a thought to take away with you, we won't hold promotion up on that account. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:28, 25 May 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) 01:29, 25 May 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... Tadeusz Kościuszko a Polish revolutionary hero who also fought in the American Revolution. It was nominated for FA before and had wide support, but because a couple of minor issues came up, and the discussions dragged on, the nomination didn't make it. All issues have long since been resolved, imo. Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article is well written and well sourced and has excellent scope and many interesting details. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a belated note that there's no need for nominators to offer explicit support for their own FACs -- that you believe it's FA-worthy is a given, and we don't want this confused with other editors' more independent evaluations. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All issues appear to have been resolved. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 01:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up more than a dozen overlinks. I tend to ignore the first instance of a link after the introduction, but eliminate them after that. There may be a few examples of unnecessary links but nothing major popped out.
Thanks Mongo. If the topic is an important one I'll usually link it more than once if it occurs in a separate section, but usually not in two consecutive sections. I also try to stay away from links in the lede unless the topic is a key topic to the subject of the article. In any case, discretion is the key. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Going through editing history since the close of the last FAC effort on October 12, 2013...and will see if issues have been adjusted. Edit history since seems to indicate that one issue, that of stability, is no longer an issue. Will have further to add in next few days.--MONGO 15:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Currently engaged in last review and some minor copyediting which I hope to finish late today..my edits aren't in stone and may need further adjustments.--MONGO 15:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support...I've made a number of recent edits most of which are just tweaks and minor MOS related adjustments. An important article that covers all the bases and worthy of being rated as Featured Article. Congrats to all those instrumental in bringing this complex article to this level.--MONGO 20:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Herb_Roch_III.svg: what is the source and copyright status of the original work?
Not required, but would be helpful to translate non-English descriptions like that of File:Музей-усадьба_Т._Косцюшки....JPG
File:Tadeusz_Kośiuszko_during_battle_of_Racławice.PNG is not the same as shown in the source - were edits made to the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: File:Herb Roch III.svg - seeing as such coats of arms are centuries old, and this one is clearly labelled as self-authored, I don't see any copyright problem. Sources are plenty, and they reproduce the public domain image.
Re: File:Музей-усадьба Т. Косцюшки....JPG - yes, it would be nice, but unless we have a Belorussian speaker reading this, we are left with no option but to use Google Translate.
Hello. It means I set the white/grey/black levels more appropriately. The initial upload had a blue tinge. (Hohum@) 11:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed the original file at the source link was different to the first upload. I've uploaded that one, and then provided a colour balanced version which doesn't have the blurred sky (and top of his hat), and less blowout of highlights. It does have more muted colours than we had previously though. (Hohum@) 11:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For those who didn't know: The new version is a marked improvement. I've uploaded hundreds of images and often times I've edited a given image beforehand. i.e. enlarge, enhance color, adjust tone, enhance clarity if needed, etc. If the original file is eligible for use here at WP, making graphic improvements isn't anything that will change that. Nice work Hohum. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been making some minor adjustments in a few of the citations, moving source info from text/markup to the Bibliography, adding some ref links, etc. The citations themselves remain the same. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is clearly a well-written article and I think it should be promoted to FA status. 23 editor (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
brigadier general Arthur St. Clair capitalize his rank. Suggest a link to all ranks on first use.
transfer to battle duty with the Southern Army battle duty? How about combat? Is there a link to Southern Army and is that it's formal name? Or should that be rephrased to forces in the southern theater or somesuch?
Was the Commonwealth's military structured something like that of the later Austro-Hungarian Army with separate components for Poland and Lithuania? Because otherwise, He asked for a transfer to the Lithuanian army makes no sense to me. And army should be capitalized there as a proper noun.
Not sure how apt te comparison to AHA is, but there were separate armies, under separate commanders, see hetmans of Poland and Lithuania. Pl wiki has separate entries on pl:Armia koronna and which I may translate at some point; see also Army of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I am not seeing any good sources for a detailed explanation (GBooks search for "armia koronna" "armia litewska" does confirm the terms are often used to indicate two related but separate entities but I am not seeing any sources for defining them outside OR at least not right without searching further). I hope this answers the question but ping me if you'd like to discuss this further. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really relevant for this article, but I did a double-take when I read the mention of the Lithuanian Army. Somehow the reader needs to be given the information that there were two armies so he's not taken by surprise like I was.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When the Prince had become Commander-in-Chief of the entire Polish (Crown) Army on May 3, 1792, Kościuszko had been given command of a division near Kiev Delete "had" both times that it's used.
concentrated army group delete "group"
How could the caption be correct for the Philadelphia house be correct if he didn't arrive in the US until 1797?
The reference to his crippled condition was a complete surprise. Provide some context for this.
Is the image of the US stamp free for use? We tried to use on the article on the USS Monitor and it was disallowed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed caption date.
Kościuszko's "crippled condition" is explained in the preceding section. (Add : Changed wording: ...still in his wounded condition ...)
Stamps are in the public domain. The stamp image used in the USS Monitor article was a post 1978 issue and had "critical commentary" issues per NFCC policy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting on necessary changes.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed 'battle duty' to 'combat duty', retaining 'duty' to reflect that time was often spent in readiness, not just in actual combat.
Can't find anything on Southern Army other than a disambiguation link. Not sure if this was a formal title for a section of the Continental Army.
Dropped 'group' from 'concentrated army group'.
Reword and also removed two occurrences of 'had' from sentence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While checking to see the changes made, I noticed that there are a lot of hyphens used instead of endashes for page ranges.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers, I think this would be your first FA nomination? If so I'd like a reviewer to conduct a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. If no-one above would like to undertake that in the next couple of days we'll list a request at the top of WT:FAC.
Ditto source review for formatting and reliability (which is generally required for every FAC).
Finally, I noticed a few duplicate links. You can highlight and review these using this script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Though I am not the primary author of this article, and though it hasn't changed much since your last visit/review, I'd welcome a spot check.
Am not familiar with this script's usage/installation. If you know of any dup links, feel free to delete as necessary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's a link for Thomas Jefferson in the lede and one in the Later life section. Since this involves the lede and a section that is a good length away I believe the 2nd link is allowed, and convenient for the readers also. Will be willing to zap this one if you feel it's necessary. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Corps of Cadets is linked in a caption and again in the Early life section, which I believe is allowed. However, since the link in the caption is in the same section as the other link I'll remove the former link. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Kościuszko Uprising is linked in the lede and again in the Kościuszko Uprisingsection in a Main article template at the top of the section. Does this count as a dup' link? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP: Kościuszko's first task was building fortifications at Fort Billingsport in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to protect the banks of the Delaware River against a possible British crossing. (note 29) Source: He said George Washington commissioned the Polish military engineer Thaddeus Kosciuszko to design a fortification that could stop British ships from reaching Philadelphia. Kosciuszko, whose abilities were admired by Washington and Thomas Jefferson, also helped design defenses at Philadelphia, Saratoga and West Point. "Fort Billingsport was Kosciuszko's first job," said Quint, who lives in West Deptford. "His real genius was in the location. "It's at a perfect place. It was at the narrowest point of the river with a commanding view on a high piece of land about 30 to 40 feet above the Delaware." The fort was built by New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia and South Carolina troops and inspected by Washington on Aug. 1, 1777. The Americans trained cannon on the river, had a small navy of armed vessels, and embedded chevaux-de-frise - long iron-tipped poles - in the Delaware to pierce the bottoms of enemy vessels. "They blockaded the river and slowed down the British ships," Quint said. "It took [the British] about a month to get past the fort. They sent a force of 1,500 troops by land, and the fort's defenders evacuated in a hurry."
When I read and re-read this, it appears to me that the purpose of the Billingsport fortifications was not not to protect against a British crossing of the river, but against a British advance up the river. Unless the editors have another source that says different, I would say this needs tweaking.
WP: At some point in 1777, Kościuszko composed a polonaise and scored it for the harpsichord. Named for him, and with lyrics by Rajnold Suchodolski, it later became popular with Polish patriots during the November 1830 Uprising. (note 35) Source: The "Kosciuszko" polonaise was composed by Tadeusz Kosciuszko, a Polish general, the leader of the Kosciuszko Insurrection that failed to defend Poland from being partitioned, and the hero of American war of Independence. Kosciuszko composed this piece while in the U.S. around 1777 and scored it for harpsichord; the original version was published in England in "Two Polonases and A Waltz, Bristol 1797). During the November Uprising in 1830/31, the Polonaise, with added words by Rajnold Suchodolski (who died in the uprising), became popular among Polish patriots.
Looks fine, though I would change "At some point in" to "At some point around" or just "around" (even though that takes the text closer to the original) since we don't want to suggest the source was being more accurate than was the case.
WP: Jefferson was concerned that the U.S. and France were verging on the brink of war after the XYZ Affair and asked him to act as an informal envoy. Kościuszko later wrote, "Jefferson considered that I would be the most effective intermediary in bringing an accord with France, so I accepted the mission even if without any official authorization." (note 97) Source: Jefferson, fearing that the tensions resulting from the XYZ Affair might lead to war, treated Kosciuszko as an informal envoy from the United States to France. Kosciuszko later wrote: "Jefferson considered that I would be the most effective intermediary in bringing an accord with France, so I accepted the mission even if without any official authorization."
Paraphrasing sufficient, but I am concerned that there is a substantive difference between being "asked" and being "treated as" something. Also, citation should include page number (p. 92).
WP: One of the first examples of a historical novel,Thaddeus of Warsaw was written in his honor by the Scottish author Jane Porter; it proved very popular, particularly in the United States, and went through over eighty editions in the 19th century. (note 122)
Source (one of two cites) confirms that there were over eighty editions in the 19th century; other source I'm assuming covers the claim of it being one of the first examples of a historical novel.
An editor needs to go through the footnotes and render consistency in treatment of the dates (compare, eg. 29, 35, and 125 for three different approaches). hamiltonstone (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP: With some 5,300 men, he defeated 25,000 Russians led by General Michail Kachovski.[71] Despite the tactical victory, Kościuszko had to retreat from Dubienka, as the Russians crossed the nearby Austrian border and began flanking his positions. (note 71)
Source supports this and there is no close paraphrasing problem (the text is too long to quote here).
Question : If the source supports this and there's no paraphrasing problem then what needs to be attended to? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i should have explained. This is a list of spotchecks for the delegates to see. As such, i included ones where the check came back clear - so no, nothing needs doing. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP: Prince Józef Poniatowski, who happened to be the King's nephew, recognized Kościuszko's superior experience and made him his second-in-command (note 61)
Source supports this and there is no close paraphrasing problem, though it may be worth noting that Poniatowski didn't just make him second in command - Poniatowski also then went away, leaving K in charge (the source says).hamiltonstone (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are still some problems in the notes / bibliography. There are cases where there is a source that looks to be of a type that should be being cited Harvard-style, then listed in the bibliography. I think this applies to footnotes 33, 35, 72, 97, 110, 122. There are still dates not in consistent format (notes 117, 121, 122, 124) hamiltonstone (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A fairly random approach has been taken to the final period in Harvard-type refs. Notes in which it is missing include 1, 14, 26, 27, 49, 78 etc etc etc
Inconsistent approach to page range format in note 87 - better check the others too.hamiltonstone (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's more: take a consistent approach to the order of first name and last name in those cites that you are not going to convert to Harvard footnotes (compare 109 and 121, for example). hamiltonstone (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And there appears to be inconsistency with how the number of pages in an item is expressed in the "further reading" section. Also, the article only tells us the total number of pages in some books and not others. Why? hamiltonstone (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Often times the 'number of pages' are not provided as they usually are in google book listings. Several of the books listed in Further reading appear in other sites that don't provide this info. If anyone is in possession of the sources in question in hard text form perhaps they can provide the page numbers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know that I see no point to having # of pages in a book, but MOS only demands consistency one way or another. If you cannot locate page count for some then you'll need either delete them or delete page count from all books.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Page numbers are used in Google, Amazon, Archive.org, etc, and give one an idea of how extensive a publication is. I find that useful when deciding which sources to look into first when writing or when I want to check on something. Page numbers are included here in the overwhelming majority of books when available, so there is consistency on that note. Not all books have ISBN numbers listed, but we don't need to strip ISBN numbers from all the books that do for the sake of consistency, which in this case is a superficial inconsistency, imo. If there is a consensus to remove page numbers from all the book listings I'll be happy to do so. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 90 - the Harvard ref uses an ampersand for two authors, yet in note 17 no ampersand appears. Any reason? Or is this some mysterious glitch of a script?
Footnote 128: Barnes and Noble are not the authors! hamiltonstone (talk) 13:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed wording from "...crossing the Delaware" to more definitive wording altogether, mentioning Philadelphia.
Re: 1777: I would leave wording to say "at some point in 1777 Kościuszko composed a polonaise". Saying 'sometime around 1777' also implies that he may have composed it in late 1776 or early 1779. Yes?
Changed wording from "...asked him to act as an informal envoy." to "...regarded him as an informal envoy."' which ties in better with Kosciuszko's following quote: "Jefferson considered that I would be the most effective intermediary..." (emphasis added) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added author's name to 'Peasant Prince'
Changed page range to consistent format to refs that needed it.
Changed ref fields in 'cite book' and 'cite web' templates to consistent usage, removing '|author=' and replacing with '|first=' and '|last='; Added '|authorlink=' where appropriate; Also used '|editor-first=' and '|editor-last=' accordingly.
Mention Kosciuszko being left in command when Poniatowski was absent.
Add ampersand to ref 17 to denote two separate authors. Using a comma suggests the two names may be a last name and first name arrangement.
Added the last 'period' to refs that needed it. Also added space between 'p.' and page number where needed. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other improvements:
Fixed typo in 'cite journal' template
Moved source (Anderton, 2002) to bibliography and added '|ref=' link to corresponding reference.
Moved source (Filsk) to bibliography and added '|ref=' link to corresponding reference.
Move source (Fort Billingsport, news article) to bibliography; Add '|ref=' field to template; Add ref link to reference.
Move source (Afflerbach) to bibliography; Add '|ref=' field; Replace '|author1=' and '|author2=' with '|first1=' / '|last1=' and '|first2=' / '| last2=' fields; Added number of pages. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Citation and bibliography work Have made a number of additional improvements with citations, moving a fair number of sources from text to bibliography, with a detailed account here and in edit history to aid further spot checks.
Moved 'cite web' source (Alexander, 1968 article) to 'Other sources' in Bibliography, add ref= field; Add ref link to corresponding citation
Remove citation/source (Budka) with no year, publisher or page number -- item (Kościuszko's secret departure w/Jefferson's help) already cited with Gardner, 1943
Moved cite web listing (Thomas Jefferson Foundation: Kosciuszko) to 'Other sources' in Bibliography; Add 'ref=' field to template; Add ref link to corresponding citation
Moved source (Cizauskas, 1986) to bibliography, add ref link to citation. This source was listed in full in text, yet existed in bibliography with no linking to the citation.
Moved source (Otrębski, 1994) to bibliography, add 'ref=' field; Add ref link to citation;
Moved cite web source (Thaddeus Kosciuszko National Memorial) to 'Other sources' in Bibliography
Converted source listing (Poland's national identity essay) to 'cite web'; Move to bibliography; Add ref link to citation
Moved source (Looser, 2010) from text to bibliography; Add 'ref=' field to template; Add ref link
Moved source (Kosciuszko Gallery at buffalo.edu) from text to 'Other sources' in Bibliography; Added 'date=' field w/date
Move source (City of Detroit - web site photo) from text to 'Other sources' in Bibliography
Add historical note about Kosciuszko statue in Poland, w/citation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(note to delegate, in case it isn't obvious: I did a spotcheck and source review, which delegate had sought at the FA talk page; am not planning on reading the whole article - hence no expression of an overall view of support/oppose etc) hamiltonstone (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few copyediting comments, not a complete review. (Note that I'm just copying text without links.) This is my imperfect understanding of what reviewers are looking for at FAC. - Dank (push to talk)
Kościuszko is the subject of the first 11 sentences of the article. Some variation in sentence structure would improve readability.
"He was a close friend and admirer of Thomas Jefferson, with whom he shared": (Handling several things at once here:) Thomas Jefferson was his close friend and shared his
"On learning in France about the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War, in 1776 Kościuszko moved to North America, where he took part in the fighting as a colonel in the Continental Army.": Some redundancy here. You just told us that he was in France, and if he was fighting, we can assume that he heard about the war, so: "In 1776 Kościuszko moved to North America, where he took part in the American Revolutionary War as a colonel in the Continental Army."
"An accomplished military architect, he also built state-of-the-art fortifications": You may have meant "also" as "in addition to the above", but many readers will take it as "in addition to being a military architect". Also, I'm not sure exactly what a "military architect" does ... military architecture redirects to military engineering, and you might want to add that link if that's what you're saying.
"he also built": According to our article, he "oversaw the construction", which is less likely to be misinterpreted.
"Brigadier General": lowercase
"Two years after the Polish–Russian War of 1792 ... in March 1794": Personally, I'd delete "in March 1794".
I got down to the end of the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Kosciuszko biography so it seems appropriate that he would be the subject in the first 'eleven' sentences, in the lede especially.
Can you find another FA that has the same subject in the first 11 sentences? Does anyone know of one? I don't believe I've seen that before, in several thousand FAs I've worked on. - Dank (push to talk)
Can you single out a sentence in the lede that doesn't belong? Is this some sort of policy? How does someone add a sentence to the lede that doesn't involve the subject of the biography somehow?? Could you link to a FA biography where a sentence in the lede doesn't relate to the person in the biography? Shouldn't we be judging the prose -- not a given number of sentences that relate to the subject? This is getting a little fuzzy. A good number of reviewers have reviewed and/or approved this article -- never have I heard this one. Again, unless the wording is the pitts, far afield from the subject, factually in error, etc, I would advise we stick to concrete issues that revolve around policy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was just told by another reviewer that Brigadier General should be capitalized.
Do you mean where they said "brigadier general Arthur St. Clair" should be capitalized? Capitalize when it's in front of the noun (and just in a few other cases). This is the advice given by every place I know to look, including our Manual of Style.
When it comes to preferences for wording we can easily come up with several opinions for the same passage so I would advise not to pick at things unless they are recklessly worded and/or factually in error. Otherwise this review might go on for yet another two months. I can see a couple of things you pointed out that might do well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll have a look after you've made changes. Does anyone else see any problem I pointed out above that generally isn't considered a problem at FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 22:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that not much was changed. I'll leave this for someone else, I'm busy. - Dank (push to talk) 10:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this is still stuck. I can offer this compromise: I made a couple of minimal changes to the lead; you can forget my other suggestions if you like. If someone will read through one more time and fix the obvious prose problems ("a French military academies", "the reduced Poland and Lithuania states"), then I'll volunteer to go through the rest of the article, making or suggesting minimal changes that, in my imperfect understanding of FAC standards, will allow me to support. Otherwise, I'll oppose. - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone? - Dank (push to talk) 12:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC) (Piotr just thanked me for this edit, so there's at least some interest, I'll be patient.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the specific problems I pointed out have been fixed, and I won't oppose. Other problems remain, such as "his family were" (not okay in AmEng). Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I've made a few tweaks to address some of things Dan is talking about; I'm not sure if my changes have fixed everything, but I am wary of changing too much as US English isn't what I'm used to and I didn't want to change the voice of the narrative too much. Anyway, I hope it helps in some regard; please feel free to revert if my changes are not to your liking. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After a lot of tweaks, improvements and a few minor fixes over the last week or so I believe the article is good to go. If there are any final issues anyone can find, regarding policy, factuality, redundancy, etc I'm sure the contributing editors here will be more than willing to oblige and make any improvements or fixes. Aside from all the tweaks and bibliography/citation work, the article looks stable. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hope so, but it's FAC. I am not holding my breath... the nom will be failed because it was under review too long or on some other pointless technicality. I hope I am wrong, though. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. In the bibliography, what are "other sources"? How do they differ from sources that aren't "other sources"? Perhaps you should categorize sources as, for example, books, journals / articles, websites, etc.
4. Here's an error "following Gates' disastrous defeat at Camden on August 16, 1780 the Continental Congress had selected Washington's choice".
By what source are you making such an assertion? -- GW
4. Lots of sentences start with .......... On such and such a date. Many of these sentences could be re-written to break up the monotony and make things more interesting / professional.
We've already addressed differences of opinion when it comes to wording preference. Such sentences exist far apart and don't come off repetitive. Again, unless a passage is clearly written poorly, is factually in error, redundant or somehow violates policy we should leave well enough alone as it's easy to come up with several opinions for the wording of any given sentence. -- GW
5. Shouldn't "further reading" have its own section and not be part of the bibliography?
No. They are sources and as such listing them in a subsection to the bibliography is appropriate. -- GW
6 Some books appear to be missing ISBNs. Example: Gardner, Monica Mary (2009). Kościuszko: a biography. G. Allen & Unwin Singora (talk) 05:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been discussed. Many books, usually older publications, don't have ISBN numbers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why are only some English-language book titles in title case?
Please be specific.
You've got eyes and can identify these objective issues yourself. I'm not going to spend a half-hour or so enumerating them for you, that's the task of you and your co-nom. These aren't vague matters of opinion like most prose issues, but are easily identified if you spend the necessary time going through the bibliography, etc. yourself with a fine toothed-comb. It's tedious, but I don't think that I've ever gotten a clean pass on this sort of stuff on my own FACs. There's always one comma or something that gets overlooked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but help would be nice. This is a large bibliography made with several different type of templates and several sources written in Polish.
Understood, but I don't really enjoy doing it for my own articles and am disinclined to to do with sources in languages I hardly have a clue in.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And why do only some have publisher locations?
Not all publications provide locations. If you know of any that do and are not included it would help everyone if you were more specific.
'Encyclopaedia Britannica Company' now capitalized.
I know that you like to add page count for books, but do you really expect me to believe that the 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica only has 914 pages? Or are you referencing p. 914 specifically? If so, why? Exact page refs should be in the references, not the bibliography.
I don't expect you to believe anything, and kindly adapt a more civil tone. Obviously whoever entered this was referring to page 914, as is clearly indicated in 'ref #27' which refers to this source.
You've now removed the page # from the bibliography, which is good, but failed to fix any of the other problems with that entry. And what about this? Под ред, С. Каўн (2006). Вялікае княства літоўскае: гісторыя вывучэння. Мінск : Медисонт. p. 544. Is this a single-page article or a ref to one page in the article? If the former, why isn't page spelled out? If the latter, why is it in the bibliography?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is written in Polish and as far as I can tell it doesn't provide number of pages. I've asked Piotrus for help on the Polish language sources / web sites. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Same for Afferbach, although you make no reference to it. So why is it listed?
The correct spelling is Afflerbach, and it is referenced (ref 33).
My mistake. But you are lacking a page count for it, as well as for a few other books.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of more.
Fix the italicization in Herbst.
Unless I missed it, I found none.
Really? Then why is the page count italicized? This is the exact sort of thing that I am talking about. You've seen these so often that you aren't actually looking at them any more.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You said "Fix the italicization in Herbst", not the page number in the Herbst listing, and besides, the 'work=' field in the 'cite encyclopedia' template italicizes everything in it which is why it wasn't apparent in the markup. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But why just this one? Your other cites must have the page count in a slightly different place.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sturmvogel, this particular source is a tough cookie. I can't find the online source -- no Google, Amazon, so we can't list the publisher where the number of pages follows. Again, this is a 'cite encyclopedia' template so it's format comes off a bit differently. As such I'm hoping allowances can be made for this one source. Will inquire further with the editor who added and used this source extensively (i.e.see ref# 105). -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added missing location (well, I chose one of three possibles from Worldcat, this parameter is junk anyway, particularly regarding usefulness - who cares?), added the more important publisher. See Worldcat for info on this: [22]. If you need help with any other Polish sources, let me know. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not important to the academic value of the article, esp in terms of historical content, for sure, but we may as well strive for as much consistency as possible if we're going to shoot for FA. Anyways -- thanks!! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is entirely the point. You chose to include pub location for some, for whatever reasons, now follow through with everything else.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's the organizing principle between the bibliography and other sources? I see articles listed in both places although the books seem to be mostly in the former.
This will be the second time I've spoken on that. website sources are listed under 'Other sources'.
Maybe not all of them. "100 ВЕЛИКИХ АРИСТОКРАТОВ - Костюшко Тадеуш Андрей Бонавентура – всемирная история" [Kościuszko, Tadeusz Andrzej Bonawentura – 100 Great Aristocrats – World History] (in Belarusian). History.vn.ua. Retrieved November 17, 2012. This looks web-based, rather than a book, but it's the first entry in the bibliography.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to 'Other sources'.
Articles in the bibliography should include the page range of the article.
Many are one or two page articles. Do you know of one that needs a page range specification specifically, or are you just trying to help?
Why are some dates of access in M-D-Y and others in Y-M-D?
Why didn't you simply say there are some date format inconsistencies rather than suggest they were added this way intentionally, which is sort of ridiculous if you were to stop and think about it.
I have no idea why there are date inconsistencies, although carelessness is the most likely explanation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then obviously you do have an idea.
Please provide the full publication information for both Niemcewicz books. And there's really no reason to author link him twice.
Of course there's "no reason", these are obviously oversights. I also converted the first Niemcewicz listing to 'cite book' format.
That's the exactly the problem; there are too many oversights here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these entries I did not write, so checking on locations, number of pages, etc, etc, for all of them is an above average difficult and time consuming job. Things would go more smoothly if you'd lighten up a bit and not ride my case for things you've done yourself here.
You also need to standardize where you're putting your page counts. And fix typos when spelling pages.
Number of pages follow publisher's names, when available.
Looks like you've fixed the one example that I spotted earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please be sure that every source in the bibliography and other sources is actually referenced with those that aren't moved to further reading or deleted.
I'll check again.
You may well believe that these are nitpicks for the sake of nitpicking, but your bibliography doesn't meet the standards of an undergraduate term paper and that needs to be fixed. I've had whole classes devoted to the proper formatting of the thing as there's a prescribed place for every single comma and period. And woe betide you if you mess it up or add something outside the prescribed formatting like your page counts.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right... I don't mind someone pointing out what needs to be fixed as I've been doing all along, but your haughty tone sounded like you could use a rest. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography work
This Bibliography is something of a bottomless pit it seems. In an effort to secure as many locations, page numbers, etc as possible I've been looking into other domains for sources, like Amazon, or Open Library, when Google isn't any help. When there is a 'preview' available I'll look inside the first few pages to see if I can get this sort of information there, as I did in a couple of instances. As far as I can tell (I would love to say absolutely that) all the locations that are available have been included. In the Other sources section where on line essays are listed almost all of these are one or two pages in length. I just added number of pages to an NPS essay that was 58 pages in length however. In any case, I think we can say this is the most tweaked Bibliography in all of history, so it seems. I'm hoping that the effort to get these last few tweaks finalized isn't anything that is going to torpedo the nomination. Much thanks to all those who have helped. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps now you're starting to understand why I prefer to limit the sources I use when writing articles. It makes vetting the bibliography for all of these sorts of niggles far easier. Imagine the fun you'll have if you decide to bring Monitor to FAC!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, almost all the sources were added by other editors, and since sources for Kosciuszko are not exactly easy to come by, it took a good number of them to cover his biography well -- however, your point is painfully well taken. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your Bibliography
In the "other sources" section, you now have this:
Colimore, Edward (December 10, 2007). "Fighting to save remains of a fort". Philadelphia Inquirer, page article.
—— (December 10, 2007). "Fighting to save remains of a fort". Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on December 12, 2007.
Pesky authormask. Removed the second. GW
Why is this wrong?
How many of your refs are missing what Mr SturmVogel describes as "terminal periods"? Fix it quickly before he notices!
Fixed. I thought refs with only page and page range needed them. Thanks for checking again. GW
I see no evidence that the works in the "further reading" section (Honeyman, White, Pula, etc) are cited in the article. As such, they need to be moved out of the bibliography and given their own section.
If there is a consensus to do this I'll go along. Not an issue IMO. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional SUPPORT from SingoraSingora (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. This support is given on the basis that Mr Gwillhickers will move the "further reading" section out of the bibliography.
2. None of the works in the "further reading" section are cited in the text and therefore have no place in the bibliography.
Thanks Singora. I looked into a few Feature articles (e.g. Benjamin Harrison, Baseball) and the ones that have Further reading material have it listed in a separate section, so I am now inclined to do the same here. However, I'll wait for any further comment before I decide to make the change. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest it makes the distinction between cited and uncited sources clearer if you give Further reading its own section, after the Bibliography and before External links. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed and noticed how much confusion this seemed to be causing. I've split it out to level 2. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After Dan's recent check and Rupert's edits (I did tweak a couple of bits myself as well), plus the great deal of work put in by other reviewers and of course the nominator, I think this mammoth task may have finally reached a conclusion. One thing though, the lead says he was commissioned a major general in 1784 but the main body simply says "general". Since the subsequent text states he was promoted to lieutenant general, I assume the lead is right and the main body needs to reflect that but please check and sort out. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, I did some checking: Storozynski, 2009, is viewable via google but without page numbers so I'm hoping perhaps Piotrus or an other editor has the hard text to check on this information. In any case in Stotozynski 2009 it says Secretary of War Benjamin Lincoln wrote to Congress recommending that Kosciuszko be promoted to brigadier general, which seems appropriate in terms of climbing the ladder of promotion. i.e.Never heard of anyone becoming a major general without serving as a brigadier general first. On another page it refers to Kosciuszko as brigadier general when he departed for Europe in 1784. Several other paages refer to him, perhaps generically, as e.g. "...a battle tested general..." and "the respected General Kosciuszko..." offering no further qualifying designation. On another page, following, Kosciuszko is referred to as Lieutenant general while serving in Poland, in a different army of course. As far as I can tell, Storozynski never refers to Kosciuszko as a Major General, ever. In a timeline put out by the University of Buffalo it says he was promoted by Congress to brigadier general in 1784 and departs for Paris that same year where he soon returns to Poland and is Commissioned as major general in the Polish Army in 1789. To my disappointment the Kosciuszko Uprising article never makes mention of any promotion. In fact that article doesn't ever refer to Kosciuszko as general, but that's a different article, and evidently it needs some work. I went ahead a clarified in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth section that Kosciuszko was made a Major General in 1789, reflecting what the lede states. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I meant major general in 1789 not 1784. Anyway, the discrepancy has been dealt with so I'll be promoting this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:36, 25 May 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) 00:37, 25 May 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 first unit formed by the Royal Australian Air Force in 1921, No. 1 Flying Training School (FTS) went through some dizzying changes of name and role during its 70-year history. For 20 years it was, despite the numbering, the RAAF's only flying school, before becoming just one of many intermediate/advanced (or "service") training schools during World War II. Afterwards it was again the only FTS, until the pressures of the Cold War led to it splitting into three and becoming responsible for advanced (or "applied") training only. By the 1970s it was one of two RAAF flying schools and its role had changed again, this time to basic training. Rationalisation finally saw it disbanded in 1993. The article comes to you fresh from a successful MilHist A-Class Review, which I decided to undertake after finally unearthing all the rationales for the unit's twists and turns over the years -- not to mention a decent copy of its crest. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it helps to highlight the changes of name of a unit; it's something I've applied in several other MilHist articles when it seemed appropriate. No. 1 Service Flying Training School RAAF redirects to this article. No. 1 Applied Flying Training School RAAF admittedly doesn't, but that's because it could equally redirect to No. 2 Flying Training School RAAF and I hadn't got round to making a decision on it (it's kind of a combination redirect and disambiguation page situation). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've since create a redirect for No. 1 AFTS to this article, complementing the existing redirect for No. 1 SFTS. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:1FTSCrest.jpg should explicitly identify the copyright holder
Okay, will do.
File:128863VampireT.33.jpg: how do we know that the government held copyright? Also, I realize that the CC-1.0 tag appears on the source website, but it doesn't seem to be correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we're taking it on good faith that when the government asserts the copyright status for an image of one of its elements then it knows what it's talking about...! Not that governments don't make mistakes of course, but it'd be odd for an air-to-air photo like this not to be taken by RAAF personnel. As to the tag, what was the reasoning for it not appearing to be correct? This file was subject to a deletion request a year ago and the result was to keep it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The description at the source page suggests that the copyright is expired, but the tag doesn't reflect that - instead, it suggests that the copyright holder is releasing the image to the public domain. Even if AWM were the original copyright holder, they can't release a copyright that no longer stands. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, it's late here and I'm about to hit the sack, so I welcome any suggestions...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: The file has since been moved to Commons by another editor. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leaning support, very good job, about two thirds done, will finish soon:
Lede
I would suggest less emphasis on the formation and reformation and dissolution and renaming bit, and more on what they did and how they did it.
Fair enough -- I think the lead is a good place for a succinct account of the reorgs (and, more importantly, the reasons for reorg) so I'd like to retain that, but I will see about adding a bit more on what and how at given points, e.g. the number of grads from 1SFTS during the war.
Early years
"Under this plan" as you have not specifically mentioned a plan, suggest "Under its plan"
Tweaked to something similar.
"Squadron Leader McNamara again assumed command of No. 1 FTS in October 1930" Promotion's kinda slow, even with a VC, ain't it? (no action required)
WWII
"and again to sixteen weeks two months later" Perhaps this would be an opportune time to add something like "as the need for aircrew diminished" or words to that effect.
We could, but I felt that "duration varied during the war as demand for aircrew fluctuated" effectively covered that off, plus we go into the diminishing need for aircrew in some depth in the next paragraph...
"The initial complement of 52 aircraft at No. 1 SFTS " I would suggest either a date or else strike "initial" (which I don't like because it's just a new name on an old establishment) and add "at the time of formation"
Okay.
"who went on to take charge of Station Headquarters Point Cook in October." I assume "who" is King. But why is this germane?
Pragmatism, really... I've mentioned the start and end dates of all the notable commanders in the text, rather than cite them in the infobox and clutter that up, hence the bit about King leaving his post in October; I figured then that I may as well add the new post as it was command of the base where 1SFTS was located.
"EATS graduates" while it's clear what this is to anyone who's paying attention, you haven't actually defined this acronym.
One more thing. I just checked the first volume of Hocking's bio of Whitlam to see if he passed through there and he did not. But names of famous graduates (you cite a couple) may liven things up.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1FTS was the only flying school pre-war, so almost everyone who became prominent in the post-war RAAF had been through it; I mentioned notable grads of 1SFTS because it was just one of 12 such schools at the time. As flying instruction was split between the FTS system and RAAF College in 1947-58, I will see if any notables are specifically mentioned as graduating from 1FTS during that period as well. Many tks for your review! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed everything as best I can for now, so let me know what you think. Re. my comment above, I'd like to have mentioned a sergeant pilot who graduated from the FTS system in 1952 (around the time most officers came from RAAF College) and who went on to become Chief of the Air Staff, but the sources are a little imprecise and convoluted so I think best leave it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
Off the top of my head, I don't recall any article passing FAC that had bolding in the main text as this one does. WP:MOSBOLD seems to recommend against it (which may or may not constitute a prohibition, for a FAC) unless some other article redirects to a section, the bolded term is near the top of the section, and the reader is likely to be confused why they wound up where they did without the clue provided by the bolding. - Dank (push to talk) 04:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this will set a precedent at FAC then... ;-) FWIW, it didn't cause any issues at MilHist ACR. I'm open to further discussion of course, but for now I'd stand by my response to Curly Turkey's query on the subject above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Dan, re-reading your comment (and Curly's), perhaps I've misunderstood... Is it only the bolding in the main body that concerns you, rather than in the lead? If the former, then I have no issue with losing it, my main interest was in retaining it in the lead for the reasons I've stated (rather like the way we present people known by more than one name, e.g. David Bowie). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I'll say "below the lead section" from now on rather than "in the main text". Yes, the best I can tell, WP:MOSBOLD recommends against bolding after the lead section except in specific cases that don't seem to apply here. - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, on the same page now -- unbolded in the main body... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: The article looks very detailed, and you've done well to record such a tortuous history. I'm not familiar with the subject matter, so my remarks are mainly quibbles about presentation, grammar etc. I inserted one word into the lead which I thought ought to be there.
The entire text is contained within a "History" section. If the whole article is the history of the unit, I'd be inclined to drop the History section, and raise the three subsections to level 2
I get you, but the convention with the many articles on defunct RAAF units is to have a History section following the lead. When I work on an extant unit (e.g. No. 34 Squadron RAAF) then I put a Role and equipment section, describing its current state, before History, and simply leave that out when it's not applicable.
"was effectively No. 1 FTS's first commanding officer." Why "effectively"? If he was in charge of the base, surely he was the unit's first commanding officer?
Heh, not that simple in the military I'm afraid... ;-) The commander of a base may have authority over the commander of a lodger unit, but the unit still generally has its own CO. In this case, however, I'm not sure where I got "effectively" from and can just as easily (and correctly) say that Anderson, "who was also in charge of the Point Cook base, was No. 1 FTS's first commanding officer" or some such.
"The school's initial complement of staff was twelve officers and 67 airmen." I've just been chided in my own current FAC for mixing words and numerals in the same sentence.
Mmm, and I've been chided in the past for using words rather than figures for numerals, but I prefer the former owing to the plethora of unit numbers in military articles, hence my consistency in this one of using words for numerals under 20. So if I pursue that and go with "twelve officers and sixty-seven airmen", will I be carpeted for that, I wonder...?
"Basic instruction took place on the Avro 504K, and more advanced or specialised training on the other types." Two points: first part of the sentence reads as though the school only had one Avro 504K ("on Avro 504Ks"?); also the wording "on the other types" is a bit loose, perhaps better as "on other aircraft".
That's valid militarese, the Avro (of which we'd mentioned earlier there were several) being one type of aircraft, and the other types being, well, other types, but if you think it's confusing to the layman I can bring it closer to what you suggest.
"Anderson formally took command" – "resumed command"?
I thought using the link twice in one sentence was a bit much, though I grant you duplicate piped or redirect links are generally accepted.
"again assumed" → "resumed"?
Sure.
Pedantry, but "latter pair" means the second of two pairs, not the last two of three items; suggest "the last two of these" or some such.
Never really liked the wording as it was myself, and Pedant is my middle name, so fair enough!
Final para of "Early years": Two courses a year, with apparently 12 places on each. Yet, final senetence, 96 pilots trained each year. That seems like more than two courses a year.
Well the 12 places each on two courses was in 1932, and the 96 per year was in 1938, so that is time to expand; I'll double-check the sources to see if it becomes clear whether that was due to more or larger courses (fingers crossed).
Another misuse of "latter": "...the latter two being the mainstays."
Okay.
"The RAAF's first post-war flying training course at the school consisted of 42 students and commenced in February 1948, graduating in August the following year." The grammar here looks rocky; surely, it is the students that graduate, not the course?
Another sentence I wasn't really happy with, that's probably why...
Excuse my ignorance, but is the American "fulfill" the approved Aussie spelling, rather than "fulfil"?
No. 1 FTS was formed in 1921 and finally disbanded in 1993; that's 72 years, which doesn't really qualify as "almost 80 years of flying".
It's almost 80 years of flying at Point Cook, not almost 80 years of 1FTS.
Suggestion: divide the "Post-war" section, by giving the final paragraph its own heading, perhaps "Closure and aftermath", since this paragraph is not dealing with the active life of the station but with its closure and how it was replaced.
Fair suggestion, and I'd considered something like that myself -- FWIW, one reason I decided to leave it all together was that the CT4 picture was relevant to both the last and second-last paragraphs, and it seems to straddle them quite nicely as is...
I see few problems in sorting these points out. Brianboulton (talk) 22:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for looking it over, Brian -- I appreciate that, as with Wehwalt, the subject matter isn't exactly in your comfort zone! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I accept your decisions when you've gone against my suggestions, feeling you know much more about this area than I do. Happy to support now. Brianboulton (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Brian, the changes have definitely made it a better and more accessible article. Cheer, Ian Rose (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BTW Brian, if you get a chance, a source review would be most welcome... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review: No spotchecks carried out. All links are working; all formats consistent. The sources all look to be of the required standard of quality. Brianboulton (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated, Brian. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Good work, as usual, Ian. I had a look at this article when it went up for Milhist ACR and I see it has been improved since then. Only one minor thing lept out at me when I read it again:
in the infobox, should "1921–1944" and "1946–1993" be presented as "1921–44" and "1946–93" in the Active field for consistency with elsewhere in the infobox? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks very much for stopping by again, Rupert. Not only for consistency with the rest of the infobox but based on MOS recommendations I think it should indeed be "1921–44" and "1946–93". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:31, 24 May 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) 15:38, 24 May 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 is a fairly unbelievable but entirely true story of British political life in the 1960s and 1970s (The past is a foreign country. They [did] things differently there). It ended with the unlikely sight of the erstwhile leader of Britain's Liberal Party on trial at the Old Bailey for conspiracy to murder. He was acquitted, but it was no victory; the public perception was that if he hadn't planned murder, he'd got away with something else. There were few winners (beside lawyers) from this bizarre tale, but plenty of disillusionment, ruined careers and sad what-might-have beens. I hope I have been fair in providing this account, the two principal protagonists of which are both still living. Read and judge (the article, not them – they've been judged enough). Brianboulton (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gave this a thorough read and review at the peer review and am satisfied it is an excellent account of the scandal. Great job Brian.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was most grateful for your help and suggestions at the peer review, and am equally glad of your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A fine article on a sad, sad affair, admirably neutral, comprehensive, balanced and widely-sourced, and in the best of prose. I can't see how the images could be improved, and this article seems to me wholly compliant with all the FA criteria. I rather hope for a happier topic at BB's next FAC, but this one is impeccable on its subject. Tim riley talk 19:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say, Tim, that my next potential FAC is scarcely happier, as it concerns a shipwreck. I promise I'll move on to lighter things after that. Meanwhile, as always I am grateful for your comments and support. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Three very, very minor suggestions/questions (you'll be able to tell from these points that I'm a lawyer, so ignore at will if you don't think they'd help) - (a) Where did Newton's trial take place? I assume some local crown court, but I may be wrong. (b) Was the counsel who tried to steer Scott away from making the allegations Newton's counsel or prosecuting counsel (and would it be better to say "barrister" as "counsel" might be a little obscure?) (c) is it worth rewording the "Old Bailey" to say "at the Central Criminal Court in London, popularly known as the Old Bailey", for the benefit of those not immediately familiar with it? Otherwise, an excellent article, as expected. Feel free to revert my minor typography alterations if I've gone against MOS or the views at peer review. BencherliteTalk 20:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these suggestions – I have clarified as appropriate, although I've said "lawyers" rather than "barristers", as a term which everyone understands. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support reviewed at the PR, concerns satisfactorily addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and support. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This article is about as tight as they come. I looked it over twice, but all I could find were personal preference issues that do not amount to actionable objections. The only thing that occurred to me was that I wondered if this case had any lasting impact on civil liberties in the UK. I.e., was it cited in case law during the same-sex prohibition era, or did it have any influence in that prohibition's eventual repeal? Regardless, this is an excellent article that easily meets the FAC criteria. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 20:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the time the case came to trial, the same-sex prohibition era had long since ended; Thorpe was tried for conspiracy, not for his sexual activities. And, of course, he denies to this day any homosexual activity with Scott. Notwithstanding the Sexual Offences Act 1967, public attitudes were slow to change, and politicians continued to be wary about their sexuality for many years. The first gay MP to come out was, I think, Labour's Chris Smith in 1984, and the first Conservative, Alan Duncan, didn't come out until 2002. It is likely that revelations of past gay experiences scuppered Michael Portillo's chances of becoming Conservative leader in 2001. I've no doubt that in 2014, Thorpe could have carried off his relationship with Scott with panache, but – well, see the L.P. Hartley quote in the nom statement. Thanks for your kind words and support. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(I thought it was one of your sources that beat Smith to it: Matthew Parris? Not that it matters one jot here!) - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling that Parris didn't come out until he had stopped being an MP, but I could be wrong. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Another satisfied peer reviewer. I think it easily meets the FA criteria and is another excellent read. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you too for your help. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and image review I participated in the peer review and find the article satisfies all the FA requirements. I have also looked at the images. Three images are free (from Geograph Britain and Ireland), and the fourth is fair use (four out of seven participants in the PR commented on the fair use image, and all agreed it met the fair use criteria). Ruhrfisch><>°° 01:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you particularly for your help and advice over image issues, and for your welcome support here. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was happy at PR, and a further read through shows a general strengthening here and there too. I have just one further comment to make from the PR: in Shooting you refer to a "hitman". The OED suggests this should be hyphenated. (Mind you, they say the same thing about evenhandedness—or even-handedness, as they have it—so whether you want to change this in the Committal and trial section is up to you). – SchroCat (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On "hit man", I'm inclined to think that this should two words, no hyphen, and "even-handedness" definitely require a hyphen. I've made these two adjustments. Thank you for your review and other assistance, always much valued, and for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments from Hamiltonstone. This is a well crafted piece about a significant event in British politics. There are some issues though.
The first thing we are introduced to is English law regarding homosexuality, and this is indeed critical context for this piece. The para concludes "Thus when Jeremy Thorpe was first elected to Parliament in October 1959, he knew that indiscreet behaviour or friendships could quickly compromise or end his political career". This sentence troubles me. We are yet to be introduced to Thorpe (that happens in the next section), yet we are already part way through his life in this sentence. But the biggest issue is that it is both euphemistic and presumptious. It is euphemistic when it refers to "indiscreet behaviour or friendships". This is an unfortunate code. Britain was full of indiscreet people - men, mainly, having sex with other men's wives or their personal private secretaries, and MI5 didn't mind in the least (unless, of course, the woman was Christine Keeler). The article doesn't mean "indiscrete". It means homosexual. It is presumptious because, without having introduced us to Thorpe or any confirmed male partner, it suggests he is homosexual (or bisexual) - it does this by, while not stating it explicitly, making it the very first information we are given about what Thorpe had to keep the risks in mind - and why would he have to keep the risks in mind unless, as it were, he had it in mind? I have just read the rather brief Wikipedia bio on Thorpe. I have no idea as to its veracity, but it says he married twice, had a child, and has never made public statements about his sexual orientation. Hardly the sort of material upon which to be presuming there is any factual basis for considering him to be homosexual - rather, we should ensure the article stays focussed on the issue of how allegations, in the context of the law of the time, could be harmful. The final sentence in this background section runs the risk of fuelling the "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" culture that was so destructive then, and can still be so now. I sugest re-crafting the final sentence to avoid any mention of Thorpe, but summarise the climate of fear regarding secual orientation that characterised the period. Alternatively (though I'm not convinced it's the best solution), change it say that "...he knew that allegations of homosexual behaviour..."
I agree with you. I have revised the sentence to remove the reference to Thorpe; it now reads: "Thus, anyone entering politics at that time knew that revelations of homosexual behaviour would likely bring such a career to a swift end". Originally, this subsection was placed in the article after the question of Thorpe's possible homosexual leanings had been raised, but I think the present arrangement, with the amendd text, is the better one.
That is much better. Do you think that "revelations of" might be a bit tabloidish? Also, my understanding is that one of the biggest problems with the law of that time is that unfounded allegations, often in a blackmail context, were as much of an issue as any actual homosexual acts. In those circumstances, i wonder if it might better read "anyone entering politics at that time knew that claims of homosexual behaviour would likely bring such a career to a swift end"? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tinkered with this. I see that earlier in the paragraph I wrote: "The careers of public figures could be wrecked by any hint of homosexuality." On reflection, this seems a bit excessive – quite a few politicians, including the notorious Tom Driberg, survived "hints" of homosexuality because nothing was ever "revealed" to the public. So I've altered that sentence to read: "Political figures were particularly vulnerable to exposure". In the later sentence I think "revelations" has to stay, because it was "revelations" of homosexual activity, rather than "claims", that brought careers to an end (I have altered "behaviour" to "activity"). Brianboulton (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The writer and sometime MP Matthew Parris describes Thorpe as one of the most dashing of "the debilitated 1959 intake"" - I wasn't sure who was debilitated. The Commons, by a poor crop of MPs? The LibDems, by a poor showing in the poll? It was just a little too obscure for the lay reader.
Parris's term "the debilitated 1959 intake" refers to the new MPs who entered parliament with Thorpe in that year. Why he considered them "debilitated" (weak and infirm) he doesn't say. I've got rid of "debilitated", and just left it that he considered Thorpe one of the more dashing of the 1959 intake.
"In his hurry to depart he left his suitcase behind, which contained letters and other documents that supported his claims to a sexual relationship with Thorpe." Can I get clarification - do the reliable sources tell us that this is the same briefcase that turned up some years later in the UK? Related to that: do the sources substantiate the expression "...that supported his claims to a sexual relationship with Thorpe" or should that read "that he [meaning Josiffe/Scott] said would support his claims to a sexual relationship with Thorpe"? I'm just not sure whether the current wording is right - it is saying that, as a matter of fact, those particular letters do support the claim, and I had trouble working out whether those letters were amongst those later found, and did indeed support the claim... hamiltonstone (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are two briefcases in the story. (1) Scott's briefcase which he left behind in Switzerland in 1964, which contained documents that he believed supported his allegations against Thorpe. This briefcase was recovered by Bessell and given back to Scott in April 1965, though minus some of the supposedly incriminating documents; (2) an old briefcase of Bessell's, hidden for years in a London office, which came to light in November 1974. I've slightly altered the wording in regard to the first briefcase; "that supported his claims" has become "that, he believed, supported his claims".
Thank you for raising these points. I hope these clarifications help. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally an excellent piece. I think that's it from me. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Had my say at PR, I have no qualms whatsoever in supporting—really excellent work as always Brian. —Cliftonian(talk) 10:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Political Science Resources takes its UK election results from The Times Guides and Whittaker's Almanac which are ultra-reliable. However, I don't have access to the appropriate volumes of these, so I'm unable to check that the data presented in the website is accurate. In the circumstances, I have replaced the PSR refs (and made appropriate prose tweaks).
FN18: missing publication title
Done
Compare FNs 13 and 45
Made consistent
FN159: formatting should match other book sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not actually a source (never published in the UK as far as I know). But I have brought the format into line with the sourced books.
Many thanks for this sources review. Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 21 May 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) 15:24, 24 May 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 the most decorated American combat soldiers of World War II. He also had a successful career as a film actor. This article has passed GA review, and also A-Class review at WP Military history. It has been further polished in the ensuing months to prepare it for FAC. — Maile (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On the basis of a swift glance this looks an interesting, comprehensive and well written article. Sadly, Murphy's profile in the UK, at least to my generation, is virtually non-existent, and I am at a loss to understand why so interesting a man is so little known here. I hope to give the article more solid review attention, but meanwhile here is a handful of minor points/observations:
I am always uneasy to see a paragraph that ends without a citation (see Southern and southeastern France). In this case the solution is simple – flip the sentence: "Along with the other individual soldiers who took part in the action he received the Presidential Unit Citation[51]."
As myself the son of an army man, I'm astonished that Murphy, even in wartime, could achieve the rank of Staff Sergeant at the age of 18-and-a-bit. These accelerated promotions seem extraordinary; was Murphy's case in any way typical?
I don't know what was typical for the US Army in WWII. In some cases it might have been a result of performance. But during WWII, the Army probably took a look around at who was available to shoulder a given responsibility, and slapped a promotion on them. That happened just hours preceding his Medal of Honor action at Holtzwihr (Colmar Pocket). The reason of that has been edited out as FAC prep necessitated paring down the article. What happened there, is that the other officers of his company had been killed. He was the only officer still standing, so they made him company commander. — Maile (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cutting in here. It would have been extraordinary in the Old Army, but not during World War II. When the squad size was increased from 8 to 12 in 1941, the squad leader was made a sergeant, with a corporal as second in command. The platoon sergeants then became staff sergeants. Multiplied across nearly 300 infantry regiments, this created a requirement for 25,000 sergeants. In 1943, a further increase occurred, with the platoon sergeants becoming technical sergeants, the squad leaders becoming staff sergeants and the deputy squad leaders becoming sergeants. In December 1941 one in five enlisted men was an NCO; by June 1945 nearly half were. Coupled with casualties in the front line infantry platoons that reached 90% at times, one's chance of making staff sergeant was excellent so long as you stayed alive — which Murphy would tell you was the real trick. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between the Standby Reserve and the US Army Reserve?
The Texas National Guard is a component of the U.S. Army Reserve forces. During Audie's period of service with the Guard, it went through a lot of restructuring, and change of terminology. "Standby Reserve" is merely a status within the Army/Guard. His service records show him transferring to "inactive" status in 1951, and in 1952 the Army began calling that Ready Reserve, which I believe had both "active" and "inactive" components. When he first entered the Guard, he was actively involved in training troops. Then he went to inactive due to his movie commitments, but he could have been called up at any time. When he transferred to Standby Reserve in 1966, it meant the Army/Guard took into consideration his value to the civilian community, and while he still could have been called up it was less likely to happen. Somewhat confusing, but about what terminology they used to define his status in any given time. His 1969 retirement from the U.S. Army reserve was just that - a complete retirement from military service.— Maile (talk) 13:1, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
In the British Army this was called the Reserve of Officers. They had completed their service with the colours in the regulars or the TA, and had no training obligations, but remained available for call up in the event of mobilisation. For this they were paid a small amount each month. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"His relationship with director Budd Boetticher began..." To the casual reader this wording sounds equivocal; I would qualify (e.g. "working relationship") or reword
File:Legion_Honneur_Chevalier_ribbon.svg, File:Croix_de_guerre_1939-1945_with_palm_(France)_-_ribbon_bar.png, File:BEL_Croix_de_Guerre_1944_ribbon.svg, File:Texas_Legislative_Medal_of_Honor_Ribbon.svg - what is the copyright status of the original design? Compare the licensing used for the other ribbons
Removed all ribbons from infobox due to licensing concerns above. It didn't look right if some had ribbons and some didn't, so I removed them all.— Maile (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are no copyright concerns. Medal ribbon design do not reach he threshold of originality. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case I've restored all the ribbons to the infobox. Thanks for the information.— Maile (talk) 20:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Memorial_Audie_Murphy_-_Holtzwihr.jpg: the source site given has a copyright notice on it - what evidence is there to support the given licensing tag?
Removed this entirely. This was inserted by a red link editor several weeks ago. — Maile (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Moh_army_mil.jpg as a 3D work, the licensing needs to reflect the copyright status of both the medal itself and the photo thereof.
I swapped this out with a different image from Commons. Check the one I inserted. It was the only Army one I could find that actually identifies its origin.— Maile (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I've answered your concerns.— Maile (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Sorry, I hate to oppose, but this needs quite a lot of work. I'm also astonished that this chap isn't better known on this side of the Atlantic and I'd love to see this become an FA. However:
The prose is choppy, to the point of being nigh unreadable in places. Far too many short sentences, and they all seem to start with "Murphy" or "he".
Edits have been done.— Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the grammar is sloppy, to the point that in at least one place (His first met director Budd Boetticher began when) it quite literally doesn't make sense.
See below on this specific instance. — Maile (talk) 11:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have a habit of using nouns and dates as adjectives, which makes the article difficult to read; I've tweaked a few of these using several different methods for variety, so you might want to look through my edits.
Edits have been done by another editor.— Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)p[reply]
The chronology is confusing
I completely disagree with the chronology as "confusing". It's pretty much like it was after the A-class review from WP Military History. And they were very picky that it needed to have a chron flow. It does, and flows in chronological order. Dates are mentioned where relevant. The only place the chron differs is in the "Film career" section, which seems to be what you don't care for. Again, I refer you to the talk page for part of that answer. The film career section generally follows a chron order. But in his case, it was often more important and more interesting to the reader to group films with people he worked with repeatedly. Directors, producers and writers were more important to what helped make his film career than a dull "...he made such-and-such film....then the next year he made so-and-so film...then the next year..." Personally, I think it's more confusing to flip back and forth looking for, as an example, what films he made with Jesse Hibbs. As for Wanda Hendrix, she didn't figure into his film career until the Alan Ladd movie. That was the place to explain who she was to the reader. It has a good flow, IMO. Just not so cut-and-dried that it reads like a list.— Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
quite often there's no date given for a particular event and the reader is left scratching their head
You might want to give examples. Dates are where they need to be. If you think something has been left out, please cite them here.— Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You introduce significant facts out of order, eg Wanda Hendrix, whom he had been dating since (in a paragraph about 1948), Wanda Hendrix, who by that time had become his wife
See my answer above in the chronology.— Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article tends towards praising Murphy in parts. His achievements are doubtless heroic, but let the reader come to that conclusion themselves. For example, watch words like "just" and "only".
Your examples puzzle me. What are you seeing? I don't see that either you or any other editor has removed "just" or "only".
A Search comes up with "just" in one place: "a large granite marker was erected just off the Appalachian Trail"
A Search comes up with "only" here: "stopped only after he ran out of ammunition"; "The only film Murphy made in 1952"; and in reference to his poems "Only two others survived"
I don't see how "just" or "only" is used in the article to praise Murphy.— Maile (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article suffers from over-compression in some parts and under-compression in others; for example, a great deal is made of campaign medals that were awarded to hundreds of thousands of men, whereas details on the actions which earnt him gallantry awards are relatively sparse.
Well, there used to be more. But what happened to that can be found on the article's talk page.— Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since you posted this there have been some recent edits from an FA-level editor. — Maile (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A minor issue, but I think you could consolidate some of the sections and reduce the number of headings.
I see you have already reduced the headings. Your edit that changed the heading "Military service" to "World War II service" is an improvement. — Maile (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some more specific commentary:
Murphy dropped out of school in fifth grade and got a job picking cotton for $1 a day to help support the family and became skilled with a rifle, hunting small game to help feed them. Bit of a run-on sentence with the to "and"s
It's never been said, as far as anything I can find.— Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC) Cause of death has now been inserted into the article.— Maile (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
he and two other soldiers were ambushed by German machine-gun fire, one of them fatally Can one be "fatally ambushed"?
Well, one of them died in the ambush, so for him it was fatal. The others lived, so it wasn't a fatal ambush for them. — Maile (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded by recent editing.— Maile (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Murphy was promoted to sergeant on December 13 Did he go directly from private to sergeant? None of the junior NCO ranks are mentioned above.
Actually, in the paragraph before that it says he was promoted to Corporal on July 15. And the paragraph before that one says he made Private First Class on May 7. — Maile (talk) 00:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need to include the various merit badges, such as the Marksman/Expert/Combat Infantryman badges? These aren't decorations for bravery etc, and most American infantrymen would have them. Should we focus on the more important awards?
Dicey choice to make, but I understand what you are saying. After all, the honors and awards are now a Featured List on their own. The article's history is full of edit wars over Murphy not getting recognition for every little thing. He has a hard-core base of supporters who aren't willing to give an inch. And Wikipedia is also open to their editing. One of the most heated topics among those is "most decorated" v. "one of the most decorated". Right now, things have stabilized. I think the real question is whether or not we want to eliminate mention of all but the valor awards, thereby guaranteeing the article will dissolve into an edit war.— Maile (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Murphy advanced alone [...] Along with the other individual soldiers who took part Which is it?
Perhaps you were confused because two different dates of action appear in that paragraph. And,yes, the dates are there in chronological order. The "advanced alone" part happened after they came ashore during the August 15 landing. The last two sentences of that paragraph very clearly puts a different date on what you are referring to Murphy was part of the 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry Regiment participation in the August 27–28 offensive at Montélimar that secured the area from the Germans. Along with the other soldiers who took part in the action, he received the Presidential Unit Citation.— Maile (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is "earning" the right word to use in the context of the Purple Heart? Presumably it's not intended to be a reward for getting injured (per se)
All instances of this have been changed. — Maile (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He sustained a leg wound during his stand and only after he ran out of ammunition. Only after he ran out of ammunition ... what? It feels like there was something there, but it's been removed, leaving just the fragment.
The word "stopped" was missing, and I reinserted it. For the record, before all that glut of editing back in Jan/Feb, this is what that sentence originally said:
For an hour, Murphy stood on the tank destroyer returning German fire from foot soldiers and advancing tanks, during which he sustained a leg wound. He stopped only after he ran out of ammunition. Thank you for catching this. — Maile (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point of the decorations section? We've established that he was astonishingly well decorated; shouldn't we just mention the most important ones and refer readers to the daughter article for the full list? Not least since several of these were awarded to just about every American soldier who fought in WWII and so aren't really significant, unlike the MoH and the Silver and Bronze stars.
Well, I can't explain what I didn't create. That second was set up by a different editor during the "improvements" to get it to FAC. — Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to my answer to your question of "Do we really need to include the various merit badges". I would also refer you to FA Douglas MacArthur as an example. Such a section seems in keeping with FA. — Maile (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They never cast Murphy in a movie and a personal disagreement ended the association. I've put a {{when?}} tag on that
I took care of this as soon as I saw the tag.— Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you did. My apologies.
The partnership fell into disagreement That's a strange construction. Why not just "they fell out" or similar
I think we might be looking at this as British language usage v. American. Partnerships that "fall into disagreement" is OK as far as I'm concerned. And if you do a search on Wikipedia for articles that contain the phrase "fell into disagreement" you will see a lot of instances of its use. — Maile (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC) This sentence in the article has been edited differently by another editor, and I'm OK with the editing on it.— Maile (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 1950s ended with Murphy doing three westerns. That's a really horrible construction. There are lots of different ways you can say what you're trying to say, almost any of which are preferable.
Reworded with recent editing. — Maile (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His first met director Budd Boetticher began when Murphy requested to be his boxing partner at Terry Hunt's Athletic Club wtf?
This was a typo, and it's been corrected now. — Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped at the end of the "Film career" section, because there's too much to list everything here; I've done quite a bit of copy-editing as I've gone through, but it needs attention from somebody familiar with the subject and the source material. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting comments here. And not any excuses, but an explanation of some hunks of what you see. If you read the talk page on the article, you should see part of it. Several seasoned editors agreed to help out, and then didn't except for a tweak here and there. A couple started to do more, and then abandoned it. with no explanation and no response when I repeatedly tried to initiate contact. The film section literally got copied and edited down from Film career of Audie Murphy, torn up and reworked. The military section used to be more but was split off by someone else, and I tried to work with what is left. It's been quite a history of false starts on editing help. Of course, on the other hand, it's come a million miles since a year ago. The chronology and dates used to have a great flow after the WP Military History A-class review. But then...there's that talk page stuff.— Maile (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate what you have done. It's been bit disheartening to me that I've tried every avenue I can think of, both online at WP and in emails, to get editing help with his. While there has been some helpful editing, it's often been a case of getting help/advice of going one direction, and the next go-round of editing help is telling me to do a U-turn and go back the other direction. That, and it seems that the more experienced at WP tend to be touchy and disappear in the blink of the eye with no explanation. So, for what you have done here, and anything else you might do, thank you.— Maile (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In your edits you uncapped all mentions of "Bronze Oak Leaf Cluster" and "Oak Leaf Cluster". I have reverted those changes. Per pg. 18 of the United States Army Style Guide, these are specific awards that are supposed to be capitalized. Improperly uncapping awards has triggered edit wars in the article's history.— Maile (talk) 16:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have also reverted your edit of changing "the Guard" to "the guard". Per the United States Government Printing Office Manual of Style, Chapter 4, "the Guard" is correct.— Maile (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell, I think I might have confused you with a recent edit summary on this article. It was not intentional, and I didn't realize until I looked at the dab for GPO that it could have many meanings. In the United States, it is the official government acronym of the United States Government Printing Office, and I was referring to the above-mentioned manual.— Maile (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this piece has come a long way and it was through this article and its editors that I was able to dispel a long-standing myth about Audie Murphy regarding ownership in a firearms company.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. I've been working on this, and I'm down to Audie_Murphy#Decorations so far. I don't know what "24 3 January Division" means. Feedback is welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 21:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. I corrected this blooper after you posted the edit summary. It was an error caused by a script I ran on Apr 27 to convert all dates to DMY. Boy, that did look strange. — Maile (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"*"Patch presented": Who's Patch? - Dank (push to talk)
Lieutenant General A.M. Patch, the officer who decorated Murphy with the CMH.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Western" (i.e. a film, as a noun) is more often capitalized, and my guess is that you'll get less pushback if you capitalize it, but I have no objection to lowercasing as long as it's consistent (and it is ... now). - Dank (push to talk)
"It is [Arlington] cemetery's second most-visited grave site, after that of President John F. Kennedy": That might be worthy of the lead section, up to you. - Dank (push to talk)
"One of those poems, "The Crosses Grow on Anzio", appears in To Hell and Back attributed to a soldier named Kerrigan.": This information appears in two sections. Probably not necessary in both.
Support on prose per standard disclaimer, though I haven't looked specifically at your edits in response to HJ's points ... HJ, are you happy with their (and my) changes? These are my edits. I was a little fussy with my copyediting ... this guy deserves (and has) a great article. - Dank (push to talk) 14:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A thoroughly well-researched, well-written article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Some of the awards do not appear to be sourced anywhere
Added refs to the badges, the Outstanding Civilian Service Medal. The others had references, but some had a single reference at the end of the paragraph. Just to make sure, I stuck a reference next to the name of each medal. — Maile (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed number of columns in {{reflist}} is deprecated in favour of column width
Changed fix # of columns to colwidth. — Maile (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FN1: given title doesn't match that shown in the source
Be consistent in whether "Audie L. Murphy Memorial Website" is presented as author or publisher - should be the latter. Same with Texas Historical Commission, check for others
Publisher=Audie L. Murphy Memorial Website" for all now. — Maile (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No - compare for example FN7 (THC in author position) and FN 14 (THC in publisher position). These should probably both be publishers, and you should check that there are no other entities in both positions. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I fixed that. — Maile (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in when you include retrieval dates
Believe I've caught all these. — Maile (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether you include publisher for periodicals
Believe I've caught all these. — Maile (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why does Billboard include publisher when none of the other periodicals do? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Life magazine and Boys Life had the publisher also. However, if you are also considering newspapers as periodicals, then they don't. Just to be on the safe side, I removed the publisher from Billboard, Life and Boys Life. — Maile (talk) 22:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since AuthorHouse is a self-publishing company, what makes that book a high-quality reliable source?
Nikkimaria, I believe I've taken care of your list. If I missed anything or misunderstood what you were saying, please let me know. Thank you for your time, and thank you for making me a better editor. — Maile (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- I know HJ Mitchell hasn't been able to edit much of late but I'd like to give him a chance to look the article over again and see if his concerns have been addressed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's much to be gained from my continued participation here. It's possible that the article has changed dramatically since I last looked, but I don't have the time (or, frankly, the inclination) to go through it, so make of my comments what you will. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through them quickly, and it appears to me that HJ's comments have been addressed. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys. Having scanned the article myself, and taking into account that HJ's review was fairly early in the proceedings and a fair bit of editing/reviewing has occurred since then, I think we can safely promote now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I would like to personally thank everyone for their time and efforts on this. — Maile (talk) 13:52, 24 May 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) 13:54, 24 May 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 the most important streaks/records in baseball/sports history. I have addressed the concerns of the prior FAC (both during the prior FAC and after it) and taken the article through a PR.TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article has had a page move, which has fooled the tool that presents prior discussions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - one of my major concerns from the previous FAC was the "play-by-play tables". I understand what they are because I am familiar with baseball, but your typical reader may not understand what they are (e.g. there's no legend to what the abbreviations mean). Furthermore, there is no context given to explain why these tables are notable - are these particular innings significant because they were close calls or because of the people Hershiser had to face? What was the criteria used to select these innings versus others? To be honest, I think they all need to be removed. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As with anything on WP, they were included because they were what the secondary sources were talking about. During the streak, the secondary sources have discussed certain innings as being interesting for one reason or another. I am not sure if there is any one reason why they have all been discussed in the media, but these are the innnings that have been discussed. I summarized them in table format because that is what helps me understand what happened. I was thinking that by providing tables baseball fans could have an easy glance at the interesting innings, while the prose presents similar content for the non-baseball fan.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, simply detailing the innings in question in tables without any explanation is rather jarring. I think prose would be perfectly suitable way to highlight them. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems clearer to me in table form. I will take a look at making the legend idea that you mentioned for these tables before removing them. Are you fine with the other tables (box scores and the opening table)?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late comment, but the legend table seems to make for way too many tables (you've got a game-by-game table, a legend, an individual game box score, and an inning play-by-play). There is still no explanation in the article as to what the inning summary tables are, nor is there any context for their inclusion. I don't think the basic Wikipedia reader, even with a legend, will be able to understand what the tables are conveying. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, since nothing has been done to contextualize these "trouble inning play-by-play" tables for casual readers, I'm going to have to oppose.Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the legend, and as I mentioned, its addition only seems to overwhelm the article more with tables. If you want a table to be collapsed by default, you should add "collapsible collapsed" as a parameter of a table's class (next to "wikitable"). Still, the point I've been trying to make is that there is no prose in the article that explains what these tables are for or why these innings are being detailed over others. You've told me the reason here, but there's nothing in the article that explains it for casual readers. You need to account for readers having no familiarity with Orel Hershiser, the concept of consecutive scoreless innings, or baseball at all. For that reason, I don't see why the play-by-play tables are needed when prose could suffice. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 15:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of "why these innings are being detailed over others", it is because these are the innings described in the reliable sources. I'll try collapsing.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why, for the first game of the streak, the fifth inning is detailed; the streak started after that inning, so it is not even included in the streak ... GoPhightins! 19:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The three most important innnings of the streak are the inning that define its start, the inning that define its end and the inning in which the record is broken. That inning defines its start.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go Phightins! can you tell me if this is clear. Also, can you recap what the remaining issues are. You haven't struck a lot of things that I think are now resolved.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't explain why we include these types of details. Since this is the only baseball article of its type, I will refer to another sport. In 2012 Alabama Crimson Tide football team we don't explain to the reader that we detail in a scoring summary dropdown each play that resulted in a score. It is just obvious that every play that resulted in a score is worth having in an article. Here for a shutout, it is when runners are in scoring position and don't score that is interesting. There is nowhere in the prose where we need to tell the reader we are detailing all such plays, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose and notability of a scoring summary for any sports game is inherently obvious. It is a staple of the game's box score, and it summarizes the exact plays of a game you would expect there to be details for. However, the same cannot be said for an excerpt of the baseball game's play-by-play where no scoring took place. Unless you can conceive a way to contextualize the tables for casual readers, I cannot support any promotion of this article. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what you mean by contextualize the tables for the readers. The tables are contextualized by the prose because they are the same innings that we describe in the prose for each game. In an article about a shutout streak, which articles would you expect to receive extra close attention. In my mind, it would be the innings that all the secondary sources talk about. The innings that have been chosen for the tables are no more unusual than the innings that have been chosen for the prose. Why do you only want me to explain why I detail them in the tables, but feel there is no controversy about why I have detailed them in the prose? Are you asking for something like a change in the introduction that defines the article as a summary of his scoreless streak that describes how he continued the streak by averting each close call. I guess I could do that, but you don't seem to find the prose in need of contextualization. You seem to accept the prose that details the close calls, but question the tables which gives an alternate presentation of the same content. If I were to add a sentence to the lead saying that this is an article that presents the streak by detailing all high risk scoring situations would that be sufficient. I have added During the streak, he averted numerous high risk scoring situations, which are described below both in common language and official baseball play-by-play scoring language along with the three innings that defined the beginning, end and record-breaking inning of the streak. to the WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I did not closely scrutinize each table with the surrounding text enough, because I initially thought the innings being detailed in the tables had not been covered in the prose. I still think they are mostly redundant, but if you are committed to keeping them, I think it would at least benefit the article to modify the contents of the table to be more readable and less of a copy/paste job from Baseball-Reference. For example, the syntax used to describe which bases are occupied is not very obvious or commonly seen. The "result of play" column only accounts for outs or runs, when there are many other outcomes that occur. A few tweaks to these items would go a long way. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should be shooting for "obvious or commonly seen" in terms of Baseball scorekeeping language. There are ways to combine bases occupied with result of play to show how runners advance. There are also varying levels of detail to a play by play. E.g., see a game from last night. You could have pitch-by-pitch detail. There are a wide variety of levels of detail, each right in its own respect. Are there types of details that you think are instrumental that are not currently included in the level of detail being used. I am not sure what direction you want me to take the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're overcomplicating what I'm asking. The runners on base syntax doesn't need to be a needlessly obtuse --3, 12-, or -2-, it should be represented as "1st, 2nd, and/or 3rd". No casual reader with limited familiarity with baseball will have any idea what the current syntax means, even with a legend. The "result of play" column also needs to account for more than just an out or run – batters reaching base is an outcome that is completely ignored. If you don't agree with adding this to the relevant plays, then remove the column (as the play description column also covers this). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the baserunner column. I think the "result of play" column serves to eliminate confusion of play descriptions like "Ground out: P-SS/Forceout at 2B", which some readers might think means tow outs were recorded. Thus, I don't agree that it is redundant with the play description column.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would abbreviate the baserunners as either "1st/1B, 2nd/2B, or 3rd/3B" for concision. However, the "result of play" column doesn't need to be abbreviated as "O" and "R". And I must continue to stress how it is currently lacking. It should have a value for every batter (e.g. "out", "run(s)", and/or "batter reached base"). Otherwise, it doesn't serve much use in telling the reader what the result of the play was. I would also remove the pitcher column since that is always Hershiser, as well as the opposing team column (you can always indicate the opposing team in the header of the "opposing hitter" column). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 03:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the columns that you have suggested. I think what is meant by "result of play", it means what changed about the count that the home plate umpire keeps track of. I use to have a little plastic dohickey for standing behind the plate. It had three dials on it: balls, strikes and outs. If you are the home plate umpire, all you do is keep track of those three things and runs scored. I am not sure what the proper term is because pitchcount and count mean other things. There is a term for the data that the home plate umpire keeps track of. This column represents that. In addition, I think it would be OR of me to take the someone official (or at least validly sourced) information in this column and perturb it with a column of unsourced WP:OR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One last recommendation: perhaps the rows indicating the game situation can be rewritten slightly so they aren't direct copies from Baseball-Reference and thus at risk of copyright violation. For example, instead of "facing 8-9-1", I would clarify "facing 8th, 9th, and 1st positions in batting order". Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns with the tables have been addressed, so I will withdraw my opposition (I haven't reviewed everything about the article though so I can't say I full-on support). Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Y2kcrazyjoker4, I have now collapsed all the play-by-plays, which I suppose is standard for excerpted play-by-plays (such as the very common scoring summaries in football). Now, what do I do with the legend?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Innings are sometimes described in numerals (5th) and other times with words (fifth).
I notice that a slash is used to describe hits per at bats (0/9). I think a dash is the usual convention (0-for-9 or 0-9) - or even better, spelling out the situation for the non-fan (no hits in nine at bats).
September 23, 1988: A relay throw generally comes in from the outfield.
Doesn't it apply to the first leg of a 4-6-3. Look at the Sports Illustrated source that uses the term. I think if SI uses the term it is probably acceptable in this use too.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Same play: The LA Times called it controversial, but then said that the replay showed Butler swinging his arm at the fielder. It sounds like the right call was made on the double play, but the phrase "favorable umpire ruling" (in The streak section) makes it sound like he got a big and possibly undeserved break.
I have changed "favorable umpire ruling" to "what some sources describe as a favorable umpire ruling".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really, the detail on that incident might confuse the situation for a non-fan.
The detail is confusing expert sportswriters who have interpreted the situation in various ways. It is a confusing play. I don't think we can expect a simple explanation of a confusing play to experts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is detailed coverage of the Oct 4 postseason game necessary since it didn't impact the streak?
Since he pitched 8 scoreless innings in that contest sequentially with the streak, those 8 innings have a lot of significance. Many would credit him with a 67 inning streak.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison to other streaks: As the other sections extensively refer to Drysdale's streak, this separate section seems redundant.
Are you saying this section is redundant with the Drysdale content in the Background or some other section. Although there are other sections that mention the Drsysdale streak, I am not sure any are very redundant with this section.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they played for the same team is also mentioned in the lead and Background. The umpire ruling issue is also mentioned in the lead, The streak and September 23, 1988. The Howell streak is mentioned in October 4, 1988. The fractional innings issue is touched on within September 23, 1988. Just not enough unique content to warrant its own section. EricEnfermeroHOWDY! 23:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Things mentioned in both the WP:LEAD and the main body do not represent redundancy, they represent important facts. Keep in mind that the LEAD is suppose to summarize the main body. I'll take a look at rearranging though.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm clear on the above point, but the listed items all appeared in at least two sections of the body. EricEnfermeroHOWDY! 02:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath: Bowling Greeen University - Even at that time, I think it was known as Bowling Green State University.
Good job on an entry that covers an important piece of baseball history. EricEnfermeroHOWDY! 05:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A small note regarding hits per at bats: 0/9 is the usual convention I am aware of; I have never seen 0-9 used. I agree though that spelling it out would be the best approach. isaacl (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this was adequately addressed - not all of the references were formatted the same, nor do I think that citing "Baseball-Reference.com/Sports Reference LLC" as the publisher is correct (BR is the work, Sports Reference is the publisher). I've gone through and edited all of the BR references. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "Aftermath" generally has a negative connotation; is there another word that could achieve the desired meaning, such as "consequences", "ensuing coverage", "subsequent coverage", "reaction", "repercussions", etc.?GoPhightins! 02:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Subsequent issues"? I don't see how that makes sense as a section title. There are no "issues" discussed in the section - I'm going to rename it something that makes more sense. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I struggle to find relevance in the second and third paragraphs of the lead. For example:
One of the batters Hershiser faced in the 59th inning of the streak was Benito Santiago, whose record-setting hitting streak Hershiser had ended the prior season. Does that really belong in the lead? I am not sure that surpasses the threshold not to be trivia, and especially is not a vital component to the streak that warrants mention in the lead.
Since the streak was overlooked, this is a difficult call. However, few sources mention Santiago in this way, IIRC. So I have removed this.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although he completed the ninth inning in each start, the streak's final game lasted 16 innings, of which he only pitched ten. Thus, Hershiser did not match Drysdale's record of six consecutive complete game shutouts. This is a record of consecutive scoreless innings, why bring shutouts into it in the lead? OK.
IIRC, A lot of sources mention that Drysdale still has the shutout record. The LEAD is suppose to summarize the important points from the main body.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
During the streak, the Elias Sports Bureau changed its criteria for the official consecutive scoreless innings record for starting pitchers to count only complete scoreless innings, rather than include fractional innings in which one or two outs had been recorded. The obvious question is why. If you are not going to mention that in the lead (which I don't think you should, as again, it does not seem to be a vital component of the streak), I would suggest you remove that sentence from the lead, and discuss it instead in the body.
Per WP:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. (Wikipedia leads are not written in news style, and journalistic leads serve different purposes from encyclopedic leads. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies ... Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows." To me, including the Elias Sports Bureau thing without expounding upon it is a teaser.
In this case, it was not clear what the record. It would be like if McGwire was chasing the home run record and no one knew whether he had to get to 60 or 61 or do it in 162 or 154 games and then with a few weeks in the season there was finally an official statement. In order to break a record it must be defined and in this case it was defined during the streak.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but why did they change it? GoPhightins! 01:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well for a starting pitcher if he pitches an inning in which he surrenders runs it is a bad thing whether they happen with 0 1 or 2 outs it was a bad inning. If he gives up walks and hits but they don't come around until after 2 outs why is that any better than a leadoff homer? Relievers are often tasked with pitching partial innings, sometimes only 1 batter. I don't think much of an explanation of this is relevant to the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So was it a "change" or a "clarification"? GoPhightins! 01:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources say that this was always the official rule although not well known (i.e., a clarification of the actual rule vs. misperception) and others say that this was a change.
Conversely to the second and third, the first and fourth paragraphs, in my opinion, are excellent.
A few other prose comments:
You may want to spell out National League once in the main body of the article, as one could have missed its meaning in the lead. Up to you, though.
I have already changed around the abbreviations for another reviewer, so I will leave it as is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Despite an emergency appendectomy that delayed his spring training,[8] Hershiser had been NL Baseball Pitcher of the Month in April and a participant in the July 12, 1988 All-Star Game, getting outs against all three batters. Link spring training, and you should also probably explain why the appendectomy warrants a "despite" ... some non-baseball fans likely are not familiar with the importance of spring training to player development.
Looks good. Thanks for the clarification. GoPhightins! 01:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the eight starts between July 10 and August 14, Hershiser had a 3–4 win–loss record with a 4.76 earned run average (ERA),[11] raising his ERA from 2.46 to 3.06. Non-baseball readers will have no context of what a "good" ERA is ... would it be possible, perhaps, to include the average ERA of pitchers during the season, or somehow contextualize the numbers utilized in the sentence?
I don't know. But some context of average ERAs is necessary. GoPhightins! 01:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it any more necessary than saying how many home runs the average 1st baseman gets or contextualizing what is a good season for a home run hitter?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you are insinuating that there is not enough contextualization in Jim Thome, that is not at all relevant to this FAC. However, I would suggest that non-baseball fans know what a home run is, but do not have any idea what an earned run average is. Maybe you can say what the league leader's ERA was that season, or something, but blithely throwing ERA totals does not cater to those without acute understanding of baseball nuances. GoPhightins! 15:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Previously, Walter Johnson of the 1913 Washington Senators had held the record, at 55 2⁄3,[7] with two relief appearances,[15] which gave him a fractional total What record are we talking about? (OK, we both know, but it might be unclear, at this stage, to the reader). You also should probably add "innings pitched" after 55 2/3.
The streak spanned Hershiser's 29th through 35th (and final) starts of the 1988 season for the Dodgers, and the 190th through 196th games of his career. to The streak spanned Hershiser's 29th through 35th (and final) starts of the 1988 season for the Dodgers, which were the 190th through 196th games of his career.
During the streak, Hershiser lowered his ERA from 2.90 to 2.26. Forty-one of the 59 scoreless innings came on the road This seems like rather choppy succession.
Be that as it may, the comment does not make sense to a non-baseball reader unless you clarify; perhaps "traditionally pitcher-friendly Dodger Stadium" (and then cite). GoPhightins! 01:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
During the streak, according to the Chicago Tribune, Hershiser caused opposing teams to leave 30 runners on base; Drysdale, in his streak, left 35.[21] However, USA Today reported that Hershiser left 36 runners on base.[22] Why the discrepancy?
At that point in his career, Hershiser was regarded as a "right-handed sinkerball artist" although he did not throw a sinker. That's an odd quote if he did not throw a sinker. I think it warrants some explanation, replacement, or removal.
and for being a Cy Young Award for best NL pitcher contender in the local press. how about something like and for contending for the NL Cy Young Award, given to the best NL pitcher
Hershiser, however, said that he was primarily focused on his hospitalized newborn son. Whoa! Why does this come out of left field all of a sudden?
Is there any point earlier in the article where you think we should be discussing his wife's pregnancy?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not sure specifically; maybe even it warrants a small mention in the lead. GoPhightins! 01:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After Hershiser reached 49 consecutive innings because of what some sources describe as a favorable umpire ruling, the sports media compared him to Drysdale, who had a similar incident occur during his streak. What sort of favorable umpire ruling?
Despite the official ruling that only full innings of starting pitchers count toward the record, some of the press continued to refer to the record as 58 2⁄3 innings Whose official ruling?
As Hershiser's last remaining start approached,[43][44][45][46][47] the media mentioned that he needed one more complete game shutout to tie the all-time record.[48][49][50] Perhaps some WP:OVERCITE-ing? Thanks.
The beginning of the August 30 summary seems to discuss predominantly the circumstances surrounding the start, not actually on his pitching, which is the point of the article. Also, I would write it chronologically, including the fact that they won at the end, but that's up to you.
This is the beginning of the streak. I am attempting to describe the setting as the streak began, which is more than "circumstances surrounding the start". It is more like the circumstances surrounding the streak.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hershiser had been scheduled to pitch against the NL-leading New York Mets (80–54) on Sunday, September 4, but a rainout delayed his performance. As obvious as it is to you and I, a rainout might not be a prevalent concept to some, so it might be worth linking.
'Hershiser struck out Dale Murphy four times, once resorting to a rare sidearm curveball to do so, to the dismay of pitching coach Ron Perranoski, who worried about injuries caused by sidearm pitching.' Um, had he used the sidearm curveball, or for that matter, any sidearm pitching in the past? This sort of comes out of left field ...
Orel is not a sidearm pitcher. Look at the picture we have of him. It is implicit that this is a rare pitching motion for him. I don't know what his experience with the motion is.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just throwing it out there that he used a sidearm pitch while only insinuating that it was rare is somewhat odd. GoPhightins! 01:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, how many sidearm pitchers are there in the major leagues. It is odd to see a sidearm pitch in MLB. What is intended is to show that it was considered dangerous not rare. That is what the current text should convey.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Orel and wife Jamie, scheduled induced labor for the following day, an off day for Hershiser. You mentioned that the son was hospitalized earlier, so this seems a little ... bizarre that he hasn't been born as of one of the later starts of the streak. I would suggest removing the first reference to the son, or somehow explaining the chronology in the context of the streak.
Also, it seems that the deal with his son seems to get mentioned, and then glossed over, particularly in the September 19 game summary; I think that a quote from Hershiser indicating how it affected him on the mound is warranted, or something to tie it to the streak.
I don't see a quote. The source says "Hershiser, the ace of the Dodger staff, can be excused if his mind was elsewhere. His wife, Jamie, is scheduled for induced labor at 6:30 this morning. She attended Wednesday night's game with several friends, all potential chauffeurs in case of an emergency."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any alternate articles or literature that might have a quote? It seems like something about which he'd have been asked. Not a hill on which I am willing to die, but would be nice. GoPhightins! 01:27, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hershiser had ended Padres catcher Benito Santiago's 34-game hitting streak the year before and the Padres were hungry to snap Hershiser's streak. "hungry" is sports nomenclature that probably should not be in a FA.
I am not sure I understand what the tables (not the linescores), but the more detailed game tables indicate, and why the specific items shown in them are shown in them. What is their role?
As I believe someone did either above or in the last FAC, I question how we define "trouble innings". As for understanding what's in them, the legend is good, but would take up a lot of vertical space. Is there a way to make it collapsible? (I don't know what that would mean from an MOS perspective; just thinking aloud) GoPhightins! 01:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In practice, these are the innings that the sources describe in the text. When a guy pitches a shutout, the recap usually discusses a couple of close calls. These are the innings that were worth mentioning in the recaps.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There were many storylines about the streak. No kidding. You can probably remove that, or start by saying Among the many storylines of the streak were ...
Drysdale said that he enjoyed rooting for Hershiser because his jersey number, 53, like Drysdale's own number, 55, indicated that Hershiser had been a long shot to make the majors. No one other than the baseball fanatic (e.g., you, me, and some other WP:BASEBALLers) is going to understand why the numbers indicate their non-likelihood to succeed at the MLB level, and frankly, I generally associate that with numbers 60+, as many of the game's top pitchers/players nowadays have numbers in the 50s ... as such, I question the relevance of this information entirely, but at the least, it needs contextualization.
I think that's much better. Thank you. GoPhightins! 01:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moving back a little, why does only the October 4 start have a game box in the prior section if he made multiple playoff starts? More accurately, why do any have game boxes if they do not count towards the record?
In many people's eyes it is wrong not to count the playoff game as part of the streak. Since he unofficially extended his streak to 67 games in a game that counts, this game is shown.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, still unsure about this, but OK. GoPhightins! 01:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A few random reference comments:
In reference #49 (this one), it is Jayson Stark, not Jason Stark.
All right. All reference concerns addressed. GoPhightins! 01:12, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am ambivalent on the inclusion of the Dodgers' navbox, but again, it's not a hill on which I am willing to die. So there are my thoughts; at this time, I am not sure the article meets WP:WIAFA criteria 1a-1b, so I will tentatively oppose, however there's nothing unfixable here. Good work! GoPhightins! 23:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess they are OK; I still worry about how useful/readable this article is to the non-baseball-nut, however will no longer oppose. Before I support, I would like some commentary from a non-baseball editor. Thanks. GoPhightins! 22:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My best hope for a non-baseball person is Figureskatingfan. She was notified earlier about this one, but now that we are in dire need of another reviewer, she may help out.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have some time tomorrow to come look at this. I was waiting for more reviews, and then I got busy--that's my story and I'm stickin' to it! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- As this has been open six weeks or so with no support for promotion, I'm very close to archiving it, but am also a bit loathe to do so when someone else is about to comment, the result of which may influence another reviewer's final opinion. Christine, if you can go through it shortly, I'll give you the time to do it. Also I note that there's been discussion on sources but no image license check that I could see, so we'll need that too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it took me a little while to get over here; as always, my excuse is busyness both here and IRL. Too many irons in the fire, as they say! I'm not sure how much more I can add, but I'll look over this article as a non-baseball fan and as requested, give my general impressions. I indeed conducted this article's PR, so as a non-fan, I appreciate the input and feedback here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: I'm not sure I like the 2nd sentence; it strikes me as self-referent, but I understand why it's there, so that readers understand that an attempt was made to make it accessible to both fans and non-fans. I'm not sure I like the phrase "common language", but I can't think of an alternative.
In the eight starts between July 10 and August 14... I had to think about what this means, which is an indication (at least to me) that it's sports-speak. Perhaps you can clarify, like this: "In the eight games between July 10 and August 14, in which he started as the pitcher..." or something to that effect.
...and for contending for the NL Cy Young Award, given to the best NL pitcher in the local press. The purpose of the award is unclear to me. By "local press" do you mean only newspapers and media outlets from the team's home town? I suggest that you add a little bit of explanation here, like who votes for it. IOW, I don't understand the distinction between local and national media. I mean, The L.A. Times is a local paper, but it's read nationally, right?
I think the propositional phrase was placed in an way that led to ambiguity and have rearranged the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reaction and outcome
...he was forced to grind two years in both Double A and Triple A baseball. I can't be sure what "grind" means here; I suggest that you re-word, please.
(lower numbers were generally assigned to better prospects in those days) Again, I have a pretty good idea what this means, but there's no way for me to verify my assumptions. Please explain.
There was a time in baseball (19th century) when uniforms were often assigned by position 1-pitcher, 2-catcher, 3-1B, 4-2B, 5-3B, 6-SS, 7-RF, 8-CF, 9-LF, with the substitutes being given 10, 11, etc. It was prestigious to have a single digit jersey number because it meant that you were expected to be a starter. I don't know much about how the traditions gradually changed but over time some higher numbers became acceptable. Still during spring training all the lower numbers are generally assigned to the players most likely to make the team. Baseball has a 25 man roster but probably invites 50+ players for tryouts. Guys who end up with higher numbers are long shots to make the team. I don't have sources for all this stuff, but I don't know what you need to see in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After seeking arbitration in January... Why did he need arbitration? If I've asked this before, or if that's self-evident, please ignore this question. Come to think of it, if you've resolved any of my comments in our previous PR, very little of which is in my working memory at this point, please ignore what I state here.
I have mixed feelings, but I think I can SUPPORT this article for FA. Tony and I got into it a little during the PR (I do remember this part) regarding the accessibility of this article to non-fans. He said that he didn't understand why sports articles had to be accessible, since many science articles aren't. I disagreed at the time, and challenged him to make it as accessible as possible. Considering it now, I think that Tony has a point. First off, non-fans like me don't tend to read articles like this anyway, and when I do, I look for enough general information to follow the gist of what happened, and I think that this article does that fine. Secondly, while it's true that I don't understand much of the sports-language here, it's also true that the FA Bacteria contains much I as a non-scientist don't understand, but there's much of it I can understand. In the literature articles that I work on and have submitted to FAC, reviewers tell me I need to be more clear about aspects that I as someone who's familiar with the topic find obvious. IOW, I'm not sure how much further this article can go in being more "accessible". I think it's clear as possible, considering the topic, and that it tells a compelling story. I'm also fine with the tables, especially with the collapsible ones; they break up the prose and serve the same purpose, I think, as images. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meh; weak support, I guess - While I still feel the article is a tad jargony, I agree with Christine's comment above, and would also assert that this article is about an inherently jargony topic - baseball ... I am not sure there is a sport whose jargon is so intrinsic, so some jargon is to be expected. However, I think the portion that remains is reasonable considering the size and topic of the article. Also, I am not sure about the play-by-play tables, particularly about the innings they reference, but one person has already opposed based on that, and it is not a hill on which I am willing to die, so I will let it go. Obviously, much hard work has gone into this article, and though I don't think it is perfect, I cannot in good conscience say that my remaining objections are related specifically to the FA criteria, and as such, I will weakly support. GoPhightins! 19:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've deliberately waited to see what others have said because, as a Brit, I know nothing about this game. I appreciate the work that has gone into the article, and Tony's probably done as much as could reasonably be done to make an inherently jargon-rich subject more accessible. Some initial comments:
which are described below both in common language and official baseball play-by-play scoring language—do you need to say this? It doesn't strike me as particularly encyclopaedic.
It was in response to a concern above. If we are going to have both in the article as the main subject, it introduces them to the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
former Dodger pitcher Don Drysdale in 1968; as a Dodgers radio announcer...—Why aren't these both Dodgers' ? Not even consistent within the same sentence either
There seems to be an issue regarding using Dodger as an adjective and Dodgers' as a possessive adjective. I don't have a good feel for the proper changes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have another read through if I get time Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strange, I can't find Manny Mota either, but I surely didn't make it up. With my own UK team, it's common to see Spurs coach Tim Sherwood instead of Spurs' coach, but it needs to be consistent, and the latter is, I think, more accurate. I'm taking the content on trust, but I can't see any other prose issues Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it but I don't have a lot of time right now so it will be spread out over several days. Here's a start:
Lede
"spanned from" Is this a proper expression?
The expression is proper as long as there is a to later in the sentence. I.e, spanned from x to y is a proper expression, I believe.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the period between 1963 and 2013 particularly relevant? I've seen baseball statistics since 1901 and since 1920.
It just spans 25 years on either side of the streak per the source. Would you like this phrased differently?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can it be done since 1901, perhaps? I'm leery of those statistics they put on the screen on ESPN that are "since 19XX" without an explanation of the relevance of the year.
You can see what the source says. There are other facts that are similar in nature that may be accessible, but this one is presented as sourced.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would move the year 1968 to after June 4, cutting the one after June 8
It might be helpful if you mentioned what the 13 runs broke down to on a per nine innings basis.
That gets into WP:OR territory because the Dodgers played a different amount of innings from 59. E.g., on September 10, 1988, they did not need their last ups.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to resolve the conflict between the Tribune and USA Today"?
The difference could be error or it could be because one is counting the entire games for the beginning and ending game. We could of course omit the whole conflict. However, even with the conflict, we have a ballpark number.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the final two paragraphs of the first paragraph should be moved to the previous section.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would separate the postseason appearance against the Mets from the table at least with some lines to remark it was a postseason appearance. If this is technically feasible
" NL-leading" NL East-leading, or are you saying they had the best record in the league (which they did, of course)
Yes best record (NL only had 2 divisions at the time. Their record was better than the Dodgers who led the West).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the four complete games" this almost repeated the opening phrase. Perhaps switch to "those games"
"With the September 14 win, the Dodgers retained a 6.5-game lead." perhaps "With Hershiser's victory on September 14, the Dodgers maintained their lead at 6.5 games, as the Astros also won."
" final career start for the Astros." I would strike "career" as it might be taken to say that Ryan retired after 1988, which he did not. It might even be useful to mention something like "before departing for the Texas Rangers"
Reading the account of what you, in The Streak described as "favorable umpire interference ruling", I don't see that the umpire interfered, Butler did.
I think you should make it clear at the start of the September 28 section that the Dodgers had clinched the NL West, rather than waiting for the second paragraph, as it (to baseball fans anyway) is important to the consideration of the other facts, such as there was no actual need to pitch Hershiser as nothing was at stake but the streak and the Cy.
"pitching coach Perranoski made a double switch before getting to the mound to talk to Hershiser." the non-baseball fan may be unclear that this removed Hershiser from the game.
You may want to clarify which of the runs scored by the Mets were Hershiser's responsibility and which were not. It's all rather muddled in with the talk of scoreless inning streaks, which in the case of this relief pitcher, I would note would be unaffected (I assume?) by allowing batters who are another pitcher's responsibility to score.
I really only think the first run, which breaks the unofficial scoreless innings streak, matters so which of the other runs are Hershiser's is extraneous detail, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"1988 NL Championship Series" some of this content, and certainly the link, should be moved to the game against the Mets. Possibly begin with Cone's comment and then tell about how Hershiser got the MVP awards.
"309 2⁄3 innings pitched including both the regular season and postseason has not been surpassed since 1988." perhaps after "postseason" add ", although not a record,"
Image review Just one image and it was confirmed in 2009 to be compliant with Creative Commons, from Flikr. Good thing, as I gather from a glance at the source page that it's changed since.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:00, 24 May 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) 13:03, 24 May 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 Sgt. Pepper by the Beatles. After an extensive peer review, I believe that its well-written, well-researched and comprehensive; the prose is neutral and engaging. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 18:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – as one of the peer reviewers I had my queries and quibbles, which were few and minor, dealt with thoroughly there. This is a first-class article; it meets the FA criteria in every way, in my view, and the nominator, and indeed Wikipedia, should be very proud of it. – Tim riley talk 18:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I banged heads with Gabe over a few trivial things, but the very fact that's all I could find does indicate a thorough job's been done on the article. It deserves FA status by its historical importance and the review has been thorough, with lots of feedback. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 19:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've found something that everyone else has missed, and so feel very smug. "Disc" or "disk"?! BencherliteTalk 20:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with Disc, not least because of the contemporary British magazine Disc and Music Echo. I've actually got one minor comment - in a footnote, Brian Wilson is described as the Beach Boys' bass player, which is technically correct up to a point (and presumably how the source in question described him), but by the time of Pet Sounds, and certainly by the time of Sgt Pepper, was more a pianist, if anything, leaving the bass to Carole Kaye in the studio, or Bruce Johnston or Al Jardine on the road. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 20:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Last "disk" (note 42) changed to "disc". On a more serious note, I wonder whether there's some overlinking in the "Personnel" section - not just repeated links, but links to common words/terms such as "alarm clock", "singing", "clapping"; I wonder whether links are needed to all those instruments as well. BencherliteTalk 20:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per resolved comments at the peer review. The article is comprehensive and well worthy of FA status. Cassiantotalk 21:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I have no concerns since all the comments I left at this article's peer review have been resolved. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support what XXSNUGGUMSXX said.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My watchlist is still showing activity at the PR. Has it been closed? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I made some book keeping comments after I closed it, so that Evan knew I had addressed his concerns. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 00:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright.
Support on prose per my comments at PR. As I said at PR, I'll let another editor do the image check here, just to allow a third/fourth voice on the FU media. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The musicologists and critics should be given full names and links (when they have them) upon first mention in the text. For example, Walter Everett in "Recording and production" needs a link, Kevin Womack in "Side one" needs a link, MacDonald needs a first name and a link (see later "Side one", where that and a description are given, and then unlink the mention in "Track listing"), Riley in "Side one" box needs a first name and a link (they are given later). There are probably others that I didn't catch. The perils of moving material around ...
I think all the musicologists with Wikipedia articles are now linked. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 17:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe worth a mention that George Martin was cut out of the arranging of "She's Leaving Home", leaving him feeling very hurt? See Lewisohn 1988 p. 103.
In "Side two", "The track ends with a burst of laughter that some listeners interpret as a mockery of Harrison's song, but he explains: ...", I know what "he" refers to, since this was my suggested addition, but I think readers may be confused, especially given the present tense. How about "The track ends with a burst of laughter that some listeners interpret as a mockery of the song, but as Harrison explained shortly after the album's release: ..."
Actually, that's a redirect to Corn Flakes. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 17:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More importantly, in "Side two", there should be mention of George Martin's splicing of the last hen cluck of "Good Morning Good Morning" directly into the opening guitar of "Sgt Pepper (Reprise)", which has been much remarked upon - see Schaffner 1977 p. 80 for instance.
In "Cover artwork", the reference to "the Fool" is really confusing just left there like that, especially with the lower case ... oh no I won't go there! I thought of the Fool on the Hill or the famous Lennon "and sometimes I play ..." quip. I suggest expanding this to "... the Fool ...".
And as I said in the peer review, WP:LINKSTYLE says to avoid links within quotations, but there are still some here. See in particular inside "provid[ing] a historical snapshot of England ...", inside "I was writing the song with the Daily Mail ...", inside "musical unity results ...". These all need to be reshaped to get the link outside the quote.
FTR, the guideline says: "Items within quotations should not generally be linked", not that they can never be linked, but these are now "fixed". GabeMc(talk|contribs) 17:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In "Charts", it would be nice to have more country listings from 1967, so that the section isn't visually dominated by less impressive reissue rankings. Isn't there a Canadian album chart from back then, for example? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm not interested in expanding the charts section, as I feel that its already excessively detailed. If you want to add any then feel free, of course, but obviously this is not at all actionable in terms of the FAC criteria, so maybe this type of stuff is better for the article's talk page. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 17:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere I think there should be mention of some of the directly imitative albums that came out in the wake of Sgt Pepper, especially The Rolling Stones' Their Satanic Majesties Request, but also The Four Seasons' The Genuine Imitation Life Gazette, The Monkees' Pisces, Aquarius, Capricorn & Jones Ltd., and others.
Are these really all direct imitations of Sgt Pepper? Aside from being released in the same year, and by the Beatles' main competitors in the 60s music scene, I don't think Satanic Majesties is specifically related, any more so than, say Axis: Bold As Love. The one that definitely is (at least via the cover) is We're Only In It For The Money. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, the Four Season's album you mentioned does not even have a Wikipedia article, and at the Monkee's example, Pepper is not mentioned. IMO, the bit about Their Satanic Majesties Request does not belong in this article, since its not notable to Sgt. Pepper, its notable to the Stones album, but Everett does mention it and Ogdens' Nut Gone Flake by the Small Faces as Sgt. Pepper "copycat LPs". Where would this point fit in the narrative? Its not really legacy and its not at all reception? We're Only In It For The Money is mentioned in note #3. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 17:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given all the mentions to how the album's songs could not be played live, I think somewhere it could be mentioned that the former Beatles have, in fact, played many of them live. John performed "Lucy" with Elton in 1974, Ringo has made "With a Little Help" the culmination of all his All Starr Band concerts, and Paul has done a bunch of them, starting with "Sgt Peppers -> jam -> Sgt Peppers reprise" being a highlight of his 1989 tour, and since then others such as "Fixing a Hole" and "Lovely Rita" and even including ones normally associated with John like "A Day in the Life" and "Mr Kite". Wasted Time R (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, Paul has turned into his own Beatles tribute band! Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 14:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, there is no need for a list of songs that the ex-Beatles (read Paul) performed live, but I think it amounts to maybe two or three ("Sgt. Pepper" and "A Day in the Life") I've never heard of live versions of "Rita", Fixing a Hole" or "Mr. Kite". What source are you using for this claim? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 17:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A google search for "mccartney fixing a hole live" threw up several videos, though I agree this is off topic for this article. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 21:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw Macca perform "For No One", in the mid-2000s I think. I was really impressed with how well he nailed the piano part, which I had always assumed Martin augmented with his own playing. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, the point that the article makes is that the Beatles could not and did not perform any of the songs live. It says nothing, IMO, that 7-20 years later ex-Beatles performed a few of them with expanded bands of more than four people. Anyway, what section would this go into if it was added? Legacy? I don't see this as important to the article about Sgt. Pepper, but this might be a nice detail for the relevant song articles. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 17:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re redirects, they are good things. Both Kellogg's and Kellogg's Corn Flakes get you to articles that have some material on Kellogg's Corn Flakes, but the latter has more. And if someone ever writes a dedicated article about Kellogg's Corn Flakes, that's the link that will be perfect. Re live performances, of the 13 tracks on Sgt Peppers, 10 have been performed live by former Beatles (1 John, 1 Ringo, 8 Paul - you can find those easily by doing YouTube searches for < mccartney live name-of-song >). The only ones that haven't are "Within You Without You", "When I'm Sixty Four" (but I bet Paul would have when he reached that age, had Linda still been alive), and "Good Morning Good Morning". I think it's significant because it goes against the reputation of the album and it shows that Paul has an interest in keeping the legacy of the album alive in a form it supposedly wouldn't be heard in, live concerts. But we've been around different aspects of this live performance point before in the peer review and you're the one running the show here. I merely suggest, you decide. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
None of the performances that you refer to are four-piece bands called the Beatles. Nowhere in the article does it suggest that the songs are somehow above live "performance" by any ensemble group on earth. I saw McCartney perform "A day in the Life"; I was maybe 10th row in a very small venue, but it was – at best – a "clever facsimile", and not at all notable to Sgt. Pepper, but that might be good material for the song article. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 00:55, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I commented at the peer review; it was then, and remains now an excellent article. I'm not brilliant on the Beatles, or on music generally, but with that qualification I think it easily meets the FA criteria. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4 At 55 kB (9032 words) it is just over what is generally considered WP:TOOBIG for Wikipedia. The longest / most detailed sections in the article are the Production section, and the two sections describing the songs. They are at the absolute limit of what we find acceptable in terms of amount of detail, and it might be debatable if they would be improved with a copy-edit. I find the information to be useful and interesting, and justified given that this is such a notable recording. SilkTork✔Tea time 00:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The page you link to gives "may need to be divided", so this certainly is not "too big". Furthermore, as you've noted already, major topics tend to need larger articles. An FA on World War II, for instance, would likely not be comprehensive enough if it was only 40k characters. This is one of the most major albums I know of, and it makes sense for this to have 50k — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I feel the article passes criteria 4, though it is appropriate to ponder if the sections I mention could be improved by making them more concise. SilkTork✔Tea time 06:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I don't think this article is too long at all. It's likely the most famous pop or rock album of all time, and merits the comprehensive treatment that has been given. Looking at User:Dr_pda/Featured_article_statistics#List_of_articles_by_proze_size, there are about 200 existing FA articles of equal or greater length, many on topics that are less well known (some are downright obscure). If anything, looking at the edit history, I think some important or useful points have been removed from the article, or moved into Notes, perhaps due to wariness about the article being considered too long. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are some WP:Captions attached to the media in the article, which are not succinct as required in criteria 3. SilkTork✔Tea time 06:29, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, for what it's worth, those longer audio captions are one of things I like best about this article. They give the reader a focused chance to explicitly read and hear about the same thing, a rarity in most writing about music. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can be useful to mention our personal likes and dislikes as regards the appropriateness of the FA criteria, as there may be a body of opinion that says that captions should be self-contained text boxes. You could raise the issue at either Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions (or both!). In the meantime I think it's worth being aware that having a succinct caption does not mean that the information gets deleted; the information should be placed in context within the main body of the article. The caption is meant to identify the media, so it can be related to the text, and also to invite the reader to engage with the text. Currently, the understanding is that captions are not meant to be an alternative to the text, but an invitation to engage with it, and thus with the article as a whole. But, as I say, there may be a body of opinion away from that which may be worth investigating. SilkTork✔Tea time 21:33, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been told more than once that some critical commentary in an ogg description field helps strengthen the FUR, but my question here is: Why is this a sticking point in an article that is otherwise an excellent candidate for FA? As I said below, WP:CAPTION refers to images only; there is no mention of ogg description fields in that guideline. I would argue that ogg descriptions are quite different animals than image captions. Images generally need less explanation than ogg files, which do not convey any visual information on their own. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 21:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wasted and I would add that the slightly more detailed than average captions go a long way towards justifying the use of the non-free files. Further, this is a style point that's not really actionable in terms of the FAC criteria, IMO. Having said that, it would be quite easy to move a couple of the caption comments to the in-line text, but I personally prefer to have critical commentary in the captions as well, which – as Wasted points out – provides a focused analysis of what is heard in the ogg files. In other words, its "six on one hand", and I don't see any issue with having an ogg box that's about the same size as an image would be, particularly when the captions are critically discussing the content of the ogg files. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 16:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, – after a bit of copyediting – there are currently a total of 9 sentences in the four ogg captions – all of which specifically pertain to what's heard in the sound sample. I don't think that this is excessive in the least. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 16:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, WP:CAPTION seems to refer only to images; it does not mention the description field of an ogg file box. It also says: "Captions can consist of a few words of description, or several sentences." Further, "Succinctness means using no superfluous or needless words. It is not the same as brevity, which means using a relatively small number of words." GabeMc(talk|contribs) 17:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The FA criteria is " It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions..."; though you are right that WP:Caption only talks about images. And, yes, WP:Caption does indicate that you don't need to be terse, though the point is also made that the caption is not intended to carry the whole story, but be an invitation into the text. Some people don't look at captions or infoboxes, preferring to concentrate on the text, so if there is important information which is ONLY in the description line / caption, then that may not be helpful to all readers. Few readers expect a caption to be everything, and if after reading the caption they turn to the text for more explanation, they may be disappointed or frustrated if there is nothing further to be found. And, if the information is in both the caption AND the main body, and is given at length in both, then there is some unnecessary redundancy. However, this is only my reading of the situation, and that is what is useful about a group approach to an audit, there are a range of views and opinions given. SilkTork✔Tea time 21:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look. I'm just working through the last of the criteria. I have a minor caption related issue below. SilkTork✔Tea time 22:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Studer J37 is mentioned in the caption to the image, but not in the article body. There appears to be some interest in the association of the Studer J37 with the Beatles, particularly with its use on Sgt Pepper, so perhaps naming it in the article body might be expected by some readers, and perhaps a minimal amount of information, such that it was a Swiss company. SilkTork✔Tea time 22:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the situation regarding File:Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite - 2012 reproduction.jpg? This is not the usual image shown. Is there a copyright concern with the original image? And, if so, how does the this "reproduction" overcome that copyright concern - or does it create new copyright issues, as it's now a recent work? SilkTork✔Tea time 22:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't an image of the original also be a recent work? Crisco 1492 told me during the PR that the file was acceptable. Maybe he can add to this discussion. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 22:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Wikipedia has made a stand on photographs of two dimensional works of art, so you're probably right that it doesn't matter. But I note that it hasn't been moved over to Commons. There is a recent author named which is at odds with the licensing which says that it's in the public domain because it was published before 1923. SilkTork✔Tea time 22:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork: Essentially, the US doesn't recognise the sweat of the brow doctrine (i.e. a new copyright from reproducing or digitizing something, no matter how slavishly); as the Wikimedia Foundation's servers are in the US, that is how we can have 1 gigapixel scans of famous works like the Mona Lisa, as well as why we don't require people scan PD photographs themselves. That this is a recent reproduction of an earlier work is (assuming it is an accurate reproduction, which is what I asked at PR) unrelated to the US copyright. Although the UK does recognise the sweat of the brow doctrine, the WMF still refuses to recognise it (see the National Gallery case), and thus UK reusers may be in a bit of a pickle. In short, though, it's free if it is an accurate reproduction. That being said, good catch with the creator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is my understanding as well, and Crisco's comment about UK copyright is exactly how the British Library see it. For the same reason, we can take old wartime government photographs that have been digitised by the National Archives and reuse them as PD on here. While I'm morally uncomfortable about waving stuff in the National Gallery's face because the letter of the law says it's probably okay, I don't think anyone would contest a circus poster from 1843. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 07:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2c - it uses footnotes in an appropriate section. SilkTork✔Tea time 22:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1c - it is well researched, using good quality sources. SilkTork✔Tea time 22:40, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the lead meets WP:Lead as a satisfying summary of the most important points, considering that many readers only read the lead. When and where the album was recorded is missing. Abbey Road is mentioned in the line: "Following the Beatles' August 1966 retirement from touring, and the ensuing three-month break from Abbey Road Studios, they endeavoured to improve upon the production quality of their prior releases", though it's not clear what this means, and it could be read as suggesting that the Beatles didn't record at Abbey Road. Recording and production is summarised as "The producer George Martin's innovative recording of the album included the liberal application of signal processing and the use of a 40-piece orchestra", which is perhaps a little too brief and not clear: why is recording a 40-piece orchestra in itself innovative, and what does "signal processing" mean, these don't appear to be explained in the article. Out of curiosity, why is it "The producer George Martin..." rather than "Producer George Martin..."? SilkTork✔Tea time 23:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) In formal BrEng its better to include the definite article lest you introduce a false title. 2) The reader will click the article signal processing if they want to better understand what it is, but to expect that it be explained here in detail is a bit much, especially in light of your complaint about the length of the very section that you are now asking me to expand. But FTR, there is a lot of detail about varispeeding, tape echo and ADT in the article, which are all types of signal processing. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 23:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That does removal potential confusion; well done. However, we still don't have the basics of when the album was recorded nor how long it took. We are told that Peppers is a concept album, but not what the concept is. The lead comes over as rather minimal, and perhaps teases more than satisfies. I do think that it is important for all articles that as much effort is put into the lead as the rest of the article; it is even more important for complex and high profile topics - this is immaterial of whatever audit process the article is going through, though it is part of the criteria at GA and FA level that the lead is appropriate. This is because many (possible the majority) of readers only read the lead. To read the entire article takes some time and concentration. This article would take most readers nearly an hour to read through, and at the end the reader would have absorbed just 50 - 70% of the information. See Wikipedia:Article_size#Readability_issues. It is because of this that the lead as a stand-alone summary of the important points of the topic is vital. There's been a lot of work done on this article, so it would be worth making more of that research available for more readers. Regardless of what happens in this FAC, it would benefit a significant number of the daily average of 2,500 readers if the lead were worked on a bit more. I am willing to help out on that, though I have a few other things on at the moment, so not sure when or how much.... ;-) SilkTork✔Tea time 08:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork, I think your additions to the lead were excellent; thanks for that. I've made a few more copyedits and I think its looking much more concise now. Do you think the lead looks okay at this point, or is does it need more improvement? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 22:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a minor query. Over the years I have frequently seen Pepper as the top rated Best Album Ever on various polls, and had the impression that it was for a while, and possibly still is, the album that most frequently tops both critics and listeners polls as the Best Album Ever. There are some sample polls given in the Legacy section, but I wondered if you had come across in your research any source that did summarise Pepper's overall position on such polls. SilkTork✔Tea time 08:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. It tops some lists and not others; there is no centralised list that everyone agrees on. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 16:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I have overall support for a well researched and well presented article on an important and complex topic. My remaining concerns are the licensing/copyright tags on File:Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite - 2012 reproduction.jpg, and that the lead does not provide a satisfactory overview of the topic. SilkTork✔Tea time 08:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed review. I'm not sure what else the lead needs at this point, as its getting pretty long, IMO, and I truly feel that it summarises the article's "most important points" without being overly detailed. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 16:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've missed the answer to Crisco's question: is this confirmed to be an accurate reproduction, and not warranting a new copyright? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is a picture of the original in George Martin's book about Pepper, and as far as I can tell this reproduction is faithful to the original. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 20:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is information about the reproduction here: [31]. If the creators of the reproduction, Andy English and Peter Dean, have licensed it for re-use then it can be used, and the licensing details would need to be updated to reflect that. If they have not, then an argument would need to be put forward for fair use, which might be difficult, given that there are other versions available. What is interesting is the picture of John Lennon pointing at the poster he bought. That image is reproduced several times on the internet, and I can't see who owns the rights to the photograph. Given the encyclopaedic relevance of that image, John Lennon pointing to the very poster that inspired a key song on such an important album, and that it can't be repeated because Lennon is dead, I think that fair use could be argued, same as the lead image on Pink Floyd of all five members of the band. What is interesting about the Lennon image, is that the poster is white rather than sepia. SilkTork✔Tea time 16:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that its a much better choice, but is it acceptable that we do not know who the author of the photo is? If so, I'd be happy to upload that image and write a FUR. Having said that, this would make three non-free images in addition to the four FU ogg files. Are we certain that swapping what we believe to be a PD image with one that almost certainly not is a good idea? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 16:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"If the creators of the reproduction, Andy English and Peter Dean, have licensed it for re-use then it can be used, and the licensing details would need to be updated to reflect that." According to what policy? If this is a simple, faithful reproduction, the WMF has previously stated that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain" (works of art here being understood in a general manner, including posters and old photographs). Otherwise all of the images here that were not taken by Gabe or a Wikimedian (i.e. all of them) would be just as protected as you think the poster is. Although the UK does recognize sweat of the brow as eligible for copyright protection (see Reuse of PD-Art photographs for a country-by-country dissection), Commons, Wikipedia, and the WMF accept only the US understanding of said doctrine.
As for replacing this PD image with a fair-use one... that's explicitly against policy, in particular WP:NFCC #1. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a misunderstanding here. The rule applies to photographs of PD work. This is not a photo of a PD work, but a photo of a modern work of art based on the original poster. See this link for a description of how the work of art was created, and then reproductions of that work were sold in limited editions. Given that the creators have sold this in limited editions, they may wish to protect their work of art. Or, they may not. But without their explicit licensing agreement, we cannot make that assumption. The image uses PD licensing for a modern work of art. That is inappropriate and misleading. The licensing as shown would apply to a photograph of the original poster. If we used one of those, such as File:Affiche MrKite.jpg there wouldn't be an issue. But the decision has been to use a photo of a recent work of art - apparently without permission. The user who uploaded the image is not active on Wikipedia so we cannot ask them. SilkTork✔Tea time 03:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Every effort has been made to be true to the original poster and it is printed using the same methods that would have been used in 1843." This is a reproduction. It is the very definition of a reproduction. That this is not from a photographic reproduction does not change the fact that, under US law, the threshold of originality has not been crossed. Yes, they did a hell of a job. No, that doesn't grant them copyright in the US. This is acceptable under current doctrine, per Commons:Derivative works: "Exact replicas of public domain works, ... cannot attract any new copyright as exact replicas do not have the required originality. Hence, photographs of such items can be treated just like photographs of the artwork itself." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here we get onto tricky ground: if this is an exact replica, why are we preferring it over photographs of the period poster? But, anyway, my concern appears to be solitary, so is not going to make any difference. The article is a good one regardless of the use of that image, but I do have a concern that the image use is inappropriate so I will leave that concern on file. SilkTork✔Tea time 08:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why it's being preferred here, Gabe is probably the one to ask. I personally think a scan of an original would be better, assuming of course that one could be found. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco and SilkTork, I wouldn't say that its being preferred here; it was in the article long before I ever edited the page and I'm not aware of another that would be more appropriate. I also don't think that the promotion of this article should be delayed because of this disagreement. If it would be better I'll just remove the image and someone can add it – or another – back at a later date when all this is sorted out. I don't think its good practice to rake content builders over the coals with this type of stuff, which 9 times out of 10 comes down to who you ask and when. Nikkimaria, will you please weigh-in here, since we appear to be at a stalemate. Absent any consensus on this matter by the end of the day I'll just remove the image so the issue is remediated, at least in terms of this FAC. GabeMc(talk|contribs) 15:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part I agree with Crisco, but since a scan has now been found that's a better option anyways. The new poster does need a US PD tag, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All my outstanding concerns were addressed in the peer review. Article looks great! Evan(talk|contribs) 04:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: My work was done at peer review. Further work has been done here at FAC; I dare say that an article like this will always attract a lot of attention as people seek to improve it. For my money, subject to the resolution of any outstanding source or image issues, the article is now a worthy FA, and I'm pleased to have had a small part in its development. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Very good job GabeMc! Learner001 (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note - We need an images and a sources review unless I have missed them. Graham Colm (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will do a source review tonight or tomorrow morning, unless someone beats me to it. Tim riley talk 18:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
As mentioned at the PR, "Audio conveys different information than prose" is not very helpful when it comes to NFCC#1. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The FURs are solid at all the ogg files, but what specifically are you concerned about? GabeMc(talk|contribs) 19:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me to volunteer to check a reference section with 356 citations! That said, they seem to me to be a model of their kind. The instructions on how to drill down in the relevant web sites (e.g. "Click Avvia la ricerca") are particularly impressive. I have only three comments, none of which are very important:
It doesn't greatly bother me, but when you give short summaries of which ref says what, you sometimes use sentence case and sometimes start in lower case – cf refs 200 and 203 on the one hand and refs 12 and 218 and the rest on the other. The first two are the only capitalised ones I found.
Ref 12: should this be Beatles' with an apostrophe?
Ref 329 – you don't say "(In Portuguese)" as you do for ref 347
And that really is my lot, after my very best efforts to find fault. Bravo! – Tim riley talk 20:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. Thanks for the kind words and the herculean effort reviewing the refs and the article! GabeMc(talk|contribs) 20:17, 22 May 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) 06:05, 23 May 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): Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC) 16:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Winchester, Virginia-based radio station WINC, an AM station. The article was promoted to GA status on April 10, 2014 and featured on DYK on April 13, 2014. The article was the subject of 2 informal PRs, along with a formal PR (with 3 different users reviewing at once). If promoted to FA, this will be the first radio station article at FA status. The article is currently one of just 6 articles about radio stations at GA status.
At present, the article focuses on the station's 70+ year history, both prior and after launch; the people heard on the station, including country music legend Patsy Cline (who got here start at WINC) and President Johnson; how one of the station's employees created systems used by radio stations today, and other historical information.
The article currently has 97 references in total, one picture of the station's studios (from March 24, 2014) and two images, one of the station's current logo (in the infobox) one another of the station's first logo (from 1941). Other pictures and images/logos can be added if necessary. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image check from Hamiltonstone
File:WINC-AM 2009.PNG - appropriate non-free use rationale, looks okay
File:WINC-AM 1941.PNG - non-free use rationale states, under the section on purpose of use in article: "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question", however this is not how it is used. The non-free use rationale needs to be revised to accurately reflect the secondary and historical use of the image. That said, I am not convinced the image would meet Wikipedia:NFCC#8, as I am not clear why its inclusion significantly increases the reader's understanding of the topic. Would welcome other editor views.
File:WINCStudios 03242014.jpg - own work and looks okay.
More experienced editor input on the second image would be appreciated. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On File:WINC-AM 1941.PNG, I would have no qualms on removing this image. I did my best to get it up to NFCC#8 standards within the FUR. If the image still fails NFCC#8, I have no problem with it being removed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look at File:WINC-AM 1941.PNG, the more I think it really doesn't fit. So, I have removed it completely. I have it saved on my computer should it need to be readded. Presently, File:WINC-AM 2009.PNG and File:WINCStudios 03242014.jpg are the only two images on the page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I was one of the informal peer reviewers and did some hands-on work on the article as well. Good job.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and the help on the informal PR. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and comprehensiveness. Interesting and nicely done. In the interest of full disclosure, I should add that I was one of the peer reviewers and that I made some minor editorial changes during the review and a few more today. Finetooth (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, the earlier PR and the changes today. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I reviewed this for GA, and was concerned it still looked a little rough around the edges then, but has been improved now. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and the help with the GAN. Much appreciated! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Direct quotes should be cited immediately in the lead, even if they're cited later
Done. - NH
Be consistent in whether you include location/publisher for periodicals
Fixed the missing instances of location and publisher in the newspapers and magazines. - NH
The bibliographical information given in the citation does not appear to match that given by that link. Are those two different editions? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected, I also switched Christopher Sterling from author to editor, per the cover, as there is no real author listed for the book. I also corrected a goof in the ISBN numbers. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Newspaper cites without weblinks should include page numbers
Corrected and added. - NH
Why is Broadcasting italicized in FN1 et al but not in the Sources list? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Total goof on my part, corrected. - NH
Don't italicize publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With the names of newspapers, that is done automatically in the {{cite news}} template. Same with some parts in the {{cite web}} template (especially anything in the "work" field). I don't add italics to any of the references, that's all automatic. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The template automatically italicizes certain parameters, but it is the editor who decides which template is used and which info goes in which parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed true. So, on {{cite web}} templates, I switched out the "work" field for the "publisher" field. I only used the "work" field on the {{cite web}} templates. Reason being, to me, publisher is something you find in books, newspapers and magazines...not internet pages. That's the only thing I could find that might be out of place. Please let me know if that is not what you were looking for. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Thanks for your help on the source review. Much appreciated! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay on these, under the weather today. Finished the corrections for the source review. Please let me know if there are other corrections that need to be taken care of (I will be up for awhile). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:52, 15 May 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) 09:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is awesome! Thank you! No problem on leaving the template in place. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To all: With your help, the WINC (AM) was just promoted to Featured Article status. Together, we took a C-Class article, edited, added and made it a Good Article. We didn't stop there, we made it better and now it is a Featured Article. Whether you made one edit or twenty, you still helped and I thank you. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:08, 18 May 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): Dan56 (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a 1977 album by American rock band Television. Writers have considered it an important post-punk album and influence on subsequent rock music movements and guitarists. The article is properly sourced and comprehensive of its topic. Dan56 (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Final sentence of lead section: according to WP:GENRECAP "New Wave" should not be capitalised, i.e. "new wave".
(2) Last paragraph of 'Recording' section: the line which says "Verlaine said to him 'forget it'" sounds a bit awkward to me – would "Verlaine told him to 'forget it'" sound better?
(3) Last paragraph of 'Lyrics' section: the lyric sheet for "See No Evil" might say "Runnin wild with the one I love" but I think "runnin" should have an apostrophe after it to indicate the missing 'g' (sorry if I'm being a grammar pedant here!).
Done, addressed all. Dan56 (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will write a separate post to your talk page regarding possible additions and citations to the existing text, I don't think this is the place to post it. Richard3120 (talk) 02:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Article meets all the FA criteria, giving a thorough history of the album from initial concept and background to influence on latter-day musicians. Richard3120 (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't like very much how the article is organized. Firstly, I would rename the "Commercial performance" section to simply "Release" and include the album's release date in it; I personally think the term "Commercial performance" is more appropriate to use in more mainstream albums. Secondly, the "Critical reception" section should appear after the "Release" section; it's strange that you first talk about critical reception, then about commercial performance, and then come back again to (retrospective) critical reception. Finally, the "Legacy and influence" section should be rename to simply "Legacy" and should have two subsections: "Retrospective acclaim", which should contain the first two paragraphs and the retrospective reviews template, and "Music influence", which should contain both the "Alternative rock" and "Rock guitar" subsections merged together. Overall, the article should look something like this:
5 Artwork
6 Release
"Marquee Moon was released in February 1977 by Elektra Records. The album was an unexpected success in the United Kingdom, where..."
7 Critical reception
"Upon release, Marquee Moon was acclaimed by..."
8 Legacy
8.1 Retrospective acclaim
8.2 Music influence
I very much agreed with your suggestion to rearrange "Release..." (I've added "...and promotion" since it talks about their touring as well) with "Critical reception", but disagree that there need to be layout changes for "Legacy and influence". How the critics see it in retrospect is essentially what "Legacy" means in the context of this article, so it would be redundant. Elements of "retrospective acclaim" ("still sounds timeless", "one of the all-time classic guitar albums") run throughout the entire "Legacy and influence", which is more about its importance and impact rather than critics saying how good they think it is--its standing among other albums and all-time rankings are also its "legacy". Also, "Music influence" sounds generic and vague, whereas the two paragraphs dealing with its influence on "alternative rock" genres makes sense to be titled "Alternative rock", while the two paragraphs + cquote dealing with its influence on guitar playing (and specific guitarists) in rock makes sense to be titled "Rock guitar" (based on what multiple sources used in that subsection have referred to as its influence on "guitar rock", including Erlewine and Kot) This is more accessible for readers, since all those paragraphs under what could be a "Music influence" subsection would be overwhelming to read. Furthermore, article layouts are decided based on consideration of both the suggested layout at MOS:ALBUM and the material available to write about the article's topic--both dictate how the article's layout for prose sections ends up looking and, in IMHO, I feel it's best the way it currently is. Dan56 (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope my quibble over the subsections doesn't diminish your support though, Niwi3. Dan56 (talk) 19:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, you have a point regarding the legacy and influence section, so I won't consider it an issue. --Niwi3 (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the Christgau rating in the retrospective reviews template? His review is from 1977, right? I would personally include his A+ rating in the prose of the Critical reception section and remove it from the retrospective reviews template.
The rating is cited from his 1990 Consumer Guide Albums book. Also, IMO, noting another "A+" in the prose would make it a clunkier, more awkward read. Dan56 (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His book Rock Albums of the '70s: A Critical Guide does not contain retrospective reviews, but a selection of release reviews he wrote in the 70s. This album is a classic and therefore you cannot mix release and retrospective reviews together. It's confusing and misleading. Besides, if you include the ratings from Peter Gammond and Jon Tiven in the critical reception section you should also include the one from Christgau, who is one of the most important critics in popular music. In my opinion, noting it in the prose won't make it clunkier because the critical reception section has very few ratings. You can start the sentence like this: "Robert Christgau of The Village Voice awarded the album an A+ and asserted that the 'demotic-philosophical' lyrics could..." --Niwi3 (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Niwi3. Forgive me, I was working on New York Dolls (album) at the same time and confused the two--Christgau's "A+" for that album wasn't in his original Newsday review but in that Rock Albums of the Seventies book, not the case here. Done :) Dan56 (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will review the prose of the article soon because I'm a bit busy right now. After that I think I can support the article. Cheers. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"When Johns suggested they record another take of the song, Verlaine told him to 'forget it'" -- I don't like how this is written. Perhaps "Johns suggested to record another take of the song, but Verlaine told him to 'forget it'"?
"According to Rolling Stone magazine, Marquee Moon is a post-punk album" -- Rolling Stone is a notable magazine, so the word magazine is redundant
"According to Spin magazine, Marquee Moon is 'about urban mythology' as Verlaine 'brings a sentimental romanticism to the Bowery, making legends out of the mundane'" -- Again, the word magazine is redundant
"Peter Gammond of Hi-Fi News & Record Review gave it an 'A+' and called it one of the most exciting releases in music, highlighted by Verlaine's steely, Gábor Szabó-like guitar and authentic rock music" -- The second part is blurry to me. Please clarify.
"Gramophone magazine's Nigel Hunter found both Verlaine's lyrics and guitar playing vague" -- "Writing for Gramophone, Nigel Hunter found both..." flows much better
"In his review for Rolling Stone, Ken Tucker said that the lyrics generally amount to non sequiturs" -- replace "said" with "stated" to avoid repetition.
"Since then, it has been cited by rock critics as one of the greatest albums of the American punk rock movement, including Mark Weingarten of Entertainment Weekly, who called it the masterpiece of the 1970s New York punk rock scene" -- I don't like the word including here. Perhaps "...the American punk rock movement, with Mark Weingarten of Entertainment Weekly calling it the masterpiece of the 1970s New York punk rock scene"?
"According to English writer Clinton Heylin, the album marked the end of the New York scene's peak period" -- replace "the album" with "Marquee Moon". Too much repetition.
"while Spin magazine called it the CBGB era's 'best and most enduring record' and ranked it as sixth greatest album in its April 1989 issue" -- Again, the word magazine is redundant. The second part should also be written like this: "...ranked it as the sixth greatest album of all time in its April 1989 issue"
"That same year, Marquee Moon was named the fourth greatest of all time by NME" -- Add the word album: "...was named the fourth greatest album of all time by NME" --Niwi3 (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've made all the corrections Niwi3 and clarified that Gammond meant "...partly because it is highlighted by..." ([35]) Dan56 (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise it's a good article of a classic. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, I'm happy with the improvements made and am glad to add my support. Keep up the good work. --Niwi3 (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another fine contribution from Dan. Very informative and well-written article, great work - support --Blastmaster11 (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm going to be a pain in the neck here, but Niwi3's suggestion of "Johns suggested to record..." doesn't sound comfortable to me – could it be changed to simply "Johns suggested recording another take of the song..." Richard3120 (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think "recording" is a present participle, so I revised it to "Johns suggested the band record..." Dan56 (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Came here after a request from my talk page. Article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, stable and has a sufficient lead, appropriate structure and its citations are consistent. Article has adequate media and is concise enough that it does not waffle or omit. Support.--Launchballer 23:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One suggestion. I'm not finding info on the album's swedish chart position anywhere in this article. Please put it somewhere and cite the source. Other than that, Support. 和DITOREtails 02:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've added it in a charts section/table ([36]). Dan56 (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Outstanding work, Dan. My only suggestion: in the 'Legacy and influence' section, almost every person has some descriptor like "journalist Tony Fletcher", "English writer Clinton Heylin", "Irish guitarist The Edge", "American guitarist John Frusciante", and so on. Should the same also be done for Marc Riley and Mark Radcliffe? Just a nitpick, though, I'm happy to give my Support. Gongshow talk 18:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thx! Gongshow. I did consider adding a descriptor to those two when I first added that line, but their respective Wikipedia articles have several for each of them, like "English broadcaster, musician, and writer," "radio personality, and DJ," etc. What would you suggest for either of them? I thought adding multiple for each would inhibit the flow of the prose, so I figured readers could just find out who they are by clicking the links. Dan56 (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dan – you are correct that both Radcliffe and Riley have had varying careers (Marc Riley was the bass player in an early version of The Fall, for example) but I think most Brits would agree with me in saying that they are both best known for their work as radio DJs: they had a long-running career during the 1990s and 2000s as a "double act" on BBC Radio 5 and BBC Radio 1 before deciding to go their separate ways, and they currently both present separate music shows on BBC Radio 6 Music. I would say "radio presenter" would probably be the best description for both of them. Richard3120 (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dan - I agree with your point on maintaining the flow of the prose, and with Richard that both men appear to be best known for their careers in radio, so your edit solves it perfectly. Cheers, Gongshow talk 05:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having listened to Marquee Moon on my way to Newbury Comics today, it is a much better album than I remember it being. My only relevant remark about the article would be that it is a good thing that negative reviews are represented. It is difficult to find well-written and substantive bad reviews. Such reviews usually depend on snarky dismissal and inapt comparisons (which the Springsteen comparison resembles) rather than real criticism (the others). Support. Fantailfan (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So far, looking quite good. I only see several things to address:
Is the album's exact release date known? If so, please do include that.
Nope, unfortunately. Dan56 (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will almost certainly be able to find out the UK release date, but that won't necessarily be a worldwide release date (UK release date will very likely be a Friday, and I know US release dates are/were normally on a Tuesday), so it will probably have to stay as just "February 1977", unless somebody comes across the US release date in an old copy of Billboard or similar. Richard3120 (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever one you come across, the date used should be its earliest release. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, which is why I'd be reluctant to use the UK date even if I found it: it seems likely that it would have been released in their native US first, even if it were just by a few days. Richard3120 (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In "Background" section ref#3 ("From the Velvets to the Voidoids: The Birth of American Punk Rock") should only be used at the end of the second paragraph per WP:OVERCITE.
WP:OVERCITE also says to have an inline citation for "all direct quotations." Could this possibly mean even when the next sentence is attributed to the same source/footnote? If not, then I'll remove it. Dan56 (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed overkill to cite a quote (even direct quotations) when the next sentence is supported by the same source. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done, removed. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More WP:OVERCITE in the "Recording" section- ref#1 ("Marquee Moon". In Irvin, Jim; McLear, Colin. The Mojo Collection) should just be used at the end of Lloyd's quote.
Footnote [3] (Heylin 2005, p. 264) is in between "...engineer.[3]..." and the Lloyd quote. At the end of "...Goats Head Soup..." Dan56 (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should've been more specific: only use it once in the second paragraph after Lloyd's quote. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done, removed. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In ref#67 ("1000 albums to hear before you die: Artists beginning with T"), "guardian.co.uk." should read The Guardian.
Unlike the other Guardian/Guardian associated sources used in the article, the "1000 albums..." article was published by the Guardian website rather than by the actual newspaper, so it is a web source. If you click "Article history" at the page, it reads "This article was published on the Guardian website". Dan56 (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I get where you're coming from, but the Guardian website is essentially its news publications online. WP:ALBUM/SOURCES indicates it is both an online and print publication. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done, changed to The Guardian. Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For such a high-profile album, I'm sure it charted in more than just UK and Sweden. Needs more chart listings.
Wasn't a highprofile album (notability is mostly based on its influence and standing with critics in retrospect rather than any commercial impact), best books on the topic characterize it as a commercial failure, no other chartings :( Dan56 (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It came off as a high profile due to its influence and "legacy" section, my bad. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After these are addressed, you have my support. Good luck Dan! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rock guitar: is it worth saying specifically that the Edge used a chorus pedal for this (assuming it is in the sources) as it gives and idea of the effect?
No mention of that in the source unfortunately, Sabrebd. Dan56 (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If these are addressed, the article and all its hard work has my support.--SabreBD (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a history going back quite a while with images and usage criteria on Wikipedia, so by virtue of perusing the images associated with this Featured Article Candidate, I can safely say all of them satisfy the usage benchmarks. On the subject of the one lone audio file, it is in the correct format as advised by policy and guidelines and it is in the correct bit rate of speed. It should be passed if all other areas are in order with respect to the article.HotHat (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Anon.-1993 ref. was missing the harv ref parameter, which I've added. I don't think alt text is necessary, but I've added it anyway. Dan56 (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note Alt text is not a FA requirement, I see one problem in the Bibliography:
Christgau, Robert (2004). "Television: Marquee Moon/Adventure/Live at the Old Waldorf". Tracks (St Leonards, New South Wales) (January). Archived from the original on April 22, 2013. Retrieved November 20, 2012. Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFChristgau2004.
Oh, I see. That reference wasn't in use or cited in the article, so I've moved it to "Further reading". Dan56 (talk) 19:03, 18 May 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) 09:31, 18 May 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 English music hall comedian George Robey was perhaps best known for his "Prime Minister of Mirth" character and his humour which mixed everyday situations and observations with comic absurdity. Robey's naturally big, black eyebrows, together with his use of clown-like make-up, a wooden cane, black robes and small, black bowler hat, formed the appearance of the Prime Minister of Mirth which he used to entertain audiences at both a national and international level. He was envied by his colleagues for his ability to ad-lib and was adored by his country for his tireless fundraising which earned charitable organisations in excess of £2 million during both world wars. For this, he was made a CBE, and was later knighted shortly before his death in 1954. He was, according to his biographer Peter Cotes, "the finest entertainer of the English music hall tradition".
Together with the FA promotions of Dan Leno, Marie Lloyd and Little Tich, it would only seem right that I now bring the fourth biggest name in English music hall to the FAC stage. I would now be most interested to receive any comments and/or criticisms from any willing reviewers.
Cassiantotalk 09:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I was one of the peer reviewers and had my quibbles dealt with then. This delightful article meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comments Some minor comments, but nothing sufficient to affect my support for this fascinating article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This article is well-written, well-researched and comprehensive, but more importantly its enjoyable reading. Nicely done once again, Cassianto! GabeMc(talk|contribs) 03:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Another satisfied peer reviewer. My (minor) concerns were addressed there, and I'm happy to support. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As far I'm concerned, you've answered all my main concerns adequately, and any further tweaks can be done post-FA. An excellent theatrical biography which summarises Robey's long and diverse career very well. Brianboulton (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I was a happy reader at PR and the standard has risen since then. Aside from these two small points: an excellent piece—certainly your strongest article to date. - SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, excellent article. Rothorpe (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I gave this article a rather thorough reading just before PR and have followed its progress closely since then. I think it is a comprehensive and well-written article about an important comedian whose career took some interesting twists and turns. I enthusiastically support its advancement to FA. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A wonderfully well-written and researched article, I doubt a better article could really be produced on him. One of your greatest efforts to date IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 12 May 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) 06:31, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to take this opportunity to thank everybody for their reviews and comments both at PR and here. Thanks to Nikkimaria for her thorough source review and to Ssilvers for his continuous help throughout. Cheers! Cassiantotalk 15:23, 17 May 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 Sultanate of Singora -- a little-known sultanate that existed in the deep south of Thailand until the late 1600s. The sultanate was ruled by a family of Persians. In my opinion, this is one of the most comprehensive English language accounts of the sultanate ever written. ( Singora (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC) )[reply]
Comment – Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the article go through a "good article" review before it can become a featured article candidate? Madalibi (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not have to. Some recommend it, but there is no requirement. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Sultante_of_singora.png: what is the source of this image? What data sources / base maps were used to create it? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's either a modified version of an image taken from Wikipedia or one sent to me by a Thai government department. I think it's probably the latter, but can't be certain. I altered it in Photoshop and added the text. ( Singora (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC) )[reply]
The base map appears to be identical to Hdamm's series of SVG maps of Thailand. (See File:Amphoe Songkhla.svg.) It's CC-BY-SA licensed, so the image description will need to mention the original. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. How do I do that? ( Singora (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC) )[reply]
Done. I've linked to the guy's Songkhla graphic, credited him as the author and put in the CC-BY-SA permission.
Is it Singgora or Singora?—indopug (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It can be either. On the Wikipedia page Sultan, it's listed at the very bottom as Singgora. Some of the English language signs near the forts render it as Singkhora. The name Singora is more common, though.
If Singora is more common, then you should move this to Sultanate of Singora. As it is, it is quite jarring to see Singgora in the title and the infobox, but Singora everywhere else.—indopug (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. How would I do this? As stated, I only started using the SINGGORA page because that's what someone else had set up. It was just an empty page back at the beginning of January, but I always knew it wasn't ideal. Note too that a few pages on Wikipedia link to my article, so I guess you'd need a kind of re-direct to the new page. Singora (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One more point: I just added a NOTE to the bottom of the page which mentions Singora's alternative spellings (ie, Singgora and Singkhora). Singora (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just removed all instances of SINGGORA from the infobox. If someone can show me how to set up a re-direct, I'll move everything to Sultanate of SingoraSingora (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and moved the article. Next time when you need to, point to the drop-down menu next to the search box (if you're using the default skin) and select "Move". The redirect will be created automatically. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is definitely better. Singora (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - taking a look now. Will jot questions below: Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd start in the lead by stating what it was (sultanate/kingdom/self-governing body in X century) rather than saying it was the precursor of Sonkhla in the first sentence.
I think it's actually quite important to make the link between Singora and Songkhla at the beginning of the article. Present-day sources sometimes refer to it as "ancient Songkhla" or "the old town at Khao Daeng". Other sources use the names interchangeably.
For example, see page 35 of this PDF: [[39]]. I use this source in the article, by the way, but link to the government website instead of SCRIBD. The text reads "Sultan Syleyman Shah governed Singgora city (Song Khla) 400 years ago". This sentence is also pertinent to the question above re: Singora or Singgora.
OK, I just changed the first sentence in the lead. It now reads The Sultanate of Singora was a short-lived city-state in southern Thailand and precursor of the present-day town of Songkhla.
In general, we don't use article names in heading titles, hence The Singora legacy would be fine as Legacy.
Done.
I am wondering whether the Persians in 17th century Siam section would be better closer up the top of the article as it gives some context (?)
This is actually the last block of text I wrote. I see it as a sort of appendix. I also see it as something that could be developed in another Wiki article.
I made some changes with (hopefully) sufficient explanation in the edit summaries - let me know if they are okay.
Yep -- your edits are fine. I had that sentence "The tomb of Sultan Sulaiman enjoys an atmospheric setting in a Muslim graveyard". I thought it sounded quite good, but was aware that it wasn't encyclopedic.
It can be a fine line between sterile prose to concise and engaging prose to adding some words to make it more engaging to too wordy...and sometimes folks views on this differ. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 09:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Support on comprehensiveness and prose, though concede my knowledge in the area is lacking, so this would be trumped if other readers found issues. Overall, a nice read -a concise, engaging article on a (to me) unknown piece of history. I don't really know enough to be too confident about its comprehensiveness but it appears to cover the topic well, and I can't see any other glaring fixable prose issues. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent article. Support on prose, though i have no knowledge of this area of history. One suggestion. In the section 'destruction', the article says "He then described how Singora's demise was brought about by a French cannoneer employed by the Siamese army" followed by a quote. I support the use of quotes of primary historical documents, but not reliance on them to be the only statement of the facts - the quote should be retained, but the expanation of how the French cannoneer brought about Singora's demise should be summarised in the article text. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good point. In a version of the article from January 31 ([[40]]), I summarized the 'destruction' section with "Diplomat Simon de la Loubere wrote that the war had lasted twenty years and ended when the sultan was captured by a French cannoneer working for the Siamese army"
I've just re-jigged the current version. It now reads He then described how Singora's demise was brought about by a French cannoneer who crept into the city one night and single-handedly captured the sultan. What do you think? Singora (talk) 06:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Admiral Niphon Sirithorn (a former admiral of the Royal Thai Navy) We already know that he was an admiral, just tell us that he was in the RTN.
Done. I've written : Present-day descendants of Sultan Sulaiman include Admiral Niphon Sirithorn, a former Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Thai Navy. Both the RTN and list of commanders are linked.
Link Prime Minister of Thailand and Royal Thai Navy on first use.
Done.
Delete the specifics about his descendants from the lede and combine the last two paragraphs in the lede. You used almost the exact same text in the main body.
Done.
Fix your spacing of the fort numbers in the para on the forts.
You're completely right. I overlooked that. Changes done.
Put all of the titles in English-language works in title case.
Done. It looks neater.
Add place of publication for all books.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, done. Thanks for the feedback. Singora (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Going through the refs with a gimlet eye in Nikkimaria's absence.
Sources missing place of publication, including all three theses, Good Man Town, Montesano, Syukri. Those that do have it have it in the publisher instead of the location field. You don't have to have place of pub, but you do need to be consistent about using it, either all or none.
I didn't understand this at first, but now I see what you mean. All references in the following sections now have appropriate info in both the location and publisher fields:
I fixed a couple of non-capitalized words in titles for you and de-capitalized a French-language title. But you still have problems with the titles in some of your refs.
I've been through this again and have:
1. made sure everything in the references section is in title case;
2. ensured all quotes from primary sources in the body of the article are in title case;
3. changed the link in the notes section to title case. Singora (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Need fuller citations for works linked in the refs, suggest moving those to the sources section with only title/author and page number, if any, in the refs.
Is this a suggestion or recommendation? If it's the latter, I'll readily oblige, but could you direct me to a decent Wiki article that I can use as a sort of template. Basically, how should I format the web links and would it be best to put them below the PhD theses or under the journals. Singora (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RE: References. Per your suggestion, I've moved all websites to the sources section. Only titles and (in two cases) page numbers remain in the refs. Singora (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, do you want me to verify the sourcing? I can do that, no problem, but was unclear if you wanted me to do so or had someone else in mind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sturm, yes, if you could perform the spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, that'd be great. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Almost forgot. A couple of page and date ranges in your references have just hyphens instead of en-dashes like the rest.
Yes, done. You were referring to the notes section (RE: 1610–1628) and the sources (RE: Dagh Register 1624–1642). Singora (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Missing terminal period for refs 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 30, 31, 32, 43.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your eyesight is better than mine! Done Singora (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
Singora, I take it this is your first FA nomination? If so, a belated welcome! One of the hoops we generally ask someone new to jump through is a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Unless one of the above reviewers would like to undertake that in the next couple of days, we'll list a request at the top of WT:FAC.
Sturm, it looks to me like you might have undertaken a source review for formatting and reliability?
Let me double-check the formatting, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, Singora, you have a few duplicate links in the article. You can highlight and review these using this script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Singora
1. Hi Ian. Yes, this is my first FA nomination. I set up this account in January to create the Singora article. I'd been researching it for about 18 months prior to that.
2. RE: close paraphrasing. Yes, this was an issue. A reviewer called Casliber picked up on a sentence I'd written: "Exploring the ruins of Singora is an adventure for history and archaeology enthusiasts". This sentence was pretty much copied and pasted from the source it linked to. Casliber changed it. Yesterday I changed another sentence. I'd written that "Singora was devastated beyond recovery", which was very similar to the source. I changed it to "Singora was destroyed and abandoned".
3. I've just stripped out all duplicate links.
4. References. Let me help you. I'll give you what I think are the most relevant and accessible links in order that you can check things:
4.1. This is good. It's a journal published by Chulalongkorn University. Your Wikipedia page describes Chulalongkorn as "one of the best universities in Thailand and Southeast Asia". See pages 44-45 for an introduction to Singora. Specifically, you'll see that Singora was founded in 1605, became independent in 1642, and was destroyed in 1680. These are the key dates.
4.2. This is a PhD thesis written by a Thai. Page 1 introduces Dato Mogol and Sultan Sulaiman, and makes the point that Singora (or Songkhla at Khao Daeng) was the precursor of the present-day town of Songkhla. See the last paragraph on page 126, too.
4.3. This is an analysis of a Cottonian manuscript at the British Library. The article was published by the Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society in 1910. Pages 80-81 detail Dato Mogol's tax-free policy.
4.4. This is essential reading for anyone interested in 17th century Siam. It was written by Jeremais van Vliet, the director of the Dutch East India Company factory in Ayuthaya, the former capital of Thailand. The article was translated into English and published in 1910 by the Journal of the Siam Society. It is referenced several times in my text.
4.5. This is extremely interesting. It is the "Dagh Register" (or daily register) maintained by Dutch East India Company traders. Pages 103-105 shed enormous light on Sulaiman's character and attitude towards Siamese suzerainty. While the governor of Phattalung (spelled Bordelongh) is described as polite and courteous, Sulaiman (the governor of Singora) is presented as arrogant and resentful of Siamese intervention.
4.6. French diplomat Simon de la Loubère described the sultanate's demise in this rather bizarre account. His book was published in French in 1691; this English translation was published in 1693. The link below points to the relevant page.
4.8. I have used three sources to detail Sultan Sulaiman's cannon in the grounds of the Royal Hospital Chelsea, London. The source below is perhaps the least academic but the most accessible (it's from the Journal of the Siam Society, 1981). The other two sources are from the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society and are on JSTOR. (If you are interested in Malaysian verse and Persian quatrains, the article written by the late Amin Sweeney -- referenced in my text -- is extremely good.)
4.9. The final paragraph in my article discusses Persians in 17th century Siam. An easy-to-read source is once again from the Journal of the Siam Society. Pages 63-64 will introduce you to some of the Persian traders who operated in Ayuthaya in the early 17th century.
5. If you need further help, do please let me know.
More comments from Singora. RE: referencesSingora (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. I like this. It's tourist blurb produced by the Royal Thai Government, but it works well. See page 35 for a quick overview of Sultan Sulaiman and his family.
2. This is the Thai language website for Phattalung province. Google Translate does a good job of rendering it into English. You'll see that Sultan Sulaiman, son of Dato Mogol, assigned his brother, Pharisees, to develop and strengthen the nearby town of Chai Buri. This is as per the text in my article.
3. This is a link to the Thai language website for the the Royal Thai Navy. Google Translate fails with this text, but you'll see nonetheless that Admiral Siriton (former Commander of the Navy) "celebrates" being a descendant of Sultan Sulaiman.
Old Town at the Foot of Khao Daeng Hill (Ancient Town) doesn't really support the text either time it's used. It mostly talks about surviving structures without discussing access. It's not the sole source either time it's used so I'd just purge it from the article.
Agreed and done. This was the weakest and perhaps least credible of my sources. You talk about access: you're referring to the sentence "the ruins of Singora are open to the public". This sentence (now removed) was added by CasLiber. The ruins are indeed open to the public, but there's no "formal" archaeological site in Singha Nakhon. The ruins are scattered on and around the foothills of the mountain and very few sites are signposted.
Consolidate footnotes 21 and 22.
Yes, done. I've used your battleship article as a sort of template.
No other issues discovered in the other half-dozen or so English-language sources that I examined.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time! Singora (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome. It's an interesting article and I hope that you do more articles like this one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Crisco 1492 - I know you're probably not going to need another support, but what the heck. (BTW, I hear that this article is being translated to Indonesian, with the goal of making it featured)
Do we need such accurate geocoordinates for a kingdom? I think (though I'm not an expert by any means) that this gives a diameter of only a few hundred meters.
The area is sufficient. The walls ran for about 100 meters from the sea to fort 1 and then took a 90 degree turn and continued for about 300 meters to the mountain. The city, then, was flanked on two sides by the walls and by the sea and mountain on the others. I've actually just tweaked the coordinates to reflect this better. Singora (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
other accounts noted the protection granted to Persians by the king. - is king the right terminology here?
Per Ravenswaay, p.66:
Only the Moors are still free from this slavery, which is rather surprising, but it seems that they (for some special reasons ) are under the protection of the king.Singora (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Names of cities etc. should be linked at first mention outside the lede, as well as in the lede.
Why? The article's certainly not long enough that a reader is going to forget the terms. I only link once unless the article is massive.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. WP:OVERLINK only says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." (rather than recommend linking both the lede and first occurrence). Singora, you can ignore this comment if you want. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate links were removed a while ago as per Ian's suggestion. Singora (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Khao Daeng mountain - Pretty sure this should be Khao Daeng Mountain (or even Mount Khao Deng?) per capitalization standards at Lake Erie and Rocky Mountains, among others.
Dato Mogol - Is dato an honorific here? It feels like Datuk to me. Just a question, not really something that affects this FAC.
Yep, it's a Malay title. Problem is, the Wiki page "needs additional citations for verification". Why link to an unreliable source? Singora (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The irony being that all wikilinks are, per WP:RS, to unreliable sources. I wouldn't have linked it simply because it was part of his name (or, rather, how his name is remembered); I only asked out of curiosity. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the original source when reviewing quotes for the translation, and it checks out, but to be safe I recommend double checking as it is quite easy to (unconsciously) correct the older spelling. I have the same issue when writing Indonesian using the Soewandi Spelling System.
Check this link. It points to the 1693 translation of Simon de la Loubère's account. The last paragraph is the one I quote. The text needs to be modernized slightly to remove the Long s. Singora (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I did that while helping someone with the translation. I didn't see any transcription mistakes here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Links removed. I'm not sure why I ever added them. Singora (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"had a perfect harbor" - Anything less POV, say a sheltered inlet, or...? The word "perfect" doesn't sit well with me when used in Wikipedia's encyclopedic voice.
Per Cayron, p. 62:
Singora, presently known as Songkhla, is described as an ideal port with ample shelter for large vessels. The word "perfect" replaces "ideal". No POV here. Singora (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps none intended, but notice how Cayron hedges a little using "described". We can do that too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how about this: Further benefits accrued from Singora's location: the city had what was described as an ideal harbor and was part of a network of overland and riverine routes that expedited trans-peninsular trade with the Sultanate of Kedah. Can I use the word ideal? Singora (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Queen of Pattani - If this was a sultanate, would she be a sultana rather than a queen?
No one but no one uses the word sultana. Spend one or two minutes to read this brief article. Sultans are sultans and queens are queens. Not a sultana in sight! Singora (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think I'd accept that as an RS, but I'll go with your word that sultana was not used for a woman ruler (i.e. not the wife of a sultan) in a Thai sultanate. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"frequented" - Why is frequented in scare quotes?
Because it's the word used in the source (Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society). Admittedly it's an English translation of the Dutch text, but I'm guessing the Dutch word was very similar. The quote is important because it was written by Anthony van Diemen, Governor-General of the Dutch East Indies. Singora (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need single words in quotes if it's meant to be a direct quote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is at Constantine Phaulkon, why do you use Constance Phaulkon?
Everyone uses the name Constance. Take a quick glance at this newspaper article and then briefly look at this thesis from the University of Hawaii. Singora (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case we may want to have a move discussion at that article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article feels a little heavy on images. I know, copyright wise, they are okay, but are they all necessary for the discussion in the article?
Interesting. What do you think of this:
I think it's ideal and have permission from the owner to use it. I'd much rather use this than what I've got now, but I'm not sure about copyright issues. What do you think? Singora (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We'd just need proof the copyright owner released it under an appropriate license. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
they were built on the base of fort 10 in the 1830s to commemorate the defeat of rebellions in Kedah (at the time occupied by Siam) - Do we have an article on these rebellions?
an opportunity to 'explore' part of the mountain. - why the single quotes, when you use double quotes earlier?
I think I'll just remove these quotes. I put them in because you only get to "explore" the mountain in a virtual sense. Singora (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why no mention of the Bunga Mas outside the image caption? Assuming the one in the image is a Singora bunga mas. If not, I am not sure we should use the image.
The photo was taken at a museum in KL; the tree is probably from Kedah. I've used the photo for illustrative purposes only: I need to give a brief introduction to the concept of suzerainty, vassal states and tribute; readers need to understand what Sultan Sulaiman was breaking free from when he declared independence. The photo works because it's quite colorful and, hopefully, will attract readers' attention to the caption. But I've kept the bunga mas out of the main article as IMO it's too much detail for the average reader. This said, the photo could easily be replaced with something else. Singora (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ayuthaya chronicles - Is this a proper name, like Hikayat Patani, or just a form of referring to them? If the former, it should be Ayuthaya Chronicles.
Not sure, but I've changed it anyway. Sometimes they're referred to as the Royal Chronicles of Ayuthaya. See the title of this JSTOR article. Singora (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The section Persians in 17th-century Siam feels somewhat out of place, and rather tacked on, at the bottom. Is there any way to work this into the narrative, even a bit of it?
See CasLiber's comments above and my reply. Singora (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any a) more recent academic discussion of the sultanate, or b) roughly contemporary Thai commentary? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RE: point A. I could dig out a few links if you really want them.
RE: point B. References can be found in the Phattalung Chronicles and the chronicles of the na Songkhla family. See page 8 of this History of Patani. The text regarding Singora and Sultan Sulaiman comes from the Phattalung Chronicles. The website for Phattalung District Office states that Sulaiman assigned his brother, Pharisees, to develop the nearby town of Chai Buri in Phatthalung Province; the source for this is once again the Phattalung Chronicles. I don't have access to the Ayuthaya Chronicles, but I know there is a passage that describes how a Siamese general named Decho managed to bribe the guards at Singora in order to gain entry to the citadel. The passage tells how the city was then burned to the ground. There is a Thai language PhD thesis which quotes this, but I don't want to use it as a source since much of it is sloppy and inaccurate. I'll show it to you if you want, though.
Use Google translate to read this article. It lists some of Sultan Sulaiman's descendants and references the Phattalung Chronicles.
Thanks for your comments / feedback. Singora (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I would be able to read the thesis (and I wouldn't trust GTranslate for this). That sounds quite interesting, though, if only we had access to the chronicles. Re: point A, do any of them offer anything not in the article? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up -- this page is getting quite long so I may have missed it but did anyone get round to the spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, since that'd be about the only thing holding up promotion? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From Singora
Yes, a helpful guy called STURM did them. I actually just spent half an hour writing a detailed reply to CRISCO'S points and then lost everything when your server went down. I'll now start again as I'd like to address his comments before you do anything.
Well I know he did a source review for formatting and reliability, but it wasn't quite clear to me if that included a spotcheck of some sources to ensure they were being used accurately and without any close paraphrasing -- Sturm, can you confirm or deny...? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see source review somewhere in the middle here. One dubious source, since removed, and no paraphrasing issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@CRISCO
1. I found the photo of the Singora cannon on Flickr. I contacted the photographer and asked for permission to use the photo in a Wikipedia article. He emailed me back and said yes, as long as he's credited as the owner. So how do I go about doing this?
2. RE: "recent academic discussion of the sultanate". I'll show you two English language sources written by Thais. I can't use either of them as they contain errors.
2.3.1. "After the usurpation of King Prasat Thong in 1629, Sulaiman declared the independence of the Sultanate kingdom of Songkhla". Wrong. It was Pattani that declared independence in 1629. Singora accepted Siamese suzerainty until 1642.
2.3.2. "He and his successors ruled Songkhla until the kingdom was invaded by Siamese troops in 1668". Wrong. Sulaiman died in 1668; the sultanate wasn't destroyed until 1680.
Wouldn't you be able to use those parts which are necessary for this article, and avoid those which are contradicted by better sources? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need. I've used better sources for everything. Singora (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3.1. Pages 25-28 discuss the sultanate, but the tone is amateurish. See how on page 28 the author tells us that Singora was destroyed in 1680 AND 1685. Sure, the guy gives us a brief account of the sultanate's destruction, but the quote is unsourced.
If there's nothing not already in this article, then it should be left out. I agree. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another question, probably the last one: I noticed that the actual physical description of the city state (geography, how big it was, etc). Do we have any sources which discuss it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean since my article doesn't discuss the sultanate's size. I only mention its location and "ideal port".
For info in French as reported in the 1680s, read Jacq-Hergouach, pp. 80, 185.
Note: I'll change "city-state" to "port city". I think "port city" is more descriptive and acts as a primer for the city had what was described as an ideal harbor. Pattani was also a port city. See the first paragraph of this JSTOR article: historic port city of Patani.
In case you missed it, here again is the Flickr URL for the Singora cannon: Photo of Singora cannon on Flickr. As stated, I have permission to use this photo and would like to do so.
Sorry, I seem to have forgotten to finish that sentence. The "article doesn't discuss the sultanate's size." That's exactly my question: do we have any sources that do, so that we can include some information (as in other articles on states, countries, cities, etc.)?
I've not found any reliable sources. You can find fairly detailed discussion of the sultanate in Thai language blogs and forums, however. If you're interested, you could do this:
1. See Choungsakul, pp. 44–45.
2. Notice how on page 44 the author says that Songkhla was known as Singora among "Western people". This is wrong. The engraver of the cannon in Chelsea signed his name Tun Juma'at Abu Mandus of Singora. The Thai name Songkhla came later.
3. Page 45 refers you to a map.
4. The key for the map tells you that area 1 is Songkhla at Khao Daeng. This is the former sultanate.
5. Print off the map.
6. Set its opacity to about 50% and superimpose it on a Google map.
7. Zoom out and calculate the area.
8. Do NOT however add this figure to my article as not only do the above steps constitute original research, the map is not entirely accurate.
If there are no reliable sources which discuss it, then we don't need it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any comments from the Flickr user that the image was released under a Wikipedia-friendly license. — Crisco 1492 (talk)
Alright, all of my comments have been addressed. Support on prose (though I still feel we could lose one image without much issue). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have the distinct impression you don't like my wonderful photography!! Oh well. The photos were actually taken with a Samsung Galaxy. How about if I delete the photo of fort 5, bring fort 8 down into the legacy section and make the Sultan's tomb a bit bigger? Singora (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not an issue with the quality of the images (I understand the issues with taking photographs under such harsh lighting), but how the images interact with the text. One of the reasons appears to be the forced image size, which is generally not recommended (per WP:IMGSIZE). Let me have a shot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This revision is, IMO, a little bit easier on the eyes at my laptop's resolution and lower (1366*768): the image sizes are standardised (per IMGSIZE), and there are not three images in immediate succession. I edited the captions a bit, so that we could a) keep Fort 5 while still providing encyclopedic value to the reader, b) avoid referencing material already referenced, c) avoid giving information in captions that is not important for understanding (especially if given in-text) and d) information in the captions supports / expands on information in the text. Admittedly this means losing image resolution, but (sadly, perhaps) that's what current policy dictates. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All points taken; revisions made. I have however widened fort 8 a little.
Up for review at the moment is the Sega Saturn. I take it the image / quote configuration in the section I've linked to is wrong. Maybe you should tell the guy.
Very good point about the sandwiching there. Will do. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your comments. Singora (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and thank you for providing such interesting reading material! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Summary
No one has opposed this article; it has support from:
1. Cas Liber
2. Hamiltonstone
3. Sturmvogel 66
4. Crisco 1492
What else do I need to show / provide? Singora (talk) 04:32, 16 May 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 Beards (talk) 06:32, 17 May 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.
Will Eisner's first book-length comic book wasn't the first to use the term "graphic novel", but it has been credited with popularizing the term. The book is a cycle of four stories set mostly in a tenement building in New York City in the 1930s, and was an early English-level attempt to raise the maturity and art levels of the content of the medium. A Contract with God is no Maus, but was an important stepping stone in the comics medium's history in the Anglosphere. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Generally not necessary to include (pictured) in captions, where it's clear what is being pictured
If File:Contract_w_God_excerpt_page_18.jpg and File:A_Contract_With_God_page_116.png have the same purpose of use, it's difficult to justify having both. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed "(pictured)" and File:Contract_w_God_excerpt_page_18.jpg. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: - images need more specificity...Modernist (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The image depicting tenements in the Bronx - is not the Bronx but Manhattan...Modernist (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be acceptable if "in the Bronx" were dropped from the caption (or changes, say, to "New York City")? Or are you aware of a free image in the Bronx? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems ok now; support...Modernist (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments read through it today on my phone - a nice read. Will jot some queries below. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sexual content is prominent in the stories, though not in the gratuitous manner of underground comix, which celebrated a hedonistic lifestyle. In Contract, the sex is not so much erotic as disturbing, its characters frustrated or filled with guilt - this comes across as an opinion (not in itself a bad thing) but maybe better to add who said it and clarify that it is their observation/opinion.
Well, it's cited to two different sources. I'd like to provide more context to the statement, but it would likely fall under OR—basically, sexual (or other grown-up) content was taboo in American comics (especially under the Comics Code Authority). Underground comix was pretty much all about breaking taboos, and they took it to extremes. So you had the reserved extremes of the mainstream versus the gratuitous extremes of the undergrounds, and Eisner's treatment of sexuality (neither avoiding nor flaunting it) more or less stood alone in 1978. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Benny tries to rape Goldie - seems pretty extreme just dropped in there....can some more story/context be provided?
I'm not sure there's much more to it than is stated—Benny thought he would get himself a rich wife, and when he discovered she was as poor as he was, he took out his frustration on her in a noble, manly way. Actually, there is an error (that I've now corrected): he didn't just "try to" rape her, he raped her (although it's later revealed that he was unable to penetrate, I don't think there's a definition of rape that this wouldn't fall under). I suppose it is extreme and sudden, but that is pretty much how it was in the story—Goldie tells Benny she's poor, and the next thing you know he's taking off his shirt and tears all her clothes to ribbons with one yank (I'm sure this is compression of action or something, but I'd call it less than deftly handled on Eisner's part). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ... I'm still mulling this over. Some "sexually assaulted" almost seems to dance around what Benny did—"sexual assault" covers a broad range of activities, including those that are far less egregious than what Benny did. If someone else chimes in preferring "sexually assaulted", I won't oppose, but for now I'd prefer to leave it as it is. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Happy to pause on this one or wait for other opinions on consensus. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - looking at the segment of text at Duncan p. 147 - I think some more word substitution to distance from the source/paraphrasing would be a good thing (agree this looks tricky as I have tried thinking of some synonyms) - e.g. "cutter" I have no idea what occupation that is, surely there is a better contemporary word (?). Am trying to think of a synonym for "snub" too ..."rebuff"?
Changed "snubbed" to "Herbie, an intern Goldie had earlier turned down".
Benny works for "Pinkus Furs"—I guess he cuts furs? There aren't a lot of clues in the story. He's shown at work, but he's not working—he's putting on a necktie getting ready for vacation, as a "Mr Cohen" tells the phone operator "Tell Pinkus we can't ship today—Benny, our cutter is goin' on vacation!" I suppose I could cahnge it to "a cutter in a fur factory" or something, but I'm not sure it's even a factory ... Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would add the factory as on its own the word is archaic to the point I guessed what it meant but never heard/seen it used. Agree I can't see any other synonym for cutter.
The thing is, I can't even be sure it's a factory. It's only shown briefly as a dark room—the panel's mostly black—and it's not clear at all what's going on in there (to me, anyways). There appear to be a couple of furs (I assume) on a table in front of one character, and apparently Benny is the only cutter (does this mean it's a small operation, or is there typically only one cutter? I have no idea). Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the para on sex, Duncan put the disturbing rather than erotic in quotes (I guess) because the contrast between the two was specifically made by Lambert, so I am uneasy about generalising it here - almost all these comments are observations/evaluations made by the author of the chapter, so I think some should be attributed - the explanation of Eisner's background is interesting here too and might be worth adding (and that can be attributed) Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
annoyingly, Lambert seems not to be listed as a reference :P ...I think it is this - be good to look up...and its on google booksCas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't think Eisner's background was good to go in here too? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 03:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, which part of his background do you mean? I'm not seeing it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(sorry re delay) the second last para pn p. 147 of Duncan - "He was an artist pushing the boundaries of the comic book form, yet he was a conservative middle-aged businessman" Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see. That's good to add, and now I've done so. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, otherwise happy with prose and have checked that stories do not paraphrase Duncan text. Leaning support pending discussion of above (not sure if above essential) and others coming along and taking a look and being happy with it. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was the GA reviewer of the article, and I have looked at the progress it has been through since the GA review and am happy to support. The outcome of the discussion above is not likely to influence this stance.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article makes for a good read, support on prose and comprehensiveness. Not seeing a problem with the rape bit Cas mentioned above, especially if it is extreme and sudden in the story. As for "cutter", that term is explained at Clothing#Working_conditions – perhaps a redirect (with possibilities) could be created to link there, and be linked to by this article? - Evad37[talk] 09:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've redlinked it, but I wouldn't redirect it to that section, since it's not logically about cutting, it just mentions it in passing. A book search suggests "cutter" is short for "clothing cutter", but I can't find a "clear cut" enogh description to make an article out of it ... Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Maus shmaus. Overrated. Anyhow, some comments:
I was surprised to read that the book sold poorly. Will told me that it sold well. He talked about the "blue" edition (the Kitchen sink one? I only have the "brown" edition)
Mine's a Kitchen Sink softcover edition, and it's brown. Maybe it sold better than he expected, but "poorly" in retrospect? Comics sales were in the shitter in 1978. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also strange to read about Will as "middle-aged businessman". He was in his late 60s.
61, but good point. What exactly is the cut-off for "middle-aged"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would not say that Eisner's status as a cartoonist grew since he was already associated with the best of the best; but certainly his reputation spread through a wider audience.
He was associated with the best of the best of a previous generation, but this was an age of rising expectations, and he contributed to those rising expectations. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:40, 14 May 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) 06:33, 17 May 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 feel I've done just about all I can to improve this article and reckon it's on par with some other constellation FAs. Have a read and let me know what else to fix..hopefully less stuff thanks to Stigmatella aurantiaca for a detailed GA review and some other copyediting eyes...cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 07:08, 1 April 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, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The usage conditions for File:From_Cosmic_Spare_Tyre_to_Ethereal_Blossom.tif seem to require in-caption attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it normal to have a big row of question marks in the Meteor shower part of the infobox? Surely it is not unknown whether or not they occur in this part of the sky?
there are none - sometimes they get left as ???? fixed now.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article has 'Keyser' in the lead, but Keyzer in 'Stars'. Which is it?
can be spelt either way but settled on 's' for thisCas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"in their Malay and Madagascan vocabulary" - what??
the stars were recorded there for some reason. No idea why as there were no words in Malay or madagascan. I have removed it as it doesn't add to the understanding of the constellation. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Gruis has an Arabic name (Alnair), while Gamma is Al Dhanab, but there's no mention of middle eastern constellations in the 'history' section. Any reason?
some stars of Grus were seen as part of Piscis Austrinus, which does have a classical history, until hived off to form a new constellation - do you think I should somehow highlight this or make more prominent? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what I had been getting at was that the Arabs, who were among history's most prominent astronomers, may have adopted different constellations, as well as different star names. But if this is anything to go by, they did not. So no problem. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any particular criteria that underpin the decision to make some galaxies redlinks, and others not?
hmm, not really. I don't recall de-redlinking them. Will re-redlink.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...Two ultraluminous X-ray sources and one supernova have been observed in NGC 7424. SN 2001ig, one of the two supernovas within NGC 7424": is it one supernova or two?
one - no idea how that got there...removed nowCas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the references, all instances of "Ian Ridpath" should be "Ridpath, Ian" for consistency.
I made a few copy-edit fixes to address the remainder of my concerns. Otherwise, it looks good. Praemonitus (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
Source review anyone?
Is Pi Gruis supposed to go to the dab page? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yes - the name as such refers to two stars that are very close together yet unrelated - Pi1 and Pi2.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 18:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dudley Miles
A very good article. I have a few minor quibbles.
"the red dwarf Gliese 832 is one of the closest stars with a planetary system to Earth." This reads a bit oddly to me. I would prefer "the red dwarf Gliese 832 is one of the closest stars to Earth which has a planetary system."
"Its traditional name, Alnair, means "the bright one" and refers to its status as the brightest star in Grus. In reality it is around 380 times as luminous and has over 3 times the diameter of the Sun." I do not like "In reality" - perhaps refer to absolute luminosity instead.
removed - luminosity is absolute - so adjective unneededCas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Marking the right wing is Theta Gruis". I do not understand "marking the right wing", but that may be my ignorance.
It is a crane (bird), hence the star marks the imaginary wing of the bird....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I still do not like "marking the right wing" as I think other readers - not only me - may miss the allusion to the imaginary bird, but apart from that it looks fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:32, 15 May 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) 06:33, 17 May 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.
Poltava was one of five Russian battleships captured and put into service by the Imperial Japanese Navy after the Russo-Japanese War. She was sunk by land-based artillery during the Siege of Port Arthur in shallow water that allow the Japanese to refloat and repair her. Her only combat during World War I was during the siege of the German-owned port of Tsingtao. The Russians bought her back in 1916 and she had little to do in the White Sea in 1917–18. Her crew declared for the Bolsheviks in October, but they must have been pretty apathetic as the ship made no resistance when the British intervened in the early stages of the Russian Civil War in 1918. No longer seaworthy, they used her as a prison hulk before abandoning her in 1919 when they left North Russia. The Bolsheviks recaptured her in 1920, but just scrapped her in 1924. Buggie111 did the original work several years ago and I've expanded it with material from new sources. The article just passed a MilHist A-class review and should be in pretty good shape. But experience has shown me that something is always overlooked and I trust that reviewers will find any such infelicities as well as points that need to be clarified for non specialists.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Signing on to this. Still alive, finals and capstone project kept me from getting online earlier. Buggie111 (talk) 14:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Russian_battleship_Poltava.jpg needs source, author date of death, and US PD tag. Same with File:Russian_Battleship_Poltava_sunk_in_Port_Arthur.jpg
First image replaced with a Swedish postcard.
File:Tango1908-1909.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for checking these out so quickly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, leaning support
Description
"Poltava, however, reached a top speed of 16.29 knots (30.17 km/h; 18.75 mph) from 11,213 indicated horsepower (8,362 kW) during her sea trials. " I'm not sure the "however" is justified, a difference of .29 knots doesn't seem worth it. Perhaps "though"
Agreed, although rephrased a bit differently.
Construction
Is there any known reason for the delay between constructions and sea trials? Four years seems a bit long.
Russian shipyards were very inefficient during this time.
"to reduce their draft enough" is it draft or drafts under this situation?
I think it could go either way, but I also think that it should technically be plural.
Port Arthur
A further issue was the Russian failure to withdraw its troops from Manchuria in October 1903." Why was this a failure and why the specific month? They presumably did not withdraw their troops in September or November either. Were they obliged to do so, or had they promised?
Promised.
"The ship participated in the action of 13 April …" The two clauses stating that Poltova, and Petropavlovsk each participated seems confusing and should more logically be combined into one.
I'll look forward to more helpful comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resuming
"landed many of her 47 mm and 37 mm guns to reinforce the landward defenses " I would say "shore defenses" or similar to avoid the repetition.
"sortied in an attempt to escape to Vladivostok in the morning, around 07:00" I would rearrange to avoid the impression that "Vladivostok" and "morning" are related.
I read through the rest of it and didn't have anything, other than a couple of things I made directly. I see no reason in dragging out the inevitable.
Support. Good job.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done and thanks for your quick review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - I guess a few things can be overlooked even by the same reviewer ;)
A duplicate link weaseled its way into the lead since I reviewed it at ACR
It might be good to make clear that the abortive sortie to Vladivostok in June ended without combat
"They were intercepted by the Japanese fleet in what became the Battle of the Yellow Sea at 12:55." - this sounds like somebody coined the name "Battle of the Yellow Sea" at 12:55 - perhaps better to rework it as "The Japanese fleet intercepted the Russian ships at 12:55 in what became the Battle of the Yellow Sea" (and as a bonus, it drops the passive voice).
Is it worth linking to the later ship at all? I think that the link to dreadnought is worth retaining, but I'm not sure that the link to the actual ship is? Thanks for the comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I usually do, especially if there's a significant connection between the naming of the vessels (as with my current FAC and the two subsequent cruisers). I don't generally link a later ship if there was no particular connection (for instance, with Dresden and Dresden) but I'd say that since this Poltava couldn't have her original name back because of the new Poltava, that's significant enough to warrant a link. You might simply change it to "given to the new dreadnought battleship Poltava so Tango was renamed..." That will also separate the links for dreadnought Poltava, which I know some people don't like. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. Check ref 15: Wilmott, Hedley (2009). The Last Century of Sea Power: From Port Arthur to Chanak, 1894–1922.
1.1. RE: sustained hits at the waterline that crippled their maneuverability, preventing the Russian squadron from fleeing to Vladivostok. This ref is accurate.
1.2. However, the wiki article tells us that the Poltava was accompanied by the Tsesarevich; Wilmott spells this TSAREVICH. You have a typo, in other words.
This is a problem of transliterating the Russian Cyrillic alphabet into the Latin alphabet.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. RE: "After the Japanese victory in the First Sino-Japanese War of 1894–95, both Russia and Japan had ambitions to control Manchuria and Korea which naturally caused problems between them". Between who? I mean, who does "them" refer to?
Russia and Japan as they're the only actors in the sentence. Manchuria and Korea are acted upon in the sentence, so I don't think that this is ambiguous. However, if you can think of a better way to phrase the sentence, I'm all ears. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the infobox details do not appear to be sourced in the article, while others differ (for example, date of recapture by the Russians)
Gbooks links don't need access date, and the URL can be truncated after page number
Check alphabetization of Further reading. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking these; I think that I've fixed everything.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:10, 14 May 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) 06:34, 17 May 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.
Æthelred was ruler of Mercia at the end of the ninth century. He was Alfred the Great's son-in-law, and important both as an ally in the war against the Vikings and because his acceptance of Alfred's lordship was a stage in the creation the English nation. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ultra quick comment from Singora
You say twice in the lead section that he died in 911. Singora (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
"Æthelred died in 911 and Æthelflæd succeeded him as "Lady of the Mercians",": I've pointed out this problem twice before, so I guess I'm not getting through. "Obama succeeded W as president" implies that both Obama and W have held the office, so the usual meaning of "Æthelflæd succeeded him as "Lady of the Mercians"," would be that both Æthelflæd and Æthelred held the office of "Lady of the Mercians". People might humorously interpret this as a snide remark about Æthelred.
Sorry about that. You changed it in the lead, but neither of us noticed - until now - that there is the same problem lower down.
You're right, sorry about that. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"He is sometimes called "ealdorman", but also "Lord of the Mercians", "subking" and in the Handbook of British Chronology he is given the designation": Again, I'm not getting through. "He is called A, B, C" is missing an "and" (in encyclopedic prose), and when there are a lot of words in "A, B, C", it might force the reader to backtrack before they figure out what's missing. "He is called A, B, C, and here's another fact" is even worse, because the reader will at first take that "and" to be the signal that the last item in the list is coming next, when it's really a new independent clause. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what happened here. Maybe I thought you had changed it when you had pointed out the problem for me to change it.
I will change both and please advise whether you are happy now. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:11, 30 April 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) 21:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Initial CommentsSupport
"part of Viking-ruled Danelaw." - shouldn't this be "part of the Viking-ruled Danelaw"? (imagine it without the "Viking-ruled" adjective)
Fixed.
"In 886 Alfred restored London," - I found the "restored" verb a little odd here (I'd normally imagine restoring a house, or a city centre, but it read oddly applied to a city in a single year)
Restored was Asser's word. I have changed it to "took possession of" and expanded the explanation below.
"West Saxons" - can this be linked to anything?
West Saxons redirects to Wessex. I have expanded above to "King Alfred the Great of the West Saxon kingdom of Wessex" for clarity.
" At some time in the decade after Alfred's death in 899" - I wasn't sure why the bit about Alfred's death was needed in the lead; could it just be "At some time in the 890s..."?
I have changed it to Comstambeys' wording, "At some time in the decade 899 to 909".
"Northumbria" - worth a link for non-British readers?
Done.
"an Englishman as puppet king in 867." - hard to tell from this if this was an unidentified Englishman?
I have added his name. (I have also added Stenton's description of him as obscure, but this can be deleted if it is considered POV.)
"king of the north Welsh territory of Gwynedd" - would the MOS have this as "King"?
I don't think so. MOS says titles should be capitalised "When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name". That is not the case here.
Thanks very much for your review so far. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Æthelred's witan (council) inherited bishops and at least two ealdormen from Ceolwulf," - "inherited" is usually a passive verb (you don't control what you inherit), and I wasn't sure if the absence of the thegns was because they refused to join or because Aethelred rejected them? Or does it mean "included bishops..."?
It is just the conclusions historians draw on comparing witness lists. They don't know the circumstances, as I have tried to make clear. (I have also added a possible family connection with Alfred's wife which I came across while checking this.)
"By 883, Æthelred had accepted Alfred's lordship; Charles-Edwards suggests that in 881–882 he tried to maintain his dominance in south-east Wales, but Alfred offered his protection to Glywysing and Gwent, and in 882–883 Æthelred accepted that West Saxon power made continued independence impossible." - a very long sentence; any chance of breaking it into two?
Done.
" showing that English Mercia " - repetition of "showing that"
Fixed.
"a network of fortified settlements called burhs in Wessex" - could do with a comma or two - "settlements, called burhs, in Wessex"?
Done.
link for Worcester?
Done.
"its standing Roman walls in its defences" - the town walls have their own article
Revised.
"Alfred recovered London by war from the Vikings" - "by force"?
Done.
"In 892 two Viking armies attacked eastern England, " - suggest a comma after 892
Done.
"Later in the year an augmented Viking force marched from Essex" - suggest a comma after year
Done.
"Alfred had been in the west country defending Devonshire," links for "west country" and "Devonshire"?
Done.
" was located a mile west " - should probably have a km equivalent under the MOS.
This does not seem to be compulsory. MOS says "Quantities are typically expressed using an appropriate "main" unit, in some cases followed by a conversion to other units in parentheses." It also says that in this case I would have to say "one mile (1 to 2 kilometres)", and I would prefer not to - it seems clumsy.
"but this was undefended" - "this" seems to refer to Londinium, until you get to the next part of the sentence
Fixed/
"The restoration of London was followed by the submission to Alfred of "all the English people" - how about "After the restoration of London, Alfred received the submission of "all of the English...""? Makes the verb more active.
Done.
"with the most likely context being the occupation of London in 886" - I wasn't 100% certain what you meant by this (i.e. if they got married in London, or it was the political context...?)
Added political context.
" Alfred stood as godfather " - Would "Alfred became godfather" be simpler/more natural?
Done.
"Later in the year, an augmented Viking force" - augmented with what...? (or could you just go for "a larger Viking force"?)
Done.
"Much Wenlock Abbey" - worth double-checking that there aren't articles for these; I'm pretty sure this could link to Wenlock Priory,for example.
Done. I looked for links but I missed this one. Thanks once again. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In the Handbook of British Chronology he is given the designation (described by Simon Keynes as "delightfully provocative")" Is it possible to clarify why this was provocative? I had to read it twice to realise it was politically provocative, as opposed to provocative among historians.
In terms of sources used, I'm not an Anglo-Saxon specialist, but they look very appropriate for an article on this period. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Recusing from delegate duties as I have a FAC open myself at the moment and am commenting on a few here and there... I reviewed, copyedited and supported this article at MilHist ACR and, having checked over the changes since then, I see no reason not to support here. My only minor quibble is that I find "West Saxon kingdom of Wessex" in the lead to be a bit redundant, but perhaps that's my Anglo heritage/bias talking... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. West Saxon kingdom was inserted because Hchc2009 thought West Saxon should be linked to something, but it redirects to Wessex and I could not think of any other target. On second thoughts, I think it would be better just to link West Saxon, but is there a rule against a link which redirects to a target already linked? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While duplicate links are generally to be avoided, they can be justified because of redirects or differing pipes, e.g. it's not uncommon to see in military bio leads an honour linked once as the post-nom and then again spelt out, e.g. AFC (post-nom) and Air Force Cross (mentioning when and why the subject was awarded it). Here, I'm so used to West Saxon being understood as Wessex that it seems overkill (I think the fact that West Saxon redirects to Wessex is a good indication I'm not alone!) plus you have the two "of"s in quick succession, which is a bit clunky, especially in the lead. As I say, it's just a quibble but I felt it read better the way it was at ACR time, i.e. minus the "West Saxon kingdom of". If you're going to link West Saxon per Hchc's suggestion, why not just do it when it appears in the second paragraph, and lose the "West Saxon kingdom of" (where you don't currently link it anyway!)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in how you notate short cites with multiple authors/editors
Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
Publisher for Keynes 1998?
Wiley Blackwell or Wiley-Blackwell?
Be consistent in how editors of larger works are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Fixed apart from Wiley Blackwell or Wiley-Blackwell? They are not consistent how they show their name, and I am inclined to follow how it is shown in each case, but I can settle for one if you prefer. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I was the GA reviewer of this article (when I did some light copy-editing), and it looked very good then. It has only improved since then, and I think it comfortably meets the FA criteria. Great work. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hchc. Looking at your comment that it is unclear what is meant by the "delightfully provocative" designation King Æthelred II, I realised that the section on his status is badly arranged, so I have revised it to hopefully make it clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment: I notice mention of at least two Sawyer references, as "S221" and "S349": the usual practice is to include a space in these references, as "S 221" here and "S 349" here. Those links are to a wonderful resource, which might be included in the references by using Template:Cite web. That's just a suggestion, as I see the references are all of a type at the moment, and a web citation would throw that out; but would that be such a bad thing? I would like to see spaces in those Sawyer references, although it's a tiny detail in an otherwise great effort. Nortonius (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. I have added the spaces and the citations. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to be of service – and my OCD is now in remission! ;o) Nortonius (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
S 221 would make a much better illustration than S 349, and there is a copy in Bond, E. A., and et al., Facsimiles of Ancient Charters in the British Museum, 4 vols (London, 1873–1878). I tried to copy it at the British Library. I was told I could not photograph but I could photocopy. I took it to the copy room, but I was then told that it was too large for the copier but I could get a scan for £29. At that point I gave up, but if anyone can get a copy (without paying an extortionate fee) it would be helpful. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree – WorldCat reports copies in other UK libraries, including the National Art Library and The National Archives, née Public Record Office:[45] both are open to the public, although I'm unsure of the procedure for public access to The National Archives – I used to be able to swan in with a staff pass, many moons ago. If I were still there I'd oblige you myself; but in my time they were mostly a very friendly and obliging bunch, so who knows... HTH. Nortonius (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am planning to visit an exhibition at the Natural History Museum, so I could call in on the National Art Library. Maybe an art library has larger photocopiers! Thank. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I only commented on a tiny aspect of the article, but I've not commented on a FAC before so I don't know the ropes – I'm quite happy from what I've seen to change my "Comment" to "Support" if otherwise promotion might be delayed...? I've seen nothing to make me disagree with the very positive comments from others. Nortonius (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
**"Ceolwulf became king" – his first mention in the main text. Perhaps a blue link here?
I have not linked other words in the main text which were first linked in the lead, and I think it is better to be consistent.
Of course! I'm so used to putting one link in the lead and one in the text that I failed to spot that. Apols! Tim riley talk 17:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
**"but historian Ann Williams" – the omission of the definite article before "historian" (technically known as a "preposed appositive" or false title) is, as Fowler confirms, common in AmEng, but it is journalese in BrEng: style guides such as The Guardian's warn against it. Better avoided in such an English article, I'd say. Similarly later, at "and historian Maggie Bailey", "Historians Cyril Hart and "Maggie Bailey", "Historian Martin Ryan", "In historian Michael Livingston's" and "Historian Pauline Stafford". Indeed, as you successfully name other authorities, e.g. Insley, without prefixing their names with a job-title you might drop some of them here too.
Changes from 'historian' to 'the historian' done. I have also deleted some designations as historians where it it is stated that historians' views are being discussed.
Early rule
**Double quotes rather than single wanted in the block quote.
Done.
**"but Simon Keynes thinks that the marriage" – you've given Keynes his first name at the earlier mention; just surname would be preferable thereafter.
Done.
This is an impressive article and I look forward to adding my support for its elevation to FA. – Tim riley talk 11:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very glad to join the chorus of support for this fine and absorbing article. To my layman's eye it seems comprehensive, the prose is a pleasure to read, the balance is sound, the sourcing wide and well-cited. A first rate article. Tim riley talk 17:02, 16 May 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) 06:35, 17 May 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 first feature film directed by Satyajit Ray. This film is the first from India to enjoy international critical success and features in several lists of great films. The article has undergone a productive peer review, and then copyedit by User:stfg. A recent FAC was closed due to lack of reviewers. I believe the article meets FA criteria. Dwaipayan (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per the resolved comments at the previous FAC, this has my support. --KRIMUK90✉ 09:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It's nice to see how this article has evolved since its GA nomination, which was actually reviewed by me back then, almost six years ago. I'm so proud of the way articles related to Indian cinema have become so much better off late, in terms of writing and effort put into them. This is a great example - it is insightful, very well researched, and as comprehensive as it can get. Very well done Dwaipayan, way to go. Shahid • Talk2me 14:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Very nice article. It would have been awesome if I had some time to work on it as desired earlier. Nevertheless, good job and all the best. - Vivvt (Talk) 23:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead there is this line "A special screening was attended by the Chief Minister of West Bengal and the then Prime Minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru." Does it give impression that Nehru was PM as well as CM? Or is it just me reading it that way?
Now after reading your comment, when I read the sentence, it seems as if Nehru may seem to be both CM of WB and PM of India!! I have removed Nehru's name. The designation is important, the name not so much.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you did want to have Nehru's name in it, one way would be to turn it round: "A special screening was attended by the Chief Minister of West Bengal and Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister of India." Another would be to name the CM of WB :) --Stfg (talk) 09:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is that needed at all? It doesn't seem leadworthy at all; films are specially screened for heads of state all the time.—indopug (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, not needed. It was only a suggestion in case it was wanted. The name is present later in the article and that's fine. --Stfg (talk) 10:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rest all seems good. Well written. Nice job Dwaipayanc and others. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I read most sections - it's getting late here, so couldn't check everything carefully - and found it to be excellent. None of the usual problems I normally find in Indian movie articles at GA and FA, like a tendency to purple prose and trivia about the actors, appear here. There has obviously been some good copyediting at some point. A well-prepared article on an important subject in the arts. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Bollyjeff. I made a number of comments on the article talk page just before this was re-nominated. Once those are addressed, I will be able to support. BollyJeff|talk 18:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
[reply]
Does anyone know how to fix the citation error in the notes? Note a. shows three links a, b, and c. A and b actually go somewhere, but c does not. An error message at the bottom of the section says "Cite error: A list-defined reference has no name (see the help page)."BollyJeff|talk 00:56, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's very good now. BollyJeff|talk 02:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support, this is a great article, the best line being 'the government recorded the loan as being for "roads improvement" '. :) I copyedited the article and have a few comments before I can give my full support:
There are only two jarring notes in the article: the Google Doodle and the Rotten Tomatoes rating. Both are highly trivial 21st-century accolades that intrude upon a classic work. The former didn't even feature on the main Google site, just the local one. The latter includes all manner of blogs in its assessment, and excludes the likes of Pauline Kael. Both should be relegated to the external links, if not removed altogether.
I would keep the doodle info even though trivial. It only shows how the "classic" is still part of 21st-century culture. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ideologically, I am somewhat with Indopug here. Google doodle and Rotten Tomatoes may seem intruding. However, we see Rotten Tomato info in many film articles. That is why it may be a good addition for some readers. For google doodle, I am neither in favor nor against it. Here, Indopug is against and Dhama for its inclusion. Any more voices?--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you on that: weak keep for RT, weak remove for the doodle. Those doodles' main effects are to keep Google in people's minds and to reinforce celebrity culture. But I'm probably old-fashioned, and I wouldn't push the point at all. --Stfg (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The section it is under is "legacy". §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am for keeping it. Legacy section is okay for newer stuff. BollyJeff|talk 12:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But this is a particular trivial accolade among the newer stuff. Note that it isn't even on Google.com, just the India homepage.—indopug (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, due to lack of a clear decision, I am maintaining status quo, that is, keeping both of these info in the article. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to add an image of Ray's storyboards? Even if non-free, it will add value.
Done.
Is it "The Apu Trilogy" or just the "Apu trilogy"? I see both here. (I prefer the latter, it looks less pompous)
I added a question to the talk page before I saw this. The article The Apu Trilogy styles it with all caps and all italics, but I agree with your preference. --Stfg (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Ebert calls it "The Apu Trilogy". I have not changed the usage to the "Apu Trilogy" yet (I don't mind changing it at all). Since both Indopug and Stfg prefer the "Apu Trilogy", I hope it is preferable. What say?--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understood the two options to be about capitalising "the" and "trilogy" (as part of a title). That is, either The Apu Trilogy or the Apu trilogy. I don't think we'd want to omit the definite article except where some other determiner replaces it, as in Ray's Apu trilogy, for example. --Stfg (talk) 13:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now the article consistently uses the Apu trilogy (no italics).--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"While many critics celebrated Pather Panchali as a eulogy of Third World culture, others criticised it for what they took to be romanticisation of such a culture" → can you confirm that this is what is said in the source? I find it hard to believe that celebrating Third World culture should be criticised. (If there's an explanation at the source, please add it to the article.)
Actually, I found this sentence had too close paraphrasing with the source. So, I changed it to a quote, with author attribution.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"After watching the film, François Truffaut is reported to have..." → didn't he exclaim that during the film, as he walked out?
the source uses "after". We are not sure. Your provided source (the Hindu article), I think, is a better source for this than the source used in the article. But is itvery important to differentiate during and after. Please advice. I am ok with either. May be we can avoid using either.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just "On seeing the film, ..." --Stfg (talk) 11:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't Robinson have anything to say about the Themes?
Added one sentence (including one quote) from Robinson that seemed suitable for the themes section.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both Rs. and that symbol are used.
Now the symbol is used consistently.
DVD info: is that technical info really encyclopedic? Also note that the film's probably been released in a variety of home media over the years (VCR, VCD...), so there's no need to specifically mention this one format. The restoration information is more important though and you should promote that from the footnote into the main article.—indopug (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, moved the restoration info to the last paragraph of Release and reception. I am not sure about the necessity of the technical details of the DVD. Surely, the film has had several video tape, VCD, DVD releases. Mentioning those two is probably not needed. I am inclined to delete this info, but have not yet.
Ton of thanks for reading the article in such detail, the copyedit, and the suggestions.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is a fantastic article and should be promoted. Great work.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that to correct the cite error, the explanatory notes should be edited like how they are in Sholay. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dwaipayanc, thank you for fixing the cite error issue in the manner I suggested. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for suggesting the solution :) --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment Dwaipayanc, I see the cast makes excessive use of hyphens, eg: "Kanu Banerjee – Harihar Roy" instead of "Kanu Banerjee as Harihar Roy". Won't it look good to write "as" instead of the hyphens? The cast sections of many Indian FA's like MeA and Sholay do not include hyphens. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular choice between "as" and hyphens, and not aware of any guidelines. However, you are correct that many articles do use "as". So, I changed the hyphens to "as".--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dwaipayanc, I have a doubt: Pather Panchali is included in NDTV's list of "India's 20 greatest films", but the year when the list was published is not mentioned in the article. Do you know? I cannot find the year in the source. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no date of publication for that NDTV article. The earliest archive date from Internet Archive is in July 2013, so it is not after that. We are not sure about the exact publication date.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"After Pather Panchali, Ray went on to make a total of 37 films, including feature films, documentaries and shorts". His filmography shows that he made 37 films (including this film)
yes, the total number of films (including Pather Panchali) is 37. This sentence has a falacy, depending on how you read. So, I think this should be changed to: "After Pather Panchali, Ray went on to make a 36 more films, including feature films,..." What do you think?--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's misleading, shouldn't it be changed? —Vensatry(ping) 17:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Did he ever work as cinematographer, art director, film editor?
this article explains the cinematography question. It says, "Mitra also operated the camera until Charulata when Ray himself decided to take over. Soon after that Ray and Mitra parted company and Mitra's assistant Soumendu Roy took over the lighting. The last film Mitra photographed for Ray was Nayak. (Unlike in Hollywood, in India almost all the cinematographers also operate the camera.)"
Art direction and editing: usually Bansi Chandragupta is credited, or others. The art designs were usually planned by Ray himself. It's a really difficult question, as technically he is not credited, but he is the general planner, and had an overarching presence over so many departments of film making. SImilarly, usually Dulal Dutta edited, but Ray was present physically throughout the editing process, and instructing Dutta. See this.
So, it seems these departments were quite collaborative in his films. To answer your question, "Did he ever work as cinematographer, art director, film editor?", he was not credited in the film credits in those roles. But he worked on those aspects of filming, to a degree probably more than expected/seen in directors. Does my argument satisfy you?--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
May be, but haven't we come across Indian directors who supervise all these aspects of film-making? (editing in particular). You mean to say Ray was the creative brain behind his crew? —Vensatry(ping) 17:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the sentence to "he worked on". Perhaps I mean to say that Ray was the creative brain behind his crew, but I do not have a source that exactly says so. The sources suggest that he actively operted the camera, and was very much directly involved in editing and art direction, alongside the specific crews on those departments. I think yes, many other Indian directors may have played similar active roles, but Ray did surely, according to the sources. So, now after the sentence constrution change, oes it seem more acceptable?--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The film has definitely influenced eminent India film-makers as this is considered a path breaking one in parallel cinema. A line or two about how it influenced them could be included in "Legacy".
Unfortunately, I am not finding specific examples how Pather Panchali influenced other Indian directors/films. Have yu come across any? Of course it did influence, but I am not finding literature to support that!--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Read somewhere that Swayamvaram (which you might be knowing) has some traces of Pather Panchali. I'm not very sure as I've seen neither of these films. —Vensatry(ping) 17:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Regarding my last point, it's only a minor suggestion which may not prevent the article's promotion. Rest all have been sufficiently addressed. —Vensatry(ping) 16:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Scholars have commented on the film's lyrical realism." I'm not sure what "lyrical realism" is. "Lyrical Realism" redirects to "Poetic realism". Is this what is meant? Axl¤[Talk] 10:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I do not know the anser. It's beyond my realm of knowledge. This epithet "Lyrical realism" has been used based on usage in some sources referring to this film. If it feels awkard, we can replace this with "lyrical nature and realism". Thoughts?--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although I cannot feel the sense of "lyrical realism", the separate qualities of "lyrical nature" and "realism" are tangible, and are important to mention (as these are important thematic aspects covered in the Theme section). So, I'd prefer to have both "lyrical" and "realism". If we need change the sentence construction, we are open to suggestion.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Later in the article we have quotes from Ray himself (referring to the book) and from Seton and Robinson, referring to the film, so I feel the use of the word is well justified. The wording "lyrical quality and realism", which you put there today, seems perfect to me. --Stfg (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the new wording is fine. Thank you. Axl¤[Talk] 20:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From "Production", subsection "Script", paragraph 2: "In Apur Panchali (the Bengali translation of My Years with Apu: A Memoir, 1994), Ray wrote that he had omitted many of the novel's characters." Was the book originally written in English and subsequently translated into Bengali? If so, that's fine. Axl¤[Talk] 10:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the book was originally written by Ray in English as My Years with Apu: A Memoir and published after hi sdeath. Some translator later translated it to Bengali. I had access to the Bengali version, so I've specfically mentioned the Bengali version here.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From "Legacy", paragraph 1: "Pather Panchali was followed by two films that continued the tale of Apu's life—Aparajito (The Unvanquished) in 1956 and Apur Sansar (The World of Apu) in 1959. Together, they constitute the Apu trilogy." The second sentence could imply that the two films, Aparajito and Apu Sansar, constitute the trilogy. Although it could be argued that a trilogy self-evidently includes three films. Axl¤[Talk] 21:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid tripping readers up, I've changed they to the three films. --Stfg (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
source review - I will start this off, since no one else is doing it:
In source 2, is dvdcompare really needed? It appears nowhere except in the URL.
Removed dvdcompare.
In source 10, I found a new working original here: [47]. Also, could you list the 2012 copyright date rather than no date at all?
Updated to new live original. Added 2012 date.
The Senses of Cinema ref is missing the date, I saw 'May 2002' near the bottom of the article. Please scan all of the sources for dates.
Great find. somehow it was missed earlier. Now updated.
It is allowed (and encouraged) to have one wikilink for each publication in the notes section, even if it is already linked in text. Missing links in the notes include LA Weekly, The Gaurdian, rogerebert.com, The Times of India, The Tribune, Senses of Cinema
Now wikiinks provided in the notes section. Did not wikilink rogerebert.com as this redirects to Roger Ebert, which is linked from author name in this note.
On the other hand, 'British Film Institute' is already linked three times in the notes.
Decreased to once.
The reliability of the sources look pretty good to me. I believe that the very few sources that are not of the top quality are not making any claims that would be challenged. BollyJeff|talk 13:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for taking up this painstaking job. However well the editors try, I always see that there is always room to improve in this section. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:30, 14 May 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) 06:35, 17 May 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.
Support: I did a talkpage review, couldn't find much wrong. One of the good things about Jim's bird articles is that they often contain information of interest to non-bird people, in this case the Beethoven and Messiaen details. I have to say I find it hard to believe that the monumental opening to Beethoven's Fifth (DAH-DAH-DAH DURRRRRRRR!!!) owes much to the yellowhammer's song – if I heard that in my back garden I'd drop dead with fright. But I digress; the article is well up to Jim's high standards and will make a worthy FA. I'll return and do a sources check if someone doesn't get there first. Brianboulton (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words, support and previous assistance Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brian, I think we might hit you up for that source review if you wouldn't mind... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support
Did you know that the first para in the Distribution and habitat section finishes without a cite?
"Predators and parasites": I'm never keen on starting a paragraph (or a sentence come to that) with a numeral. I'm sure I was told not to at University.
"Although the population appear to be declining..." →"Although the population appears to be in a decline"?
Usual top-notch stuff! Implement or disregard at your discretion. This was easy to read, concise, and above all, very interesting! Cassiantotalk 18:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review, heartening words and support. The ref got lost when I split an earlier longer paragraph, added now, other two fixed too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I can find little to quibble about and believe the article meets the criteria.
The lead has "Children's writer Enid Blyton helped to popularise..." where I would start with the definite article: "The children's writer...". I'm not sure if my version is "better". Perhaps Tim riley has an opinion.
I agree. This would be better. Cassiantotalk 19:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So do I. Now that I'm here I'll read the article and join this review in earnest a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 21:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another great article. Well done. Aa77zz (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest removing the MHNT in the figure legend. Aa77zz (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review and support, "the" added, MHNT binned (it was there because the original caption had only the acronym) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I vastly enjoyed this article, which is wonderfully diverse in its approach. I don't think I have ever read an article that contained so many words I didn't know, but the erudition is lightly worn and the prose is very readable indeed. Two exceedingly minor quibbles:
Lead
"…song with a A little bit of bread..." – shouldn't that be "…with an A little bit…?
In culture (I found this section enchanting, by the way)
Catalogue d'oiseaux not Catalogue d'oiseau – not a lot of point in cataloguing one bird.
I know little about birds, other than the ones that go with roast potatoes, but this article looks to my layman's eye to be comprehensive, and it certainly meets the other FA criteria. A real treat! – Tim riley talk 22:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm blushing! Many thanks for review and support. Changes made as suggested (I don't know how oiseau got that far, even I know the correct plural) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
I'm on my way out, but here's some quick image comments. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for image review, I've replaced the potentially problematic ogg with an EL to xeno-canto. Pity we can't have the song in the text, but that's life Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prose review:
Per the new WP:CAPS, shouldn't "Yellowhammer" be the lower-case "yellowhammer" in the article? Goes for the rest of species names as well.
The policy came in during the FAC, I was hoping to get away with it, but done now. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit of bread and no cheese - why is this in italics? WP:WORDSASWORDS?
I'm so used to writing bird songs in italics I didn't really think about this one, done now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Adults have a complete moult after breeding which takes at least eight weeks - this needs to be reworked; "after breeding" is begging for a comma after breeding, but doing so would suggest that the birds breed for at least 8 weeks.
The introduced birds are of the British and Irish race, E. c. caliginosa. - rather than this closing the paragraph, I think this should be worked into the first few sentences
Yellowhammers are monogamous and breed in the year following hatching. - juveniles breed in the year after they hatch, or the adults breed in the year after their eggs hatch?
The Yellowhammer adds invertebrates to its diet in the breeding season, particularly as food for its growing chicks. - if you have this, is the mention of invertebrates as supplements in the above paragraph necessary?
Males with high parasite levels produced fewer offspring (there is no such effect for females), and tend to be less brightly coloured. The striking plumage of the male may have arisen as a signal of fitness to breed. - perhaps connect the sentences, using something like "as such,"
Added a "therefore", feel free to tweak if that's inadequate Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"little bit of bread and no cheese" - you've got it in quotes when Blyton uses it.
Beethoven also used the Yellowhammer theme in two piano sonatas, no. 21 in C major, the "Waldstein", (Op.53) and No. 23 in F minor, the "Appassionata" (Op.57). - owing to the commas, this looks like you have four works listed. Perhaps rework?
The last two paragraphs of the article are quite short. Any way to expand and/or merge them? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reluctant to merge that when there is so little connection between the ideas expressed. I've added a few words to the last pargraph, which is all I have. I can't expand Messiaen without getting into his metaphysics, irrelevant to a biology article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your careful review and comments, much appreciated Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and images. Very good work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Minor comments Isn't the photo of the Male E. c. citrinella superior to the one in the infobox? I think you should switch them. Also the pic of the female could do with a closer crop. There are better pics of the sparrowhawk too: [49], [50].—indopug (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for suggestions, all implemented. Looks better Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment by Aa77zz after recent changes
The grammar is seriously wrong in the revised Subspecies section. Aa77zz (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aaarghh—that was my final edit last night, after a couple of glasses of Carménère . I think it shows, rewritten in English now. Sorry Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review
No significant issues: all external links working, all formats consistent and correct, all sources high quality and reliable. One (very minor) point:
as far as I can see, access to the Yellowhammer details in ref 3 does not require a subscription. Otherwise all well with sources. Brianboulton (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for sources review, Brian. Ref 3, to HBW, only shows the boring taxonomy section in full if you are not logged in to a paid-for account. All the other sections are two lines and a read more which links to a requirement to have an account to see the rest of the text. If you can really see the whole text, I want my money back (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 10 May 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) 09:04, 14 May 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 director who never forgot the theatre, and ultimately returned to it and saved at least one traditional art form. Our article on Djajakusuma (again, as with my previous FACs, the most detailed on the subject in English) was mostly written in 2012. During my trip to Jakarta in December I found a copy of his biography, purchased it... and left it on my bookshelf for three months. I've finally worked it in, and now our article is ready for prime time. This has had a GAC by Grapple X and a very detailed PR by Sarastro1, SchroCat, Tim riley, and Wehwalt, and it should be a relatively easy review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Had my say at the PR. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was a fellow traveller at PR and had my concerns dealt with there. A further read through shows further strengthening and improvement. - SchroCat (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for all of your help. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I was another PR chap, had my say there and am more than happy to support. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cassianto
Sorry I missed the peer review, I will spend the day going through the article today and post here shortly. What with the excellent reviewers you have had so far, I doubt there will be much left for me, but I will start reading nevertheless.
"Djajakusuma was the fifth child of six born to the couple, who lived comfortably off Djojokoesomo's salary as a government official."
"Djajakusuma decided to go into the performance arts." -- Do we know which art at this stage?
Source isn't clear if it was modern stage plays or a more traditional form. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"While with the Centre..." -- Not sure on this, but is it incorrect to capitalise "centre" if the full name is not given?
I think it is similar to Army, as used in Sudirman (i.e. shorthand for a proper name). That being said, adding "Cultural" isn't a big deal. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"This was followed by Harimau Tjampa (Tiger from Tjampa) in 1953, which followed..." Followed follows followed in close succession.
"Djajakusuma spent a year from 1956 to 1957..." I feel we can lose "1957" as most would genrally know when a year would finish from 1956.
"After being rushed to Cikini General Hospital, he was declared dead of a stroke..." -- That's a very good hospital if they attributed the death to a stroke when he arrived! Usually, a stroke is found out as a result of an autopsy.
That's all. Implement or disregard at your discretion, I guessed my musings would be short. A credit to you Crisco! Cassiantotalk 19:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing. Done except where I've commented. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per above resolved comments. Cassiantotalk 02:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Another of the peer reviewers, I am glad to support the promotion of this article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for your help and the supports! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support another support seems almost superfluous, but so many good editors have been through it now that I couldn't find any nits to pick. Good work Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. Is your bibliography ordered alphabetically? How many items are in the wrong place?
Four were out of place; that has been fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I only saw two. You're one up on me! Actually, you're two up on me! Singora (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2. The last item in the bibliography is an untitled article in Nasional. What is Nasional? Is (was) it a magazine?
Was a Yogyakarta-based newspaper. The clipping (I wouldn't call it an article) in question is essentially the photograph used in #Style and two sentences describing the context. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. Why are you not linking to (and archiving) the English language translations for the filmindonesia.or.id sources. The URLs for the English translations are not the same as the Indo originals.
Filmindonesia.or.id's translations are, in general, somewhat poor, and thus for the sake of reliability I prefer to use the original Indonesian. Furthermore, they do not have translations for biographical information, at least the last time I cared to check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand. But if the original succumbs to link rot, remember that the archived version (which I think is rendered in a sort of PDF format) can't be translated by, for example, Google Translate. Singora (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I'll have to play with it. Since most of those are, essentially, a paragraph or two, copy/pasting should work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Played with a bit. Google is giving me the message "This page was not retrieved from its original location over a secure connection" for the archive, meaning that it won't translate because the archive is going through a third point (I think). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may wish to check this, but I think WEBCITATION.ORG saves web pages as graphics or PDFs. In my experience, online translation services can't translate them. Singora (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. In the lead section, you write "most of his energies were dedicated to the promotion of traditional art forms and the teaching of cinematography". Why not just say "most of his energies were dedicated to promoting traditional art forms and teaching cinematography"? How does "the teaching of" differ from "teaching"?
That's a nice wording, thank you. I'll use it. I had neglected to consider simply using the verb forms. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. See this sentence: "Biran described him as quick to emotion when he was displeased". Does this mean that Biran, when displeased, described Djajakusuma as quick to emotion? And what does quick to emotion actually mean? Are you saying that Djajakusuma was fiery and/or volatile? Or did he give everyone a huge hug when he was pissed off?
Fiery, volatile, the whole nine yards. Reworked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've written "Biran described him having a fiery temper". Shouldn't that be "Biran described him as having a fiery temper"? Singora (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6.1. The guy collapsed and was rushed to hospital.
6.2. He suffered from bouts of sudden weakness for the rest of his life.
6.3. Despite his rapidly failing health, Djajakusuma remained active in the arts.
6.4. In 1980 he made his last film appearance.
6.5. In early 1987 Djajakusuma's doctor diagnosed him with heart disease, which led Djajakusuma to begin dieting and stop smoking, though he showed no outward signs of ill health. What do you mean "he showed no outward signs of ill health"? You've already talked about his bouts of sudden weakness and rapidly failing health. Regardless, the structure of this sentence is wrong. It should be:
Though outwardly healthy (despite his rapidly failing health) ....
he was diagnosed with ...
he subsequently quit .........
I'm assuming that the source is talking about his body not showing signs of frailty, bruising, etc, but we know what they say about "assume"... I've removed this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
7. RE: Early life. You write "While young he enjoyed watching stage performances, such as the traditional dance form tayuban and the wayang puppetry". Do you need the definite article for wayang puppetry? Please excuse me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen it written like this before.
I'm using "the" to keep it parallel with "the traditional dance form tayuban", which precedes it. It feels odd, to me at least, if we remove "the" but keep "puppetry". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not switch the word order from "such as the traditional dance form tayuban and the wayang puppetry" to such as wayang puppetry and the traditional dance form tayuban? Singora (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, bro. I hope I haven't annoyed you too much! Singora (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment from Singora
You have the sentences "As a lecturer teaching screenwriting and the history of theatre, Djajakusuma focused on Indonesian arts. He argued that Indonesians should rely on local culture, not continuously look towards Western ones". The word ones is awful. What you're trying to say is:
1. He encouraged Indonesians to espouse local culture and spurn Western influences.
2. Always a strong advocate of Indonesian culture, he encouraged his students to embrace native art forms and not seek inspiration from Western influences.
3. Uneasy at the way in which Western culture was beginning to permeate Indonesian society, he attempted to instill in his students the belief that ......
Whatever you think, the word ones is a poor choice. Singora (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is grammatically correct, but I've reworked (a bit more simply: "not continuously look towards the West") — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The word ones may or may not be grammatically correct, but it looks amateurish. Your reworking is fine. Consider:
1. I live in Thailand. I like Thai girls and prefer them to English ones.
2. I like the national parks in Thailand and prefer them to English ones.
Support from Singora Singora (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, and best of luck with your FAC (where I'll hopefully see you shortly). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting article. Meets FA criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Query -- Crisco, can I assume everything in the filmography (including roles) is mentioned/cited in the main body? Haven't checked for myself, if you assure me on that point then that'll be fine... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:12, 14 May 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) 10:25, 14 May 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): Sasata (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Morchella rufobrunnea is a choice edible fungus, and one of the few morel species that has been successfully cultivated. The article is fairly short, but I think is comprehensive for a species that was "officially" described only in 1998. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I love seeing your mushroom articles, and I'm happy to lend a hand reviewing this one. I normally focus on reference minutiae, but with how many of these you've written, I know I'd be in for a short review if that's all I did, so I'll aim for a more comprehensive one:
I know "new to science" is a term of art, and all, but it is probably jarring to the lay reader here, since it wasn't exactly discovered in 1998 so much as differentiated. Doubly so since the lead mentions a cultivation patent that was seemingly issued before anyone knew the mushroom existed! (Yes, obviously, that's not really how it worked, but it does rather read that way.)
I think I've fixed these issues. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps re-order the Taxonomy section likewise? Introduce the 1986 mentions of western deliciosa first, then walk through the sequence of establishing rufobrunnea in 1998 and moving the existing mushrooms over to the new name?
I like the order as it is currently written, so am hesitant to change unless there's a consensus that it really would be better the other way. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"North American morels formerly classified as deliciosa have since been divided into two distinct species, Morchella diminutiva and M. virginiana." Should that say "Other North American morels..." since rufobrunnea started its taxonomic voyage there also?
Added "Other". Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any details on what form of molecular analysis was used? I feel like I'm being picky asking, but I know it's been included in several other mushroom FAs (and was specifically requested by someone during mine).
Must have been a clever fellow! I've added these details. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I know your clades aren't consistently capitalized: Esculenta clade vs. Elata Clade. Later, you have "Blushing Clade" in caps, with quotes, and I'm not sure what the distinction is there, either.
I've now made the clade names capitalized, and the word "clade" not. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind about this, and now have clade names uncapitalized (see reply to Caliber below). Sasata (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anything comment on what the black granules are? Or are they just a thing it does?
Have looked for additional details, but have not found anything. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Link sclerotia under Description (instead of first linking it down in Cultivation)?
Both linked now. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anything describe characteristics that distinguish rufobrunnea from the (now) two other species that all used to be part of North American deliciosa for the Similar Species section?
Added some details about these species. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Link pre-apothecia to something?
Rephrased to the less jargony "immature caps". Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You give a development process with four steps, then one with five steps. I assume the difference is the conditions involved, but it makes the section less than clear overall.
This section has been reorganized for clarity. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References and reference formatting look pretty solid. Should the Stamets ref read "3rd ed." instead of "3 ed."? (I'm contractually obligated to find a nit to pick in reference formatting...).
Yes, changed. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can't quite endorse promotion yet, but I have no doubts that the article will be there in short order. As always, nice work. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from J Milburn
"Its known range was extended a decade later when a study determined that it was common in the West Coast of the United States, and in 2009, when it was reported growing in Israel." How about "Its range was later found to be more widely spread, when a study determined that it was common in the West Coast of the United States a decade later, and when it was reported growing in Israel in 2009." Extending the "known range" seems a little clumsy.
How is it now? Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the length of the article (and aesthetically) I feel two paragraphs of lead would be best.
Lead split (and slightly expanded). Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"a process to cultivate M. rufobrunnea was described and patented in the 1980s." How about "a process to cultivate morels now known to be M. rufobrunnea was described and patented in the 1980s." or "a process to cultivate morels, including the since-described M. rufobrunnea was described and patented in the 1980s." or something similar?
Changed to something similar. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In a 2008 study by Michael Kuo, he determined" The study is the subject of the sentence, not Kuo. How about "In a 2008 study, Michael Kuo determined" or "In a 2008 study by Michael Kuo, it was determined"
So the name Morchella deliciosa is no longer used at all? It's used elsewhere on Wikipedia, but has no article
It's still used, but should only be applied to European specimens. Have made a stub. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"although most are typically found in the narrower range, 9.0–15.5 cm (3.5–6.1 in)" Should be "although most are typically found in a narrower range, 9.0–15.5 cm (3.5–6.1 in)" or "although most are typically found in the narrower range of 9.0–15.5 cm (3.5–6.1 in)"
You don't link "sclerotia" at the first mention (though I'd recommend keeping it linked at the second
Linking tweaked. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not the end of the world if you don't have them, but do you have any information about differentiating this one from similar species in the US? M. deliciosa used by western American authors.[4] North American morels formerly classified as deliciosa (deliciosa? diminutiva? virginiana?) Was there anything about similar morels in the Israel paper?
Added a bit. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
US, USA or United States?
Now US and United States. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Unlike the North American version that fruits for only a few weeks in the spring" This is contrary to what was said in the previous paragraph
Tweaked statement. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images mostly good, but the source link on File:Morchella rufobrunnea 11174.jpg seems to be wrong. I'm also struck by what looks like atypical colouration on the lead image, but I'm happy to take your word if you're happy with it. J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped this for an image of a more representative specimen that also shows the bruising reaction. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some quick comments on the sources (no spotchecks done)- You sometimes have 1 January 2000 (patents), sometimes 2000-01-01 (retrieval date). Sometimes you have "(PDF)" before the link, sometimes afterwards. Why do you italicise "California Fungi"? These are all real nitpicks, and it's possible no change is necessary. Otherwise, all sources look reliable and appropriately formatted. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like to have source dates & retrieval dates in different formats. "California Fungi" no longer italicized. Location of PDF is template-dependent (i.e. cite journal vs. cite report). Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both very much for your comments. I've already implemented some of the easier ones, and am pondering how to best action the others. Will post a full response soonish. Sasata (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comment Mostly of the usual high standard, but I have doubts about the grammar of A choice edible species, a process to cultivate morels now known to be M. rufobrunnea was described and patented in the 1980s. The first phrase is obviously intended to describe the fungus, but the subject of the sentence is "A process". I can't see anything else, so I'm supporting on the basis that that sentence will be fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jim, I've moved the mention of edibility out of that sentence to smooth the grammar. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"'The first scientifically described specimens of Morchella rufobrunnea were collected in June 1996 from the Ecological Institute of Xalapa and other regions in Xalapa, - I'd introduce "Xalapa" (city) with some descriptor as it is not well known - "The (southern) Mexican city of Xalapa"? or something
If the clades are subgeneric, should they be italicised?
I found this, which suggests that clade names should be unitalicized (to prevent confusion with traditional Latin names), and uncapitalized (which seems to align well with Wiki policies about capitalization), so I've uncapped them. Sasata (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
reddish-vinaceous - odd construction - if meaning "red to wine-red" say so, or alternately "vinaceous (wine red)"
Pls review duplinks and see if you really need them -- you have Ucucha's script?
I've removed two and would like to keep the two that remain. Sasata (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest it's time to ping Squeamish Ossifrage to see if he still has any concerns. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pinged (although he hasn't edited since April 17). Sasata (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's been long enough and we can safely call it a day now, tks all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:54, 14 May 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) 08:56, 14 May 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.
After the GA review and peer review of this article, in which I've been told that this article is both comprehensive and and understandable, I'm submitting this for an FA review. I also believe that it meets the FA criteria. It's rather short, but as I mentioned, people, including those who are passionate about the subject matter as seen at the peer review believe that it is comprehensive. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've done this correctly...images are not my strong suit. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the Latin pronunciation of "Caelum" unacceptible in English?
it was formerly known as Caelum Scalptorium: former to de Lacaille's introduction?
Appears to be already in the "History" section. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but what I'd meant was that it wasn't clear here that "Caelum Scalptorium" was the name de Lacaille gave it—it could be read as that it had that name before de Lacaille got to it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The other twelve naked-eye stars in Caelum are not referred to by Bode's Bayer designations anymore, including RV Caeli.: citation?
This is more a deduction based on the fact that there are no modern sources that I could find that refer to any of the other stars by their Bayer designations. If you think this strays too much into WP:OR territory, I can remove it. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem like OR to me, but let's see if anyone else objects. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Qian, S. -B.; Liu, L.; Zhu, L. -Y.; Dai, Z. -B.; Fernández Lajús, E.; Baume, G. L. (2012): what's with the hyphens? Are they supposed to be there?
Thank you for your comments and support! StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Have tinkered with this constellation article a bit as it has been buffed by StringTheory11. Only slight query is a segment that has " consists of four stars, and 20 stars in total" - which should be changed to "4" and "20" or "four" and "twenty" I guess. Otherwise the prose has just the right amount of embellishment to make it flow nicely. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 10:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've spelled "twenty" out now. Thanks for the support! StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: it seems fine. Just one little issue: in the references, "Ian Ridpath" should be "Ridpath, Ian" for consistency. Beta Caeli is actually listed as a main sequence star by NStars, but the discrepancy among the sources can be left for astronomers to sort out. Praemonitus (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the ref. Thank you! StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Supportconstellation was recognized as burin and an échoppe,[4] although it has come to be recognized simply as would benefit from tweaking to avoid the repetition of "recognised", but otherwise looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "shown as". Thanks! StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
I'd expect to see the last bit of the first para of Stars cited.
Flamsteed only labelled stars that could be seen from his location in Europe, and thus the stars of Caelum were invisible. I could provide a ref to the former fact if you want, and then the conclusion is an obvious-enough inference that I don't believe it would be WP:OR. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, I'm inclined to think that a footnote, worded along the lines of your first statement above and cited as you suggest, might be the way to go... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
Has anyone done a source review for formatting/reliability? StringTheory, if no-one volunteers soon, pls list a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a minor edit wikilinking a list of the 88 modern constellations.
"NGC 1679, a barred spiral galaxy with a spectrum containing emission lines." I would have thought most galaxies would have emission lines. The cited source doesn't give much context. Maybe this one has more than usual and thus contains hot ISM? --99of9 (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I even included it at all was due to the fact that there's really nothing at all of note in the constellation with regards to deep-sky objects bar the one Seyfert galaxy. I'll just remove the reference to it, as it doesn't seem like a particularly interesting galaxy. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm happy with removal. I haven't done a thorough review, so wont cast a support/oppose. --99of9 (talk) 00:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
FN 1 Location?
This ref wasn't sourcing anything that couldn't be found elsewhere, so I just removed it and replaced all the references with other ones. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a decent article overall (though maybe it could go into more depth about the historical significance of it). I've made a few tweaks here and there while looking over it. All the references are reliable, as they are written by experts in the field or are located in reputable databases. The content cited to Reference 2 does not appear in Reference 2 and some of the content cited to Reference 6 a does not appear in ref 6. Reference 17 also appears to be about the wrong star. --Jakob (talk) (Please comment on my editor review.) 23:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 17 fixed. I'll get to the others as soon as I get a chance. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For ref 6 (now ref 1), I'm not seeing what's not from the ref. For ref 2, just click the TXT button next to Caelum, which has all the necessary information. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@StringTheory11: I think it was the content in the notes section, but I saw where that is stated in ref 1. I don't really understand the string of numbers and coordinates in the txt file you mentioned, but perhaps it should link to the actual txt file where the information is located? --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 20:19, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Let's hear other's thoughts on the matter, I think, since the TXT itself doesn't provide any context, while the original page does. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I won't hold up this nomination on that matter though. Since that unreferenced sentence is now referenced, I'll support. --Jakob (talk) (my editor review) 20:02, 11 May 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) 09:17, 14 May 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 is a small article about a very big painting. An epic description of sacred stories from Central Australia, it set a record for the price paid for Indigenous Australian art when it was bought by the National Gallery of Australia in 2007. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For a painting that's 6m2, File:Warlugulong 1977.JPG is tiny. I can't make out any details and thought it looked like stone and moss. Wikipedia's non-free policies may limit the size of that file, but consider adding a second image showing zoomed in details, highlighting one of the stories. - hahnchen 13:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Photography is prohibited in the gallery, and I have not located any close-up images. The image here is at the same resolution as the National Gallery uses in its online collection image. I sympathise with the problem, but I have no solution at this point. :-( hamiltonstone (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Click on the zoom button... - hahnchen 23:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, i thought i did that but only got a larger version at same resolution. You are correct. I'll work on this... hamiltonstone (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, had a go at that. See what you think. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually just photograph your screen? Use the print screen function, copy it into paint, crop it and save it as PNG. You should get higher quality and lower resolution. - hahnchen 20:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I could, I would do that, but my 'print screen' function doesn't work (never has - I don't know why), and 'print to file' appears prevented by the host site (doubtless some sort of nifty copyright control). hamiltonstone (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Hahnchen for sorting out the close-up image. All good. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FN15: page? Also, that parenthetical probably shouldn't be italicized
It was an online article and I had omitted the link. I've fixed that. I'm pretty sure the parenthetical part should remain italicised as it is the title of that edition / part of the newspaper in question, but will take further guidance. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My preferences show Hidden categories, revealed as including: "Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters", and "CS1 errors: dates". Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Johnbod, i don't what those things mean or how to address them - for example, i don't know how to determine if a template parameter is deprecated or what the preferred alternative is - and i don't know how to view hidden categories. Any pointers? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can turn on the ability to view hidden categories via Preferences (see here for directions). Being able to access those categories may help you address those parameter and CSI date issues (though not having a real understanding of their purpose or effect on an article's quality, I'm not sure if they're really things that you would need to fix. I'll leave that up to the other reviewers). Thanks, Ruby2010/2013 16:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ruby. Having read this, i was able to identify the deprecated cite template parameters and fixed them. My hunch is that the "CS1 errors: dates" message may be a false positive - I can find no parameter errors or deprecated template terms in the article that relate to dates. But I also can't get rid of the bloody message. Hopefully someone else will come up with something...hamiltonstone (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't loose sleep over this, but maybe leave a request for assistance on the HIDDENCAT talk. Ceoil (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...Indigenous men at Papunya, in Australia's western desert, began... - these subordinate bits I often put in between mdashes, just to break up a whole slew of commas.
Sometimes agree, but don't think this phrase is an appropriate candidate for such dashes, as it isn't the sort of 'additional side observation' that best suits that punctuation.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lungkata is italicised and unitalicised....also is it worth a redlink as a significant spirit/being?
Unitalicised the one instance where it had been, for some reason. Line ball on the latter. I'm probably inclined not to. Ive seen the term in three contexts: this painting by Clifford Possum, the middle name of another notable artist, and a walk in Uluru NP. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, the article is pretty small and this might indeed be all we can get that is citeable - if there were any interviews where the artist had discussed the owrk or any more analysis of the themes in the painting (colours chosen/whatever), that would be good to add. However it is engagingly written and I can't see much wrong prosewise. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 04:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this and this and have ordered a book from the library that i don't think i have yet checked, to see if i come up with anything further. Thanks, hamiltonstone (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better. A couple of other things..discussions of the themes seems a touch sparse but maybe nothing more exists to cite, so I suspect what we have fulfils comprehensiveness.....?
OK, i have checked two books that arrived, and one did allow me to add some significant material: the diff is here. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I presume the painting is on display in canberra....you haven't actually said. Has it been loaned anywhere?
Somewhat to my surprise, I couldn't find anything that says it is on permanent display, though i believe it to be. Certainly it is currently on display on level one, as the NGA website shows, but it doesn't specify that this is permanent, so there didn't seem much point in saying more than what the article currently specifies: that the work is in the NGA collection. I'm not aware of it having been loaned and the NGA text does not indicate that it has.hamiltonstone (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, unless I am missing something, the article as it stands now does not say the NGA has it on display, only that it has bought it....? Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment Why is "Indigenous" capitalised throughout? It's not derived from a proper noun like "French" or "Afro-Caribbean", it's not followed by capitalised nouns (so we get "Indigenous men", which looks odd), it's not even restricted to this use. You can have "indigenous (sic) Fijians", even indigenous plants and animalsJimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the standard usage in Australia, when referring to the indigenous people of this country. See for example this from Sydney Uni or this from the Australian National University; for an example of the capitalised usage, from an Australian government website, see here. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 11:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I couldn't see anything else, changed to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support
You can switch off now, bit I do have comments to prove that I read it.
Why do we capitalise "indigenous" but not "Western Desert"?
For the reason regarding Indigenous, see response to Jimfbleak above. On western desert, arguably it is a region rather than an official geographic placename, but given the use of caps in the article that is the target of the link, i have indeed capitalised it. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Described as "epic"[18] and "sprawling",[19] critic Benjamin Genocchio This is awkward, as at first glance the adjectives seem to apply to Genocchio. Can we re-word this?
It was purchased for A$1,200 by the Commonwealth Bank, which hung it in a bank training centre cafeteria, on the Mornington Peninsula. Can we get rid of the comma?
Yes. Here's hoping I chose the right one! :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the same sentence, you write "$2.4 million" and "$1,056,000". Unless the MoS says otherwise, I'd write these two in the same format (unless there's some other good reason, like that the source for the larger figure is not specific enough to expand it).
I could do $1.056 million, which is how the source gives the numbers, but I've opted for "just over $1 million", which seems precise enough to make the point. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"As of 2014, the work is on display in the National Gallery." I've always been troubled by "as of" statements, but the guideline doesn't seem to offer a straight answer. It might be more informative to say "Since 20__, the work has been on display in the National Gallery." --Coemgenus (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it isn't the ideal formulation. The source however just says that it is on display now. It doesn't actually say when it was put on display. Now, given the amount of $$ they paid for it, I'd figure the gallery would have put it straight on the wall in 2007. But I can't prove it. hamiltonstone (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that makes sense. Works for me. This is a good article, I'm happy to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- I didn't see a review of media licensing but the FURs for the two images employed look satisfactory to me, so we'll call it a day here, tks all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:34, 14 May 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) 09:35, 14 May 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 metalloid is kind of a cross between a metal and a nonmetal. They have a mix of metallic, nonmetallic and in between properties.
One of the FAC moderators, Ian Rose, suggested I ask User:John if he could copyedit this article. I did, he did, and it looks very sharp now. User:Dirac66 then checked the article, was happy with the standard of copy-editing, and made a few technical observations that I've addressed. More details are at the metalloid talk page here and here. Sandbh (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As Sandh has generously pointed out I did a lot of work on this article. I know it intimately and have no reservations about supporting its promotion. --John (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I took out "In contrast, Jones (writing on the role of classification in science) observed that, 'Classes are usually defined by more than two attributes.'<ref>[[#Jones2010|Jones 2010, p. 169]]</ref>" because I do not think it is essential to the article. Is Jones writing specifically about metalloids or is it just a general comment on classification? We already have enough about the difficulty of classifying elements as metalloids in any case. We used to have more. "In contrast" is one of the markers I look for in copyediting. So are "additionally", "actually" and "however". Unless the author has explicitly contrasted two things, we shouldn't use this term. --John (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is very good. If I may, I'd like to keep Jones as a plain note (without the 'In contrast'). He isn't writing about metalloids. He's writing about whether or not Pluto is a planet and, in that context, the role of classification in science. His writing is particularly cogent, and the parallel of what used to be the lack of a definition of a planet, to the lack of an agreed definition of a metalloid, is striking and interesting. Of course, I won't say that in the note but I can hope that someone else may read Jones and enjoy the analogies. Just replace wherever he says "Pluto" and "planet" with "selenium" (e.g.) and "metalloid" :) Sandbh (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I notice polonium and astatine are both marked as "Inconsistent" in the top infobox graphic, but only astatine is outlined in black in the bottom graphic. Shouldn't they both be outlined or non-outlined? —Designate (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the "inconsistency" at work ;-). The blue colors show the statistic outcome, the periodic table shows reasonings for the individual elements. Both statements are valid and sourced, but their contradiction requires explanation. As there is no space for that in the infobox (for a reason), the micro periodic table should go.
Note: I added the micro periodic table for overview, without giving it much thought back then [56]. -DePiep (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The bottom graphic could stay as the caption says it's 'a' periodic table, rather than 'the' periodic table. it's also linked to the periodic table article. I'm not fussed either way. Designate: if this would still seem to be too confusing I'll ask for the bottom graphic to be deleted. Thank you for your thought provoking comment. Sandbh (talk) 11:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sandbh, as Designate simply pointed out: it may be right & sourceable, but it is unexplained there. That is a sin. And I think that that table box is not the place to explain it, so removal is my choice. -DePiep (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the top graphic you have four categories: Commonly, Inconsistently, Less commonly, and Rarely. Seems the bottom graphic could include the top two designations, or the top three, or all four, but right now it's jarring because it doesn't seem to have been made with the same reasoning as the top graphic. —Designate (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DePiep, could you please remove the bottom graphic? Sandbh (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. --John (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the one at the bottom of the infobox. —Designate (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I see what you meant now. It is annoying that the code is so complex that it will require an expert to make this adjustment. --John (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the small periodic table is colored based on this code. All the elements have a |category listed—maybe astatine and polonium can both be changed to category=unknown instead of metalloid/metal. The individual page for astatine calls it "Metalloid (disputed)" while the page for polonium calls it "Other metal (disputed)". It doesn't seem to me that they should be given the same color on the top chart at Metalloid if At is more commonly recognized as a metalloid than Po. —Designate (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the small PT at the base of the infobox. Deleted two lines I think) of code. I must've been tired when I asked DePiep to do it, as I could've done it myself if I'd looked harder. I'll restore the PT at the very end of the article on the presumption that this'll be OK to restore. Sandbh (talk) 09:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. --John (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. During the first FAC, I wasn't confident the article deserved the FA status, but Sandbh refused to give up, and the article was getting better and better over time. I've given a lengthy comment during the second FAC. The issues I raised were resolved, and I didn't support only because I suddenly lost the opportunity to get online, check, and support. The article has remained FA-worthy ever since.--R8R (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is not at all my are of expertise; I'm use to writing history articles, not science articles, but this is a really interesting subject so I thought I'd take a look.
Thank you very much Harry. I'm working my way through these, other than those John has astutely edited, and will respond further shortly. Sandbh (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The feasibility of establishing a specific definition has been questioned by whom?
That would be Hawkes. I've hopefully made this clearer by using a semicolon to join this sentence to the one that follows it, since the latter sentence ends with the applicable citation. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this needs to attributed in the prose; we shouldn't expect the reader to read the citation to work out that the phrase is not in Wikipedia's 'voice'. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Classes are usually defined by more than two attributes.' You need a citation after a direct quote (I see you have one just before the quote; perhaps that could be moved to the end of the sentence?)
You need at least one citation in the 'physical and chemical' section
This section is the lede/high level summary for the following two sections, which include sourced text, and a main article link. As such, I didn't think it necessitated citation. I'm happy to revisit this however, if you feel that this will not do. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This could be done based on the extent to which an element exhibits properties relevant to such status. Is that from Hawkes? If it is, perhaps the citation could moved to the end of that sentence for clarity?
Yes; so done. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
selenium […] is used to improve the workability of stainless steels what does 'workability' mean in this context?
Changed to machinability and wikilinked. Good catch. --John (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You could do with a citation at the end of paragraphs two and six of the 'biological agents' section
Compounds of antimony are used as antiprotozoan drugs, and in some veterinary preparations. 'antiprotozoan' isn't a term I'm familiar with, and I'd be surprised if most lay people were familiar with it; an example of veterinary uses might be nice.
I've reworded and simplified this sentence, and added a citation. Sandbh (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tellurium is not considered particularly toxic. As little as two grams of sodium tellurate, if administered, can be lethal. Those seem to be two contradictory statements.
I think it emphasises the difference between the element and its compound. Edited to reflect this. Please fix it if I have misunderstood. --John (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Watch 'with's, eg beryllium and lead are noted for their toxicity, with lead arsenate having been extensively used...; this kind of use of 'with' is generally discouraged
I've taken quite a stern hack at the 'with's. Better? --John (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
compounds such as sodium arsenite or sodium arsenate are effective flame retardants for wood but were less frequently used... Were or are? 'Were' suggests they're now being used more frequently; is that the case?
Fixed tense. This is an error I introduced, so good catch again. --John (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
requires a 'heroic quench rate' Who is this quoting? Why use a quote instead of a plain English phrase?
Kaminow & Li, as per end of sentence. I quite liked the concise way they expressed this hence kept it as a quote rather than recasting. I've now cited them after the quote, too. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The terms amphoteric element and semiconductor are problematic as some elements referred to as metalloids do not show marked amphoteric behaviour or semiconductivity in their most stable forms. There's much less detail there than on the other problematic terms; is that deliberate? You need a citation at the end of the sentence.
I've added examples of such elements, plus citations. Sandbh (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Use of this latter term has more recently been discouraged Try to use active voice where practical; who discouraged the use of the term? IUPAC or somebody else?
That was Atkins, as per the citation. (He also happens to be a past chair of the IUPAC Committee on Chemical Education). Sandbh (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to make this clear -- Sandbh (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'remarkably inert to all acids, including hydrofluoric' according to whom? Perhaps spell out the what's remarkable about its non-reactivity with hydrofluoric acid (I can guess that it's remarkable because you mention boron does react with fluorine, but it would be nice not to make the reader guess)
That is according to Rochow, as per the citation after the quote. I'll see if I can add something about the highly corrosive nature of hydrofluoric acid. Sandbh (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to show that it's Rochow speaking; note added to elaborate what's remarkable about non-reactivity to HF -- Sandbh (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It can form alloys with many metals; most of these are brittle. Most of the alloys or most of the metals? I'm guessing the former, but it's ambiguous as it is.
Reworded for less ambiguity. --John (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the external link on electrode potential? External links shouldn't be linked inline per the MoS.
Fixed. --John (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Classifying aluminium as a metalloid is disputed by whom? You cite some examples in the footnote, but it would be nice for the prose to elaborate. What's the scientific consensus? From the context, I'm guessing that it's to treat aluminium as a metal, but again, it would be nice to spell it out.
I've edited and restructured this section. It still starts with the same opening sentence but I've included a citation to a reference guide book on metallic materials. That's the closest I could get to scientific consensus that aluminium is a metal. The next paragraph is the one that says aluminium is sometimes classified as a metalloid. That's immediately followed by the disputing paragraph, with the authors doing the disputing given in the citation. Then there is the concluding paragraph with more moderate or nuanced views. I tend to minimize the use of active voice in an encyclopedia article such as this. Sandbh (talk) 09:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and may be more appropriately classified as either Do you mean it is sometimes or by some people or that it could be?
I think the article uses a lot of technical terms, which makes it less accessible than it could be; I'd really love some brief parenthetical explanations of terms (I'll provide examples when I get chance)
OK, that's good to hear. Happy to oblige. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
watch uses of 'with'; use as a connective is discouraged (eg "p-block, with its main axis anchored by boron"; "noted for their toxicity, with lead arsenate having been extensively used")
Done, as per John's edits. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent on whether you use chemical symbols or names; my preference is for the names as it makes the article more accessible. (Compare "B2O3, SiO2, GeO2, As2O3 and Sb2O3" or "Be, Zn, Cd, Hg, In, Tl, β-Sn, Pb" to "Examples include gallium, ytterbium, bismuth and neptunium.")
How I approached this is set out in Talk:Metalloid. I'm happy to revisit if needs be. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I love the comparisons with chemicals people know about (eg steel, tap water); how would you feel about adding some more? Not overdoing it, but enough that the reader has something to which they can compare the chemicals covered in the article.
Very happy to try for more as I like the value of comparisons with ordinary things. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I write history articles, I like to see the author introduced by their full name with an explanation of their credentials (eg "the British metallurgist Cecil Desch") rather than just by surname (eg "Phillips and Williams suggested that"...); I think it would be nice to see this here.
Not sure if that might be more particular to history writing? I don't often encounter it in scientific writing unless it is for the giants. I'm not sure I see it that much in arts writing either. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is obviously a labour of love and you've clearly put a lot of time into it. I don't see anything that would preclude it becoming an FA, but there's a little bit of work still to go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. Always good to hear from non-experts. You see things and ask questions that aficionados would overlook or rarely think to ask. Sandbh (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we may be done here for now Harry, thank you. (I'll keep an eye out for any ripe technical terms, and possibilities for new comparisons with ordinary things). Sandbh (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied above on a couple of issues, and there are a couple of others I'll get to when I can (nothing too serious), but I'm happy with the changes so far. Great work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again; all looking good so far (a few small things for me to do still). Sandbh (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no chemist so I'm concentrating on accessibility. Generally I agree with Harry's comments above, though not about "introducing" noted chemists in the literature. It's obvious they are chemists, so only anyone who isn't a chemist needs to be introduced, imo.
Thank you Johnbod. I appreciate your interest and observations. I'm working through these. Sandbh (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"packing efficiencies" has a whole para, but is linked but not explained, which it should be, very briefly.
"Goldhammer-Herzfeld criterion" is only explained in the notes, which is not ideal. Failing a short article, perhaps the explanation should go in the text.
Done, but this one was a bit trickier to explain concisely. There is still a somewhat technical term ('molar volume') although it has a link. Sandbh (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first para of "Number, composition and alternative treatments" pretty much entirely repeats, with added names of researchers, what has been said already. Better to merge it into the first time round? The first para of "Distinctive" is rather the same.
I've actioned the first suggestion and I tentatively agree it looks better. Sandbh, what do you think? --John (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Am in a rush; will respond as soon as Sandbh (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first one seems at least OK and a clever relocation. I'll have a closer look and post here if needs be. (Puffing to keep up!). Sandbh (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have trimmed and restructured to remove duplication. Sandbh (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like the section on medical etc uses, but selenium is missing in the final bit. As I'm sure you know, it's inclusion in dietry supplement pills etc has been criticised recently.
I've added some content about selenium as an essential nutrient and its medicinal applications. Sandbh (talk) 11:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The chemistry of boron is dominated by its small atomic size, relatively high ionization energy, and its having fewer valence electrons (three) than atomic orbitals (four) available for bonding. With only three valence electrons, simple covalent bonding is electron deficient with respect to the octet rule." Eek, help! More links please!
"Monographs" - Checking a couple, these don't seems to be used in the refs, so are what is normally called "further reading" on WP. This one "Vernon RE 2013, 'Which Elements are Metalloids?', Journal of Chemical Education, vol. 90, no. 12, pp. 1703–7, doi:10.1021/ed3008457", at 3-4 pages long, can't really be called a monograph, nor can Goldsmith and Hawkes, where only 2 page ranges are given. Others are sections or chapters in larger, more general, works. I'd just go with "further reading", maybe splitting the true monographs into a sub-section there.
Johnbod, my intent here was only to list the known single topic writings on metalloids, of which there are relatively few. I've changed the title of this section to 'Known monongraphs'. Here I'm using the broad meaning of 'monograph', as a written account of a single thing. I've added an explanatory note to that effect. Sandbh (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have split some too long paras and added links. More later. Johnbod (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I believe I may be done here for now, unless I happen to see any gremlins. Sandbh (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently unlinked: oxygen, crystal, semiconductor is apparently only linked in a table - not sure about the rules here, Valence electron, Covalent bond, allotropic, halide. Several if not all of these come from the single para about boron where I asked for more links above. A lot more work is obviously needed here. Some of these may seem very basic terms (but you link "diamond") but they aren't. I still haven't read beyond the boron section, but will do so when assured the linking has been checked throughout the article. Johnbod (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I missed this one. Have rechecked the article and added more wikilinks. Guidance is that generally, a link should appear only once in an article (upon the term's first occurrence in the text of the article) but if helpful for readers, links can be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. And articles on technical subjects might need a higher density of links than in general-interest articles. Have used some judgement in deciding what to link; hopefully no oversights. Sandbh (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update I have read through the rest of the article, and would have some small points, but I don't know when I'll have time to write them up. The nom seems to have attracted enough support - if the delegates feel it is otherwise ready for promotion, please don't hold that up on my account. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PL has been area of interest to editors and reviewers of this article. Short paragraphs have sometimes been merged; long paragraphs have sometimes been split. All of these changes and associated comments have been well-intentioned. When I look back on them it seems to me they sometimes inadvertently result in paragraphs that cover more than one idea; and at other times they inadvertently split the idea being developed with the result that it becomes harder to comprehend. As well, the end result of some of these edits is that it's no longer possible to follow the bones of the article by reading just the topic/first sentence of each paragraph, which is the way I was taught how to use paragraphs.
Wikipedia guidance about PL is that they should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. Overly long paragraphs should be split up, as long as the cousin paragraphs keep the idea in focus. One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs. All quite reasonable.
The upshot is that I've shortened or merged some of the paragraphs in the article so that (a) each paragraph develops the single idea unit that is flagged in its topic sentence: and (b) there is a logical flow from topic sentence to topic sentence, throughout the article.
I'm hoping that these latest edits will still be FAC-acceptable. Sandbh (talk) 05:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is also an issue of sheer length, especially when the material is dense (for many readers anyway). I split some paras when not editing on my usual machine but one with a smaller (laptop) screen, where with a table or picture at the side some paras lasted a whole screen. Heaven knows what they'd look like on a mobile. Allowing for screen-reading on a vast range of sceen sizes, I would err on the side of short paras, not worrying so much about developments of ideas. The "bones" are supposed to be in the lead anyway, though not all of them. Very long-looking paras just put readers off. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've split or re-split some of the longer paragraphs. I checked the article on a 13.3 notebook; no paras take up a whole screen. Checked on older iphone; most paras (>85%) fit on no more than one screen. Found some interesting external reading about paragraph length here and here. The recommendation you make about erring on the side of short paras, given the rise of small screens, is a good one. Sandbh (talk) 10:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Job done on this, as far as I'm concerned. As with images the multiplicity of screen sizes now has rather over-taken our guidance I think. Useful links. My own style seems to favour short paras, at least online; I was struck after the event by the contrast between my online comment here, #8 in a very narrow space and the preceding 7 in terms of para length. Johnbod (talk) 11:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The colour-keys in the periodic table extracts fail MOS:COLOUR. Non-colour indicators, like asterisks or superscript numbers, should be used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, this was raised early on in the development of the article. I believe it is addressed in the text boxes accompanying the images in question. This text explains in words which elements are covered by which legend/colour key. Sandbh (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assume Sandbh's explanation answers (there is full textual descrtiption below). So it is not "colors only". Can Pigsonthewing agree? -DePiep (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- I gave myself a reminder when this was nominated previously that I'd want to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, as I believe it would be, if promoted, the nominator's first FA. I'll wait a bit to see if any reviewer above wants to undertake that, otherwise I'll make a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "spotcheck of sources"? I presume you want me to check if the sources really give the facts mentioned in the article, and that they don't lift. I'm on it. PrincessParclyTaxel 03:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, sorry, I'll backtrack somewhat. I think the only things worth checking are the references that quote things straight out of the sources. PrincessParclyTaxel 04:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever[edit]
This is one of the best featured article candidates (FACs) I've ever read! It's properly neutral, has good prose, and is filled with amazing grammar. All the pictures in the article look fascinating, and its worth tons of references everywhere. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 00:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind feedback! Sandbh (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per the comment abve by @Ian Rose: and my replies to that I'm going to check the twelve (as I count) references that have direct quotes from their sources. The reference numbers are as of this revision, and if the flag isn't North Brabant's that means I haven't checked and cleared it yet.
#23:
#45:
#64:
#65:
#188:
#208:
#218:
#375:
#381:
#401:
#444:
#446:
...never mind.
I took this as meaning that the checker (User:Parcly Taxel) is happy with twelve direct quotes that they checked?hamiltonstone (talk) 04:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment -- this has probably set a record for FAC duration but following the spotchecks by Parcly and Dirac66 I think it's finally ready to promote, tks all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 14 May 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) 11:18, 14 May 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 centenary of the sinking of this famous commerce-raiding cruiser (9 November 1914) is rapidly approaching, and I'd like to have the article run on the main page that day - I have a short list of such articles, but this being the most famous (and chronologically first) ship in the group, I figured it ought to go first to FAC as well. I wrote this article in October last year, and it passed an A-class review at MILHIST a couple of weeks ago; it is also a part of the largest GT on Wikipedia (and the first in that series to come to FAC). Thanks to all who take the time to review the article, I look forward to working with you. Parsecboy (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Jose: Given OCLC number appears to be for 10th edition, not ninth
I wonder if that's an error on Worldcat's end. It says the 10th edition, published in 1941, whereas the awm.gov.au page states that the 9th edition was published that year; highly unlikely they published two editions in the same year. This one is more likely the 10th edition.
Check order of Further reading. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Thanks as always, Nikki. Parsecboy (talk) 20:58, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a bit of a drive by comment, I'm surprised to see that the article doesn't note the disposition of surviving elements of Emden. One of her guns is mounted on the corner of a major intersection in Sydney, another forms part of a display on her final battle in the Australian War Memorial (complete with a rather odd sound and light show in which it occasionally "fights" a preserved gun from HMAS Sydney!), and I imagine that the AWM and Royal Australian Navy Heritage Centre have additional bits of the ship in their collections. Nick-D (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good point. I've added info on the three guns that were recovered, along with the bell, stern ornament, and various artifacts in the AWM collection - the RANHC doesn't have as helpful a website, and I haven't managed to find anything there. Parsecboy (talk) 13:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
I've added a much more plausible account of Emden's encounter with Glen Turret at Penang from Corbett.
Thanks for that.
Images appropriately licensed.
No DABs and no duplicate links.
Hyphenate 97 ton as a compound adjective.
Fixed.
Do we have any information on how many times Sydney hit Emden, or even ammunition expenditure?
Nothing I've seen - I'd wager no one bothered counting since she was pretty well swiss cheese by the time Sydney was done with her.
Is there any particular reason she was named Emden? Explaining that Emden is a town, at least, might be of interest to readers.
Starting with the Bremen-class cruisers, all German light cruisers were named after towns - at some point, I'll need to create a German counterpart for United States ship naming conventions, since the reasoning behind some of the choices are fairly interesting (for instance, in the late 1890s, Kaiser Bill mandated that capital ships be named after the German states - and especially the land-locked ones - to drum up support for the Navy in a traditionally Army-dominated society). In any event, I added mention of the connection to the lead.
When you say "Ostamerikanischen station," does that mean there was a substantial German naval presence in the Americas? If so, where were they based?
Yes, there was a reasonably substantial German presence in the Americas (for instance, a few cruisers and a couple of gunboats joined the British in the Venezuela Crisis of 1902–03. I don't know where they were based for sure though - typically the German squadrons operated out of European ports (usually British, since they were the best-developed) in an area where no German base was available (for instance, before the Kiaotschou concession was seized, German ships in Chinese waters usually operated out of British Hong Kong, and in German East Africa, cruisers frequently overhauled in Capetown or Bombay before the floating drydock arrived in Dar es Salaam).
A link and brief explanation of the Kiautschou Bay concession might help the reader understand why German ships were based out of Tsingtao.
Added a link to the lead and a short line in the body explaining the seizure of the concession.
Throughout, you use the phrase "decided to" a lot. Sometimes it's appropriate, but often the action that's really of interest is what the captain did, not what he decided to do.
Where did Ayesha come from?
She was just moored at Direction Island - no idea where or even when she was built, apart from that she was ancient and barely seaworthy.
That's all for now, I'll take a second run at it later. Very nice article! --Coemgenus (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Coemgenus. Parsecboy (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Changed to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Nigel Ish
According to "Narrative of the Proceedings of H.M.A.S. Sydney" in the Naval Review (magazine), 1915, Issue 2, pp. 448–459 [58], Sydney fired 670 rounds, claiming an estimated 100 hits.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much Nigel, I've added it to the article. Parsecboy (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, typical great work from Parsecboy. Have you asked Saberwyn to check this over? I believe he wrote the HMAS Sydney article. Ed[talk][majestic titan] 01:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Saberwyn is keen to look this over, I could leave it open another day or two, otherwise it seems about ready to promote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Saberwyn is out at the moment and won't be back soon. Parsecboy (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I think it's been open quite long enough to call it a day... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:08, 9 May 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) 13:13, 9 May 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 world's loudest cicada - it ran through FAC before but generated little interest...we pondered about the prose so it has been through Peer Review, which has been very helpful (and thanks to those who commented there!). This has helped massage its prose alot and we feel it is at or near FA level. Let us know what we can do to improve it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I supported last time, and the article still looks good to me now. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:52, 4 April 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, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comments. Nice article, two minor things Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and red-brown and black underparts— "and has"
while the former has black markings of the leading edge (costa) of the forewing extend past the basal cell—first "of" should be "on", methinks, and "extending"
Support; mostly had my say at PR. I still feel that the poems are a weak point to finish on (perhaps you could hide them in the middle of the paragraph somehow?), but that's a stylistic disagreement. A couple of comments... J Milburn (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Adults are present from November to early March, prolific in some years and absent in others. It is found in dry sclerophyll forest, preferring to alight and feed on large eucalypts[13][14] with diameters over 20 cm and sparse foliage concentrated at a height between 10 and 25 m,[13] particularly rough-barked species,[10] apples (Angophora) and Tristania.[11]" The nymphs are feeding on roots, but what precisely are the adults feeding on? (I see you mention sap further down- this should be present elsewhere in the article!)
So the eggs are laid in trees, but the nymphs live underground? Do they burrow down through the tree, or make a mad dash down the side?
the annoying thing is missing information compared with (say) bird articles. I have not seen it written how they get down unfortunately Got something! added....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff- that's plugged the gaps, for me. Delegates- Please note that my support is conditional on there being no source problems, as I have not looked in detail. J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Inconsistent caption use of SE vs Southeast - suggest the latter
In the infobox you have "Tettigonia saccata Fabricius, 1803" followed by "Cicada saccata (Fabricius, 1803)" -- any reason "Fabricius, 1803" is in parentheses for one and not the other? The parentheses look better to me FWIW...
the original description and binomial name does not have parentheses. Any subsequent name change has to add the parentheses around the original author. In animals the second author is never added while in plants they are - e.g for a plantCas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:23, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will review this article and do a source review too, just need a day. Sasata (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I reviewed this article during PR and my concerns were addressed. It still seems in good shape. Praemonitus (talk) 04:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (and source review) by Sasata (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, just nitpicks.
links: type locality, specific name, tribe, thorax (only linked in lead), disjunct distribution, Sydney
is there an error in the page reference in Guérin-Méneville (1838) "225–38 [80]"
not sure where the page range comes from - removed. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The largest collected specimen has a wingspan of 15.1 cm (5.9 in),[2] and they average 13.3 cm (5.2 in)." The “they” is a bit awkward (seems to be referring to the single specimen)
It might help the flow a little bit in the description section if not so many sentences started with “The”
agree...it would....having a damn hard time trying to rejig sentences to avoid this...all input welcomed....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be more logical to include the paragraphs on singing behaviour in the behaviour section?
possibly - with birds it has always been in the description section, but I see it would fit in the latter as well. OPen to move if there is more of an opinion on this. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
”Adults are present from November to early March, prolific in some years and absent in others. It is found” It?
reworded - kept to plural as I think the segment works better as pluralCas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"over 20 cm"; "between 10 and 25 m" add conversions
"The nymphs are susceptible to fungal disease while underground." this is reffed to a pretty weak, 100-year old source. Anything more recent, and perhaps a little more detail, like what fungus species/genera are involved-perhaps Massospora (will bluelink that soon)?
have removed it - it just refers to cicadas in general, not this species. I am trying to limit general material on this page - will add something on massospora if I can find it relates to this speciesCas Liber (talk·contribs) 15:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Live cicadas are often collected by climbing trees" I did not know that trees could collect insects (or could climb).
ref #39: (Tillyard 1926): formatting slightly off (note comma after year)
was in "citation" rather than "cite book" - should look better now.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
isbns could be converted to the preferred ISBN 13s, if you’re so inclined
Closing comment -- I think we can safely call it a day on this review, if there's any further tweaks re. Sasata's comments then they can occur post-FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:57, 7 May 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) 13:58, 7 May 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… Oliver Bosbyshell, a rather obscure figure in the history of the mint, but who also held some fame in his own lifetime for claiming to be the first person wounded in the Civil War. That rather seems to have fallen by the wayside, a local historian in Pennsylvania I consulted had never heard of Bosbyshell, and a book on the early days of the Civil War that has a play-by-play of the Baltimore Riot doesn't mention him in that context. Interesting character though. Early nom permitted by Ian Rose. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Medal caption shouldn't end in period
File:Bosbyshell_medal_crop.jpg: what is the licensing status of the medal itself? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those things are done. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco review
Per WP:LEADLENGTH, this 15k article should not have 4 paragraphs of lead.
Lead doesn't mention his later life
Perhaps link Confederate and Union at first mention?
Bosbyshell's - His, perhaps?
Watch for an over-reliance on semi-colons; I spot three in the first three sentences and section title
he contracted bronchitis while fighting the fire which destroyed his warehouse, then died shortly after a sea voyage he had taken in hopes of improving his health. The elder Bosbyshell died in Philadelphia eight weeks before his son's birth, - I get the feeling that these could be merged together.
returned from Mississippi by land - is the fact that she returned by land worth mentioning?
With Pleasants now on General Robert B. Potter's staff, - no frame of reference for what "now" means
at Philadelphia in 1876. In 1879, he was elected as commander of Post 2 in Philadelphia. - any way to avoid repeating Philadelphia?
On October 17, 1889, President Benjamin Harrison commissioned Bosbyshell as superintendent of the Philadelphia Mint. ... Bosbyshell filed his oath as Philadelphia Mint superintendent on November 1, 1889. - Any way to avoid repeating the name of the post twice in three sentences?
In 1890, Bosbyshell deposited $4,200 of federal funds in the Keystone National Bank, which then went bankrupt. Bosbyshell was responsible for the debt, which was only $300 less than his annual salary, and paid it off by stages, completing the payments in 1894. - can this be merged anywhere? It's really short
Done down to here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise his Mint career was uneventful?
So far as I can tell from the refs. Mint records aren't the most complete and Bosbyshell's not well-studied.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With the outbreak of the Spanish-American War in 1898, Bosbyshell organized and served as colonel of the Nineteenth Pennsylvania National Guard Regiment, which was used for homeland defense. He remained in that capacity from August 1898 until November, 1899. - anywhere this can be merged?
Not that I see.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He had four sons with his wife Martha, who died in 1914; their eldest son Nathan died in Los Angeles in 1888 at age 23. - Merge this with the bit about Bosbyshell's death? I mean, his wife's death is not quite an "interest" as with the GAR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a bit in. I'm reluctant to go too far as just because a letter is from Bosbyshell, it may not have represented his views, the way the Mint was organized, you always went through your superior officer. With the quarter, it seems clearest.
Not sure. Generally it says "public schools" or "common schools". Most likely, from what you say. I think that's everything, thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Yet another well done article! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
"according to accounts in his lifetime, he was struck by a missile variously described as a stone or a brick. Although it gave him a large bruise and momentarily stunned him, the object drew no blood; Private Bosbyshell was purportedly the first man wounded in the Union cause": "purportedly", "accounts", "in his lifetime" and "variously described" leave me wondering whether historians today generally believe these accounts.
They don't seem to. There is a source which is a virtual play by play of the Baltimore Riots and other events of the first days of the Civil War and Bosbyshell is not mentioned in that context. Without Bosbyshell to push it, the claim seems to have dropped away, though I can't find a source that says it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think he was hit, then there may be a problem with the way the lead reads, but I'm just doing a prose review here. - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"a post he still held as of 1908": I think "serving until 1908" or "serving until at least 1908" would be clearer (although, like your wording, the latter raises the question of why we don't know how long he served).
Because Bosbyshell doesn't have biographers. This article is probably the best reference on him, and there's nothing I could find that discussed his employment later than that. I looked through the GMU databases too.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for the review and support, and for the copyediting.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your articles are always a pleasure to read. I'm doing a lot less copyediting while I work on copyediting software, but I couldn't resist this one. - Dank (push to talk) 02:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, leaning to Support -- recusing myself from delegate duties to review, as I have a FAC open myself at the moment...
Copyedited as usual, so pls let me know if you disagree with anything. My only outstanding comment is that normally we pick people up for overlinking but I wonder if the lead isn't underlinked here... I'd have normally expected links to United States Mint, Philadelphia, Union, Confederate, and Baltimore -- and that's just in the first paragraph. Of course if you feel there's a good reason not to link I'm happy to discuss...
I tend to underlink in doubtful cases. It's really a question of what I think is going to be useful to the reader. I don't tend to link major cities.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Structure and level of detail look fine.
No dab or dup links when I checked.
Will rely on Nikki's image review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review -- sources look reliable and formatting appears generally consistent, however:
You have a question mark for the publishing date of his Descendants work but seem definite about the date in the main body -- should be consistent.
I'd have expected to see retrieval dates for all the online newspaper refs, not just one.
I've removed that one, which is not a newspaper. As I understand the guideline, if it is something that is not going to change (page images of books or newspapers, for example), there is no need to provide an access date. Similarly, the page that had the access date, Smith's numismatic biographies, is a PDF and an online version of a published book (though I think it had a very small printing).
NYT is linked half a dozen times (on first use seems enough) but Philly Record not once.
I'm curious to know why the volume of the first Senate journal appears in bold but not the second, though it may be some quirk of the template. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain, I obviously copy and pasted one to the other, just filling in the info. In Franklin Peale, where I use the Senate journals similarly, both are bolded. If I haven't responded, it means I've gone and done it. Thank you for the reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above is fine by me, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 3 May 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) 18:32, 6 May 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): PresN 05:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In Summer 2010, Apple wanted to show the world that you could make good-looking games for the iPhone, and Epic Games wanted to show that their upcoming iOS version of the Unreal Engine wasn't just good for tech demos- so they told a 12-person company they had just bought to make a game for a system they'd never developed for with an engine that wasn't finished yet, and to have a demo ready in 2 months and the game done in 5. No pressure! Presenting for your consideration Infinity Blade - if you saw an Apple advertisement in late 2010/early 2011 with a 3D game, it was this one, the game that told large developers that it was possible to make money on an iPhone game that involved no birds at all, no matter their emotions. Passed as a GA by J Milburn in 2012, despite his FAC recommendation I hadn't touched it since until Hahc21 mentioned that we could take it to FAC together; I couldn't wait for him to be free once I realized that the article was a lot better than I remembered. I've rewritten/polished the entire article in the past couple weeks, so now the sentences are grammatically correct, the images are rationale'd, the links are archived, and everything should be ship-shape for what will hopefully be a double-first: the first FA about an iPhone game and my first FA that is neither an indie game nor a Final Fantasy game. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 05:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Driveby comments From "A version of..." onwards, the lead basically becomes an iteration of "On X date, Y product was released." Why don't you instead say what you've said so lucidly here, "Apple wanted to show the world that you could make good-looking games for the iPhone . . . the game that told large developers that it was possible to make money on an iPhone game"?
The Legacy section should probably be renamed Sequels. Something's legacy is the influence it had, and how it is remembered; in this case, it is that Infinity Blade paved the way by proving that high-end iOS games could make truckloads of cash.—indopug (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, if that's a well-documented statement about it, Infinity Blade's article should include something about its recognized influence. That's necessary for completeness at an FA level. Tezero (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in the article because it's completely OR. If it was a well-documented statement then of course it would be in the article. I was just trying to make the nomination statement interesting. --PresN 23:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: PresN. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Review archived to the talk pageczar ♔ 00:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Responded inline to Czar's comments; I'll give your article a review when I get a chance, though I might review some VG articles that are lower down the page first. --PresN 21:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The prose has a lot of "comma and" I edited a few into two sentences—not sure who is responsible for this, but wanted to point it out for future awareness
Consider splitting the gameplay and repetition parts into separate ¶ to avoid redundancy
It's only two sentences so I'd rather not; what do you see as redundant?
It's fine, but I meant a split in the last Reception ¶ so one would address gameplay and one would address redundancy, as they're separate ideas ♔
I don't see why the novellas need to be named in the lede—they're garnish (not imperative to understanding the article)
Support on prose. I'm really contented with how the prose turned out. I need to move on to other things but ping me if you ever need an image review or source spot check (on this FAC or others) and I'll help out. And if anyone is interested, I'm looking for feedback on the Deathrow FAC. czar ♔ 00:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In the game, the player fights a series of one-on-one battles and journeys through a derelict castle in a fantasy world in order to fight the immortal God King." The player controls a character who does this. Perhaps you could also use this sentence to say who the character is?
"show off" is a little colloquial
In the lead, could we have a link for Unreal Engine?
Already linked in second sentence.
"It made US$1.6 million in four days and over US$23 million by the end of 2011." There's a tense switch here- perhaps you could go for "In the four days following its release, the game made US$1.6 million, and it had made over US$23 million by the end of 2011." My way's still not quite right- perhaps you could work something out?
"It was reviewed favorably by gaming critics. Reviews heavily praised the graphics, comparing the game favorably" Very repetitive
Is Infinity Blade: Redemption worth a redlink?
"as the player travels" Player character, not player
"Players can use two special abilities located at the top of the screen." The ability isn't at the top of the screen- presumably, you mean the abilities are activated by pressing a button at the top of the screen
"The player is then given the option of either starting the next bloodline, or resetting the game and losing all gold and items, but maintaining their experience level, letting the player remaster the items and level up even further." I'm not sure I follow
"This expansion also added new equipment, enemies, and a new ending to the game where the player-character defeats an ancestor of his" Is this what you have already discussed?
"code libraries' lack of support" There are multiple code libraries?
"The five-month development was completed by a team of twelve people" As there's only 12, perhaps you could list them?
"an uncommon game based" Type of game? Style of gameplay? Something like that?
"and Nick Chester of Destructoid said that although the combat wasn't very complicated, it was fun to play." Is this a direct quote? There are no quote marks. If it's indirect, you shouldn't be using contractions
"The other role-playing game elements" Other?
"Destructoid called them "satisfying" and IGN said that they added to the game's difficulty. Eurogamer, however" Avoid personification (there are more later)
I switched to this because the review above said that just saying "Brown said blah" got confusing keeping track of who was who; what would you recommend?
Personally, I like it the "Brown said" way. I suppose you could go for "Destructoid's Brown said" or perhaps "Brown (Destructoid) said". J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"addicting" isn't a real word. Perhaps consider making it an indirect quote, and use addictive?
Sorry, tongue was in cheek. I agree it's generally accepted (in US English at least), but I think a lot of people (with good reason) don't consider it particularly good form. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Sequels and spin-offs" for the section title?
"Like its predecessor, a novella by Brandon Sanderson set between Infinity Blade II and III, Infinity Blade: Redemption, was released on September 9, 2013." Instead of "Like its predecessor", how about "As before"?
Very nice looking article. J Milburn (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All done; comments more substantive than "done" inline. (notification) Thanks for reviewing! (again) --PresN
The article's looking great- I'll be happy to support (pending the source check) apart from the hanging personification issue- I'll hold off for now and see where we end up. J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Switched them all to "Destructoid's Brown" and "Brown of Eurogamer" and "Brown's review for Pocket Gamer", etc. (ping) --PresN 23:30, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, providing the source/image checks come back OK. J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was supposed to co-work and co-nom this but Flotilla got in the middle. However, I think that this article satisfies the FA criteria. → Call meHahc21 21:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There should be some comment on the game's financial performance.[62] Not sure if you can work this into the reception, but Kill Screen's review of the game is the best I've read. - hahnchen 23:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's about the series as a whole instead of just this game, though at the time the series was just the first two games, but added the "most profitable series" bit; the sales numbers were already in the article. I threw in the Kill Screen review, since I liked it, but I couldn't do much with it; while certainly clever, it doesn't actually say much new about the game itself- we already have 8 reviews that mention that the game is cyclical, with small, evolutionary changes between each bloodline. Its draw is that the "feel" of the review is similar to the "feel" of the game; that's not really paraphraseable in a review section of an encyclopedia article. You should try to get the magazine/website added to WP:VG/RS, though. --PresN 01:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Czar and Hahnchen - Czar, are you satisfied with the responses to your review? Hahnchen, are you willing to do a full review or support/oppose the nomination? --PresN 02:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Responded above czar ♔ 00:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support; no significant problems. I might prefer a bit more coverage of Awakening and Dungeons, but regardless, I feel that this is satisfactory for the FA criteria. Tezero (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the time being. I should've looked more closely before, but as someone had to do a source review, I took it on, and there are serious problems with misattribution as specified later. Tezero (talk) 18:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support one again following source-related fixes. This FAC still needs an image review, which czar has announced plans for, so it should be good to go before too long. Tezero (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
I realise we've had some experienced reviewers looking through this piece but to me the lead left a bit to be desired prose-wise, which suggests the rest of it might benefit from a copyedit.
We still need image and source reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I think you caught some changes to the lede, but the rest is fine overall. I did a spotted tightening but I found much of it acceptable, occasionally "brilliant". czar ♔ 15:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have supported if the sources didn't look fine from my glances, but here I go because someone needs to. Tezero (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All sources look reliable and adequately archived. However, I'm running into problems with the sources not confirming what's attributed to them. Unfortunately, I'm going to temporarily rescind my support until these are cleared up.
1. "Upon defeating the mechanized warrior, the chamber is revealed to be controlled by an ancestor of the playable character, who chose to serve the God King" and "New Game+".
2. Likewise: "decreases the player's experience gain by 20%".
Also, why are four citations given at the end of two sentences comprising four reviews, rather than two citations after each sentence?
3. "incorrect counters damage the player-character" - a little misleading; the source seems to state that you'll get damaged if you counter incorrectly because the sword will slice through it, not that the countering will actually damage you.
4. Doesn't look like any of the end of the first paragraph of Gameplay is confirmed in the source, other than mentions of magic vs. Super.
5. MP3s aren't mentioned, though the other additions are.
6. Only mentions that there is a twist, not what it is.
7. The source specifies very little about Arena mode.
Half of these are unsourcable minor details, while the other half are bits that got changed/moved in a copyedit sometime since the GAN. Grrr.
1 - Plot points are generally implicitly sourced to the game itself, as no third-party source/review is going to cover every minor detail of the plot of a game. This is true even if (as here) the plot is merged into the gameplay section. As to NewGame+... that... is not where that sentence used to be. Added another source to replace that Destructoid cite that explicitly calls out what New Game+ does.
2 - the 1UP source says that you don't earn experience points once an item is mastered; there's 5 items, that's 20%. Also, because it used to be one sentence and someone changed it; fixed.
3 - Changed to "result in damage to", which is ironically the exact wording I used before all these copyedits.
4 - Except that the source does mention that you have to swipe in the right direction, and that there are combo attacks (the actual sentence it is at the end of). The assertions that you reset after most battles right where you are and that some specific attacks can't be parried are left unsourced- there's no review in the world that's going to get that detailed. I'll drop the statements if you want, but the idea is that all claims that are likely to be challenged should have a source, not minor gameplay details that can be verified within 5 minutes of starting the game.
5 - I'm just going to drop the MP3 bit, there's no point trying to hunt down another source for such a minor detail.
6 - See point one. Also, the plot details are a restatement of an earlier mention in the gameplay section; the source here is just citing that it first appeared in that update, which is the new information.
7 - added another source that gets more detailed about Arena mode
8 - dropped the details as the only source I can find is the update itself, and it doesn't matter much that there's a preview for IB2 in IB1, even if it's on the main title screen.
I appreciate it. I'll get into more of them now. Tezero (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rest of them:
New sources - good
11 - good
12 - good
13 - good, but I'd prefer "licensed" instead of "sold" as Epic got to keep the engine
14 - good; interesting way of using two sources
15 - good
16 - good, I assume
17 - December 9 not in source, and the bit about Apple is in a comment
18 - good
19 - good
20 - good
21 - eh, I'd change it to "Xbox 360" from "console"; that's less interpretive
22 - there may be a slight difference between "effective" and "fun"; also, I don't notice any mentions of addictiveness
I have to take a phone call quite soon, so I'll be back with the last few soon. Tezero (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
13 - done
17 - I didn't bother sourcing the release date, as it's not likely to be challenged, and the bit about Apple is from page 4 - "We had Apple touting us a lot, which was nice, but we didn't spend any marketing money on this."
21 - done, not because its less interpretive but because console is ambiguous unless I said "contemporary console"
22 - If we're not allowed to paraphrase what the reviewers say I might as well make the entire section one giant quote block and be done with it, but actually you misread it- 22 is the Pocket Gamer review, and is used to source "Tracy Erickson of Pocket Gamer described the swipe-based combat system as "easy to understand, though tough to master"" and "Erickson's review for Pocket Gamer said that the game had problems with repetition".
I encourage paraphrasing; it just seemed like a different shade of meaning. Nevertheless I won't belabor this one; keep it however you wish. Tezero (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
27. I don't see it directly stated that that's a metaphor for life.
28. good
29. Not in the text; I'd look for a more stable source, i.e. one that doesn't rely on videos or Java/Flash apps, which won't stick around if the site's layout is changed and archiving becomes the only option. Nevertheless, it's fine for now. (Dramatic, foreshadowing music plays.)
That's all of them. Tezero (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
23 - Done
27 - That is a hard source to find direct quotes for, but did you watch it all the way through to the end? (The text changes slowly when you move to the next bloodline, up to 5 times). When it starts changing the words to be instead "Infinity Blade may be a commentary on [...] the tiny, gradual ways we improve on ourselves. Mostly, we die like our fathers." "but to continue is to live better than before" etc., and bring up the metaphor of going to the same job every day?
And with that, so am I. Nice job. Tezero (talk) 00:16, 3 May 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) 14:55, 5 May 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.
Grand Theft Auto V is a 2013 video game, and the latest entry into the culturally significant Grand Theft Auto series. The game's five year development cycle was one of the biggest undertakings in the industry, and the game was subject to enormous hype. It shattered records for the entire entertainment industry and is on track to be the best-selling video game ever. I've worked on this article a great deal over the past six months. Having just culled down Reception and split Development off, I feel the article is well-written and, importantly, at a readable length which is why I feel it qualifies as FAC. CR4ZE (t) 06:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Driveby comment I just looked at the Controversy section, which can be significantly trimmed. The text often loses focus from the subject at hand. For eg, "Helen Lewis of The Guardian felt Petit's observations were valid, but were stigmatised by gamers who have become 'hyper-sensitive to criticism' " has little to do with GTA V but rather is about an article that criticised it. Another thing is: are those Forbes articles reliable? They're by Forbes "contributors"; basically anybody can become one, and you get paid by the number of hits you generate. I doubt there's any fact-checking etc.—indopug (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes are used three times in the article. The first reference (#74) is used to support the claim that the game outsold analyst expectations. Dave Thier's bio states that he is a freelance writer - that may be a problem, although his bio also states that his work has been reused by a number of RS. Going off the bio of Eric Kain (#122), he seems much more usable. I'd put Paul Tassi (#125) on par with Thier, but he can easily go as his article is only used in response to another. So I'll let you decide based on their individual merits which, if any, we can keep. Now, I think the whole controversy-within-a-controversy over Petit's review is a mentionable thing, because her comments, and the response to them, really instigated the whole "misogyny?" discussion. CR4ZE (t) 15:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, the merge tag at the top of the page shouldn't be a problem for the article. Since the debate's been open for nearly two months, I yesterday asked at the WikiProject and Admin Noticeboard for closure. Because of Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto)'s content (not much to stand on its own two feet in my opinion), whatever the result of the discussion won't impact this article's content, although I invite anybody to go ahead and close the discussion off as we go forward with the FAC. CR4ZE (t) 15:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By chance, the use of Forbes is currently being discussed at WT:VG/RS. The current consensus is that the staff are reliable, but the contributors might not be. You already have reliable sources for the $800M and gamer-misogyny lines, you don't need Forbes. And for a defense of the torture sequence, you should try Tom Bissell[64] or Tom Chick[65]. - hahnchen 04:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further consideration I think the Thier's piece, which we're using to support the claim about the analyst, is a situational okay. I think the key difference is that Kain's and Tassi's work here are opinion pieces about the game's controversy, and I'll happily take them out and replace them upon Hahnchen's recommendation. Now Thier on the other hand is examining the sales GTA V posted on its first day against Arvind Bhatia's estimations. That's objective reporting; comparing one fact against another. So it really becomes a question about Bhatia... Well, I think given IGN is quoting him, it shouldn't be looked at any differently if Forbes is. CR4ZE (t) 06:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes' contributor pieces do not have editorial oversight, that in this case, they happen to be correct does not mean they're the best sources available. You already have the Reuters source, Variety can back up Bhatia's estimate. - hahnchen 14:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even though that's a subjective comment, if there's a better source available I'll happily replace it. CR4ZE (t) 07:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added Bissell's and Chick's pieces into the Controversy section. CR4ZE (t) 11:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I won't be thoroughly reviewing this article because I haven't properly played the game (release it on PC damnit!) Just a quick thing I noticed, there's no mention of microtransactions at all, despite it generating half of TTWO's digital revenue in the last quarter. That 70% of players have played online might be worth noting in the reception too.[66][67] - hahnchen 14:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was a paragraph on GTA Online, but it got moved to the development article when I decided to split it. I can copy the paragraph over to here again? And add that note in Sales perhaps? Does the article need this? CR4ZE (t) 07:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does not need the Allianz quote, it's a piece of trivia fluff for Allianz marketing. If it got picked up by secondary sources, it might be worthy of inclusion, but I doubt it.
GTA Online redirects to Grand Theft Auto V. The development sub-article is not where readers would go to find information on GTA Online. While details of the online component's development would sit in the development subarticle, its gameplay, revenue model and reception should not. - hahnchen 18:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have inserted a new section into Reception titled "Multiplayer launch", and have written up a paragraph summarising the reviews I was able to collate. Now I need to make a few points here. Firstly, four of the five reviews in the table are considered 100% RS. Destructoid is situational depending on the writer, and in this case Chris Carter is an editor who is also "Reviews Director". The Polish review, GRYOnline.pl, is considered RS. I felt it was necessary to have this one because of the lack of RS to add to the table; the alternative is to add GamesMaster's review, but it's a print medium I don't have, so I can't supply author name, publisher etc. Finally, I have included publication dates in the table. This is because, given the nature of GTA Online's launch, the date of the publication is just as, if not, more important than the review score. Reviews were clearly impacted by the launch issues, so I think it's important the table includes dates next to scores. CR4ZE (t) 14:25, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add too that I'm not going to add the Metro article about GTA Online's revenue to the article, because it is sourced from NeoGAF. CR4ZE (t) 14:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can understand why the Metro piece isn't good enough. The MCV piece might still be worth a mention, I also spotted that Bhatia's estimates for GTA Online were picked up too.[68] You could link those two pieces together in a sentence summing up GTA Online's sales. - hahnchen 01:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added some post-release information for GTA Online. Not sure if Bhatia's estimations need to be mentioned though. CR4ZE (t) 03:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is no mention of the music or the soundtrack in the reception. Its the first GTA to have an original score, this is important. - hahnchen 18:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I collated reviews while writing Reception, I really only found Destructoid's review gave mention to the sound design. I have inserted it into one of the paragraphs, because I don't know if I have enough for a full one. CR4ZE (t) 05:49, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty more that could be said about the soundtrack. Both IGN and Gamespot touch on it, but what you really need is the Edge review in print (Issue 259). There's a page long post script about the series' music. - hahnchen 01:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have been able to get a small paragraph out of those handful of quotes. I have tried unsuccessfully to find scans of the Edge review online. I'd happily buy it, but it wouldn't arrive in my mailbox for a few weeks. CR4ZE (t) 11:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging User:X201 who may have a copy of that issue. I do have a copy of that issue, but it's in storage and I won't be able to get at it until April. You can also just buy the digital version. - hahnchen 16:36, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I've got it, will sort out a way to get the info to Craze. - X201 (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All good. I bought it. Will write something up tomorrow. CR4ZE (t) 13:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Query. This game has only bee out for about six months. It will, at some point, presumably have an impact and a legacy, which is what an encyclopaedia should be evaluating. Is it not a bit too early to have a 'finished' encyclopaedia article? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have featured articles on living people who's legacy is sure to grow. While an unreleased game has too much left in the air, a game that has been released and appraised is enough for a featured article in my opinion. - hahnchen 21:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No Wikipedia article is ever complete. Dishonored is likely to pass even without a Legacy section, because the article is complete with the information available now with no obvious omissions. Inevitably, yes, we'll probably have to add a Legacy section, but that doesn't stop the article from being finished with the content that's presented at present. CR4ZE (t) 07:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*not now too early, it has yet to be released on PC, and the game has only been out for 6 months. i forsee some pretty significant changes to the article. a Featured Article should be fairly stable in terms of content. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 01:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a very good reason. You're making presumptions based on future events that haven't happened yet. Has the PC version been announced yet? No. When it does, how exactly do you consider that the article will go under "significant change"? Are we going to have to rewrite the entire article because of a port to another platform? I bet not. The article has remained structurally the same since the successful GAN, except that the readability has been improved with a split Development and culled Reception. I'd say it was stable at the GAN and has remained so since then. CR4ZE (t) 07:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, stating that the article could go under "significant change," (and stating that this should prevent the promotion of the article to FAC) simply based on your own personal theories on the direction of the game development, is potentially WP:CRYSTALBALL. -- Rhain1999(talk to me) 13:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps. I don't mean that it's a bad article. i guess you are right, rockstar, for whatever reason, has been completely silent about the PC release. i did make an assumption, based on the fact that GTA4 was released on pc, and that the PC market is quite large. however, in retrospect, i really don't see why it should stop a FAC. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 06:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Over a week now and no new comments. Surely there are more editors interested in conducting a review. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. High quality prose and grammar. Mr*|(60nna) 07:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise with NintendoEverything – I've heard of it, but it was seen as iffy in Pokémon Channel's FAC. Here, it draws from a Famitsu source; it'd be nice if you found and cited that.
Reception (the non-subsection part) may still be bordering on too long. The points all seem well-supported enough for inclusion – perhaps too much, as I think you could cut out some of the details and redundant quotes.
"Depiction of torture" consists of one very long paragraph. Split it somewhere.
The article looks fine otherwise. Tezero (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quarter to Three is Tom Chick's website, and given his reputation in the field he should be okay to use. Hahnchen can probably give a better justification if need be.
I did some searching for a replacement for Nintendo Everything, and the only RS I found was VG247, but even then the statement in the prose is different to what is available via VG247 as they appear to be citing a different part of the Famitsu article. Not to mention the fact that the article is sourced from NeoGAF and NintendoLife, which to me comes across as sloppy. I've removed the information. Famitsu appears to be hard to get online, and even if I got it... I don't speak Japanese, so there's no point. It's information more relevant to the Japanese Wikipedia anyway.
It's possible to cite Japanese articles; I do it all the time. Some browsers have auto-translators; if not I'm sure you could Google Translate it to get a basic idea. Nevertheless, if you don't want to add it you don't have to, since GTAV is a Western game and this is the English Wikipedia.
I disagree. It's been cut down a fair bit, but with a game covered as widely in the media as this, a good-size reception section is kind of necessary. The only way I could see it being cut down even further is if we removed the second paragraph, the one about GTA V being this generation's magnum opus. However, take into consideration Dishonored, which recently passed FAC with a reception section at 1,243 words, and look at that in context with GTA V's slightly shorter 1,111 words. I'm not trying to use WP:WAX, but my point is that for some games, the wide scope of the reviews sometimes necessitates a lengthy reception section and cutting it down too much might not give the reader all the appropriate information they could get. Excepting its development, a game's reception is the most important thing to cover in a WP article.
That's fair. I ought to be less knee-jerk about that.
Paragraph is now split in two. CR4ZE (t • c) 01:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support; my issues have all been addressed. Nice work! Before the large amount of work on GTAV and related articles, I assumed the GTA task force had been pretty much abandoned. Tezero (talk) 01:49, 3 April 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.
That the game was published by Rockstar isn't cited in the article, nor is the "fifteenth" part
"Off-mission, ": "missions" needs explanation before introducing "off-mission"
general tip to use shorter words and conserve syllables wherever possible to make sentences easier (allow → let/put, utilize → use)
"freely roam the state's countryside": is it the state's or the city's countryside? Seemed more like the latter to me
"Players control the three lead protagonists simultaneously": would be better to say that the story for all three happens concurrently and that the player swaps player-characters at will rather than introduce the idea that one controller does three things at once. This ¶ can be a bit more precise
{{Infobox video game}} uses |media= only where the distribution is ambiguous—not sure it is in this case
producer/designer/etc. credits should be sourced and mentioned in the article
I don't think the list of Rockstar subsidiaries belongs in the infobox per the |developer= param description
I highly recommend list-defined refs for the future—makes editing much easier for copyeditors
First ¶ of Gameplay is out of order—the specific health and law mechanics should follow the basic overview of gameplay: action-adventure, how the characters are controlled, you shoot things, you interact with things, etc. HUD stuff might be best for its own ensuing paragraph. This is to say that "In combat, auto-aim..." jumped into "combat" when the reader doesn't know combat means gunfight here. Similarly, "its halfway point"—halfway of what? What is an "illegal act" or a "mission" (not necessarily a definition, but what does it mean in this game)? These are solid questions for people who know little about video games but want to read about the fastest selling entertainment of all time
Try to reduce the semicolons, which are awkward
Em dashes aren't spaced, en dashes can be (when used as an em dash)
I'll pause here for now since your Gameplay edits might alter the whole section
Note geographic parenthetical comma use in MOS:COMMA—it's tricky
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 ♔ 11:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rockstar, actually, have been cited. Each of the first two sentences in Development cover both Rockstar Games and Rockstar North with reliable sources giving direct mentions. As for the game being the fifteenth entry, I can't find a reliable source for this. All I get is this, which isn't a fantastic choice. It isn't really an objectionable statement, however I can just remove it instead.
I've made the gameplay paragraph in the lead a little more precise now.
What's interesting about the media field is that the game had to be shipped on two Xbox 360 discs but only one PS3 disc. Rockstar had to put out an announcement reassuring gamers that there wouldn't be any differences between the versions. Wouldn't that be a mentionable thing? It's covered in a little more depth in the "Overview" section of the Development sub-article. Have a read first before I remove the |media= field.
Producer/designer again falls into the category of facts that got moved into the Development page upon the split. I can recycle the citations into the Infobox?
That could be true for most games, which is what the Infobox is designed to cover, but how many games can you name that required a core development team plus seven studios split between the UK and the US, and the manpower of at least 1,000 people? I can cite the fact that the game required all that widespread effort, but I can't seem to cite each separate studio's contributions unless you're okay with the game credits as a source. But if you still think the list can go I'll take it out.
There are lots of list-defined refs once you get down to the Awards, but it's an editorial preference anyway. You should turn the wikEd gadget on if it bothers you.
Added "meter" after "health" and reworded "illegal acts" to "crimes". I'm trying to think of a better way to describe what a "mission" is because any synonymous terms are even more confusing. Can't say I agree completely on the organisation but I'm looking into it. The thing is, we need to give the reader insight into the basic action gameplay mechanics immediately, before we get into the character-switching and the open world design. By the time they get to "In combat, auto-aim..." readers are already aware that there is combat, because the second sentence explains that players use guns and stabby things to kill people. Same for the Wanted system, which needs to be explained ASAP because it's a major underlying mechanic of the game. Now, what I could do is keep all those basic mechanics in the first paragraph, then trim bits from the others into a new second paragraph thoroughly explaining the open world design. Getting into the way the single-player story/switching works first before all that would be very disorganised.
The most grammatical correct way to introduce a "for example" is to put a semi-colon there. Other semi-colons are gone.
Re: Rockstar cites, I meant the whole list of Rockstar NYC etc. from the infobox (I mentioned this above, re: subsidiaries). IBT ref works for me (though it may be citogenesis). I think the infobox media can go—if it's not worth mentioning in the article, is it worth mentioning in the infobox? "Roam" is used twice in the lede. Putting refs in the infobox when the item's not mentioned in the article is totally fine. If it's worth mentioning the transnational dev split, it should go in the prose (not the infobox and definitely not infobox-only). I'm not contending for a total reorg of the Gameplay, just threw out an idea. It does, however, need to read so someone such as my hypothetical person can pick up the article and understand it, which means situating the early, unavoidable jargon. Slogging through the rest now czar ♔ 04:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: the transnational development is already mentioned in the appropriate section, Development. The source used doesn't give mention to each individual studio, so I have commented out the "Additional work" field in the infobox to run this by you. I can use the game credits to cite the development studios. Otherwise they can just remain hidden. I removed the second "roam" in the lede. I cited each individual producer/designer/etc, although I can't help but feel like the infobox looked nicer without citations there... Meh...it's either that, or mention them in the Development section, which I'd rather avoid because I'm trying to keep Development as short as possible. Though you weren't requiring that I do it, I have reorganised the Gameplay section and explained the open world design first with a little bit more detail. Do you prefer how it's arranged now? CR4ZE (t • c) 14:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and the IBT ref came across to me as citogenesis as well, which is why I was bit uneasy about using it. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard for me to contribute during the week. I'll continue over the weekend, but don't let me hold up the review czar ♔ 03:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth incorporating the individual dev team leads into the article, but you know the sources better than me. I usually work them in by way of quotes that credit them as "lead writer X". Gameplay reads much better, but I just gave it an edit as I read (as far as I could muster—the in-prose refs, British English, and lack of serial comma throw me off) and I cut out nearly a kB. The whole article can use this treatment, especially considering its current length. There are a few things I see contributing to its distracting verbosity: repeating the game's italicized name instead of saying "the game", lots of "the x of y" constructions where "y's x" could work, long descriptions that are best said as a single word or two, and ideas repeated in adjacent clauses that should be altogether recast as a single or two separate sentences. (The ce link above shows a few examples of each.) I know that in my own writing, I tend to shove too much stuff into a sentence and then have trouble seeing how to fit in everything I want. Instead of making Frankenstein sentences, I see what idea I'm trying to build around (the "cancer" of my sentence) and then recast the sentence around a different idea. Anyway, I feel this prose could use more concision for better flow. It's very long, so would you like to give it a try? I might slog through it, but I don't have much free time for intensive copyediting. czar ♔ 20:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed down a couple of things, namely some additional critical reviews that were commented out in the table that wasted 2,000 bytes of data. I'll consider working the dev team key people into the prose, but I want to keep that Development section as short as possible. Regardless, it shouldn't hinder the article's featured candidacy. I think as you go down you'll find the prose a little clearer in the Development/Reception/Controversies sections. I've read through these sections many times over and I personally can't find too many ways to make cut-downs. It would need a fresh pair of eyes. I have made some small cuts in Development. The length of the article might seem long, but there's only so much we can do considering the scope of the game in news sources etc. Basically, I'd encourage you to give a run-through and make some final cuts yourself, because this candidate has been open for over a month now and it needs closing soon. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lede says Los Santos is based on LA, but that ref was recently removed from the prose
Nice plot (saved me the trouble of finishing the game). This said, was there no way to source it? I know you don't "need to", but it would have been worth it for posterity (when the vandals come)
"that was meant for Michael instead" → "marked for Michael": clarify this—was it a plot reserved for him or where he was "buried" such that he could start a new life?
Plot could do more to explain that Trevor is batshit crazy
Usually people are referenced by their surnames—I'm assuming Michael, Trevor, Franklin are called as such because that's how it's done during the game?
"Franklin is pressured by Haines": this is a big deal—needs a few more words. Pressured?
Do you care about the serial comma? I think it makes things clearer. The prose has been omitting them, but I just removed one from the plot for consistency
More to come czar ♔ 02:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added the source back in.
My understanding is that when writing about fiction, you need to source claims about plot threads that not every player may encounter on an initial playthrough. As such, the only parts of the plot that really required citing were the three different endings, which I've done.
My understanding about WAF is that plots were allowed to be unreffed (to cast aside WP:V) since it's really hard to source for some subjects. I was saying that I think this plot is covered so well that reffing it wouldn't be an issue ♔
Looks like your copy-edit covered that.
I'm not familiar with anything more than the basic plot, so I was guessing about the purpose of the grave ♔
The plot's currently sitting at 769 words, which is already slightly over our target of 700. The idea of a plot section is to give an overview as concisely written as possible. As such, we've mostly kept it to key plot points throughout the game, and there's lots of threads that have been omitted, such as (spoilers) Michael performing odd-jobs for a Vinewood producer, the kidnapping of Michael's family, Trevor's initial business deal with the Chengs etc. I just don't see how getting into more of Trevor's story is going to help readers understand the plot.
Doesn't need his story. One or two adjectives would introduce his characteristics that were later called out in specific in the Reception section ♔
Most of the characters are referred to by their first names (Michael is often called "Townley", and Steve Haines is almost always just "Haines"). But I think the way that's it's been approached is that Michael, Franklin and Trevor are the characters you actually control, so for the sake of consistency between Gameplay/Plot they're always on a first-name basis.
I emphasised the imperative of Franklin being forced to choose Michael's and Trevor's fates a little more. Check my wording, and if you want a little more detail I'll go back and replay the mission to add a little more. If I can remember, Haines wants Trevor dead because of the fact that he's batshit crazy, and Weston, I think, wants Michael dead because he's been screwed over. Something like that...
It's more that why do the FIB agents have such a hold over Franklin that he'd be forced to make this call? As it stands, it says he received a phone call and has to make a choice. The group is so tight and they have been against the FIB agents for so long, why would listening be imperative? (Rhetorical question, answer in prose)♔
Here's the thing with the serial comma. Our MOS allows either its inclusion or omission as long as whichever choice is consistent throughout the prose. Now the article strictly adheres to British English, and every British English style guide I can recall recommends against it. There's advantages and disadvantages to it. As long as the usage is consistent, it shouldn't matter. If it's your editorial preference to use it, use it in articles with American English. CR4ZE (t • c) 10:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling was that it would be helpful in long articles such as these where it could be used a dozen times. I'm still not sure if you're for or against it, so I left it as is. ♔
"the open world space, where preliminary models were rendered in the game engine": Models of what? cl
"Production of the game world demanded field research trips": demanded? (would be easy to add Los Santos back here)
A bit of overuse of "considered"
"The team viewed the game as a spiritual successor": Did they view GTA V as the successor or idea of the project? Like, was it that the GTA sequel qua GTA sequel had to inherit the qualities of the other work, or was it just an opportunity to make their next game contain multitudes?
"and considered how they could innovate": How did this consideration work? In planning?
"Michael is forced by FIB government": forced how? be more specific
"a Triad": I don't think this construction makes sense. Members of the Triad? A branch of the Triad, perhaps?
Might want to explain that Trevor's reunion with Michael wasn't with vengeance (maybe he thought he was dead?)
"Rockstar collaborated with several retail outlets to provide special edition releases": needs more info—what was different about them, generally?
"Rockstar also ran a viral marketing strategy with a website": was it Rockstar or another ad company?
I know you said you looked this over, but I killed a ton of gerunds in this section alone. Avoid "-ing" constructions where possible, as they're overused
Clarified.
Looks like you clarified that.
It's used twice.
Not throughout the article, and I already changed a couple ♔
Uh...still not sure what the issue is? The sentence explains that they considered the game a spiritual successor to their previous games...
I was asking about the rest of the sentence—I didn't quote the whole thing ♔
Refined.
Refined.
True. Though your edit exacerbated things by removing the mention of Wei Cheng, who is one of the main antagonists.
I'm not sure Cheng's mention is vital to the plot section when the Triad is already there ♔
I wrote a little clarification there but I'm not sure how it sounds (really tired at the moment). I'll come back to it later and see if it needs rephrasing.
Added mention of the additional content that came with pre-orders, although it's not an exhaustive explanation for concision purposes.
It was Rockstar.
K. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to just respond that the bullets are acknowledged or were changed instead of responding individually. And editing while tired may not be a good idea if it makes you snippy czar ♔ 15:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More to come czar ♔ 02:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Critical acclaim" can be a controversial phrase. Now, all of games, GTA V may deserve it, but I'd still quote it as a phrase from a RS where possible.
I'd move the mention of the games it ranks behind to footnote notes—it's more trivia than essential to the (long) Reception section
I didn't see PSU.com on the WP:VG/RS list—might want to take it there for confirmation, though the staff looks okay if I trust their bios
Many of these quotes can be paraphrased, especially for want of space in this section
"Los Santos, a city featured in Grand Theft Auto V.": were there other cities?
This section's major structural problem is that a few sentences are constructed in a "X was acclaimed, Y person said Z" format that ends sentences only citing the "Y said Z" and not the "X was acclaimed". That portion of the sentence needs the refs necessary to defend that claim. This is a flow issue.
I disagree, but I've added a "review round-up" from CVG to back the claim.
That's a good idea that I followed through on.
I'll take it there just in case.
Reception's sitting at just over 1,000 words (including the caption). Dishonored, for example, passed happily with over 1,200. I'd say that, while it's long, it's essential to the reader's understanding because GTA is historically most widely known for its very positive reviews. There's a good mix of quotes and paraphrasing, and I noticed in your recent copy-editing you paraphrased a few more. I'd contend the balance is good now.
I refined the image caption just slightly.
I disagree completely. I've reviewed your work before and I know you like to cite everything, but if I went through on your point here the section would be muddled with redundant citations. Here's why. Take the paragraph "The story and characters—particularly Trevor—polarised reviewers". Now there's no footnote at the end of that sentence, because it's a point that is expanded upon further in the prose. There are 13 citations throughout the paragraph each used to refer back to the opening sentence. There's no reason to over-cite. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:24, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I consider Dishonored's Reception excessive, but I didn't get around to reviewing it (as you know, I put a lot of time into my reviews—jeez, the copyedit alone—and the longer the article, the greater the time commitment). My expectation for such sections would be to stick to high-level critiques and to collect "redundant citations" from meta-reviews as much as possible for the boldest claims. The thing is that GTA and Dishonored are totally capable of that quality due to their broad coverage. There is room for each Reception ¶ to sparkle by making sure its contents actually pertain to the idea of the ¶, but I'll leave it as a friendly suggestion. I think you misinterpret what I meant with the last bullet. The way it is now, I had broken sentences with two clauses into separate sentences, such that the ¶s have topic sentences now. Before ("X was acclaimed, Y person said Z"), the citation would appear to cite both the X and YZ clauses. Citing that separated topic sentence (for the sake of WP:V) is up to you. czar ♔ 03:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the way Reception is now, and you've made some good copy-editing here and there so it should meet the "brilliant" criteria. Re the topic sentences, this was an approach I took on in my big cull (this section used to be about 1,500 words I think) to get things as short as I could. There used to be topic sentences like we have now. The ones now are best left uncited. Rhain1999 is working on your last batch of points about the Awards section. CR4ZE (t • c) 03:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Escapist generally isn't reliable (WP:VG/RS)—consider killing it
" for broadening the scope of the game": I don't know what this would mean, so I removed it
Remember that when you use a one-off's surname and don't mention their parent outlet, we have no idea who they are (e.g., "McDonald felt that the licensed music": who the hell is McDonald?, "Gerstmann agreed that the score")
"felt that the game's mission design": did this jump from heist missions to regular missions? cl
GTAO GameSpot review by "Petit, Petit" fixed
"felt that in spite of the improvements, 'the auto-targeting system is twitchy": did this just switch from driving mechanics to shooting mechanics? Needs better signposting
"a single lead protagonist whose moral complex was muddled": not sure what this meant, cl
The prose in the Reception sentence drags and isn't quite brilliant... more variance from "X of Y (website) said Z"
"and the Social Club service": needs explanation
"during load screens for early missions": "load screen" is jargon
Online section's history can be summarized more since many of the details are not necessary for this article (other than the major events of the botched launch), but it isn't imperative
"This broke the previous record set by Call of Duty: Black Ops II ...": make this a {{refn}}, asides not immediately relevant to the text
"the largest digital release": in downloads? revenue? specify
"beat the lifetime sales of Grand Theft Auto IV": overall? worldwide? it jumps back and forth
I'm not removing The Escapist. It's considered situational because of Yahtzee's popularity, but Greg Tito is a senior staffer who's been there nine years. He makes some perfectly valid commentary about the game. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was just for consideration, and I'm not sure the reliability concerns are localized to Yahtzee ♔
Everything else has been fixed. Load screen has been wikilinked the first time and reworded the second time. As for the multiplayer launch, I'll leave that to you at a point one day where you get the sub-article you created to a more suitable length. Almost all of it is just recycled from this section, which doesn't merit summarising here just yet. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone copied the Reception section, but the rest was newly written. ♔
Would help to know why it matters to be nominated for these awards—it just reads as a laundry list of accolades right now, which isn't helpful
In most cases of this list, the number of nominations doesn't matter. I'd group the mentions where the game won the Game of the Year and then group all like comparisons (awards for best audio, etc.) I started to trim along these lines in the last ¶ of Awards but it can go further
There is undue weight on controversies. Look how long they are compared to the other sections. It can still use trimming, especially in the By the Book mission description. Might want to break out the section into its own article so it can be kept brief in this one
(Now that it's been trimmed a bit, I think the weight is okay—it just looks bad by length)
"had an underlying commentary that made the violent content necessary": which was?
Okay, that's it for now. I think the issues are surmountable. For anyone reading this far, I'm looking for feedback on the Deathrow FAC, for those interested. czar ♔ 13:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently re-written the Awards section to reflect your notes on it, so be sure to take a look. -- Rhain1999(talk to me) 09:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: I also made a couple of fixes to the plot, and refined that sentence in the Controversies section. Looks like all of your points have been covered. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are two abandoned ref errors at the bottom of the page—likely inadvertent, but wanted to check czar ♔ 13:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of very small typos from Rhain, that's all. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, sorry about that! I should have taken a better look at the article after my edits. -- Rhain1999(talk to me) 06:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They kill only Haines at the end? Not Norton too? czar ♔ 13:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, Norton lives. He's loosely considered a "good guy", because he brokers the Ludendorff deal and gives Michael his new life. And they all live happily ever after. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:33, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I take longer to respond during the week—I typically only review over the weekends because that's when I can steal the time. Here are a few more
Isn't the Awards section missing more pre-release awards? There's nothing about E3 awards, for example
I'm not sure how the mentioned nominations were chosen, e.g., the "nomination at the Game Developers Choice Awards" does not seem consequential compared to winning awards from so many other sources. I'd recommend removing the nominations unless they are utterly vital (perhaps such as Biggest Disappointment noms, but even there I'd contend it likely isn't worth mentioning)
Did y'all see my suggestion about rowspan and readability?
The -ing gerund thing (mentioned above) is happening again in the Awards section rewrite (fixed, but I'm only halfway through the section for now)
GOTY mentions were missing. I added them, but they need refs (not sure how you want to mention Slant, if necessary)
It's been well-documented that Rockstar have historically been absent from media conferences to promote their games. I'm quite certain, for example, that they haven't been to E3 in a decade. (Some background). It's a deliberate marketing approach, and it's clearly worked in the past. As such, nope, there's almost nothing when it comes to pre-release awards. The nominations may not be necessary in prose, but I'd say they should be left in the table. (We could, in future, split the table off into something like "List of accolades received by Grand Theft Auto V"). Now I'm personally terrible when working with tables (I scarcely have to use them), so I'll have to leave it to someone else (pinging Rhain) to deal with rowspan. CR4ZE (t • c) 15:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely keep the nominations in the table—I only meant the prose. In absence of preview awards, it may be worth including at least something somewhere on the great level of anticipation for the game.[69][70] And if there is only one pre-release award in the whole section, might be worth just putting that first instead of using the topic sentence that makes it seem that there will be plenty of pre-release awards. czar ♔ 19:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented out the GOTY awards you added. Rhain and I were only able to find this source for GamesTM, which is completely unreliable (amplified by the fact that it actually cites Wikipedia as a source... citogenesis clusterfuck). In the meantime I'm pinging Hahnchen who may have GamesTM, but I can't find GamePro. And I'd rather not keep having to buy archives online. The pre-release anticipation was mentioned in the article, but this is (again) fact that got split off into the Development sub-article. I've added the statement back into the Development section. Now, as for the table, again, I have no idea how to work with them, but I have experimented with killing the "rowspan" parameter and all I seem to do is mess it up. Not sure how to handle this one. Can we just bring another editor in to have a look and make a decision? CR4ZE (t • c) 12:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do have the relevant GamesTM issue, but it's not something I'll have access to until late May as it's in storage. Their website suggests it's issue 142. I'm not sure how notable magazine year end awards are, GTA V will have had too many to list. - hahnchen 14:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GOTY awards from major publishers would be quite vital information for the Reception section's completeness, no? Checking the 2013 versions of the Dishonored list of GOTY/#1 awards won, I don't think GTA V's list would be much longer. Here's an unreliable source that purports a whole bunch more wins, if you'd like to try the more notable ones. czar ♔ 17:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: It is done. That took close to two hours to go through, back-check, add in prose and cite. So if you don't like the way I've set it out, spare my sanity and change it yourself. That's covered everything now hey? CR4ZE (t • c) 12:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't appreciate the jabs and snippiness. The Awards section is not 1a-ready and I know the editors involved are capable of making it brilliant, professional prose, but this encyclopedia is too big to pour time into articles where I'm made to feel unwelcome. So, support on prose and I'll edit a few last things on my own. czar ♔ 00:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. My comment wasn't meant as a personal jab, rather, it was an ironic statement about how numbing it was (on my part) to sort through and get all those awards into the prose. Sorry if it came across some way else, but social science shows that 93% of communication is non-verbal which lends to misinterpretation in text-based communications. I do appreciate your comments and copy-editing. I'll have a read-through of the Awards section and see if I can make the prose shine a little more. One thing I do note with you is that you don't seem to like semi-colons. In that big long sentence about the year-end awards, there's not much of a better alternative without getting into choppy sentences or prose skewered by emdashes. In any regard, I'll continue to look at ways to refine the prose throughout the section. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In "Gameplay", the multiplayer character/avatar is mentioned in second paragraph, where its mentioned that the southern point on the HUD compass represents the multiplayer character. While the three single-player characters are mentioned a few sentences prior, the multiplayer character isn't mentioned at all before this sentence, which is fairly confusing. If you could add a quick sentence to the beginning of the second paragraph, before the mention of the compass, I think that'd help clarify.
In the "Development" section: "The game required five years' work by a team of over 1,000 people...". I was wondering if this was grammatically correct, specifically the "five years'", as it looks off to me, but I could be wrong.
In "Plot", the FIB links to the actual Federal Bureau of Investigation page, which may be a bit confusing for readers.
In "Multiplayer launch", I think the following is a bit awkward: "Upon launch, users reported difficulties connecting to the game's servers and the Social Club service, or freezes during load screens for early missions." Specifically, the "or freezes during load screens for early missions." I'd also note that "the Social Club service" is fairly vague, and I don't believe it was mentioned previously in the article.
Also in the first paragraph of "Multiplayer launch", the phrase "A technical patch was released on *date*" is repeated twice only two sentences apart. You may want to reword one of these.
Other than that, the prose is fantastic, the article covers everything I'd expect, non-free imagery is used reasonably, and the sources seem reliable. I would consider archiving the references you're using (as I've done with Day of Defeat and Counter-Strike: Source's references, for example), since I've seen a pretty huge number of featured articles erode over time thanks to link rot. I think the longevity of Wikipedia's accuracy and reliability is reliant heavily on archiving references, and this would save you a lot of annoyance in the future. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now, a lack of archives would be a silly reason not to support the article's promotion. If you can fix the issues I've listed above, I'll gladly add my support. Fantastic job to everyone involved. --Nicereddy (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Nicereddy. I have attempted to clarify the compass system in "Gameplay". That sentence in "Development" wasn't necessarily grammatically incorrect, although it wasn't the best wording, so I have reworked it. I removed the wikilinks from the "Plot" and instead added a note explaining that the FIB and IAA were parodies, and sourced the claim. I have attempted to clean up those couple of awkward sentences in "Multiplayer launch". Please review my changes, and if you're happy, I'd love for you to throw down a Support vote. CR4ZE (t • c) 03:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Apologies, as I had nearly forgotten! All of my issues seem to have been fixed, and as I said in my previous comment, the prose is fantastic, the references all cite legitimate sources, non-free image use is minimal, and the article covers all material I'd expect. Really great job! --Nicereddy (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Make note that it is the first game in the series with multiple playable characters
Reception
"According to review aggregating website Metacritic, the game received an average review score of 97/100 for both consoles, and according to GameRankings, the game received an average review score of 97.01% and 96.20% for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360, respectively." is lengthy. Try splitting it into something like "MetaCrtic calculated an average rating of 97/100 for both consoles. GameRankings calculated an average rating of 97.01% for the PlayStation 3 and 96.20% for the Xbox 360."
ref#77 should read The Daily Telegraph rather than simply The Telegraph
Multiplayer launch
GTA$500,000 → GTA $500,000
Awards
ref#142 should read The Daily Telegraph rather than just Telegraph
Controversies
Depiction of torture
Remove ref#26 (Daily Mirror)- it's a tabloid
Accusations of sexism
like ref#77, ref#154 should read The Daily Telegraph rather than just The Telegraph or Telegraph
Legal actions
Find a better source than ref#161 (New York Daily News) or remove altogether. If the detail is to be included, "US$20 million" should read "US $20 million"
After these are addressed, you have my support for this becoming FA. Good luck! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@XXSNUGGUMSXX: Everything has been taken care of. CR4ZE (t • c) 07:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose:Nicereddy approved the images in his comments. Would you like to see a full review? I can page some editors for an additional review of images if needed. CR4ZE (t • c) 05:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing for images (note that I'm coming from WT:VG where Cr4ze asked for help):
File:Grand Theft Auto V Los Santos.jpg is a game screenshot to showcase the game's engine and the similarities to the real city of LA, both backed by sourced discussion, so okay.
File:Grand Theft Auto V torture sequence.jpg is a game screenshot from one of the game's controversial missions (a scene involving torture, but here showing a scene where the player-character is selecting which torture weapon to use). This is a bit of a tricky case. No question the scene is of critical discussion, but the screenshot itself is not indicative of why (not played, but as I've read, you actually see the torture happening). I would consider it might be better to use a shot here that shows the torture about to be enacted - eg we see the victim about to be struck or the like - as to make a screenshot use here more appropriate along NFC lines. Using this specific shot begs the question if it is really needed. But that's a point of debate to build on. --MASEM (t) 14:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem: I'll happily replace the image, but what I liked about the one we had now was the fact that there was an on-screen prompt for the player to pick a weapon, which reinforces that it's imperative to mission progress to torture the victim. There are, however, replacements available. Take your pick. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of those, I'd recommend a shot of the actual waterboarding. The IGN shots are relatively dark. I'd pick the one with the water canister, but I'd recommend using an image that actually illustrated the action that needs illustration. czar ♔ 15:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd agree this might be a better shot. While a facet was that there were a number of ways to torture that the user could chose from, that really doesn't need a visual guide to show. But to show that the game actually showed the player doing this is what struck a nerve and the commentary on this scene and thus would be a clearly allowed screenshot moreso than the choie of tool. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem:@Czar:Here's four images that I have made as replacements. My inclination is to go with Trevor pulling Mr. K's tooth out (#2) because it's the most up-close and graphic. Although, they all would serve a similar purpose. What are your suggestions? CR4ZE (t • c) 01:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're still quite dark. Have you tried lightening them? Also I thought the waterboarding scenes were more effective than the tooth extractions, no? Did they not show well? (Currently working on my review above) czar ♔ 01:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with the tooth-pulling image as well after some brightening. While none of the images show Mr. K's face that well, the tooth-pulling image gives the clearest view of Trevor's face. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The waterboarding segment also features a close-up camera on Mr. K's covered face with water being poured onto it. The camera switches between the view from the screenshot I snapped, immediately to the close-up just as Trevor begins pouring. Trevor is barely seen on-screen there (you see a hand and two feet) so that I feel would lose the impact of the image. My inclination is still towards the tooth-pulling, because featured on-screen are the faces of both men, a contextual prompt and a close-up view. If I do a re-up of either image, can somebody else do a lightening touch-up with Photoshop for me? I don't have the program. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that tooth-pull is a better choice. Also, one more thing I noticed- remove ref#97 (Metro, which is a tabloid) or replace with a better source. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate, the point of using non-free images (and this is what Masem was stressing) is that it should be showing something that just isn't possible from text description alone. So a picture of Trevor standing with pliers would not be as effective as an image of an actually traumatic action, such as seeing the target in the throes of the action. Whether or not we see Trevor doing it isn't the point. I can try lightening whatever you choose to upload czar ♔ 02:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The shot that I suggested wasn't just of Trevor standing there with pliers. He's towering over Mr. K ripping his tooth out. It would have been just as powerful a shot, however I'm going with the waterboarding shot only because the camera angle in the pliers scene doesn't clearly show Mr. K's mouth enough. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does it need to be lightened? (Just asking here) - the core elements (the victim on their back, the character about to waterboard them) are visible. But if it is believed this can be lightened , I Can do that. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd contend it may be a little hard to make out for some readers. A little lightening would make the action on-screen a little clearer, wouldn't it? CR4ZE (t • c) 15:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I brightened the shot and think it looks better. Feedback? czar ♔ 04:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the extra clarity looks great. Thanks. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Are the supports/review comments sufficient enough for closing? CR4ZE (t • c) 03:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I counted a dozen instances of "the game" in the lead, which seems excessive. I realise you don't want to use the game's title all the time either but there might be a few instances you can just say "it" or something else. Same goes for the rest of the article, where by my count there are about 90 instances each of the title and "the game"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Thanks for picking up on that. I have gone through and reduced as many of these instances as I can. Take a look. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tks, that's improved things. Spotchecking prose/phrases, it seems close now but not quite there so I can't in all conscience promote it as is; as I have a FAC open myself at the moment and was planning to review a few articles, I may just recuse myself from delegate duties for another pass at the prose later today and allow my colleague Graham to close it as he sees fit afterwards. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I notice that you've made a couple of changes here and there yourself. If you find bits of prose that don't work for you, I encourage you to fix them, but some minor copy-editing here and there wouldn't interfere with your role as a delegate would it? I mean, whatever you deem appropriate, but I would like to have my very first shiny gold star atop an article. CR4ZE (t • c) 01:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: What would be your approach for closing? If you have outstanding objections regarding the prose I'll happily work at them, unless you were planning to do a run-through yourself. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at this version. I checked sources 1, 4–5, 7–12, 29, 31–35, 48, 55–59, 62, 67, 69–74, 93–100, 105–116, 123–138, 140–142, 144–152, 202, and 206–208.
I found a few problems:
Source 4 is used to support "[Key members of the game world production team] ... shared their photo and video documentation with the design team." I can't really find that. The closest I've found is "We sent out quite a large team on a number of occasions who spent time with location scouts, architectural historians, off-duty police, DJ Pooh and our own research team. ... We’ve shot over 250,000 images and hours of video. We’ve driven all over Los Angeles and out into the surrounding desert, towns, and forests. Throughout the project I’ve visited California quite a number of times, sometimes with the art team and sometimes meeting up with [Rockstar co-founders] Sam and Dan Houser and [longtime series producer] Les Benzies." But that doesn't quite match up with the claims, as far as I can tell. Is there somewhere else in the source that supports the text better?
Source 5 is used to support "Rockstar North began to develop Grand Theft Auto V in 2008, following the release of Grand Theft Auto IV." The source, dated 2013, says "Grand Theft Auto V arrives after four years of development".
Source 9 is used to support "The Internet lets players purchase properties such as homes and businesses, and trade in stocks via a stock market." That is not in the source, which in fact says "you won't be able to buy property". I did see that Source 71 supports those claims though.
Source 11 is used to support "If players commit crimes while playing, the game's law enforcement agencies may respond as indicated by a "wanted" meter in the head-up display (HUD)." That doesn't seem to be in the source either. I found "In this new game, we can still try to escape the circular zone that flashes on the mini-map when cops come after our malcontent protagonist(s)." That's semi-related, but not a clear match.
Source 34 is used to support "Key members of the game world production team took field research trips throughout the region" but I don't see anything about that. It's just a mention of a trailer.
Source 35 is used to support "Google Maps projections of Los Angeles were used by the team to help design the road networks of Los Santos." That source never mentions Los Angeles, although it does include a quote from Aaron Garbut: "“We do a lot of Googling and StreetView scoping,”".
Source 71 doesn't fully support "Critics concurred that Grand Theft Auto V was one of the best games of the seventh generation era of video game consoles, and a great closing title before the emergence of the eighth generation." Although 70 and 72 do, 71 only supports the first half of the sentence.
Source 108 is used to support "Three days after release, the game had surpassed one billion dollars in sales, making it the fastest selling entertainment product in history." But that is actually Take Two's guess in the text: "We believe this marks the fastest that any entertainment property, including video games and feature films, has reached this significant milestone." Not sure if that is essentially fact or not. although I see multiple sources report it as such.
Source 133 is used to support "an honourable mention by Canada.com", but the source gives it that honour for multiplatform. It also calls it Xbox 360 game of the year.
Source 138 is used to support "second by ... the Canadian edition of The Huffington Post", but the source actually lists it at number five.
Source 149 is used to support "the game was named the Best Xbox Game by ... Cheat Code Central," but the source lists Bioshock Infinite as its Best Xbox Game Winner 2013.
Source 152 is used to support "Rockstar Games and Rockstar North won ... the BAFTA Academy Fellowship Award at the 10th British Academy Video Games Awards." I only see nine nominations for the game itself, and nothing about actual winners.
Everything else I looked at checked out fine. —Torchiesttalkedits 04:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for conducting a source review. I'll get back to you some time either today or tomorrow. CR4ZE (t • c) 05:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Almost everything has been taken care of. Some bits of information got moved around, others were outdated, and so on... With Source 35 (now Source 34), Garbut is talking about the research for LA. He also talked about it prior to this interview, in the big Game Informer feature from 2012 (Source 29). Game Informer ask him about the research they did on LA to create Los Santos. His exact quote is "We pored over the various online mapping and street-view tools". There are scans of that preview readily available online if you wish to check. So I've added this source in addition to support the claim. Both sources are referring to the same thing, just his wording was slightly different.
With regards to Source 108 (now 107), I agree that "We believe" might appear to be rocky, but the claim has been echoed by countless reliable sources (see here) and has sort of become fact. We go with what the sources say. Take Two have never gone on record to deny the attribution since. It was also featured In the news, so I think the claim is justified. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are scans for Source 29. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Few more items:
The stock trading item still isn't supported by what is now source 9, which only says "GTA IV's mobile phone returns, but a lot of its features have been altered. You can use it to access the internet." I added the source I found above support that claim. In fact, I pulled source 9 from the article completely, since it was a really early source with less-than-perfect information, supplanted by more comprehensive reporting later.
You removed the source support the part about the HUD and wanted meter, but the following ref to source 11 doesn't quite support all the details either. The HUD in particular isn't mentioned, just some of the mechanics of being chased.
I'm fine with your point on the fastest time to reach $1 billion. It's been widely reported.
The main issue with the Google Maps point is that the article didn't specifically mention Los Angeles. But the new source looks good.
Just fix the HUD part and I'll be ready to support on sources. —Torchiesttalkedits 12:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I found a replacement. I also swapped out the GamesRadar review for a preview to support the fixed-wing aircraft addition. Just a more direct mention, that's all. CR4ZE (t • c) 13:04, 27 April 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) 14:56, 5 May 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 article as it has been recently promoted to A-class and meets all the standards expected of a Featured Article. The successful promotion of this article would be my and WP:ONRD's fifth FA, the third 400-series FA, and would interconnect Michigan's and Ontario's highway FAs with the future nomination of I-69. Floydianτ¢ 22:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I reviewed this article at the ACR and feels it meets the criteria. Dough4872 03:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments—overall the article looks good, and I'm inclined to support. I have some comments through. Starting with the references:
Overall, there's a tendency not to match the case of the titles in the references. This gives an unpolished look compared to APA or Chicago style which directs authors to force sources titled in one case into another. (APA prefers sentence case for journal article titles; Chicago prefers consistently using title case regardless of how the original source was formatted.)
As one example, you have "The Corporation Of The City of Sarnia", which in title case would have both instances of of and the second of the in lower case.
The press release in footnote 3 is in title case, while the news article in footnote 4 is in sentence case. Can we pick one and harmonize them all to it?
"Ontario Ministry of the Environmnet" in footnote 3. Also. "Dr." can be dropped as such titles are normally omitted from names in citations.
"pdf" should really be rendered in all caps; it's an abbreviation for "Portable Document Format". That formatting queue should also be added to any citations missing it (footnote 3 again) especially because there is discussion about removing them.
Footnote 18: "Press Release - Sarnia to London (Hwy. 402)" it probably would be nice to drop the "Press Release - " from the title since we have (Press release) appearing right afterwards.
Footnote 21: "The Observer (Sarnia: Sun Media)" Thank you for including the location, but you can probably drop the publisher.
Footnote 25: you should add |link=no to suppress the link on Google there since it's linked in FN 23.
Footnote 31: "New Section Opens on Highway to U.S". This is one of those cases where because the citation template applies the period after the quotation mark )per WP:LQ), that I would say you should drop the period and go with "US" instead. Otherwise, "New Section Opens on Highway to U.S.". is your only solution to making the abbreviation not look half punctuated.
Footnote 35: "Detroit Free Press (Michigan)" the location there is superfluous unless there's another newspaper called the Detroit Free Press published elsewhere.
Footnote 38: that's listing the wrong publication. You've cited an article from The London Free Press that was written by a reporter employed by The Observer of Sarnia. Such crossover is common with papers owned by the same publisher. The Mining Journal here in Marquette, Michigan, reprints articles written for their sister paper The Daily Mining Gazette in Houghton, but I would still cite the specific paper who published the edition of the article I consulted.
A request for consideration, but could you include scale information on the map citations? Several citation guides I consulted over the last year for citing maps in APA, MLA or Chicago style (since none of those three guide actually specify directly how to cite maps) recommended "Scale not given" for fixed-scale maps (not dynamic ones like Google Maps). Also, it would be nice if you could supply cartography information, even if it means repeating the name of the publishing organization. (I will list "Michigan Department of Transportation" as the publisher and "MDOT" for the cartography if the map doesn't specify a more specific item to list.)
Prose—not much here
I noticed that you abbreviated the American Interstates in the lead. It's up to you, but since you listed I-69's full name with the abbreviation, you can probably abbreviate I-94's first mention, even though it's in the same sentence. Then I'd recommend that you abbreviate all of the other mentions for consistency.
The sentence stating with "However, construction of a new route known as the Rt. Honourable Herb Gray Parkway ..." can probably be put into a lettered footnote and dropped from the body of the article. As it is, it feels like a tangent and a diversion from the topic, which is the western end of Highway 402. (Use {{#tag:ref| sentence with footnotes|group=lower-alpha}} to embed the cited text into another footnote.)
"as a result of the efforts of Lambton Wildlife Inc." can probably also be dropped as getting off topic. (the former rail line aspect of the trail does add some interest, and maybe a link to rail trail is appropriate?)
"Planning for the route that would become Highway 402 began following the completion of the Blue Water Bridge in 1938. A divided highway was constructed through Sarnia following World War II; it was completed and designated in 1953.[16] The intent to extend the route to Highway 401 was announced in 1957.[17]" It would read better, and give some more information to readers if you used the active voice here. "X starting planing for the route... " and "Y announced its/their intent to extend..." for example.
"Since completion as a four lane route, ..." that needs a hyphen since four-lane is a compound adjective.
"Highway 402 is one of the original 400-series highways, having been numbered a year after Highway 400 and Highway 401, in 1953." those two words are unneeded and awkward.
"The short 6.1 km (3.8 mi) dual highway" should really be using |adj=on instead of |abbr=on. This level of writing is really better served by spelling out the unit of measurement, something we should only do in tables and infoboxes where space is at a premium. I would change the other measurements to remove the abbreviations as well throughout the prose. [This compares to the "two metres (6 ft)" lower down, which would be "2 m (6 ft)" if you were going to consistently abbreviate.]
"Lambton OPP monitored ... " I know OPP = Ontario Provincial Police, but other readers won't.
Overall, the article looks good, reads pretty well, and I'm inclined to support promotion once my minor concerns are addressed. Imzadi 1979→ 05:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've made all the ref changes. The Google maps titles still use lowercase since they are descriptive titles of my own doing; however, the remainder should be all good now, from what I can see.
As for the scales, that will take me time to compile, but I should be able to add it
I've abbreviated all the Interstate listings, but I kept the instance in the lede as I feel it looks odd to not have both in full.
Regarding switching the one bit to active prose, I don't think much is to be gained since it's just the department of highways in each case. When specific ministers make big announcements, I try to include that, but in this case I've only got maps and dates to go by and no construction companies or specific PR announcements.
The rest of the changes have been made. I left OPP abbreviated but linked to it, as "Lambton Ontario Provincial Police" just doesn't read right. The abbreviations should be all fixed (and I agree that they should be written in full, but was encouraged to use abbreviations in my early road-article writing days.
Support—Looks good, so I can't see any reason to hold back promotion now. Imzadi 1979→ 00:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scales have been added. As far as I can see, the cartographic information is included, except for the cartoony Point Edward map. The official maps simply say "Cartography by Cartography Section" or "Compiled by [the same]". - Floydianτ¢ 20:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Evad37
"Highway 402 has a wide grass median separating the carriageways for the majority of its length." – source?
"Blue Water Bridge Approach" – why the italics?
"The new four lane roadway is divided into specific lanes for cars, trucks (two lanes), and local traffic, and includes a marked lane for NEXUS card holders as well" – can you clarify, as this doesn't seem to add up: 1×car + 2×truck + 1×local + 1×NEXUS = 5 lanes ?
Also, per Imzadi above, "four lane" should be "four-lane"
Sources for the dates in the notes column of the exit list?
Looking good otherwise - Evad37[talk] 04:15, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed all the issues except the last. Regarding the NEXUS issue, I haven't actually been there and so I misread the source... based on the satellite imagery, it's 4 lanes in western Sarnia, and five lanes through the customs plaza. I'll compile the sources for the exit list notes, hopefully by tomorrow. Cheers, Floydianτ¢ 06:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, added refs where I can and removed dates for Nuavoo and Wonderland Road that I couldn't find any info on. Should be all good. - Floydianτ¢ 23:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Evad37[talk] 02:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- still like to see someone from outside the Roads project read through for comprehension/readability (if you can't find someone in a few days ping me and I might recuse myself from delegate duties to do it, as I have an open FAC myself and will be reviewing some here and there). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Prototime I'm not a member of the Roads project, and I have just finished reading it over for comprehension/readability. I did not see many concerns, but I do have a few suggestions:
In the lead, the sentence "The freeway is four-laned and controlled access for nearly its entire length, except on the approach to the Blue Water Bridge, where it widens" is a bit ambiguous; does the "except ... " mean that the lane is also not controlled access on its approach to Blue Water Bridge? I don't think so, since that's not made explicit, but it's not entirely clear. I suggest rewording.
The phrase "as well as" is used a few times throughout the article in place of conjunctions. Using a conjunction like "and" would reduce wordiness and be more grammatically sound.
In Route description, the first sentence is slightly disjointed; I suggest adding "and thus it" or "and therefore it" or something similar in front of the word "providing" (and changing that word to "provides"). I also suggest changing the word "over" to "than"; at first glance, I was confused into thinking that Blue Water Ridge somehow went "over" the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor. And one last thing: there is a space between the source citation and the footnote at the end of the sentence.
In History, third sentence, the passive voice leaves me wondering who announced their intent to extend the route.
In History, last sentence, the comma after "Sarnia" is unnecessary.
In Construction, first sentence, I'm confused by what it means that the highway was "one of the original 400-series highways ... in 1953". Does that mean it was one of the original 400-series highways that finished construction in 1953? That it was designated a 400-series highway in 1953?
In Construction: "As such, the highway was appropriately named the Blue Water Bridge Approach." -- The word "appropriately" is expressing an opinion (albeit an obvious one); I suggest removing it.
In Construction: "Then, on February 28, 1968..." -- the word "then" isn't needed.
In Construction: "Minister of Highways, George Gomme" -- that comma probably shouldn't be there.
In Construction: "Initial construction began near Highway 7 in 1974, under two contracts extending 23.2 kilometres (14.4 mi) westward." The way the words are arranged, it sounds like there are two 23.2 kilometer-long contract documents. Also, the sentence's subject is unclear; construction of what? I suggest rewording to something like "Under two construction contracts, construction of Highway 402 began near Highway 7 in 1974".
In Construction: "The section between Highway 21 and Highway 81 north of Strathroy was the next to be completed, and was opened to traffic on November 26, 1979." What comes after the comma is a dependent clause, and thus there shouldn't be a comma. Alternatively, inserting the noun "it" after "and" would make it an independent clause, and the comma could stay.
In Construction, last sentence: "Both were completed in time for the official opening, held in Sarnia on November 10, 1982." -- I suggest dropping the comma and "held".
In Since completion, first paragraph, last sentence: "A single death was reported; that of a man who succumbed to hypothermia on a nearby county road." To help the semicolon work better, I suggest dropping "that of" and "who".
In Since completion, second paragraph, last sentence: 100 kilometers per hour does not equal 100 miles per hour.
In Since completion, last paragraph, last sentence: I suggest adding "vehicular" in front of "blockade" and wikilinking to the blockade page. Those clarifications may help readers who aren't familiar with the term.
In the Notes, the independent/dependent clause comma problem resurfaces; either the comma should be dropped or a noun like "it" should be inserted after "and".
On the whole, great work on this article; I'll probably support promotion after these points are addressed. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't mind, but I adjusted your bullet points into numbers for ease of replying. I really love some of the wording issues you've found, as I think it really highlights the subtleties of writing these articles that may be obvious to roadgeeks and those writing the articles, but confusing to the average reader. I've only responded to the points I need to, and the others have simply been fixed; my right hand is really swollen right now so it's difficult to type.
2. I've switched most, but I think "as well as" reads better when there is an "and" not far back in the sentence or for multiple pairings of info, i.e the start and end termini of a construction project. "...between the Blue Water Bridge and Lambton County Road 26 (Mandaumin Road) and included the reconstruction of several bridges, as well as completely rebuilding the Christina Street exit..." and "By the end of that year, construction was progressing on the section between Highway 21 and Highway 81 near Strathroy, as well as on the section connecting Highway 2 with Highway 401." are the two examples of this.
10. Used your suggestion but snuck the length of the contracts in a more appropriate spot. Hopefully it works this way.
11. Done, but switched the comma to a semicolon and dropped the "and"... somehow it seems off with just a comma.
14. Nah its something like 100 kilometres to 60 pounds/in2 or 40 furlongs or something... crazy imperial system. Haha, actually just a mistaken rounding number.
Thank you for the review. Hopefully I can remember to apply your suggestions into my future writing. Cheers, Floydianτ¢ 02:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for your hard work on this article, Floydian. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: dunno if you would like another review or if the bot issue is holding things up but I figured I'd shoot you a ping. - Floydianτ¢ 05:03, 4 May 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) 14:57, 5 May 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 don't see this in the article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Princess Parcly Taxel 03:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_PAL_cover.jpg){kind=link}
_screenshot.png){kind=link}
![[32]](http://www.feelnumb.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/JL-Mr-Kite3.jpg){kind=link}
_2011-05-10_crop.jpg){kind=link}
![[49]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Accipiter_nisus_1_%28Bohu%C5%A1_%C4%8C%C3%AD%C4%8Del%29.jpg){kind=link}
![[50]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Accipiter_nisus_-in_flight-8-4c.jpg){kind=link}
