Add 1 |
Add 4 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TOClimit|2}} |
{{TOClimit|2}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pigeye shark/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tommy Amaker/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Conte di Cavour-class battleship/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/God of War: Betrayal/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kahaani/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kahaani/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tern/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tern/archive1}} |
Revision as of 01:18, 15 June 2013
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
Pigeye shark
This is the lesser-known doppelganger of the infamous bull shark. I'm nominating this article because I think it's comprehensive and meets the criteria. Thanks for your attention. -- Yzx (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support with comments This article looks really, really good, and I'm going to go ahead and support. I do have a pair of minor comments though:
Is there a better way to phrase "remain within a local area"? I'm not sure if there is a scientific term (I'm guessing territorial isn't right) but it sounds a bit off to me.
- reworded to "tends to roam within a fairly localized area." -- Yzx (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested in what cetaceans the pigeye shark is capable of killing, as it seems that is its largest prey item.
Thank you for writing this article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Nice read, and a very thorough article as far as I can tell.
I have a few prose-related suggestions, but my support is not conditional on any of them.All comments below now addressed.
Maybe add a comma between "short" and "blunt" in the lead?
"that only re-opened" ---> "that re-opened only" — "Only" should always be closest to where the emphasis is. In this case, "some 6,000 years ago."
"Western Australia and Northern Territory" ---> "Western Australia and the Northern Territory" — I've very rarely heard the latter term used without the definite article.
Link requiem shark in the "Description" section, since you haven't yet used that term outside the lead.
Link South Africa under "Distribution and habitat." Ditto for Madagascar and the Seychelles.
"potentially dangerous to humans though" ---> "potentially dangerous to humans, though" — Comma use.
Other than that, prose, references, and everything else looks good. Very comprehensive, and a fine article overall. Good work! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 18:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made edits as you recommended. Thanks for the review and support. -- Yzx (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Taxonomy caption shouldn't end in period
- File:Carcharhinus_amboinensis_distmap.png: what base map did you use to create this?
- File:Carcharhinus_amboinensis_Day.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've made edits as per comments. -- Yzx (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments- at first glance, looking likeanother clinically-executed shark article heading towards FA-waters....will jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason in Distribution and habitat why some countries and Cape Verde are unlinked and others such as South Africa are?
- Well, I used to link all place names, but then in past FA reviews that's been pointed out as overlinking, so I stopped linking country names, and then I got a comment above about adding some links, so actually I've got no idea what people want for this. -- Yzx (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I generally leave it at states or provinces of countries and anything smaller than that. But also some concepts such as Southeast Asia I think are useful. Yes it has been tricky navigating this over the years. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- NB: I think I'd link Cape Verde and unlink South Africa - the islands mentioned are not well known by many and are valuable links. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I used to link all place names, but then in past FA reviews that's been pointed out as overlinking, so I stopped linking country names, and then I got a comment above about adding some links, so actually I've got no idea what people want for this. -- Yzx (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason in Distribution and habitat why some countries and Cape Verde are unlinked and others such as South Africa are?
-
Young sharks live in the bay year-round, staying mostly in the eastern side of the bay ...- be good if we can lose one of the 'bay's - but not sure if we can without introducing ambiguity.....
-
Thanks for the review and support. -- Yzx (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by Cwmhiraeth This appears to be a well-written and comprehensive article and the only thing that bothered me was the use of the term "fisheries" in the lead. The Wikipedia article states "According to the FAO, a fishery is typically defined in terms of the "people involved, species or type of fish, area of water or seabed, method of fishing, class of boats, purpose of the activities or a combination of the foregoing features"". So what fisheries are involved in catching Pigeye shark?Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not certain what the issue is. Do you think that the use of "fisheries" in the intro is not specific enough, or that it's a misapplication of the word? -- Yzx (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, fish can be caught by longlines, or by trawling or drag-netting but not by fisheries. Then again, it is apparent from the body of the article that this species is uncommon, and it seems unlikely that there is a pigeye shark fishery as such, let alone more than one. By the way, I notice that gillets is incorrectly linked. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not certain what the issue is. Do you think that the use of "fisheries" in the intro is not specific enough, or that it's a misapplication of the word? -- Yzx (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Jim Very little to nitpick about this excellent article, but just a few remarks. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about this, but I'm going to query the variety of English again. Many BE-English-speaking countries in the range, no US-speaking
- presently lacks the data— lacks adequate data?
- closely resembles the bull shark, morphology-based phylogenetic studies have considered the two species to be closely related—avoid repeat of "closely"
- >3.1:1 versus ≤3.1:1—might be clearer if you write the more than/less than in words
- I've tried it before, but I found the "less than or equal to" cumbersome. -- Yzx (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- tapeworms Callitetrarhynchus gracilis— I'd be inclined to just put "several tapeworms", and not bother with the lengthy list of red-links (this is a personal aversion, so feel free to ignore. I'm uptight enough to write stubs for my parasites, but I don't expect anyone else to do it)
- I think it's worthwhile information. Maybe the red links will inspire some reticent parasitologist at some point. -- Yzx (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- its flesh can cause ciguatera poisoning. — Does the toxin affect the shark?
Source review by Sasata (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Müller & Henle (1939) is available here
page # for Garrick (1982)?
De Maddalena & Della Rovere is available here; Muller in the title needs a ü
Cliff & Dudley (1991) is issue #1; Muller in the title needs a ü
Campbell & Beveridge 1987 available here
Palm & Beveridge (2002) is here
why isn't the volume# bolded in Knip et al. (2012) (ref #23)?
might consider coverting all isbns to isbn 13, as recommended by WP:ISBN. A handy converter is available here
Couple of comments (unrelated to sources):
- The taxonomy section says that "Later authors reassigned it to the genus Carcharhinus.", but according to the taxobox synonymy, it was moved by the original authors in the same year originally published?
Also, why both "J. P. Müller" and "Müller" as authority abbreviations?
-
- Sorry, I misread. Do we know who made the later transfer and when? Sasata (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
how about links to Francis Day and Bleeker?
- The taxonomy section says that "Later authors reassigned it to the genus Carcharhinus.", but according to the taxobox synonymy, it was moved by the original authors in the same year originally published?
- 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) 00:40, 15 June 2013 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]
Tommy Amaker
- Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because it meets the requirements. This is part of my attempt to put basketball back on the map at WP:FAC. Recently, my nomination of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive5 was the first WP:NBA article to become an WP:FA in almost 4 years. WP:CBBALL has gone through a similar drought aside from nominally associated articles such as Jackie Robinson and Otto Graham.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. the recent WP:PR reviewer, Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), suggested that I have someone else take a look at the article. I was able to get Finetooth (talk · contribs) to do a copyedit. Both the PR and the copyedit helped the article a great deal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment didn't take a deeper look, but the red links (one right in the lead!) might be a problem when other reviewers arrive... igordebraga ≠ 16:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed several redlinks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Slashed dates (e.g. "Harvard's highest poll rankings AP (22, 1/2/12) and Coaches (21, 1/2/12 & 2/6/12)") are ambiguous and should be replaced. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- replaced.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – I'm seeing a number of picky issues early in the article, which leaves me concerned about what else is in there
I've heard complaints elsewhere on this site that people couldn't understand "winningest", so I wouldn't put that in the lead.- I hope it is smoother now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Last word of "Ivy League Championships" shouldn't be capitalized.- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still see the capitalization in there.Giants2008 (Talk) 00:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Oh. I missed one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"As a head coach, he took Seton Hall Pirates men's basketball to postseason tournaments...". I'd imagine this should be either "took the Seton Hall Pirates men's basketball team" or a simpler "took the Seton Hall Pirates".- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
En dash needed in 2003-04.- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AP should probably be spelled out later in the lead.- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Junior year: Obvious redundancy in "The seven steals in a championship game was a championship game record..." that could stand some more variety.- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"That year, Amaker served as spokesman against drug and alcohol abuse...". Needs "a" before "spokesman".- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Senior year: "for the 86–87 Blue Devils." I think style guidelines would call for at least the first number in the range to be four digits.- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No need for two 1987 NCAA Tournament links in this section.- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accomplishments: "Although his single-season assists records was surpassed...". "was" → "were".- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 81 is a dead link. Let me know if you need help with this one; my library subscriptions from college include the Sporting News.Giants2008 (Talk) 01:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]- I found another ref that makes the same point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Duke: Ref 62 should be moved outside the parenthesis mark.- O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seton Hall: "where they lost in the first round to the Old Dominion and again finished 15–15." Second "the" could use removal.- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two commas come after Eddie Griffin's name, and one should be removed (the one before the parenthetical bit).- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The Pirates were ranked high on many experts pre-season rankings." "experts" → "experts'".- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"record" is needed after "and finished with a 22–10".- Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another "the" needs removal in "to the Alabama."- Fixed (also got 3rd instance with Georgia Tech).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Michigan: The 2004–05 team record and conference finish need a cite. So do a couple other parts at the ends of paragraphs in this section.- Refs added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Harvard: The recruiting restrictions from the summer of 2010 are mentioned twice in the section. I don't think the second mention is needed after a whole paragraph has been dedicated to the issue.- I accidentally moved it from the LEAD not seeing the 2010 content bunched with the 2008 content. I had forgotten about the content even being in the article at all. Now content is properly distributed between 2008, 2010 and the LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"which was school's first men's basketball Ivy League championship...". Needs "the" before "school's".- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:04, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
""Co-champion" shouldn't be capitalized.- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The team was also ranked 21st in the Coaches Poll On February 6." "On" shouldn't be capitalized either.- corrected.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
68-62 needs an en dash for the score range.Giants2008 (Talk) 01:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Good catch.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I found another ref that makes the same point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support' after I fixed a ref without publisher, can't see no problems. (one might find strange the lack of authors in most, but given they're made by AP, it's no big deal) igordebraga ≠ 15:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
with pause. During the above-mentioned PR, I had some minor quibbles and disagreed with the main editor over minor issues, such as some of the content in the "Personal life" section. For example, I didn't think that where Amaker eats breakfast is notable enough to include, and Tony disagreed. As I told him at the time, I wanted to wait for what future reviews here at FAC would say about it. As a result, I'm willing to give this article my support until others chime in about this, but I've never thought that it should stop things from moving forward here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] - I'm now good with the changes as per Giants2008's comments below. I'm still not completely happy with some of the other content in the "Personal life" section, and have gone on the record about that in my PR, but it doesn't seem to be an issue with most of the reviewers here thus far, so I'm fine with keeping it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment – I came back to strike the remaining comments and offer support, but on a second look the personal life section is bothering me in the same way that Christine questioned. For me, the sentences about the sauce his mother makes for him are not encyclopedic at all. Merely being "a finicky eater" doesn't strike me as worthy of inclusion in a biography. I can see having the Harvard breakfasts included to have a mention of Amaker's off-court activities for comprehensiveness purposes, but the sauce is pushing it in my view. Although I won't oppose over the presence of the information, I'd like to see those sentences reduced or removed before supporting promotion.Giants2008 (Talk) 00:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]- I shortened the finicky eater content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments- reading through now. queries below. feel free to revert my changes if they guff things.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My initial thoughts were on hte sauce was that it was a nice way of engaging the reader and was useful on that basis to add some colour to the article.
- Thanks for the support. I hope not to have to cut any more in response to comments above by others.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ...
set numerous records and earned many recognitions.- what are "recognitions"? Is this a basketball-specific term?- Changed to honors and awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the NCAA ruled that Amaker had committed recruiting violation--> "the NCAA ruled that Amaker had committed a recruiting violation" ?- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what is Sweet Sixteen- I added (regional semifinals).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My initial thoughts were on hte sauce was that it was a nice way of engaging the reader and was useful on that basis to add some colour to the article.
In the tournament he barely played in at least one game and started in at least one.- worded funny - not sure where the emphasis is supposed to be.- This content has been an issue prior discussions (WP:PR and/or WP:GAC). Could you look at the source and make a suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How about - "He played in two games in the tournament, the first on-field for a mere two minutes against Puerto Rico, but he played a prominent role in the USA's win over Italy."
- I modified it slightly, but I swapped that in essentially.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How about - "He played in two games in the tournament, the first on-field for a mere two minutes against Puerto Rico, but he played a prominent role in the USA's win over Italy."
- This content has been an issue prior discussions (WP:PR and/or WP:GAC). Could you look at the source and make a suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Overall, this looks fairly solid and I do not intend a full review. However, just glancing at it, I noticed a few glaring prose issues, which I am surprised to see so far into a nomination. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
6 instances of "as a" or "as an" in the lead, including twice beginning consecutive sentences in this way. "As a(n)" used 24 times throughout article.- Does that 24 count stuff like has also or was an?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a shot at fixing it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead alone, there seem to be a few too many sentences which begin simply "he" or "the", which makes the prose choppy.- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In "Early years", the last sentence of the first paragraph begins "although", as does the first sentence the next paragraph.- fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph starts: We have "During" beginning two paragraphs quite close together. Then in "Coaching career", we have three consecutive paragraphs which begin "In [year]", then two beginning "The 19xx-xx Seton Hall team earned", then after an intervening paragraph, "The 2000-01 Seton Hall team earned". Then in "Michigan", we have "Amaker's 2003-04 team earned …", "The 2004-05 team", "The 2005-06 team", "Amaker's 2006-07 team earned". Then in "Harvard", we have three paragraphs which begin "On [date], Amaker['s]…"- I think Giants2008 (talk · contribs) just took care of this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And just an overall impression, without reading too closely, is that too many sentences begin "He", "Amaker", with another noun or pronoun, or with a simple adverbial phrase (In…, During…,). This is worth looking at more carefully. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not averse to a copyedit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – The only reason I withheld my support after the resolution of my previous comments was to see if I could do something about the paragraph beginnings that were mentioned above. I introduced a little more variety, which I'm comfortable with. There's still a little too much trivial personal info for my tastes, but it's a matter of opinion and I won't withhold my backing over it. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK (own work released as CC, PD).
- File:20110305_Tommy_Amaker.jpg - could use a Commons category (just as info, not required for FA).
- It's probably difficult to obtain free images here, but i'd keep looking for future opportunities for one or two more to add. GermanJoe (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Added File:Krzyzewski at Pentagon cropped.JPG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review (beginning) I've started this, but am having difficulty with some links, particularly with PDFs which keep giving me timeouts. I hope this is a local problem that will soon subside. Anyway, thus far, from the first column:
Ref 1 link returns "page not found"- Fixed (by adding replacing a single ref with two—43 & 44— throwing off subsequent number references below).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 22: This is a huge site. Page no should be provided. Also, why is "Duke University" linked here, rather than in the earlier ref. 4?- Ref fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 23: link page has a different title from the one cited. Is this the right page?- I wasn't sure what title to use. This is like a monthly archive of daily blogs and the daily blog I use is in the middle of the list under the title given.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I follow now: "Lawson steals the record" is the title of the fourth item down - no problem. Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 27: I know the sources says "Unites States", but this is obviously an error which doesn't have to be repeated in your citations list- Would it be better to put a [sic] rather than correct it?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your choice, but it would be simpler for the reader if you made the allowable correction. Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I used [sic].--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 53 lacks publisher information- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will persevere with the remaining cols. Brianboulton (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing:
Ref 64: Source article has different title from citation. Check whether it's the right article- Don't know how that happened. Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 93: link returns "page not found". Also access date missing- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 133: gives "the page could not be found"- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 135 and some following: why is "ESPN.com" now being italicised?- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 166: italicization of non-print source- Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 170: GoPrincetonTigers.com looks like a fansite rather than an independent reliable source.- That is the Princeton Athletics website. See the copyright at the bottom "Princeton University All Rights Reserved. "--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 174: link returns "page not found"- fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is certainly referenced comprehensively, and so far as I can see, with the odd exception referred to above, these are appropriate and reliable. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All reference issues dealt with. The article is good to go in that respect. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate comment -- Pls check your dup links. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- redunant duplicate links eliminated. Those that remain are largely a byproduct of the {{cbb link}} template. There are two or three others that remain as a conscious choice due to the large amount of text between first and redundant use. E.g., both AP Poll and Coaches' Poll appear in the WP:LEAD and are redundant in the Harvard section toward the bottom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:00, 14 June 2013 (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) 01:01, 15 June 2013 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]
Conte di Cavour-class battleship
- Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These battleships had a curious history. Virtually inactive during World War I, one ship was sunk by a magazine explosion in harbor (cause unknown) and the other two were given the most extensive reconstructions done on a battleship by any nation between the wars. One was crippled by the British attack at Taranto and under repair for the rest of World War II. The other was lightly damaged by the longest-range hit ever made at the Battle of Calabria and was later transferred to the Soviet Union as war reparations. She was sunk in 1955 by long-buried German mines in Sevastopol harbor. The article has a MilHist A-class review last month and I've tweaked it a little in preparation for this nomination.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Should "The armor protecting the barbettes was reinforced 50-millimeter (2.0 in) plates" be "The armor protecting the barbettes was reinforced with 50-millimeter (2.0 in) plates". Otherwise the new Barbette armour is thinner than the old. ϢereSpielChequers 10:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Check alphabetization of References
- Gray or Gardiner & Gray?
- 277–77?
- FN37: formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]Damn, that's a really low-quality lead image (no offense to you, of course; book/magazine scans can only be so good). It may be worth it to email someone in the Italian Wikimedia chapter to see if they can poke the Italian Navy into releasing an image or two. That's what they are (nominally) there for, anyway. Let me know if you'd want help; I can ask around to see who would be the best person to contact.- I've talked with my friend... they say that it:Utente:Pigr8 would be the best to talk to. He isn't part of the chapter but is very active in ships and photos on the site, and may be able to get them for you or point you in the right direction. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I found some more images.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good -- still, keep that name in mind. Never know! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I found some more images.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've talked with my friend... they say that it:Utente:Pigr8 would be the best to talk to. He isn't part of the chapter but is very active in ships and photos on the site, and may be able to get them for you or point you in the right direction. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noticed the work being done on the Italian Wikipedia's Classe Conte di Cavour? It looks like they use some references you don't, so if he/she speaks English, that could also be a helpful source.- I've got the book that is the primary reference there, but I don't want to have to go to Google to translate it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but both it:Utente:Demostene119 and it:Utente:Gaetano56 can communicate in English, so you could ask them if you're missing anything. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've contacted both of them to see if I've missed anything by not using Bargoni.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They've added some extra material.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Awesome, nice work. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They've added some extra material.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've contacted both of them to see if I've missed anything by not using Bargoni.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but both it:Utente:Demostene119 and it:Utente:Gaetano56 can communicate in English, so you could ask them if you're missing anything. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got the book that is the primary reference there, but I don't want to have to go to Google to translate it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Conte di Cavour-class ships were the first full class of dreadnoughts in the Regia Marina ... – isn't that a bit of a technicality? Dante Alighieri could be considered a one-ship class.- Yeah, pointless technicality.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An Italian general and his staff were murdered on Corfu in 1923 and Benito Mussolini was not satisfied with the Greek Government's response so he ordered Italian troops to occupy the island. – run-on sentence and it's of unclear relevance until you get to the next sentence.- Rephrased.
The fleets spotted each other in the middle of the afternoon and the escorting cruisers were the first to fire, although without effect. The Italian battleships opened fire first at 15:53 at a range of nearly 29,000 yards (27,000 m) and the two leading British battleships, HMS Warspite and Malaya, returned fire a minute later. Three minutes after opening fire, shells from Giulio Cesare began to straddle Warspite which made a small turn and increased speed, to throw off the Italian ship's aim, at 16:00. – fire, fire, opened fire, fire fire fire :-)- Extensively reworked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The German submarine U-596 unsuccessfully attacked the ship in the Gulf of Taranto in early March 1944. – this may be just my curiosity speaking, but where was the Caesare going in 1944, as it was after the Italian surrender? Egypt?- Dunno, probably just training there, or possibly sailing between Malta and Taranto.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't quite up to your normal prose quality. It may be worth asking a copyeditor to look over it (e.g. John?)Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 11:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]- I'll see if I can get Dank to look it over. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I don't have time any more to do the first pass. (I know it would be the first pass, because for instance "Italy lacked the ability to build larger guns," is missing a period at the end of the sentence.) After someone has done a prose review, I'll hop in with some comments. - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean that all punctuation isn't equivalent? :-) --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, I'm still committed to helping out at FAC ... as long as I'm the second copyeditor, to free up some time so I can write some copyediting software. Surely there's someone willing to pitch in here and help, Sturm, you've done so much for so many. - Dank (push to talk) 19:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean that all punctuation isn't equivalent? :-) --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I don't have time any more to do the first pass. (I know it would be the first pass, because for instance "Italy lacked the ability to build larger guns," is missing a period at the end of the sentence.) After someone has done a prose review, I'll hop in with some comments. - Dank (push to talk) 14:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see if I can get Dank to look it over. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Per this, shouldn't the article be in British English? --John (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't follow, John. - Dank (push to talk) 14:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think he's thinking of MOS:RETAIN, but I also think that'd be making a mountain out of a molehill... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another question: is "quadripod" the best word to describe a four-legged mast? --John (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like it should be either quadropod or tetrapod as quadruped means four-footed. Tetrapod is much more common because it's used for the biological classification of four-limbed animals. So do we prefer Greek or Latin?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tetrapodal it is.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like it should be either quadropod or tetrapod as quadruped means four-footed. Tetrapod is much more common because it's used for the biological classification of four-limbed animals. So do we prefer Greek or Latin?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Dank (push to talk)
- "Conte di Cavour-class battleships": Why all italics?
- "off line": off-line
- "The torpedo exploded": Should this be "The torpedoes exploded", or maybe "A torpedo exploded"?
- "Regia Marina": Be consistent in italizing.
- Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 23:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. Many thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dana boomer (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Comments[reply]
Design and description - Conversions should be standardized to either inch (mm) or mm (inch). In general, conversions need to be standardized to have either standard or metric first - in the armament section yards are first, but in the armor section meters are first.- Done.
- Not done. I still see several yards/feet/inches as the primary units, although the majority of the article uses mm/m first. Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done. I still see several yards/feet/inches as the primary units, although the majority of the article uses mm/m first. Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.
- Design and description, "The ships took four to five years to build, leaving them inferior in protection and armament to their contemporaries in most foreign navies" - What does the length of building time have to do with their inferiority?
- Giorgerini actually says: "The ships were not, therefore, completed until 1914–15 so, when the class was commissioned, other navies had dreadnoughts of the same age, but more heavily armed, better protected, and, in some cases, faster."
- Could we clarify this in the text? Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not seeing what the issue is here; the sentence from the article seems a fair summary of the source. What's missing? I'm happy to take suggestions.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe something along the lines of "Taking advantage of the length of time that it took to build and commission the ships, other countries were able to build dreadnoughts that were superior in protection and armament." I'm not wedded to that wording, but I'm basically looking for a direct textual link between the build time and the inferiority. At the moment, the sentence reads more like two unconnected pieces of information jammed together with a comma. Dana boomer (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, tweaked it a little, but rephrased. Thanks for your suggestion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Could we clarify this in the text? Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Giorgerini actually says: "The ships were not, therefore, completed until 1914–15 so, when the class was commissioned, other navies had dreadnoughts of the same age, but more heavily armed, better protected, and, in some cases, faster."
Design and description, "Construction was delayed by late deliveries of the 305-millimeter guns, armor plates and labor shortages." I don't think that construction was delayed by late deliveries of labor shortages, which is how this currently reads.- Rephrased.
Design and description - what is Terni cemented? An alternate name for Krupp armor, or the Italian's name for their process?- Their version of Krupp armor, as is noted immediately before the term.
- Could we clarify this? Maybe "their equivalent of Krupp armor, called Terni cemented,"? Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Could we clarify this? Maybe "their equivalent of Krupp armor, called Terni cemented,"? Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Their version of Krupp armor, as is noted immediately before the term.
Propulsion, "10 kn (19 km/h; 12 mph)" Why the sudden abbreviation for knots?- Fixed.
Forecastle should be linked on first occurrence, rather than later on as it currently is.- Fixed
Modifications - What does "license-built" mean?- Linked
Service, "The explosion blew a hole clean through the ship," "clean through" is a bit...unencyclopedic? Maybe "completely through"?- Agreed. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few issues, mostly minor, I think. Dana boomer (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Replies above. Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Replies above. I have changed to support, as the last remaining issue is not significant enough to withhold featured status. Dana boomer (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate cmt -- image review, anyone? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image check all OK (PD). Sources provided. Author information provided, where possible.
- For images without author information the images are old enough to claim PD or the PD-claim is based on other factors. OK. GermanJoe (talk) 14:25, 14 June 2013 (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) 01:09, 15 June 2013 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]
God of War: Betrayal
I am nominating this for featured article because this is a nice, short article and I believe it meets, or at the very least, is close to meeting the FA criteria. Any issues that there may be can be easily taken care of. JDC808 ♫ 18:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Darkwarriorblake
- Support: I have to run to work right now but to start with, there is a duplicate link to God of War II in the Development section (the first under setting and characters). Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Nikkimaria
Source review - spotchecks not done
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source, given that it's a forum user review?
- What makes Modojo a high-quality reliable source?
- As to both of these, the reviews on the page, including those two, are the only reviews for the game. Modojo is one of the 3 listed at GameRankings. The Escapist is the only other review I could find. --JDC808 ♫ 15:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but being the only reviews that exist doesn't make them high-quality reliable sources. Do these sites have any kind of editorial policy? Are these authors noted as experts in their field? Do clearly reliable sources cite or refer to these sites? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As to both of these, the reviews on the page, including those two, are the only reviews for the game. Modojo is one of the 3 listed at GameRankings. The Escapist is the only other review I could find. --JDC808 ♫ 15:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't repeat cited sources as external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Red Phoenix
- Comments: Checklinks are good, no broken links. That being said, I do have some comments and nitpicking to have resolved.
**Considering really only one paragraph in the Gameplay section is really about combat, is a subsection really necessary?
- "The development team worked closely with Marianne Krawczyk, the writer of the God of War console games, allowing the inclusion of additional backstory." - This is worded awkwardly with a little ambiguity by using the word "allowing". Does working with the writer mean she contributed to give it a backstory, or does it mean that she had to sign onto the project to allow them to use other backstory? This will need to be reworded to remove the ambiguity. Think of the reader and state the obvious.
- Two of your paragraphs in the Development section are quite short. Can they be expanded or reworked a little bit to put similar things together? Too many short paragraphs read awkwardly in terms of paragraph fluency.
Consider adding first sentences to each of your paragraphs in the Reception section after the first one. Right now it's unclear why these paragraphs are separated, and the repeated use of "someone said" or "someone stated" does not read well. Placing a topic sentence explaining, say that the game received praise for this, this and this; other reviewers criticized this and this, etc. Also, the use of starting every sentence in the first paragraph of the Reception section with a name and what website they're of also makes the section harder to read.
- I'm sure this isn't all-inclusive, but it should get you started. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 15:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on this later this evening.--JDC808 ♫ 15:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]- The sub-section was to keep a consistent article layout across the God of War articles. Went ahead and removed it.
- Removed "allowing" and reworded so that the backstory mention is in the next sentence.
- Merged paragraphs. Further comments on this?
- The way paragraphs are started is inline with my two previous FACs (which both are now FAs). With that being said, I've done some work. --JDC808 ♫ 06:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looking much better. Only thing I have left is that "context sensitive" in the Reception should be hyphenated to "context-sensitive", but I'm sure you'll get that in the blink of an eye. Well done. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 18:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I don't know if that should be hyphenated because each of the game's manuals don't use a hyphen. --JDC808 ♫ 19:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to violate WP:OTHERSTUFF, but if it helps to indicate, try doing a search here on Wikipedia for the phrase "context-sensitive". There are several articles that use the hyphenated phrase. I could see either working, so if other Wikipedians disagree with using the hyphenated phrase, I wouldn't mind leaving it as it is. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 20:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I searched Wikipedia via Quick time event and found this page: Context-sensitive user interface. Although the article's title and a sub-section have a hyphen, every time "context sensitive" is used (except for one spot inside quotations), it doesn't have a hyphen. --JDC808 ♫ 03:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I posted at WP:VG to see what others think. --JDC808 ♫ 03:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to violate WP:OTHERSTUFF, but if it helps to indicate, try doing a search here on Wikipedia for the phrase "context-sensitive". There are several articles that use the hyphenated phrase. I could see either working, so if other Wikipedians disagree with using the hyphenated phrase, I wouldn't mind leaving it as it is. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 20:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from czar
- Comment. At a glance, the article is marked with "Use American English" but I saw "manoeuvres" and no commas after "e.g."—doesn't necessarily require a full copy edit, but something to consider. czar · · 08:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Torchiest
- I'm going to try to give this a thorough review over the next week or so, but I have a few initial comments. I think you can, after the first mention in the lead and body, remove the God of War part from the name and just refer to it by the part after the colon: Betrayal. I changed that in the lead already. Something else minor in the lead: is it necessary to say "Although released for a mobile platform, it retains the action-oriented approach of its predecessors..."? Is there a particular reason those two things (mobile platform and action-oriented gameplay) would not be a match? You also say essentially the same thing in the very next sentence: "Despite its platform of release". Maybe you should find a more specific thing to contrast the gameplay against, rather than the platform, which is a bit vague for a non-gamer. —Torchiest talkedits 03:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it was unclear, but I had worded it like that because the two games prior to this (God of War I and II) were on a home console with full functionality as opposed to the limitations of the mobile platform (at least at that time). I'll try to word it better. The reviews were also essentially comparing it to the console games with respect to the mobile platform. --JDC808 ♫ 04:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Mentioning the origins of the monsters at the very end of the gameplay section seems a bit out of place. That should be moved up into the combat explanation, I think. —Torchiest talkedits 13:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The phrase "features an authentic 2D rendition" in the development section sounds like something that would be in a press release, and isn't necessarily very informative for the reader. Is there a better way to explain that concept? —Tourchiest talkedits 05:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've finished copy editing the article, and it seems to be in good shape. I've spot checked a few sources. The Blogcritics archived copy seems broken. It only has the first page. Clicking the link to go to page two gives you a 404 error. I notice the original page is all on one page though. Perhaps you could recreate the archived copy. I checked a handful of other sources, and they looked okay. —Torchiest talkedits 04:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, with the caveat that I'm a member of WP:VG. I've made a few more minor prose changes and checked the two non-free images, which have acceptable rationales. —Torchiest talkedits 14:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from hahnchen
Oppose
- I was just going to make some comments, but I think the first point is oppose-worthy, but easily fixed.
- Who developed it? Open the game, and look at the credits. Mobygames suggests that a lot of the development was was Sony Online Entertainment (who you do not credit) - http://www.mobygames.com/game/god-of-war-betrayal/release-info. It looks like Javaground did the grunt work, but game development is not just the code. You could email Phil Cohen (a Sony guy) for clarification.
- Mobygames also suggests that art was outsourced to WayForward Technologies, which is probably worth a mention.
- Any external links? Nothing of worth on archive.org? If I wanted to get the game, can I still do that?
- Drop Gamerankings. It covers fewer reviews than the article does.
- Useful to include IGN's Wireless Game of the Month award and Wireless Platform Game of the Year award, giving more context to its reception.
- The final paragraph is really clunky. Look at the first sentence, it features the phrase "limitations of a mobile platform" followed later by "the confines of the platform". I like the autosave comment, because the phone interruption is unique to mobile, but again, the delivery is clunky. Try getting rid of the quotes and just paraphrasing it.
-
- Don't cite Mobygames as a source for the same reasons we don't cite IMDb. A primary source (the game's credits) is enough. I suggest putting Mobygames as an external link instead of IGN or allgame.
- I don't see Gamerankings as being useful, when the reader can just glance at your list and get an ever better overview. But that's just my personal opinion.
- I see above that you dropped Modojo. I think that's a mistake. Modojo are part of Gamer Network, the same company that operate Eurogamer. Modojo's editorials have featured on Gamasutra, a professional industry website. They're a reliable source. If there are lots of reviews to choose from, Modojo would not be on the top of my list. But you don't have lots to choose from.
- I had struck the oppose, after you got the developer right. But have just unstruck it after reading the Modojo review, you need that in. He makes important points about the gameplay that you haven't covered. - hahnchen 00:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate comment
Healthy level of expert support and all checks done, which is great, but like to give it a bit longer to see if we can't get a review from outside the gaming arena as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from DivaKnockouts
- Sources:
- FN1: No italics to "IGN" (not a printed source) per WP:CITEHOW.
- FN2: No italics to "Verizon Wireless News Center". See above
- FN3: See FN1.
- FN5: See FN1.
- FN6: No italics to "1UP.com" see FN1.
- FN9: Same here.
- FN10: Same here.
The rest of these need to be fixed as well. Any work that is not a printed source (ex. Newspaper, printed report, book etc.) does not need to be italicized. There is also some WP:OVERLINK in the references as well. — DivaKnockouts 17:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Never had this issue before. The cite web format automatically italicizes them. What are you referring to in regards to overlink? Reading past discussions on that page (and how I learned) is that WP:OVERLINK is geared more towards prose, and references should be consistent. --JDC808 ♫ 17:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job:) — DivaKnockouts 18:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dom497
- "Throughout the game, the player can find green, blue, and red chests, and each chest contains orbs of the corresponding color" - Saying the word chest the second time doesn't sound right (in my opinion).--Dom497 (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The character art and animation were done by WayForward Technologies. The only audio components are an orchestral score in the main menu and background sounds (e.g., clashing weapons)." - Ref?--Dom497 (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will support after these two comments are addressed.--Dom497 (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Dom497 (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2013 (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) 00:57, 15 June 2013 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]
Kahaani
- Nominator(s): Msrag, Dwaipayan, Pleasant1623, Karthikndr
I am nominating this for featured article because the article, currently a Good Article, underwent a significant peer review, with excellent contribution from Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) and Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs). The article is on a Bollywood film, noted for its woman-centric theme,and also for being a surprise hit. Please have a look. Regards.Dwaipayan (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm very sorry to have to do this, as I think the subject is worthy and the coverage unimpeachable, but it's just not written in idiomatic English. I'm not going to list a few examples, as all that happens then is that they're fixed, I list a few more, they're fixed as well, and ultimately I end up having to copyedit the whole article. The bottom line is that this article needs to be copyedited by a native English speaker. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, you have correctly described the knee jerk reaction style copyedits that articles, in particular articles developed primarily by non-native English speakers, undergo during FAC. I apologize for the lack of idiomatic English; yes, we Indians tend to use a form of English prevalent in India (sometimes called Indian English) which is not really well-defined.
- Since you have found extensive non-idiomatic English use, we can withdraw this nomination, and work on that aspect. As you have said, a native English speaker (preferably British English user) will need to do a copyedit. The problem is finding someone who would do that. Since you have read parts of the articles I guess, would you be kind enough to at least guide us in the copyediting? Time is not a factor at all. You can take as long as you wish.
- Finally, thanks a lot for stating that coverage of this article is sufficient; at least one aspect of A criteria is met :) Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I personally think this is ready to go, but I'll defer to Malleus on this one regarding prose quality (not opposition) as I may be too close to the matter. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC) edited 12:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this should be withdrawn either, especially as the nominators and I are working together on improving the prose, which is why I struck my oppose. Malleus Fatuorum 12:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose and images per my comments at the PR. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this should be withdrawn either, especially as the nominators and I are working together on improving the prose, which is why I struck my oppose. Malleus Fatuorum 12:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review: A number of issues require attention:
- 27 returns "page not found"
- Done. Now url is live.
- 30 - no public access to this video
- I do not know what to do with this. The interview happened, I saw it, and it was earlier available for public viewing. Shall I remove the URL (and keep the reference)?
- 34 - add OCLC for this book: 18309970
- Added.
- 39: Yahoo is not a high-quality reliable source. Surely another sources for this information is available?
- For now, I have removed the sentence and the ref.
- 44 returns "page not found"
- Updated url. The reference number now is 43. The url is live.
- 67 goes to a login page, not an information source
- Ref 66 now; not yet addressed.
- 68 returns "address not found"
- Ref 66 now. Updated url. The new url is live.
- 89: publisher missing, but this is another Yahoo page - see 39 above.
- Now ref 87. Added publisher. This is a film review, done by someone in Yahoo. This source, when mentioned in the text, has been in text attributed to Yahoo India, and the other instance of its use to support the rating the film received in this review. I think, although not high quality, in this particular instances, this source is reliable, especially since this has in-text attribution.
- Well. if other reviewers are satisfied I will accept this. Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 97 has wrong title
- Ref 95 now. Fixed.
- 98 has wrong title
- Ref 96 now. Fixed.
- 101 returns "page not found"
- Removed this reference. The fact (earning in first week) is supported by the other ref (Box Office India).
- 109 returns "unable to find page.
- Now ref 106. Replaced with a new reference from Bollywood Hungama.
- 118 goes to a login page, not an information source
- Now ref 116. Not addressed yet.
- Removed. The sentence is supported by the other ref present.
- 122 has wrong title
- Now ref 120. Fixed title.
- Ref 118 now. Title already fixed.
Brianboulton (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeez, that's so embarrassing ! I mean. I should have checked these thoroughly. I apologize for these mistakes. I will rectify these within next 24 hours ( slightly busy right now, so please give me some time). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have adressed the source issues. In one instance (Yahoo film review) I managed to have the courage to differ from your point. Please have a look. Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Responses generally OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have adressed the source issues. In one instance (Yahoo film review) I managed to have the courage to differ from your point. Please have a look. Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Some of the issues that I had, were raised by other editors, and have been fixed. I personally feel that the article is well written, comprehensive, and a very interesting read. Well done Dwaipayan. --smarojit (buzz me) 12:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead says "who co-wrote the film with Advaita Kala. " But I see no mention of Kala in the infobox credits...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Stalker comment) Hey, Blofeld, the infobox credits Advaita Kala under the "Story by" column. --smarojit (buzz me) 13:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah I see. When I came to edit it I was put off by the referencing on multiple lines, I understand the response will be mixed on that but I think it looks untidy and unnecessarily makes the article long in the editing space. Is there are guidelines which consider line formatting?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The multiple line format o references was done by some other user (I forgot who). He converted all of the references to multiple lines. I did not have any problem with that though. Also, I am not sure if there is any guidelines in favor of or against multiple line reference formatting.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Sorry, I was away from Kolkata for a while so I could not participate in the FAC. Talking about the article, I agree with Smarojit that the article is very well written, comprehensive and very interesting to read. I support the FAC.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 07:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The multiple line format o references was done by some other user (I forgot who). He converted all of the references to multiple lines. I did not have any problem with that though. Also, I am not sure if there is any guidelines in favor of or against multiple line reference formatting.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah I see. When I came to edit it I was put off by the referencing on multiple lines, I understand the response will be mixed on that but I think it looks untidy and unnecessarily makes the article long in the editing space. Is there are guidelines which consider line formatting?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images - all OK. Fixed a fair-use template and one license. Please make sure, all FUR-parameters are filled with detailed info and images have valid US-copyright (in addition to their source country). GermanJoe (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks GermanJoe for your kind help. I think, thanks to your edits, the fair use image (poster) now has the detailed info, and the image of painting has US license alongside other licenses. Hope this is ok.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator note Hi! I would be travelling for about two weeks, with very limited access to internet; so, responses may get delayed. Meanwhile, some other editors interested in this FAC might keep an eye. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck of sources
- FN32 -- I'm not sure that a comment in passing about filming your lead actress walking among an unknowing crowd quite supports the contention that the director "often" user guerrilla-style techniques. Can you buttress this contention with an additional source?
- FN49 -- Okay.
- FN64 -- Article: "Critics set their expectations low". Source: "critics also set their expectations low". Not a huge deal but I think we could rephrase without losing the meaning.
- FN71 -- Okay.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]
Tern
- Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from some low-level cannibalism and some aphrodisiac eggs, I'm afraid that there is little to offer in the way of sex or violence. This is, however, a major article on a large bird family. I've tried to make it comprehensive without getting too bogged down in the details of the forty-odd species. This is this a WikiProject Bird collaboration. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the Bird Project[reply]
Sources review: Nitpicks
- Ref 32. Should have the "subscription required" template
- Ref 34: To be consistent with 32 you could offer a link to the abstract, together with the subscription template. Comment also applies to 40, 48, 49. Alternatively, for consistency you could drop the link in 32.
- In the cited texts section, the publisher details for the Linnaeus entry could be clearer
- Non UK readers are unlikely to know where Beckenham is. Compare "Suva, Fiji".
Otherwise, the article looks impeccably sourced. All the links work, citations properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for thorough check, Brian. I don't normally link abstracts, and I've now removed the url from 32 which I added in error. I've reformatted and clarified Linnaeus publisher and given translation for Stockholm location. Beckenham now Beckenham, London Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comments from Johnbod
- All these unreferenced facts in the lead are going to be refed later, right? - well, pretty much.
- It's normal practice not to have references in the lead, especially at FAC. Is there something I've said that isn't sourced later? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The pics are great (some I've switched to left) but none really show the forked tail or view from below in flight well, like say this
- Good find, I've changed to that image with caption about forked tail Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "... appears in the poem The Seafarer, written around 1000 AD". Hm - the Exeter Book which it comes from is dated 960-990 or so, but afaik the contents of the anthology are probably older, perhaps considerably so.
- The text says that the term was was in use in the eighth century, and the date given in my source for the poem is broadly consistent with those you suggest. It's obviously possible that it was earlier, do you have a ref for that? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't I think have one for the current text, except to a bird book. Generally criticism of AS poetry is evasive about dates, and certainly avoids statements like that - as with say Beowulf and other works, some think the text of the Seafarer we have developed in stages with more than one author, and I think generally the possibility that the language of the poems was updated is accepted. Gordon's edition is still I think standard; I see her note 23, continued on p. 35, isn't sure the bird meant was a "tern" rather than a small gull, and notes that forms of the word were used to gloss the Latin for "starling" also - here and back a bit. This older book [7] thinks it, or the main part of it (pp 28&32) may be as old as Beowulf, which might be 6th or 7th century. Oral Poetry in the Seafarer, Jackson J. Campbell, Speculum , Vol. 35, No. 1 (Jan., 1960), pp. 87-96, JSTOR, esp. p.90, addresses the question without giving any date, also Another Look at Oral Poetry in the Seafarer, Wayne A. O'Neil, Speculum , Vol. 35, No. 4 (Oct., 1960), pp. 596-600, [8], esp. p597 'the 19th and earlier 20th century view that the Seafarer was an earlier pagan poem [so C7th at least] lengthened and recast in later AS days for Christian didactic purposes'. Later C20th criticism tends to find Biblical & Latin parallels throughout & see it as wholly a production of the Xtian period (without attempting any more precise date), adopting a traditional pre-Xtian style. You should either drop any attempt to date it, or say something like: "... appears in the poem The Seafarer, written in the 9th century or earlier...." Johnbod (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've followed your second suggestion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Juvenile terns typically have scaly brown- or yellow-tinged upperparts" - "scaly" from feathers in 2 colours is this? sounds a bit odd.
- the yellow or brown colour depends on the species. I've expanded to explain the "scaly" bit — Juvenile terns typically have brown- or yellow-tinged upperparts, and the feathers have dark edges which give the plumage a scaly appearance. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Sooty Tern lacks waterproof plumage, but many other species don't - is that right?
- The Sooty is the only tern that is stated not to be waterproof, which is particularly relevant since it's entirely ooceanic. Expanded slightly to They lack waterproof plumage, so they cannot rest on the sea. Where they spend the years prior to breeding is unknown. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Given many marine species are said to live by diving, presumably taking them underwater, it is a bit puzzling there are only two references to one species that doesn't have waterproof plumage. If the others do, this should be made clear. Johnbod (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is tricky. Not all diving birds are waterproof. Even the cormorants, which swim underwater, need to dry out at intervals. Searches for "waterproof plumage" and "tern" either go to Sooty Tern or give contradictory results. I suppose the point is that since terns don't swim and are only briefly immersed when diving, it doesn't matter whether they are waterproof or not (I have a book, The Common Tern, which doesn't mention waterproofing or its absence in 100+ pages, and none of the three tern species FAs mention waterproofing). The problem with Sooty is that if it's not on land and it's not waterproof, where is it? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally seems comprehensive & well-written; referencing leans heavily on "de Hoyo et al".
Johnbod (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Although there is a huge amount of literature on individual species, particularly those that are common in Europe and the US, in writing a family-level article is necessary to give a overall picture. The lengthy de Hoyo introduction to the section on Sternidae does this very well, and I couldn't find anything else as comprehensive. All of the material from de Hoyo could be referenced to primary sources, but we are actively encouraged to use good secondary sources where possible. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Points addressed, except for plumage just above, where clear info seems lacking. Generally a fine article. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look.
- "Sterna milne-edwardsii" Worth a link? Nothing wrong with redlinks.
- OK, I'll write a stub for that soon too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Chlidonias is the marsh terns" Weird singular/plural
- the Chlidonias species are the marsh terns Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The reason for the dark plumage is unknown, but it has been suggested that in tropical areas, where food resources are scarce, the less conspicuous colouration makes it harder for other noddies to detect a feeding bird." Are you talking about all dark terns here, or just dark noddies?
- the source refers specifically to noddies, so I've amended slightly to make that clearer. Of the sea terns, only Inca is all-dark, and that isn't mentioned Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Plumage type, including head pattern, is linked to the phylogeny of the terns, and the pale-capped, dark-bodied noddies are believed to have diverged earlier than the other genera from an ancestral white-headed gull.[13]" On that note, is the Inca Tern more distant?
- I've tweaked to make it clear that it is the head cap that is the main indicator and that the partially capped Sternula and Onychoprion are the next most ancient. The cladogram in the ref illustrates this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "asynchronously" is a dablink
- fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm left wondering about the relationships between different terns. A cladogram with all the different species would obviously be very difficult, but do you have any literature on the relationships between the genera?
- the response above adds a little to this, but there isn't much beyond the genetic data to justify splitting the sea terns, which until recently were mostly in one genus, as the text says. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Tern skins and feathers were used for making items of clothing such as capes and hats, and this became a large-scale activity in the second half of the nineteenth century when it became fashionable to use feathers in hatmaking." By whom?
- I've expanded this a bit and added another reference Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "population of less than 50 birds" Fewer, surely?
- Aargh. Must stop shopping at Tesco! Fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily related to this FAC, but why is there Category:Terns and Category:Sternidae?
- I think this is not uncommon with bird articles. The thinking appears to be that there should be a scientific category, and a common name version that is more accessible. As you imply, this is probably a matter for another forum Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few edits. Generally looks great. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for review, edits and comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. I'd still quite like a cladogram showing the relationship between different genera, which I feel may be possible given the sources we have- however, I'm happy to admit that this may not be possible or desirable for some reason I haven't considered.J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Support, now that a helpful cladogram has been added to the article. J Milburn (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for support, I'll have another look at the cladogram, I've thought of a simpler approach Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And thanks again, the cladogram wasn't as bad as I thought Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (moral or otherwise as WP birds member) - no deal-breakers noted but a query or two....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thinocori needs some sort of explaining or linking - unusual word leaving the reader with no idea what it means.- Linked now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-
The atypical Inca Tern has mainly dark plumage- if the "atypical" just refers to plumage, it is unneeded.- removed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
can we link Norfolk dialect? or even just the region if all else fails...means something different down this way....- Linked, didn't expect there to be an article! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review, comments and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK (own work, USGov). Sources and authors provided (1 comment).
- File:Chlidonias_niger.jpg -
this would be better with a clear source link.However, the uploader (with a clean upload history) is inactive since 2006.AGF, thatthe PD-USGov-FWS is correct. OK. GermanJoe (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Joe, I hadn't spotted the source deficiency, but I've now added the url for the USFWS image to the Commons page. Obviously PD as a US federal agency Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments on del Hoyo et al by Aa77zz
The article cites the chapter on terns in Volume 3 of the Handbook of Birds of the World. The article should credit the authors of the chapter which are M. Gochfeld & J. Burger and should give the chapter title. Also the isbn is that of Volume 4 rather than Volume 3 and there is a typo in the first name of the second editor. The reference should be similar to:
- Gochfeld, M.; Burger, J. (1996). "Family Sternidae (Terns)". In del Hoyo, Josep; Elliott, Andrew; Sargatal, Jordi (eds.). Handbook of Birds of the World. Vol. 3: Hoatzin to Auks. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions. pp. 624–667. ISBN 978-84-87334-20-7.. (I'm not certain of the last page of the chapter - I can see that the following chapter starts at p. 668). The cite should be to Gochfeld & Burger pp.624-645. Aa77zz (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for comment, reformatted as suggested with minor changes for consistency with style of other refs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine. I use the cite template as in my example but it's your choice. Even dedicated ornithologists must hesitate at the price of the volumes. Aa77zz (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks again, I only accessed the family intro thanks to the help of another Bird Project member, which is why it was deficient in citation details. I can't afford the books, unfortunately. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine. I use the cite template as in my example but it's your choice. Even dedicated ornithologists must hesitate at the price of the volumes. Aa77zz (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for comment, reformatted as suggested with minor changes for consistency with style of other refs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate comment -- Promoting but pls take a look and consider whether such common animals as cat, rat, etc, really need linking... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2013 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]
Red Rail
Interesting extinct Mauritian bird, which has been overshadowed by the Dodo. The article contains most of what will ever be known about the bird, and all definite contemporary illustrations. FunkMonk (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, final Comments from Jim Just a few comments for now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thomas Herbert, Rodriguez Rail are overlinked
- Taylor and van Perlo call this "Mauritian Red Rail" (pp. 59—60) and have Red Rail as a synonym for Ruddy Crake (p. 214) Taylor, Barry (2000). Rails. Robertsbridge: Pica. ISBN 1873403593.
{{cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|1=
and|2=
(help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help). Perhaps some mention needed?
- Haven't come across this anywhere else. Not sure how it could be cited, without it being some kind of original synthesis? Birdlife doesn't mention it as a common name.[10] I'll make Mauritian Red Rail a redirect anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Same book (pp. 59—60) also has the Rodriguez Rail in Aphanapteryx
- brought by them— seems redundant, that's implied by "introduced"
- Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy with responses above. I'll have another read tomorrow to check of there is anything else I've missed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had another read through, and I noticed free of predators in the lead. That should be mammalian predators, there are several birds of prey in the Mascarenes. I've changed to support above on the assumption that you'll fix this minor point Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy with responses above. I'll have another read tomorrow to check of there is anything else I've missed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review
- Why does ref 23 indicate a French title, when the link goes to an English-language version of the book?
- Other than that, the sources look excellent, all links work, and the citations are properly formatted. No spotchecks done.
Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few thoughts-
- "exploited by humans during hunting, by using red cloth to lure them." Not great writing
- What if I remove "during hunting"? It seems redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the "exploited by... by..." which is problematic. I mused about "exploited by humans during hunting, through the use of red cloth to lure them" but the hanging "them" is also not great. You could try something like "Human hunters took advantage of an attraction Red Rails had to red objects by using coloured cloth to lure birds the birds so that they may be beaten with sticks." J Milburn (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What if I remove "during hunting"? It seems redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "etymology of bonasia is unclear. Some early accounts refer to Red Rails by the vernacular names for the Hazel Grouse, Tetrastes bonasia, so the name evidently originates there." It can't be "unclear" with an "evident" answer, surely?
- Jan Brueghel is an ambiguous dablink.
- "The specimen is thought to have been the only one of its kind that ever reached Europe." The rail, or the dodo?
Generally strong, but then I've already had my say on this article. J Milburn (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes sense that these issues are mostly in text that was added since then! So thanks for the second look. FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support; well-written and sourced, and a very interesting topic. J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Overall, quite well-written and sourced. I'm not crazy about the comparison in size to a chicken, as chickens come in many different sizes... If this is what the sources use, though, I don't think there's much we can do about it. Dana boomer (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, on the chicken issue, due to the lack of precise measurements, the newer sources just repeat the old comparison. FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK (PD-age). Sources and authors provided.
- tweaked some tags from 70 to 100 and added authors' year of death (OK)
- I am not sure, the distribution map is optimal here. It's basically showing an empty world map, and then a tiny (very tiny) spot in the middle of nowhere. Maybe the situation would be better visible in a smaller region, just showing the eastern coast of Africa, Madagascar and the island (completely optional). GermanJoe (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are others on Commons[11], and I personally have no preference. The current map was used in other FAs, as well. FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- After looking at File:DodoRangeMauritius.gif even that zoom level doesn't add much detail. If nobody feels strongly about it (i don't), it's probably best to keep the current one as "standard". GermanJoe (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are others on Commons[11], and I personally have no preference. The current map was used in other FAs, as well. FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
CommentsI'll jot some queries below.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- .
.. which resulted in a large amount of invalid junior synonyms.--> " which resulted in a large number of invalid junior synonyms." or " which resulted in many invalid junior synonyms." - as is makes it sound like a measurement... A complete specimen was found by the barber Louis Etienne Thirioux, who also found important Dodo remains- can any information be added which gives this sentence some context of date? As is could be any time till present....- Changed to "around the turn of the 20th century", as the source states, but is it just me or would that imply from 20th to 21th, instead of 19th to 20th? The latter is correct. FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- .
Otherwise looking good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2013 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [12].[reply]
SheiKra
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets all the FA criteria. This is the second nomination for the article as the first did not receive enough consensus to pass. All errors pointed out in the first review have all been addressed and is ready for a second review. Dom497 (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per previous review. — DivaKnockouts 03:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "...when Griffon and Dive Coaster opened at Chime-Long Paradise in Guangzhou, China." This sentence makes it sound like both coasters (Griffon and Dive Coaster) opened in China. FallingGravity (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--Dom497 (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I have followed this article since its unsuccessful DYK nomination and have (disclaimers) done my fair share of copyediting. However, most of the problems I've encountered have been minor and have since been fixed fixed. FallingGravity (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--Dom497 (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It has been widely improved since I promoted it to good article. Nice job. — ΛΧΣ21 17:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Congrats on a truly great article--well-written, sources look good, and interesting. Nice job. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Support - the article is not that far from FA, but it has some structural problems (and a few minor prose quibbles), that should be adressed first. Happy to change my vote after some more improvements (all points Done):
- lead "It first opened on May 21, 2005, and was converted to a floorless roller coaster on June 16, 2007, following the opening of its sister Dive Coaster Griffon at Busch Gardens Williamsburg that year." => Were the floors removed to strengthen Sheikra in competition to other coasters? If yes, this should be stated more explicitly.
- History "Original attraction (2005–2007)" the header is a misnomer, the section covers the complete design and construction phase aswell (either split 2001-2004 in a separate "Design and construction" phase or use a more general header.)
- "proposed a roller coaster [that would be] 160 feet (49 m) tall and [that the experience would] be like riding a barrel over Niagara Falls straight down into water." => awkward combination of non-parallel phrases, maybe "proposed a roller coaster that would be 160 feet (49 m) tall; the experience would be like riding a barrel ..." or transform the second part in a quote, when possible.
- "Rose amended his proposal ..." => "Rose changed his concept" to avoid repetition
- "On October 20, 2004, a week before announcing the ride, SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment (owner of Busch Gardens Tampa Bay[8]) filed a trademark for the name "SheiKra".[9]" => this is out of chronology. The information is not that crucial and should be moved to other October 2004 events.
- "Bolliger & Mabillard took approximately six months to design SheiKra and four years to complete the entire project." => again out of chronology, would be a good summary statement after the work is described.
- 2nd para "Rumors ...both a first for its kind" => description of fan email and miniscule details of rumors is undue weight. The important facts are: "Rumors happened for 2005" and "some new features, splashdown and inversion, were discussed." Anything else is trivia.
- "During SheiKra's first year of operation, its computer systems experienced problems which stranded riders on the roller coaster." - a bit vague, any more info available? Complete system breakdowns or only occasional limited problems?
- "After the deal expired, Happy Valley Shanghai built an identical copy of SheiKra called Diving Coaster." => exact year for building the copy would be nice here to clarify the timeline
- Ride experience - suggest to merge "Ride experience" with "Layout" in one "Ride experience" level one section. The shortish queue info is too small to stand on its own.
- Reception "SheiKra was mostly well-received from [the public] and critics." => the section has little information about public response (from simple fans), could 1-2 notable examples be added?
- The only other public response I could find are from was from the SheiKra web page...that's about it.--Dom497 (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "He wrote that the attraction was "underwhelming"" => but still gives it a 4 out of 5 for thrill? Could a little more context be added - what exactly was underwhelming in his opinion?
- "... and was "[v]ery cool"," => "very cool" is no critical comment - remove.
- Quotations - see MOS:QUOTE, first characters shouldn't be in square brackets (trivial typographic changes can be just done without special notation).
Most pressing issues are the article structure, some chronological flaws and the handling of rumors and reception. Aside from those points the article appears comprehensive and well-sourced for the topic. GermanJoe (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I read the entire article, made two very minor copy-edits, and saw no other issues that would prevent me from supporting. --JDC808 ♫ 04:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
In the lead I see "fourth-best" and "28 best". Whether or not there is a hyphen in the middle is an aspect that should be made consistent; I'd include it myself.
Original attraction: I see a similar issue here; "vice-president" has a hyphen here but not in the lead. Honestly, I wouldn't use a hyphen here, but either way this should also be consistent.
Ref 14 should be moved outside the parenthesis mark.
"This caused riders to get stranded on the roller coaster and forced to evacuate." Feels like it needs "be" before "forced".
Ride experience: I see "45 degree" and "90-degree" here; the first one should probably include a hyphen as well as the second one.
Reception: "Cridlin called SheiKra 'a majestic, one-of-a-kind roller coaster experience', and that it 'may be the world's finest dive coaster'." Needs something before "that", since "called" is bad grammatically in this situation.
- Ref 32 is to Derkeiler, which looks like a newsgroup website. We wouldn't normally consider that reliable enough for an FA; is there a reason to consider it reliable here? And is it needed when there's another reference for that sentence?
- The other ref is for Jonnyupsidedown which I don't even know why I included it. Derkeiler and Jonnyupsidedown are the only refd out there that state that the trains were revealed during this event.--Dom497 (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The sites being the only ones that mention a fact doesn't automatically mean that they are reliable. Again, is there evidence that they are? If not, that's a reason not to include that fact in the article. If it can't be cited to a reliable source, I don't think FAC reviewers would penalize the subtraction, if that's your concern. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The other ref is for Jonnyupsidedown which I don't even know why I included it. Derkeiler and Jonnyupsidedown are the only refd out there that state that the trains were revealed during this event.--Dom497 (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 41 is to a YouTube video, not just wwwCOASTERFORCEcom as the reference indicates. I don't think YouTube is sufficiently reliable, as I've said before at roller coaster FACs. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added three other refs to reduce the weight that the YouTube ref holds (ref 1 takes a lot of weight off, if not, most). This is POV of the ride. It can't be fake/modified. I don't think it should be removed because it provides the most detailed info about the layout. Also, I don't think it is OR by translating a video into words because the video clearly supports if the train is making a left or right (just as an example). Finally, YouTubes POV's are used in virtually ever roller coaster article that has a layout section.--Dom497 (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your ref additions are good, but I'm still unsure about citing YouTube. Being in other articles doesn't make YouTube more reliable; if anything, it may reveal a weakness in other articles. I won't oppose since I don't want to be the one standing in the way of this article's promotion, but I can't say I'm comfortable supporting at this point either. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added three other refs to reduce the weight that the YouTube ref holds (ref 1 takes a lot of weight off, if not, most). This is POV of the ride. It can't be fake/modified. I don't think it should be removed because it provides the most detailed info about the layout. Also, I don't think it is OR by translating a video into words because the video clearly supports if the train is making a left or right (just as an example). Finally, YouTubes POV's are used in virtually ever roller coaster article that has a layout section.--Dom497 (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. (having stumbled here from my FAC nomination) The article is quite meticulously referenced throughout. It'd be nice to have some of those redlinks become at least sourced stubs, but that's not a necessity here. Excellent quality improvement efforts. — Cirt (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate comment -- In case I missed it, have any of the reviewers done an image check, or spotchecked sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ian, a partial image check was done in the first review (I don't know if that counts toward this review).--Dom497 (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - mostly all OK (own work, Flickr), just 2 points:
- File:SheiKra_Logo.jpg -
i am not completely comfortable with this "logo".It is used at [[13]] under copyright. Suggest to reload it to Wikipedia as fair-use logo for identification - just to be on the safe side. Done (uploaded as fair-use).
- File:Sheikra_Layout_Fertig_(en).svg - any idea, how this map was created? Where does the plan come from and how accurate is it? If the layout was taken from a park leaflet, that would be good to add to the image summary (minor point). GermanJoe (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck of sources
- FN10 -- Okay.
- FN33 -- Okay.
- FN48 -- Okay.
- FN69 -- Okay.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2013 (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) 13:50, 14 June 2013 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC) [14].[reply]
Henry I of England
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it covers the current literature on Henry I of England fully. Henry I was a major player in Europe and a pivotal King of England, and this is a relatively popular article on the wiki. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review:
- Consistency required in adding "UK" to publisher locations
- Check Hollister page no. in ref 9
- "David" in ref 323 has neither year nor page no.
- "White" in ref 327 has no page number.
Otherwise, all sources and citations look OK. No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments on a couple of issues:
- "Matilda": Henry was the son of a Matilda; he married a Matilda; his legitimate daughter was named Matilda, as were two of his illegimate children. His son William was betrothed to yet another Matilda. Either there were fewer names going around then, or the nobility had little imagination; either way, it is sometimes difficult in the article to know which Matilda is being written about. I wonder if a few clarifications could be put in place, to reduce the confusion.
- The "Death" section ends with an uncited statement: "The Empress Matilda did not give up her claim to England and Normandy, leading to the prolonged civil war known as the Anarchy between 1135 and 1153."
In general the article looks a pretty thorough piece of work, though I probably won't have time to read it in detail for a while. I hope it gets some attenton and support here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Coronation caption shouldn't end in period
- File:Mont_St_Michel_3,_Brittany,_France_-_July_2011.jpg: as France does not have freedom of panorama, you'll need a licensing tag for the structure itself (it's definitely PD, just needs to be explicit)
- File:Louis_VI_denier_Bourges_1108_1137.jpg: again, as 3D work, this needs a tag for the object as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what you mean about France and FoP, but I'm struggling to find the correct tag to use - is there any chance you point me in the direction of an image that already has one? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the age of both works, life+100 should be fine. Compare File:Theoderic_Quarter_Siliqua_80000847.jpg (minus the OTRS tag) or File:Christ_Magdeburg_Cathedral_Met_41.100.157.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what you mean about France and FoP, but I'm struggling to find the correct tag to use - is there any chance you point me in the direction of an image that already has one? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support (see remarks at the end of my list of quibbles)Comment – This is clearly a top-notch article, and I look forward to adding my support. Meanwhile, a few quibbles, queries and comments, all minor. I'll need at least two goes for this; first go herewith:
Lead- Much impressed by the discrimination with which the the author has chosen blue-links. Not linking "Latin" unnecessarily is a fine start, and the links throughout are very carefully chosen.
- Second para – a small matter, but I think the "however" weakens the prose.
- "embroiled in the investiture controversy" – in the Lead section this is perhaps too specific: the reader new to the subject will wonder what an investiture controversy is. Possibly "embroiled in a serious dispute" or some such?
- "their marriage proved childless" – "proved"? Odd word – perhaps "was"?
- Count of the Cotentin, 1088–90
- "he met with the King but was unable to convince him to grant him" – two distinctly American usages here: in British English one meets with abstract things like disaster, applause etc, but just meets people; and one convinces that (as in your next sentence) or persuades to.
- "convinced Robert to release him" – as above
- "In late 1090 William Rufus convinced Conan Pilatus" – ditto
- Fall and rise, 1091–99
- "his power-base" – the OED does not admit the hyphen
- "The King appeared confident" – you frequently refer to William Rufus as "the King", but hardly ever to Robert as "the Duke". After a while this becomes noticeable, and very slightly distracting. There is, by the bye, one instance of "the duke" (lower case) in the second para of "Count of the Cotentin"; you might consider capitalising it for consistency. Parenthetically, I have always thought of William Rufus as "William II", and am mildly surprised to see that title so little used in the article. I just mention it, and defer to your very obvious authority on the matter.
- "William of Breteuil championed the rights of Robert" – I don't think we've met this William before, and it would be helpful to have a few words explaining why he mattered.
Taking the throne"convinced the barons to follow him" – as above
More soonest. – Tim riley (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second and concluding lot of comments:
Treaty of Alton, 1101–02- "Upping the stakes" – perhaps just a touch too informal a phrase? Might "Raising the stakes" be preferable?
- "initiated either by Henry and Robert, or by the barons" – that seems to cover practically everybody who was there, and so reads a bit oddly.
- "would inherit their lands" – would inherit his lands
- "the barons supporting either side who had seen their lands seized by the King or Duke" – I had to read this twice to extract the meaning. Would it be clearer to say "the barons whose lands had been seized by either the King or the Duke for supporting his rival…"?
- Conquest of Normandy, 1103–06
- "Henry invaded again in July 1106, hoping to provoke a decisive battle. After some initial tactical successes, Henry turned south-west towards the castle of Tinchebray. Henry besieged" – the prose would flow better, I think, if you replaced the second and third "Henry"s with "he".
- Government, law and court
- "Henry was a harsh, firm ruler… loyal and dependent on Henry" – Another batch of Henrys where a few pronouns might be preferable
- Church and the King
- "desire that the case not end up in a papal court" – in UK usage it would be normal to write "that the case should not end up…" here
- Rebellion, 1115–20
- "Henry was hit by a sword blow in the melee" – Reading this sentence I was expecting it to end with the name of a body part, and the melee came as rather a surprise. Perhaps turn it about and say, "In the melee Henry was hit by a sword blow"
- Planning the succession, 1124–34
- "generating prurient speculation" – tease! I think you should either say what the speculation was or else not mention it at all.
Nothing of any great consequence there, and I'm happy to add my support without more ado. This is a well-written article, admirably proportioned, without any sign of bias, thoroughly referenced from a good variety of sources. Meets the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, trifles above aren't enough for me not to. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not responded to one of these before, so apologies if this is the wrong place. In the Welsh Politics section, you have misspelled Gruffudd ap Cynan's name twice as "Gruffud". Presumably this is the spelling in Green; I can't access it. Wikipedia also has articles on Owain ap Cadwgan and Gilbert Fitz Richard; I'll leave it to you to decide whether these three deserve bluelinks. I don't feel qualified to judge this on the FA criteria, but it seems very thorough and well-written. Thanks! Gareth (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Recusing myself from delegate duties for this one, I reviewed/copyedited/supported at MilHist A-Class and, having checked alterations made since then, am satisfied it meets the FAC criteria as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments- having a (second) read-through now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Matilda left for Anjou, but Henry argued that the dowry had in fact originally belonged to him before it came into the possession of Fulk, and so declined to hand the estates back to Anjou - could change the last few words to "return the estates" - to eliminate two "Anjou" s in the sentence.
- Much of the earlier text has a speculative tone, but I am guessing that is because of the nature and uncertainties of the sources (at least I hope it is!). I think the Historiography is an integral part of the story and am glad to see its inclusion.
Overall, I think we're over the line in prose and comprehensiveness (as far as I can tell as I am not an expert) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Johnbod I'm still working my way through it, but while the text seems pretty much up to FA standard, the linking is not. I have just linked his mother Matilda of Flanders for the first time, and an ISP has corrected the statement that she was the daughter of Robert II of France - she was his grand-daughter. Nor did Henry keep animals at Woodstock! I have added a number of missing links to names and places, but I think there are a number to medieval topics that should be added - the feudal system is difficult for modern readers, who need all the help they can get here. It seems to get worse from the "Government, family and household" section.
- I used to live just up the road from the "real" Woodstock in question, so I'm afraid it was natural to link to it just by name! :) I know I can be sparse on linking - are there any particular medieval topics you feel should be linked in addition? Hchc2009 (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the referencing seems rather overdone. This passage: "In February, Flambard escaped from the Tower of London and crossed the Channel to Normandy, where he injected fresh direction and energy to Robert's attempts to mobilise an invasion force.[107] By July, Robert had formed an army and a fleet, ready to move against Henry in England.[108] Raising the stakes in the conflict, Henry seized Flambard's lands and, with the support of Anselm, Flambard was removed from his position as bishop.[109] - is all cited to 4 consecutive pages in one book (Hollister 2003); you'd think a single reference would have been enough. The current refs 42-55 are also all Hollister 2003, moving through pp. 69-82 in the same order.
- I've tried to be consistent in linking at the sentence level, as I've suffered hugely in the past trying to work out when articles referenced by paragraph are genuinely so (as opposed to only part of a paragraph, etc.) and which parts of the paragraph link to which page, particularly with denser literary works. But I know there are several perspectives on this issue, and I'm probably on one side of the argument. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article leans very heavily on Hollister 2003, which must have more than 200 refs. I notice the review in Speculum ([15]) was rather short of fulsome in its praise, and notes the unusual conditions of its writing: commissioned in 1962, it was half-written when a fire in 1990 destroyed most of the notes etc, & after resuming work Hollinger then died in 1997, so the book was completed by another, who should perhaps also be credited.
Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see how we can get Frost's name into the template. Of the two modern biographies of Henry, I found Hollister the easiest for tracking the narrative facts of Henry's life, although, like several reviewers of the book, it was clearly a shame that Hollister never had the chance to expand further on some of the interpretation. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. She is listed as an editor, so I've added her on in that category in the template. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Butting in - Hollister/Frost's work is definitely weighter and thicker than Green's biography. For the facts and details, it's probably best to rely on Hollister, and supplement it with Hollister (and other's) journal articles and Green's biography for interpretations. There's just no avoiding Hollister in this field... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:02, 5 June 2013 (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) 04:34, 9 June 2013 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC) [16].[reply]
James Moore (Continental Army officer)
This article, on a military figure who was perhaps one one of the lesser-known "what if's" of the American Revolutionary War, but about whom little is written in modern scholarship, has been painstakingly re-written with all of the sources I could possibly find on the subject. Where I couldn't get ready online access to sources, I bought them, including some book sources that qualify as antiques. This article is concise, but comprehensive, and is one of the key parts of my plans to make a Featured Topic out of North Carolina's Continental Army Generals. This is just my second foray into FAC, but I am happy to make any changes the community finds necessary. I appreciate your assistance in this review. Cdtew (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Suggest not linking United Colonies flag icon to United States, especially as the US flag icon doesn't link there and they are separate entries in the infobox
- When an image has multiple credited authors, should specify to which the "life time" annotation applies
- File:NCMooresCreek1.png: what source was used to plot the troop movements?
- File:Sir_Henry_Clinton.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Responses:
- Flags: Done. I decided to try and be consistent with other AmRevWar pages (Benjamin Lincoln and George Washington, for instance) and put just KoGB and USA.
- Life time: Done.
- Source for troop movements:
PendingDone. That was a creation of User:Magicpiano, and I'm inquiring with him for a quick answer. If, however, I don't get a response, I can cite to a source that confirms those general movements (obviously the arrows don't adhere strictly to the movements, but are directional in nature). - Clinton: Done. This poses an interesting question, though – the image that I found at [17] has a claim that it's protected by "National Army Museum Copyright". I'm presuming this is some derivative of Crown copyright? Or is there something I should be concerned about in terms of it not being validly PD? I would really like to upload the version of the picture they have on their website, but I don't know if that would make matters worse. If it's going to be a problem, there are many other images of Clinton I could use.
- Follow-up: I've gone ahead and decided to forego the headache, and have replaced it with a much more impeccably sourced and attributed picture. Cdtew (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, Nikki - let me know if there are any other issues, and I will try to get back to you on Magicpiano's map. Cdtew (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In re File:NCMooresCreek1.png, I'm not sure I understand the problem. I imagine the short answer is that this map is based on the sources used in Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge that describe the various movements, and the drawings were done using Inkscape. If this doesn't address the issue, you'll have to elaborate on what exactly the concern is. Magic♪piano 00:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what Nikki was getting at is that we'd likely need a source citation for the information used to create the maps. It shouldn't be hard for me to pull one from the article itself, but I didn't know if you used one in particular when creating the map. Sorry, didn't mean to be so vague. Cdtew (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not your vagary; I'd just like to understand what Nikki's asking for so that a proper response can be made. Magic♪piano 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cdtew's got it: the drawings are fine, I'm just wondering how you knew which lines went where. Was it based on what was written in the article? (In which case, depending on how the article developed, you might need to specify which version). Did you look at source material directly? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the lines don't follow the movements with precision, they are more generalized point-to-point indicators based on my reading of the sources (if the sources say that one force went from Cross Creek toward Moore's Creek, draw an arrow that way; repeat as needed for other movements). I did substantial work on the battle article, and had access to all of the relevant sources. If you would like the file description to include those sources, that should be easy enough to do. Magic♪piano 23:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Magic♪piano 12:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cdtew's got it: the drawings are fine, I'm just wondering how you knew which lines went where. Was it based on what was written in the article? (In which case, depending on how the article developed, you might need to specify which version). Did you look at source material directly? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not your vagary; I'd just like to understand what Nikki's asking for so that a proper response can be made. Magic♪piano 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what Nikki was getting at is that we'd likely need a source citation for the information used to create the maps. It shouldn't be hard for me to pull one from the article itself, but I didn't know if you used one in particular when creating the map. Sorry, didn't mean to be so vague. Cdtew (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Recusing from my delegate duties for this one; I reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR and having checked changes made since then I'm happy to support for FA. I don't pretend to be an expert on this area but coverage seems adequate and unbiased, and structure, prose, referencing and supporting materials satisfactory. Rechecked here for dab/duplinks and found none. Only minor quibble, in the lead: "In addition to his military involvement, he was active in the independence movement, despite having been a supporter of the colonial government during his early career. Moore was active in local Sons of Liberty organizations... -- can we avoid repeating "was active", e.g. replace one with "played a prominent role" or some such? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Dana boomer (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Comments[reply]
- Lead, link Cape Fear River?
- Done.
- Note 1, "appears most frequently among in his biographies" - Either among or in I think, not both.
- Done.
- Be consistent in linking either in the the lead and in the body or only in one. There are some terms linked only in the body, some linked only in the lead and some linked in both. Besides the above Cape Fear River, I see Battle of Alamance, which is linked in the lead but not the body.
- Done - at the risk of overlinking, I've linked both in body and in lead.
- Revolutionary activities, "Moore bested Ashe by only a single vote in the Provincial Congress." Do we know if this caused discord within the family or the militia?
- Not done - I've looked in both Moore's biographies and Ashe's biographies, and I can't see where any strain in familial relations is mentioned. I do know, however, that Ashe received a Major General's commission in the state militia, and was made state treasurer, both of which were more prestigious and influential positions at the time.
- Moore's Creek Bridge, "A force of approximately 1,400[22] Highland Scots loyal to Britain" Were these Scots already living in the colonies, or were they transported from Scotland? The current wording could go either way.
- Clarified - currently living in North Carolina.
- Continental Army general, "On October 23, 1776, the Council ordered Moore" - This sentence is quite long, and could quite easily be split after "Wilmington".
- Done
- Continental Army general, "to remain in North Carolina and for his troops to winter" - This doesn't feel quite right, grammatically. Maybe "to remain in North Carolina and winter his troops"? Basically, removing the bit about Moore, the sentence would read "ordered for his troops to winter"...
- Done per your suggestion.
- Continental Army general, "instructions that Moore was to assist" - "instructions for Moore to assist"?
- Done
Overall, looks quite good. The above are fairly minor; I look forward to supporting once they are addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your valuable input. I believe I've addressed everything that I can at this moment -- please let me know if the one unresolved item needs more input, or if it's satisfactory. Thanks again! Cdtew (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything looks good, so I have added my support above. I was mainly curious about the potential family strife, not a big worry. Very nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2013 (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) 04:34, 9 June 2013 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC) [18].[reply]
McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk
This article describes the service history of a variant of the famous Douglas A-4 Skyhawk fighter jet operated by the Royal Australian Navy and Royal New Zealand Air Force between 1967 and 1991. Twenty of these aircraft were built for the RAN, which operated them from its only aircraft carrier. Half of the A-4Gs were destroyed in accidents (killing two pilots) before the type was retired by Australia in 1984. The survivors were sold to the RNZAF, which subsequently upgraded and redesignated them as part of a program which was completed in 1991. Two of the former Australian aircraft were lost in crashes in 2001 (killing a pilot), shortly before the disbandment of the RNZAF's fighter force.
This article was assessed as a GA in April, and passed a military History Wikiproject A-class review yesterday. As I've exhausted the literature on this aircraft type and have further copy edited the prose, I think that it should also meet the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and images - spotchecks not done
- "Accidents" caption should end in period
- Fixed
- New Zealand Herald or The New Zealand Herald?
- Fixed (it's the latter)
- Compare location for Eather and Wilson. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I ran through the article looking for prose problems, and didn't find many. My brief review can be found on the talk page. Fine work! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few comments, not a complete review. I'm writing copyediting software, so if my suggested changes doen't seem like improvements, I'd really appreciate feedback from writers and reviewers: - Dank (push to talk)
- "The RAN operated a total of 20 A-4Gs between 1967 and 1984, the aircraft being delivered in two batches of ten during 1967 and 1971.": One possibility: The RAN received ten A-4Gs in 1967 and another ten in 1971, and operated these aircraft from 1967 to 1984. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ten A-4Gs were destroyed as a result of accidents": "In" would be better than "as a result of" if true, and "accidents" is a little vague. - Dank (push to talk) 23:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to 'in'. Given the surprisingly large number of ways the RAN managed to write off the ten aircraft, 'accidents' seems the clearest term, as all the losses were accidental (eg, none were destroyed in combat or as a result of deliberate actions). I've just played around with some options to summarise this in a sentence, but the results were pretty clunky (eg, "Ten A-4Gs were destroyed as a result of mechanical faults, pilot error, failure of equipment on board Melbourne and a deck handling accident"). Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My sense of the word "accident" may be different than yours ... I think it means both more and less than what's needed here. For instance, if I told you my grandfather died in or because of an accident, I don't think that "equipment malfunction" is what would come to mind. Your call. - Dank (push to talk) 01:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there some lead-friendly alternate wording you could suggest here? I take your point, but I can't think of a non-clunky way of summarising this into a shortish sentence. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the word "crash" when it's accurate, and it's accurate here (in 4 cases), so I'd say they were lost through equipment failures and in non-combat crashes. - Dank (push to talk) 11:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there some lead-friendly alternate wording you could suggest here? I take your point, but I can't think of a non-clunky way of summarising this into a shortish sentence. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My sense of the word "accident" may be different than yours ... I think it means both more and less than what's needed here. For instance, if I told you my grandfather died in or because of an accident, I don't think that "equipment malfunction" is what would come to mind. Your call. - Dank (push to talk) 01:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to 'in'. Given the surprisingly large number of ways the RAN managed to write off the ten aircraft, 'accidents' seems the clearest term, as all the losses were accidental (eg, none were destroyed in combat or as a result of deliberate actions). I've just played around with some options to summarise this in a sentence, but the results were pretty clunky (eg, "Ten A-4Gs were destroyed as a result of mechanical faults, pilot error, failure of equipment on board Melbourne and a deck handling accident"). Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. 'hump': double quotes.
- "Oberon class submarines": hyphen.
- Continuing.
- "In the event": Please avoid this; few Americans know that it means "As it happened" or "In fact".
- I think that this is the standard Australian term; the other options look a bit odd to me. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain to me what's going on here, because I don't understand. Do you agree that around 2/3 of the world's English-speakers are more familiar with AmEng than BritEng (I know, we're talking about AusEng here, but when conflicts erupt, they seem to erupt between AmEng and BritEng ... perhaps Australians and Canadians are more relaxed about these issues), and that almost all of these people will think that you're talking about some "event" here, because they're not familiar with the expression? If so, why keep the expression? - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Dank, I don't get what you're driving at here. The alternatives you suggest look as odd to me as what you say 'in the event' does to you I'm afraid ('as it happened' is used mainly in a laconic way, and 'in fact' is normally used to correct misunderstandings and doesn't have the right meaning here). 'In the event' is formal, and is often used to note when an anticipated event doesn't actually take place. I'd like to use 'However', but people will complain about that as well ;) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't follow. Are you saying that you believe most English-speakers will understand the phrase? We can find out. - Dank (push to talk) 00:26, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Dank, I don't get what you're driving at here. The alternatives you suggest look as odd to me as what you say 'in the event' does to you I'm afraid ('as it happened' is used mainly in a laconic way, and 'in fact' is normally used to correct misunderstandings and doesn't have the right meaning here). 'In the event' is formal, and is often used to note when an anticipated event doesn't actually take place. I'd like to use 'However', but people will complain about that as well ;) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain to me what's going on here, because I don't understand. Do you agree that around 2/3 of the world's English-speakers are more familiar with AmEng than BritEng (I know, we're talking about AusEng here, but when conflicts erupt, they seem to erupt between AmEng and BritEng ... perhaps Australians and Canadians are more relaxed about these issues), and that almost all of these people will think that you're talking about some "event" here, because they're not familiar with the expression? If so, why keep the expression? - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that this is the standard Australian term; the other options look a bit odd to me. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 'buddy', 'dumb': "buddy", etc.
- "This aircraft will be displayed": Something more specific is needed; say what there is (such as a signed agreement regarding the display), rather than what someone thinks will happen.
- I thought that this was very specific - the NZ Government returned the aircraft for display in Australia per the 1984 original contract (as noted earlier in the article), and this will happen. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You could say that the plane was provided "for display", for instance. That's something that has actually happened ... someone gave the plane to someone else, intending that it be displayed ... rather than something that hasn't happened yet. If you prefer to talk about a future event, then you could say, "The RAN's Fleet Air Arm Museum has scheduled it for display in (date)", which has the effect of attributing this prediction to the museum staff, rather than putting the prediction in your voice. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that this was very specific - the NZ Government returned the aircraft for display in Australia per the 1984 original contract (as noted earlier in the article), and this will happen. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "maneouevre": sp - Dank (push to talk) 02:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- Recusing myself from delegate duties, I reviewed/copyedited/supported at MilHist ACR and, checking/tweaking the alterations since then, I believe it also meets the FAC criteria. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2013 (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) 04:35, 9 June 2013 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC) [20].[reply]
2012 tour of She Has a Name
I am nominating this for featured article because the last FAC for this article failed solely due to lack of discussion and the article has since been promoted to good status. Neelix (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (having stumbled here from my FAC), as GA Reviewer. I reviewed the article and it is high quality, meticulously sourced with appropriate references, displaying a significant amount of secondary source coverage of the topic. The article has high encyclopedic value and it's quite educational as well. — Cirt (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Comments[reply] - File:RCMP_officers_Beth,_Janice_%26_Harp_2.jpg: since permission says "This photo belongs to the City of St. Albert", do we have evidence (eg. OTRS) that it is allowed to be used here?
- FN21, 22, 25, 67, 70p2, 71, 74: page?
- FN61: publisher?
- Suggest using "critical ratings" instead of "professional ratings"
- "Professional ratings of the performances ranged between 3 and 5 stars out of 5": technically true, but this seems problematic given the next sentence - that reviewer didn't use stars, but definitely wasn't that positive either
- " the play was declared to stand out" - a bit awkward
- "The performances in Calgary and Red Deer sold out.[7] Because the early 2011 performances were sold out" - repetitive
- Should be just "Aeolian Hall", no "The"
- In general, there's some repetitiveness in phrasing - try reading through with an eye to eliminating that
- Who is Brian McConaghy?
- What sort of special effects were there?
- "The festival organizers announced that attendance was up by 23% from the previous year" - suggest including at least one number, to contextualize percentage increase. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replaced the image of the RCMP officers with a picture with a clearer statement of permission, added the publisher to FN61, switched "Professional ratings" to "Critical ratings", clarified the statement about the stars, reworded the statement about the play being "declared to stand out" for flow, reduced the amount of repetitiveness throughout the article, removed the "the" before "Aeolian Hall", added more information about Brian McConaghy, and added more information about the special effects. I am attempting to locate the missing page numbers through my local library. I have contacted the Calgary Fringe Festival and they have informed me that attendance in 2012 was at 9022. They also informed me that they have not published this statistic on their website or anywhere else, but would place the information on their website soon. Neelix (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Commentsfrom Jim. Generally sound, and avoids pov, but inevitably some nitpicksJimfbleak - talk to me? 10:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The performances in Calgary and Red Deer sold out.[7] Because the early 2011 performances were sold out—repeats "sold out"- Carl Kennedy portrayed Jason, Evelyn Chew portrayed Number 18, Glenda Warkentin portrayed Marta, Alysa van Haastert portrayed Ali, and Sienna Howell-Holden portrayed Mama. —too many "portrays"
- one-man Passion play —"play" should be capped too
- London—I know it's linked on the first use, but still seems a bit Easter Eggy, I'd prefer "London, Ontario" on the first occasion to avoid confusion with the Great Wen.
- Fu—ing Stephen Harper—is this the actual title or a bowdlerised version thereof? Seems coy even for Canada (I've stayed on Davie in Vancouver!)
- The Gazette declared Kooman's play only second-best—to...?
- In the references, the title of the play needs italicising.
- Some of the references aren't really RS, such as campus newsletters and the Joy Smith site, but looking at what they are sourcing, I think they will do (no action required).
- I have reduced the number of instances of "portrayed" to one, capitalized "Passion Play", added the provinces to the cities on the tour, spelled out the full name of Fucking Stephen Harper, named the play to which She Has a Name was declared second-best by The Gazette, and italicized the title of the play in the references. Neelix (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you've gone a little over the top giving explicit provinces for all the towns, I doubt that there are other Saskatoons or Ottawas, but that's your call. No other queries, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reduced the number of instances of "portrayed" to one, capitalized "Passion Play", added the provinces to the cities on the tour, spelled out the full name of Fucking Stephen Harper, named the play to which She Has a Name was declared second-best by The Gazette, and italicized the title of the play in the references. Neelix (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks I recommended a source check in one of the earlier reviews, but didn't do so myself as I'd already commented and was leaning support, so I was concerned about possible neutrality given I didn't have a fresh set of eyes. However, as no-one else has done so, here goes. I've selected statements and references more or less at random.
- Ref 5: Doesn't explicitly state that the pimp is unnamed, but this is implied
- Ref 16: Skype material Confirmed
- Ref 17: Confirmed
- Ref 34: Ms Tolsma refers to 'we' when discussing raising this money, but the article only credits her as being involved and she doesn't say who she was representing so the statement that there was "a group" which raised funds is not confirmed by this reference
- Ref 52: Written before the performance, and so doesn't confirm who the panelists actually were on the day
- Ref 38b: Ditto
- Ref 48: Confirmed
- Refs 63, 64a: Confirmed
- Ref 68: The Vancouver Sun link is to a Factivia link and prompts me for a university log-in
- Ref 72 is aslo a Factivia link and should be marked as such (it also prompts me for a university log-in). I'd suggest running through the references and marking or amending these references (note that this is also disclosing the university you have links with, which you may not wish to be doing)
- Ref 76: confirmed, but can you say what the base figure for the 23% increase was?
- As a couple of observations: 1) few of the references are to what I'd consider first-rate sources, and many are to what seem to be puff pieces promoting this play or pages published by community and church groups. In the context this is probably an acceptable level of referencing given that nothing better is likely to be available, but it's a bit marginal (not a reason to oppose IMO, but it raises a question mark). 2) the word 'Church' kept jumping springing up in the references (several of which were actually published by churches), including in relation to who funded and provided venues for the performances. There seems to be a religious link here which is never really fleshed out in the article - it seems that church groups with an interest in social justice were a significant audience and source of support for the tour. Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the word "unnamed" and have reworded the statements about the panelists to clarify that they were scheduled rather than that they attended. I have added "Subscription reqiured" tags to all of the references that employ Factiva links. I don't mind disclosing the fact that I am affiliated with the university mentioned. I have called the Calgary Fringe Festival again and they again agreed to place the attendance statistic on their website; hopefully, it will actually go up this time. They have told me that there were 9022 people in attendance in 2012, but there are currently no published sources for that statistic. I would agree that a significant portion of the audiences and support for the tour came from church groups interested in social justice; at least two fundraisers for the tour were held at churches, one of the performances took place at a church, and two of the panels took place at churches. I haven't found any sources that say anything more than that, however. Is there any way that you feel this point should be fleshed out in the article more? Neelix (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You can only go as far as the sources say (and of course, I could be totally wrong in my assessment!). The coverage is OK given the available sources, but overall I think that this article's sources are a bit on the lightweight side for a FA, to be frank. A single academic article or an in-depth story by a serious journalist would be more useful in covering this topic than all the current sources combined. I'm certainly not opposing this article's promotion, and would be pleased to see it on the main page given that it's an impressive piece of work and you've made great use of what's available (and I know how hard it is to build an FA when there aren't any comprehensive sources to draw on) but I don't think that I can support it either. So I'm going to sit on the fence. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the word "unnamed" and have reworded the statements about the panelists to clarify that they were scheduled rather than that they attended. I have added "Subscription reqiured" tags to all of the references that employ Factiva links. I don't mind disclosing the fact that I am affiliated with the university mentioned. I have called the Calgary Fringe Festival again and they again agreed to place the attendance statistic on their website; hopefully, it will actually go up this time. They have told me that there were 9022 people in attendance in 2012, but there are currently no published sources for that statistic. I would agree that a significant portion of the audiences and support for the tour came from church groups interested in social justice; at least two fundraisers for the tour were held at churches, one of the performances took place at a church, and two of the panels took place at churches. I haven't found any sources that say anything more than that, however. Is there any way that you feel this point should be fleshed out in the article more? Neelix (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate comment -- Although this nom has a healthy level of support, it's still barely two weeks old and I'd like to leave it open a little longer to give any other potential reviewers a chance to comment, especially in light of Nick's points above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ian Rose has requested an additional source review spot check here. The users who have already reviewed this article in other ways are Cirt, Nikkimaria, and Jimfbleak. Would either of you be willing to perform the second source review spot check? Neelix (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2013 (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) 09:12, 8 June 2013 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC) [21].[reply]
Interstate 96
- Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 18:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it merits review and promotion. I-96 is an intrastate Interstate Highway; it only exists in Michigan. It parallels Grand River Avenue across most of the Lower Peninsula of the state, following in the proverbial footsteps of an Indian path and an early wagon trail used in the early settlement of Michigan. Imzadi 1979 → 18:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I reviewed at both GA and ACR (Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Interstate 96) and feel it meets the criteria. --Rschen7754 18:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I also reviewed it at ACR and believe that it meets all the FA criteria. Dough4872 19:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. (having stumbled here from my FAC) I saw this and read it over a couple days ago and it's quite meticulous in its breadth and referencing. But that table in section Exit list sure does pack in a lot of useful info. That would probably be quite useful for readers, editors, and of course, travelers, alike. — Cirt (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I don't usually comment on road articles, but I notice this review seems to have stalled some while ago, so I'd like to get it moving again. Here are a few mainly prose comments, on the lead and first main section:
- The length of the highway needs to be given in the lead, not just in the infobox which is an independent entity.
- Inappropriate bolding in lead
- Actually, no, per MOS:BOLDSYN, the abbreviation and alternate names should be in boldface. There are also redirects from the alternate names to this article. Imzadi 1979 → 07:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Jeffries Freeway was rerouted through Detroit in the 1960s and built in the 1970s". This reads oddly. I take it to mean that the rerouted portion of the freeway was built in the 1970s?
- "In 2011, the department's traffic surveys showed that on average, 201,200 vehicles used the highway daily between 6 and 7 Mile roads in Livonia and 20,638 vehicles did so each day between Airline and Fruitport roads near Norton Shores, the highest and lowest counts along the highway, respectively." Overlong sentence and a bit tortuous to follow - would benefit from being split.
- Why the italicisation of Rosa Parks Memorial Highway (not italicised in lead)?
- "The segment from Livonia east to I-275 is also the Jeffries Freeway..." Again inappropriate italicisation, and perhaps "incorporates the Jeffries Freeway" rather than "is also"
- "From the start, the highway has a grassy median and two lanes in each direction..." "From the start" implies "for its whole length" - is this the intention? Or should it read "At the start..."?
- "in area of mixed fields" → "in an area of mixed fields" (what is actually meant by "mixed fields"?
- "After about a distance of five miles..." → "After a distance of about five miles..."
- "The highway crosses the Crockery Creek and turns eastward toward Coopersville. The freeway..." Highway becomes "freeway", not clear why. Are the terms interchangeable?
- A freeway is a type of highway, so in this case, yes, they are interchangeable. Imzadi 1979 → 07:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Past Marne, I-96 passes..." Very clumsy; suggest "Beyond Marne..." etc
- "I-96 turns northeasterly past a commercial area to a three-quarter cloverleaf interchange that provides all of the other connections with US 131 next to a crossing of the Grand River". Some internal punctuation required to make sense of this. The word "of" is redundant.
- "East of downtown..." Link downtown, and clarify that you are referring to Grand Rapids.
- Actually, I disagree. "downtown Grand Rapids" is mentioned just a few sentences up, and I don't think there's value in linking that word in either location. Imzadi 1979 → 07:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems likely on the basis of the above that the rest of the prose could do with a bit of polishing, too. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose fixes applied for the bullet points above except where noted. Imzadi 1979 → 07:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some copyediting on the RD, hope to finish today. --Rschen7754 10:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Few days late but copyedit is finished: [22] (with a few intervening edits). I didn't find much in the history part; usually it's the route description that has the most grammar / repeated word use issues. --Rschen7754 06:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate comment -- check dup links per this; may be grounds to keep one or two that span the length of the article but otherwise pls remove. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The links highlighted by the script appear in the lead and then again in the History, with the entire Route description section in between. The others duplicate between entries in the Exit list (which explicitly links to each intersecting roadway and destination city for consistency) and other links in the body (RD and Related trunklines) That meets the guidelines behind WP:REPEATLINK, so there's nothing to be removed. Imzadi 1979 → 02:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you look again, and remember that the checker only highlights the duplicates, not the first instance of the link... Just to take one example, you have Howell linked once under Route description and then twice under History -- this isn't necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked again and applied some tweaks. It would be better, I think then, if that tool actually highlighted each occurrence instead of the subsequent ones. Imzadi 1979 → 07:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you look again, and remember that the checker only highlights the duplicates, not the first instance of the link... Just to take one example, you have Howell linked once under Route description and then twice under History -- this isn't necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review
- Quite a few of the sources are maps, only a few of which are available online. That's OK, but some of the online maps are illegible; I refer in particular to refs 22, 23, 26 and 27. I'm not sure how much this matters, since the reader is no worse off than with the unlinked maps. I just wonder whether these links are worth having, since if the maps can't be read the links are virtually useless.
- Ref 26 isn't just a map, but also the whole numbering plan, and the text gives additional details above and beyond the map itself. At least in my browser, I can zoom in on the details of the maps, and they're legible on my display. I'd rather err on the side of providing a link per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT than not in these cases. Imzadi 1979 → 01:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 30: broken link
- The link works for me. Imzadi 1979 → 01:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 31: "registration required" should be noted
- Registration is not required; the website allows unregistered readers the ability to read two articles per day. Imzadi 1979 → 01:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 48: Link goes to the Wikimedia image of the map. Shouldn't it go to the source of the Wikimedia image?
- The source is offline, and we have a convenience copy on Commons. It's not really any different than providing a convenience link to a dead-tree book on Google Books. Imzadi 1979 → 01:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 58: First link gives: "Sorry - we seem to have misplaced the page you were looking for."
- Looks like the link finally went dead, but since it's archived, that's an easy flip-flop of links in the citation template. Imzadi 1979 → 01:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 60: "subscription required" should be noted
- And it looks like they moved that behind a paywall very recently. Imzadi 1979 → 01:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 63: I don't understand the link to the "original", which seems to go to a completely different source page.
- MDOT has a habit of recycling URLs for their five-year plans from time to time, but when that link was consulted originally, it matched the archived copy. Imzadi 1979 → 01:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 67 has a different title, and the publisher does not appear to be Michigan Department of Transportation
- Patrick Allen, an MDOT employee reposted the contract verbatim in a newsgroup. It may be hosted by Yahoo, but it is still originally published by MDOT, and this is another case of saying where I got the information. The full text of that contract is also on the article's talk page for convenience as well. Imzadi 1979 → 01:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A thorough Image check has already been done during ACR. No images changed afterwards. GermanJoe (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2013 (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) 07:34, 8 June 2013 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC) [23].[reply]
Everything Tastes Better with Bacon
Everything Tastes Better with Bacon was successfully promoted to WP:GA quality by Hadger, followed by a peer review with helpful comments from Casliber and Herostratus, a prior Featured Article candidate discussion, subsequently had a copy-edit through the Guild of Copy Editors by Lfstevens, and a once-over by FA Writer Tim riley.
Unfortunately, much time during the prior FAC was devoted to responding to comments which later turned out to be sockpuppeting.
I asked FA contributor Tim riley to look it over and he informed me it's ready for consideration a 2nd time at FAC.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration, — Cirt (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bacon , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast, User talk:Cirt, User talk:Tim riley, User talk:Hadger, User talk:Casliber, User talk:Lfstevens, User talk:Herostratus, User talk:Another Believer, User talk:Wizardman, User talk:Tbhotch, User talk:Victoriaearle, User talk:Jeff Bedford, User talk:Eric Corbett, User talk:GrahamColm, User talk:Tony1, User talk:Sadads, User talk:Nikkimaria, User talk:JoshuaZ, User talk:SandyGeorgia, User talk:Hunter Kahn. — Cirt (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Note: Please note that I originally became involved with quality improvement contributions to the general topic of bacon, as part of the "Bacon WikiCup" of years past, since defunct, and subsumed by WP:BACON. You can see links related to the history of the "Bacon WikiCup", listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bacon#Bacon_Challenge_and_WikiCup. — Cirt (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I can't pose as an authority, but I do indeed think the article ready for FAC. It's shorter than most FA articles, but it seems to me to say all there is to say on the subject and to meet all the FA text criteria (I am not qualified to comment on images). It is a pleasure to read, is well proportioned, covers the topic fully and without bias, and is thoroughly referenced. A small gem, well worth FA status. Tim riley (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from 99of9
"classed it among more intriguing books in the topic". I don't get this. What is "the topic"? Bacon-only recipe books? Surely it's among the only books *on* the topic. --99of9 (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Thanks for this helpful recommendation, — Cirt (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. So what's "the topic" to which this sentence refers? --99of9 (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic is the genre of cooking with bacon. And actually, there are several books on the topic. — Cirt (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't think this makes sense if there were no other books at the time in the genre of "cooking with bacon". I've looked up the quote from the GA passed version: "the genre's most interesting and unique cookbooks". Are you sure she's not talking about a more general genre? --99of9 (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, you are right, it is a quote about all cookbooks in the entire cooking genre: "Then there's Puff (Chronicle Books, $19.95) by Portland Oregonian food editor Martha Holmberg. The puff in the title refers to puff pastry, and Holmberg has developed 50 recipes using the versatile French dough. She shows you how to make it from scratch, but nearly every recipe can be prepared with the frozen variety. Puff is a delicious offering from the publisher who produces the genre's most interesting and unique cookbooks, among them the 2002 book Everything Tastes Better with Bacon by Sara Perry." Thank you, I double-checked the source and that is the full quotation. — Cirt (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't think this makes sense if there were no other books at the time in the genre of "cooking with bacon". I've looked up the quote from the GA passed version: "the genre's most interesting and unique cookbooks". Are you sure she's not talking about a more general genre? --99of9 (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic is the genre of cooking with bacon. And actually, there are several books on the topic. — Cirt (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. So what's "the topic" to which this sentence refers? --99of9 (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What were the total sales of the book? I can see 30k in the first month, but I can't even see which month that was, since the article only talks about publication in 2002. --99of9 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Added month to the info for this sentence. As far as total sales, as you can see my research took me through quite a multitude of secondary sources, and I could find none that reported total sales. — Cirt (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Where was it sold? --99of9 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
[reply]
*What was the retail price? --99of9 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
[reply]
Done. Added retail price to publication info in Background sect. — Cirt (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*"She discovered that bacon increased the sweet and salt tastes of food". Shouldn't that be "salty"? And what's with the sweet - I thought bacon was a classic example of umami (Yamaguichi, S., Ninomiya, K. 1998. What is Umami? Food Rev. Int., 14(2&3): 123-138, cited by [24]). I don't have access to your (Smith 2002) source, but the word "discovered" seems a bit strange in this context - is that a direct quote, or a paraphrase? --99of9 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
[reply]
Done. Changed "salt" to "salty". Changed "discovered" to "observed". You can see more quotations which might be illuminating to you in the GA passed version of the article. — Cirt (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The other two bacon-focused books mentioned were both published after this one. Was this one the first ever? --99of9 (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this was not the first ever book about cooking with bacon, if you are interested in others, please see Category:Books about bacon, and of course searches at Amazon.com or Google Books are helpful. :) — Cirt (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you name one that was earlier and about cooking bacon? The only one in the wiki category that might qualify seems to be Bacon and Hams, but that seems to be more about cutting up pigs. --99of9 (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hrm, actually, I'm not one-hundred-percent certain on this one. This search shows some other books that discuss the subject but not as its main topic. In any event, I haven't yet come across any secondary sources that say this was the first book on this topic. Unfortunately, we can't really make that assertion in the article main body text itself, without a WP:RS source that says so. — Cirt (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not advocating WP:OR. What I'm driving at is whether the RS's support a broad enough coverage of the topic to be FA. If RS's do not answer obvious questions like total sales or precedents in the genre, then perhaps we (you) just haven't been given enough to work with. --99of9 (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've cited over forty (40) total references in the article, and in the course of my research come across more than that. I think the topic has indeed received enough secondary source coverage to be FA. I would welcome any other specific suggestions on how to improve the quality of the article. — Cirt (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not advocating WP:OR. What I'm driving at is whether the RS's support a broad enough coverage of the topic to be FA. If RS's do not answer obvious questions like total sales or precedents in the genre, then perhaps we (you) just haven't been given enough to work with. --99of9 (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hrm, actually, I'm not one-hundred-percent certain on this one. This search shows some other books that discuss the subject but not as its main topic. In any event, I haven't yet come across any secondary sources that say this was the first book on this topic. Unfortunately, we can't really make that assertion in the article main body text itself, without a WP:RS source that says so. — Cirt (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you name one that was earlier and about cooking bacon? The only one in the wiki category that might qualify seems to be Bacon and Hams, but that seems to be more about cutting up pigs. --99of9 (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*If the original review said "interesting and unique", I think a direct quote of those words might be better than paraphrasing with "intriguing", because the meanings are a little different. --99of9 (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
[reply]
Done. Added quotation from cited source, per this FAC comment by 99of9 (talk · contribs), above. I don't like having any quotes in this article after comments at the last FAC, but hopefully a few sparingly is alright in direct response to subsequent FAC commenters! :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*The link in ref [18] isn't working. --99of9 (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
[reply]
Done. Fixed ref link. This was due to a request from another commenter, at this FAC, below, to italicize that link. But that inadvertently broke the link. Now fixed. — Cirt (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't think it was normal to put page numbers should be in both the notes and references section. I could be wrong, I don't usually use the split style. --99of9 (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've received comments at FAC in the past for not having them in one place or the other. The only way to please everyone is to make sure they are in both places. — Cirt (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd guess they would object if they weren't in the notes, but since more than one note (with different page numbers) can point to the same book reference, my understanding is that it's usual to leave them off the reference book list. --99of9 (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*"Edition: 1ST" drop the caps? --99of9 (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
[reply]
Comments from Crisco 1492 (addressed)
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk by user, see diff
Image review by Crisco 1492
- Oh yeah, all images are fine assuming OTRS is correct. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose and images. Shame I'm in a majority Muslim country right now, otherwise... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much for the helpful comments and the Support! — Cirt (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Tbhotch (addressed)
Addressed comments from Tbhotch from Tbhotch moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff
- Support, good work Cirt. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cassianto (addressed)
Addressed comments from Cassianto moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff
- Support -- Comments resolved. A good article on a quirky subject. -- CassiantoTalk 20:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jimfbleak (addressed)
Addressed comments from Jimfbleak moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff
- Support
Commentsby Jim Interesting article. First read comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No further issues, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review from Brianboulton
Sources review Nitpicks:
- Kristin Eddy article should have "subscription" template
- Dwight Garner article: title appears to be just "Cooking"
- Sara Perry 2002 book is listed out of alphabetical sequence
Otherwise,sources and citation formats look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to sources review
- Done. Added "subscription" template.
- Done. Trimmed title to just "Cooking".
- Done. fixed alphabetical sequence for Sara Perry 2002 book.
Thanks very much for these helpful pointers, — Cirt (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Brianboulton (addressed)
- Addressed comments by Brianboulton moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff.
- Support: All my concerns appropriately addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much for the helpful comments and the Support! — Cirt (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2013 (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) 06:31, 8 June 2013 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC) [25].[reply]
Russula virescens
Russula virescens is widely considered the best edible mushroom of the large genus Russula, and is popular in Europe in Asia. I have exhausted my sources and tweaked the prose to the point of diminishing returns, and think the article is ready for FAC. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sasata. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Commentsfrom Jim Usual polished work, just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is especially popular in Europe and Asia. — ie the half of the world where it is easy to identify. A little sweeping, I think; perhaps change to Spain and China?
- Mushrooms have a high water content — for me, this doesn't quite work, going from the specific to the general. Not a deal-breaker if you want to keep it
- The green color of the cuticle — "color" is redundant here
- and in deposit — I don't know what this means
- its color tends to be more bluish-green — it tends to be more bluish-green
- Russula virescens has a low capacity (x2) — "limited" might be better
- Ref 14 needs publisher location
Support. Great to see a quality article on such an important species.
- "First described in 1774 by Jacob Christian Schaeffer, the distribution of Russula virescens encompasses" This reads as if the distribution was first described by Schaeffer
- "around the center; the distinct pattern is called areolate." Seeing as areolate is an adjective, perhaps "called" isn't the right word?
- I'm inclined to say that the apparent controversy concerning its appearance in North America is not quite made clear in the lead; I got the impression it was clear that it's found there, it's just not precisely clear where, while the article body implies it may not be there at all.
- Link cholesterol?
Not seeing a lot of problems! J Milburn (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images seem OK (I don't really feel qualified to judge File:Stamp of Moldova 238.gif) but I'm finding myself slightly under-inspired by the photos; especially the lead, which seems to have been taken in less-than-ideal lighting. Although they're only small mushrooms, I'd be inclined to say that this or this capture the "ickyness" that Antonio Carluccio alludes to. If you're not convinced, stick with those we've got; I just imaging that choosing the right picture could make the difference as to whether someone stays to read the article or not! J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I like the lead image in that it nicely shows the areolate pattern, and a sunken cap center that is mentioned in the description. I've deliberately avoided using images from North America for reasons described above. What do you think about this, this, or this as alternate lead images? Sasata (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Choosing the right image out of all those is tricky. The depressed centre, which is a feature of the mushroom, is really only visible in the current one, which I think is the best really. this one is ok but the mushroom is a bit dirty, this one you can see the depression but it's a really odd shape. Tough call....Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to trust your judgement call. Two images in the infobox would also not be out of the question, if they show different features/show the mushroom at different stages of life? J Milburn (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another option to fit in an extra picture would be to convert the quote box in the edibility section to a block quote and add one of these images with a context-suitable caption like "Despite its "moldy" appearance, R. virescens is a good edible." How does that sound? Sasata (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I have your attention, I'm thinking about replacing the spore image with this, as perhaps a picture of a young, not-yet green specimen is more useful than one of the spores. Comments? Sasata (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the quote-box move; something between a quotebox and a blockquote is Template:Quotation, which I rather like and would probably look good here. I agree that a young mushroom pic would be nice, but I'm also a big fan of spore pictures. Frankly, I think the least useful picture is the stamp, so if something's going to go... (An alternative to the stamp pic would be an external link to something like this, perhaps even using Template:External image. I also note that Moldova seems to have released a lot of stamps with mushrooms- I wonder if there's any literature out there about the meeting of mycology and philately? That'd make a fun article...) J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've implemented your suggestions with this edit, what do you think? I think there is enough literature to make a "Fungi on stamps" page; there's a series of articles by Maurice Moss in the journals Mycologist, Bulletin of the British Mycological Society and Transactions of the British Mycological Society Sasata (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose and comprehensiveness
Commentsfrom Cwmhiraeth - Generally looks good. A few points that struck me:- - I think you could wikilink polymath, clade, mycologist
- "In a molecular phylogenetic analysis of European Russula, R. virescens grouped together in a clade with R. mustelina;" - I don't think this sentence has a main verb.
- In the Description section, I favour conversion measurements that reflect the accuracy of the original. Thus "up to 15 cm" should convert to 6 rather than 5.9 in. This type of over-accurate conversion also occurs in the lead section.
- I did a bit of rounding off where appropriate, but kept the conversion of 4 cm = 1.6 inches (neither 1 inch nor 2 inches would accurately reflect the original measurement). Sasata (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's much better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "...most of the gill is fused..." - I would say "most of the gills are fused" but would defer to your better knowledge of technical terms.
- "Another green-capped Russula is ... Other green russulas" - Some inconsistency in capitalisation and italics?
- This is the correct way to refer to generic names in singular (with italics) and plural (without italics) forms. Sasata (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Its news to me, but no doubt you are right! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Despite its "moldy" appearance, R. virescens is a good edible." - This image caption needs attention.
- "...reactive brilliant blue and reactive blue R." - It is a bit unfortunate that this sentence ends in "R." as you have been using this abbreviation throughout for "Russula".
That's all. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for commenting. I'm on vacation with poor Internet access, so will address these early next week. Sasata (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, real life delays made it take longer than expected to reply, but I think I've addressed your suggestions now. Sasata (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy with your responses and think the article is of a high enough standard to be a Featured Article. Changed my "Comments" to "Support". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2013 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC) [26].[reply]
SMS Thüringen
Yet another one, this ship saw heavy action at Jutland and blew up HMS Black Prince at very close range in some ferocious night fighting. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article represents our best work. Thanks all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images are fine, captions are good. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- there is a bit of overlinking: Kaiser Wilhelm II, destroyers, Seydlitz, Grand Fleet, pre-dreadnoughts, David Beatty, Nassau, SMS Moltke and Von der Tann
- Should be all fixed.
- all toolbox checks are green (dab, external links, alt text, reflinks, redirect, earwig)
- not sure why New York City, Amherst, New York and Ratingen are linked in the References section
- All fixed.
- suggest you note in the lead she was a dreadnought
- Good idea.
- suggest "less than three years
from whenafter work commenced"- Sounds good
- suggest "which were followed by I Squadron exercises"
- Sure
- suggest you link "Wilhelmshaven"
- Ok
- suggest you briefly note who Niemöller was for context eg "war, the future anti-Nazi Lutheran pastor...
- Sounds good to me.
- suggest "Thüringen
was present duringparticipated in"- Works for me.
- suggest " Thüringen and the rest of the fleet then remained in port until 4 August"
- Alright
- suggest "ahead of
heranother sister Helgoland"- Sure
- during Jutland, did she hit Warspite or Malaya at all?
- No, and I've clarified this now.
- "which appeared to have been blown overboard" should this be "which appears to have been blown overboard" It currently sounds as if it was already gone.
- Fixed.
- "Thüringen was surrendered to the French Navy on 29 April 1920 as "L"" not sure what "L" means.
- Just the transfer name.
- could you have another look at the references? A few appear to be a bit light on in terms of title and editor names. For example, Groner appears to be the author, but there are two editors,one of whom is a contributor, and the full title appears to be German Warships, 1815-1945: Major surface vessels which is Volume 1 of the series. Another example is the title of Tarrant, the full version apparently being Jutland: The German Perspective : a New View of the Great Battle, 31 May 1916. Campbell also appears to have two authors, the other one being N.J.M. Campbell.
- John Campbell is NJM Campbell - sometimes he goes by the former, others by the latter. The rest should be fixed.
A pleasure to review. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Supporting. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:33, 6 May 2013 (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) 02:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
- These two sentences might profitably be combined: The ship also saw action in the Baltic Sea against the Imperial Russian Navy. She participated in the unsuccessful first incursion into the Gulf of Riga in August 1915.
- Link keel
- Is length overall, between perpendiculars, waterline?
- Dates like 19th are contrary to WP:DATE
- Is there a link for Operation Schlußstein? I've never heard of it before.
- Otherwise, nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Should all be fixed. There's no article on Schlußstein - it's a fairly obscure thing. Herwig wrote an article in Slavic Review in 1973 that covers the operation if you're interested. Parsecboy (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Might be worth doing an article on if you get the time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Should all be fixed. There's no article on Schlußstein - it's a fairly obscure thing. Herwig wrote an article in Slavic Review in 1973 that covers the operation if you're interested. Parsecboy (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- ("His Majesty's Ship Thuringia") – are you not italicizing the name any more (in this case, Thuringia)?
- It was meant to link the ship's name with the name of the state in English - should I italicize it?
- I'm not sure—do you normally italicize the translated name? I thought you did, but I could be wrong. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I looked at some of the other FAs I've done, and it does seem that I italicize the translated name. See for instance SMS Friedrich der Grosse (1911).
- I'm not sure—do you normally italicize the translated name? I thought you did, but I could be wrong. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It was meant to link the ship's name with the name of the state in English - should I italicize it?
- On the approach to the English coast, Scheer turned north after receiving a false report from a zeppelin about a British unit in the area.[42] As a result, the bombardment was not carried out, and by 14:35, Scheer had been warned of the Grand Fleet's approach and so turned his forces around and retreated to German ports.[43] – ...what Grand Fleet approach? You didn't mention this in the article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ("His Majesty's Ship Thuringia") – are you not italicizing the name any more (in this case, Thuringia)?
Delegate comment -- Good level of support but like to give it a chance to garner a non-MilHist review before promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review: All sources look of appropriate high quality and reliability, and citations are properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – This non-MilHist reviewer is quite happy with what he found. The article is quite clear to me, and I only found a couple of minor issues to comment on:
- "The ship also saw action in the Baltic Sea against the Imperial Russian Navy, where she participated...". The "where" is referring to the sea and not the navy, so the order of this sentence is a little confusing. Perhaps switching to "saw action against the Imperial Russian Navy in the Baltic Sea, where she participated..." would be a worthwhile fix?
- World War I: "The High Seas Fleet was too late, however, so it failed to locate any British forces." The "however" seems unnecessary to me, and I know others have criticized its usage in FAs. Minor point, but might be worth removing regardless. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:34, 3 June 2013 (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) 03:46, 8 June 2013 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC) [27].[reply]
Jürgen Ehlers
- Nominator(s): Markus Pössel (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked on this article on and off for some time, and feel it is now ready for FA. It's been through a helpful peer review, and the Guild of Copy Editors have also been kind enough to have a go at it; the GOCE member who took care of it encouragingly commented that the article was "Overall in great shape". It's not an easy subject for two reasons: Ehlers is not in the same league as Einstein, Planck & Co., and that means there are not nearly so many reliable sources about him. I've taken care to exploit all reliable sources I could get my hands on, but a biographical article like this must necessarily be less detailed than for one of the Greats. Secondly, much of Ehlers' work is somewhat technical in nature. I've tried to strike a balance between including sufficient information for the description to be accessible, and keeping the text concise. For both reasons, this article was harder work than my previous FAs, in particular the related general relativity and introduction to general relativity. My reason for picking this topic is that I knew Jürgen Ehlers, and he was a kind colleague from whom I've learned much. Markus Pössel (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - Everything checks out. More to come on the rest of the article. Wadewitz (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: My concerns were addressed and so I'd like to provide support for FA status. Praemonitus (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I read the article and it seems reasonably well written, but the physics terminology gets pretty dense—at least for me. It should probably have an independent review by an expert. Here are a few observations:
I found this comment in the text: "The first paper, written with Jordan and Kundt, is a treatise on the properties and characteristics<!--properties and characteristics are in some senses, synonyms. what is the intended meaning here?-->": can this be addressed?The meaning of this sentence is somewhat unclear: "It also gives a systematic exposition of the geometric properties of bundles (congruences) of light beams in terms of their expansion (simply put, how the beams converge or diverge), twist and shear (how, apart from growing or shrinking, the cross section is deformed)." Can the intent or context be clarified here?"...shadow produced by a narrow beam of light passing an opaque object": passing, or intersecting?"...the gravitational field inside cannot be static, but must evolve": I'm not clear what this means.What is the "...tt-component of the metric"?It should mention that he had a wife Anita and four children.[28] I thought there should be a little about his parents, but I couldn't find anything.
Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for your comments, which I'll address one by one. Generally, it is true that the article has, in part, content that is rather technical - a direct consequence of Ehlers' field of study. I've tried to strike a balance, but I'm of course open to suggestions on where somewhat more detailed explanations would help.
- "The first paper, written with Jordan and Kundt" - I've changed this to a (hopefully) more accessible sentence.
- "It also gives a systematic exposition..." - I've put in a somewhat more explicit version.
- "...shadow produced by a narrow beam of light passing an opaque object": encountering seems best, since part of the beam can intersect, while another part can pass the object.
- (will address the other comments later) Markus Pössel (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Replies to Comments, part 2:
- "...the gravitational field inside cannot be static, but must evolve" - changed to "change over time", and given the simplest example.
- So... my completely naive intuition tells me that all of the mass within the event horizon would collapse into the singularity and the internal gravitational field would stabilize based on the boundary conditions. Ehlers' statement is that this cannot happen, but instead the field must be continually evolving in some manner? That's ... strange. Okay, thank you for the example. Praemonitus (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "...tt-component of the metric" - added the physical meaning: the rate of ticking of clocks whose spatial coordinates do not change
- I did add wife and children in the same manner as the obituary you've cited, namely as a statement of whom he left behind. Without a published source on date of marriage and the children's years of birth I see no suitably referenced way to insert that information into the chronological part of the article in an earlier section.
- "...the gravitational field inside cannot be static, but must evolve" - changed to "change over time", and given the simplest example.
- Again, thanks for your comments! Markus Pössel (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for addressing my concerns. Good luck with the FAC. Praemonitus (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your help! Markus Pössel (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for addressing my concerns. Good luck with the FAC. Praemonitus (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (Note: I peer-reviewed this article.) The article is well-structured, well-written and coherent. The sources are all reputable. I can't speak much to the physics sections, I'm afraid, as they are quite specific. However, the introductory sentences always give a basic idea that I can follow, which I consider essential in articles like these. I'm glad you got to write up your adviser! Wadewitz (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ceranthor Comments
- he held various lecture- and professorships - Assuming this is a typo?
- Free of dabs! :)
- In the winter term of 1955/56, - better as 55-56 I think
- In 1961, as Jordan's assistant, Ehlers earned his habilitation (qualifying him for a German professorship). - No need for parentheses, this is fine as prose.
- He held teaching and research positions at the University of Kiel, Syracuse University and Hamburg University. In 1964, Ehlers again moved to the United States. - These two sentences confuse me. First, you randomly mention a US university. Then you imply that you already stated him moving to the US, but I can't find that being mentioned anywhere.
- Ehlers' name had been suggested by Ludwig Biermann, the institute's director at the time. - Obviously Ehler was suggested, not just his name. The name is redundant. "Ehler had"
- On June 9, 1994, the Society indeed decided to open a Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Potsdam. - Why the use of indeed? It seems redundant.
- Ehlers began to look for serviceable ways of characterizing exact solutions invariantly, - Why the italics?
- Many thanks for your comments, and for your support!
- "lecture- and professorships", for "lectureships and professorships", is not a typo. I've changed it to "various posts as a lecturer and, later, as a professor" which I hope to be more clear.
- habilitation parentheses removed.
- 1955/56 changed to 1955-56
- Kiel, Syracuse and Hamburg are meant to be in sequence, implying that he did move to Syracuse for a position. I've changed this part a little bit; hopefully, I've put matters more clearly in the current version.
- I've dropped the "name" and now have Biermann recommending Ehlers directly.
- The "indeed" was meant to link this to the previous sentence - after all, the Society did not decide spontaneously, but in response to the lobbying. But I have no fixed opinion either way, and have removed the "indeed."
- The italics are for emphasis. The "invariantly" is the important and new thing here. I'm leaving the italics for now; if there's another way of making that emphasis, I'm open to suggestions.
- Again, thanks for your input! Markus Pössel (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate comment -- Hi Markus, been a while since you've been at FAC, yes? Just like to see a source review and spotcheck for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- I've left a request at WT:FAC for someone to do that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's definitely been a while. World Science Festival, later moved to World Science Festival, 2008 was the last one in late 2008. I don't recall source and image reviews (under that name) from my previous nominations; a more recent custom, I suppose? Is there anything I can and/or am supposed to do facilitate the review and spotcheck (apart from having clearly identified and linked my sources, of course)? Markus Pössel (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review The sources themselves are impeccable, but checking the citations out out is nightmarish. Citation styles should be simple, and easy for the general reader to follow. I am also surprised by the failure, before this submission, to check that all online links were working. At least half a dozen are not, and I doubt they all went wrong after the submission. Specific problems:
- General: Multiple sources within single citations tend to be overcomplicated and difficult to interepret. You should consider splitting these. In some case it might be more appropriate to list alternative sources as "External links"
- Some of the sources appear as discursive footnotes, e.g. 9, 27, 31 etc; ref 9 appears to be a general observation rather than a specific citation. This kind of comment should be in a separate listing, as a footnote.
- A number of the links are not working, or go to inappropriate pages:
- Ref 3: check the link on "Editor's comment". Is this the intended source? How does it support the cited statement
- Ref 5: First link returns "not found"
- Ref 12: Neither of the first two links works (the link to the website, if not used as a source, should appear under "External links").
- Ref 33: link gives error message
- Ref 38: first link denies access, requires login
- Ref 39: link gives address not found
- Ref 40: second link goes to the wrong page
- You need to be consistent in providing ISBNs and publisher locations for books
- Sources 6 and 7 appear to be in German, but are not noted as such.
- Ref 8: What is the purpose of this CV? Such documents are prepared by the subject, and are not independent reliable sources.
- Refs 4 and 16 appear to be identical. Use "ref name=" to avoid repetition
- Ref 13: not properly formatted.
- Ref 19: both links go to abstracts. You should indicate that the source articles require purchase.
- Ref 21: Why the "E.g"? Citations should be specific. See also 33
- Ref 22: first link article requires login or purchase
- Ref 27: both articles require purchase. This is a recurring problem and I won't mention it again. To be clear: if a source requires purchase or login for access, this needs to be noted.
- Ref 35: I am confused as to what is being cited here.
- Ref 41: not properly formatted
I think all these issues need to be addressed before the article is ready for promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your thorough check of the citations. I will respond to your points one by one over the next few days. Markus Pössel (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Before making specific changes, a few more general issues. For reference, here is a permalink to the current version, in case reference numbers will change later.
- I would like to keep the additional annotation as per WP:Cite where they tell the reader how the different references act together to support the sentence or pargraph in question (and no, a number of those you cite are not discursive footnotes - they explain the references). I see where having this annotation style, but also list complete references, makes for crowded and thus less easily readable notes. My proposal would be to go the same way I went in general relativity, with Harvard-style references in the notes, and all the references listed in alphabetical order below. That should go a long way of making the notes more readable. It would also solve problems like that of ref. 4 and 16, which contrary to what you wrote are not identical, as one provides a page number, the other doesn't - they could both refer, Harvard-style, to the same article listed in the reference list.
- I don't see anything in WP:CITE about stating whether or not an article link requires purchase or login, in particular if it is a DOI link. Frankly, I don't think such a policy change would make much sense. The main reference is the printed one in this case, and DOIs are a kind of automatized convenience link. That's the way it sounds in WP:SOURCELINKS, too.
- Same with listing the language - where is that a requirement, in WP:CITE?
- I'll see about the uncontroversial issues, such as consistency in ISBNs and so on, now, but for the issues mentioned above, I don't see what's WP:CITE-non-compliant in what I did. Markus Pössel (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "nightmarish" was rather harsh a word, but I readily admit that splitting into Notes and References makes that part of the article much more readable than before, and I am somewhat embarrassed to find that so many of the links I thought would be stable did, in the meantime, break. This is what I did to fix things:
- I moved all articles and books into a separate reference section, using Harvard notation to refer to them from the (newly rechristened) Notes section, reducing redundancy in the process
- All books that have ISBNs (not all do) should now have them listed. Publisher locations are, consistently, not.
- Ref 3: The editor's note is indeed the intended source. It's a 5 page essay which accompanies a re-publication of the original article, putting the article into perspective and describing the historical context.
- I fixed all the broken links.
- Ref 8: The only purpose of the CV is to confirm that Ashtekar was a guest at the Max Planck Institut für Physik und Astrophysik on various dates. Since this is non-controversial information, I would like to leave this in as a reference.
- Ref 13: Changed this to the AEI obituary, which is now properly linked as a reference, including the authors (that is, the institute directors)
- About "e.g." - in the case of 24, for instance, I am using one specific cosmology book as source for a statement that can be found in every cosmology book. "E.g." signals the reader that this is not a canonical, let alone the canonical reference for this statement. For someone not familiar with the subject, that is important information, and the reference would lose if I left it out.
- Going through your list, my conclusion is that, in combination with my previous reply, I have now addressed all the concerns you raised. Thanks again for your attention to detail. Markus Pössel (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "nightmarish" was rather harsh a word, but I readily admit that splitting into Notes and References makes that part of the article much more readable than before, and I am somewhat embarrassed to find that so many of the links I thought would be stable did, in the meantime, break. This is what I did to fix things:
- You certainly have improved the layout of citations and references. I have not rechecked all the links and will take your word for it that they are now all working. On the question of language and subscription tags, WP:CITE is a guideline, not holy writ. It has long been a convention at FAC that these tags be used, as a guide to the reader, and I strongly advise that they are added here (I see GermanJoe makes much the same point, below). The only other thing I have objection to is the CV. Items in a CV don't confirm or authenticate anything; it is the principle of using such dubious sources that is in question, rather than this particular case where the information is non-controversial. If there is no other source that confirms Ashtekar's presence, I suggest you leave this detail out. Otherwise, no further issues on sources. Brianboulton (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your additional comments!
- I've removed the CVs, and am now relying on the blog article by Breuer who mentions who was a guest in the Ehlers group at the time in question.
- As far as I can see, GermanJoe has indeed added missing language tags; I have no problem with those. But I think subscription tags really are a bad idea. Whether or not the DOI leads to a subscriber-only article is a function of time - a number of journals have a "moving wall" policy for when an article will become freely available, so a number of subscription tags will become outdated over time. Adding subscription tags without any automatization in place creates additional work for WP editors without adding important extra information. Also, in an age of e-prints, having the DOI-linked version of the article subscription only doesn't necessarily mean that there is no non-subscription way of accessing the article content. Also, what counts as "subscription required"? Does a free registration that lets you look at three items without paying for a subscription (such as for JSTOR) count? That would surely depend on whether or not whoever is looking at the article has already used up his or her free quota. To sum up, I think a "subscription required" tag doesn't do justice to the various situations we could be dealing with, and seeing that all the details about access (as well as, usually, an abstract) are just one click away, it doesn't add sufficient information to be worth the trouble - and I feel the same about adding a "purchase required" to listings of books; something I note that you are not advocating either, but which I think is perfectly analogous case. So, just as GermanJoe did, I would like to leave that particular tag out of the Jürgen Ehlers article.
- Having fixed the Ashtekar CV problem, and given arguments why I do not think the subscription tags are necessary or useful (and while WP:CITE is a guideline, as you write, it is a guideline that Wikipedia:Featured article criteria sets out for those bringing articles to FAC to follow - so these tags are definitely not required), I believe I have now addressed all your comments. Markus Pössel (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Subscription tags are a warning to the reader that he/she won't necessarily get access to the source article. I have JSTOR access, so I know, when I see a subscription tag on one of these, that I can access it. But there are lots of paywalls that I can't penetrate without a subscription, and I like to know in advance when this is the case. In the past I have been disappointed to find, having clicked on the link, that I cannot read the article without paying some exorbitant fee; it's no comfort to know that maybe, in a few years, the article will become freely accessible. That is my position; I don't, however, see this as a sufficient issue to withhold the article's promotion if there are no other issues outstanding, and will leave it to the delegates. Brianboulton (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your additional comments!
- Since the tag issue is more general than this FAC discussion, I've started a discussion here on the WP:CITE talk page. Markus Pössel (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spotcheck - OK (see comments)
- ref 5 (Huisken 2009), career data appears accurate, no close paraphrasing (simple facts listed) - OK
- ref 8 (Ashtekar) - OK,
but i'd suggest to add a source for the other guests aswell (if possible). It may be common knowledge for topic experts, but where was that information retrieved from? - ref 14 (Schücking 2000) - OK.
- ref 24 (Liddle 2003) - OK.
- ref 31 (Schutz 1996) - OK.
- ref 33 and 12 (Braun 2008, in German) - OK
- ref 35 (Breuer, in German) - OK
- ref 36 (biennial report, in German) - OK
- ref 40 (awards), the different awards are covered by several sources (in German). - OK
In the interest of transparency, i focused mostly on German and less technical texts. Checks showed no problems with close paraphrasing or obvious inaccuracies. The article is written as summary and seems to cover all notable, important aspects of its topic. I see no reason to doubt the finer scientific details, as the article had an extensive PR with a lot of constructive, knowledgable feedback. GermanJoe (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Language and subscription tags are useful convenience tools for the reader to navigate through the references (they might even be required, but i am too lazy to check). I fixed some broken harv links and added a few tags. GermanJoe (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for the spotcheck! As for ref 8, I've now added the Breuer 2008 text as a reference, which mentions the various Munich department members and guests. I've also added two more online CVs for corroboration; for the other persons listed, no such CVs appear to exist. (I guess once you've got tenure, the motivation to put your CV online is drastically reduced.) And no, it's not common knowledge apart from those who actually were part of that group, so it was definitely useful to point out this omission. Markus Pössel (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. (having stumbled here from my FAC nomination). I've made some minor formatting changes, but that was all really. Other than that, the article is quite well done and meticulously referenced. Just wanted to say it's so nice to see a strong quality improvement project on an article related to science. Thanks very much for the quality improvement efforts, to all involved. — Cirt (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the formatting fixes, for the support and for your kind words! Markus Pössel (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate comments (2)
- First of all, tks Brian and Joe for source review/spotcheck, and of course all the other reviewers for their efforts.
- Markus, I'd usually expect each paragraph to end with a citation -- this isn't the case with the second para of Ehlers group.
- There are a few duplicate links -- some may be justified if the gap between hem is sufficient but pls review in any case. This script helps locate them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments!
- Ehlers group: What used to be citation 22 covered both the second and third paragraph; it's possible this was a single, longish paragraph which was split during copy-editing without the citation being adjusted. I've split the citation accordingly.
- Thanks for the pointer to the script; I've removed one of the duplicate links; the remaining five should, in my opinion, be left in - each is not very close to its duplicate, and each involves a term that is important in that particular context, and that readers might want to click to understand better that particular paragraph.
- Markus Pössel (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments!
- 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) 02:44, 8 June 2013 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [29].[reply]
Jane Joseph
- Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jane Joseph was a composer of the early 20th century, much influenced by Gustav Holst whose pupil she was. Most of her music was never published and has been lost; her few published pieces are now rarely heard, though some were highly thought of when first performed. If she had not been so busy helping Holst (she copied out the whole of the "Neptune" movement of The Planets suite for him, among many other tasks), she may have gained greater recognition as a composer. Her career ended prematurely with her death aged 34: "I can't imagine Music without her", lamented a friend. The article has been carefully peer-reviewed for which many thanks, and acknowledgements also to Ruhrfisch, for making the lead image presentable. More comments welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support and image check Had my say at the peer review, glad to see the change I recommended was carried out. Images are fine, fair use lead image used appropriately for identification, the rest are PD of various sort. God only knows what will be used for its TFA...--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I and and a number of others hope that God will soon come to his/her senses, and will allow non-free images to appear on the main page if their sole purpose is to identify the subject. Having said that, I don't have any TFA plans for the near future; Jane's 120th birthday, on 31 May 2014, is probably the most relevant date. Thank you for your reviews, here and at PR, and for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I was also a happy PRer and a subsequent re-read shows no reason why this shouldn't be an FA. - SchroCat (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, and for the continuing due diligence on the matter of ellipses. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I too took part in the PR, where my (very minor) queries were thoroughly attended to. This article meets all the FA criteria, in my opinion. Moreover, it knocks spots off any other web article on the subject, even the one in the online Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, which offers a mere 300 words as opposed to more than 4,000 words of top-notch stuff here. – Tim riley (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Afterthought: spotted while having an enjoyable re-read of the article – ref 27 duplicates some of the biblio info on Cooper's book given in full in the list of sources; and ref 50 needs a date showing which Gibbs work you refer to. Tim riley (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Very kind words, much appreciated. It is exceedingly unlikely that Jane Joseph will ever get a full-length biography, and I hope that this article will go some way towards fulfilling this function. I have made the two small ref fixes that you have spotted – what sharp eyes you have.
- On the question of the genitive form that you reverted (sorry, Graham), I agree with you; it was an orchestra made up of Josephs. Another way of looking at it might be to say it was an orchestra belonging to the Josephs, in which case "a Josephs' orchestra" might be justified. But I am inclined to leave things be. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I was another at the PR whose questions cleared up. A very enjoyable article and I think it easily meets the criteria. I'm not quite sure how BB does it! Sarastro1 (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source review: Other than Tim's points above, just a one minor query.
- Do we need a publisher and location for the Gibbs article in Tempo?
Everything else looks fine from a sourcing viewpoint. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your reviews, here and at PR. It is not usual, with well-known magazines and newspapers, to include publishers and locations; see for example the Gustav Holst article. Glad to have your support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as noted above, I cleaned up the lead image a bit. I have read the whole article twice now and find it meets the FA criteria. I have a few questions, which do not detract from my support.
General question - did she have any romantic relationships that are known? I assume not (at least as far as reliable sources go), but I wondered this as I read the article.
- The only line in the sources that refers to her life outside music is the quoted one about her being hard to know and probably lonely. I think she was truly devoted to Holst, who was unavailable, and that she was unable or unwilling to look further – but that is pure conjecture. Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Illness, death and tributes" section:Shouldn't it be "1928 Whitsun festival"? in The main feature of the 1928 Whit festival, held at Canterbury, was a religious drama, ...
- Indeed yes; altered. Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In American English, if someone is alive a performance hono(u)rs them, but if someone is dead, then a performance is in their memory. Would that apply to ... a special performance of his St Paul's Suite was played in Joseph's honour.?
- Again, yes (and the source says "memory", so no excuses. Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Music section - I do not understand this sentence, which seems to me to be missing word[s] or parts of words: In Joseph's Mirage cycle of five songs with string quartet from 1921, distinctive compositional characteristic sit alongside Holstian references.
- The sentence was poorly written, and an "s" was missing from "characteristics". I have redrafted: "In Joseph's Mirage song cycle of 1921 (five songs with string quartet accompaniment), a Holstian influence is evident alongside her own distinctive compositional voice." Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for spotting these things. Glad to have your support. Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are very welcome - thank you for a fine article. I tried looking online to see if I could find any free images of her or her grave or even of some of her music, but was unable to find anything. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. (having stumbled here from my FAC nomination) Nice to see high quality improvement efforts on articles relating to biographies of women. This seems to be an area in need of further quality improvements on Wikipedia, so I'm glad we have contributors willing to work on these sorts of articles. :) — Cirt (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2013 (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) 20:36, 3 June 2013 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [30].[reply]
The Man in the Moone
- Nominator(s): Drmies (talk), John O'London (talk), Eric Corbett (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies and I started work on this article about one of the earliest works of British science fiction so long ago that I can hardly remember why we embarked on it. I'm glad we did though, because I think that together, with the help of John O'London, we've produced one of the best, if not the best, encyclopedic accounts of this rather short but surprisingly influential book you're likely to find anywhere. I hope you agree. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This actually started as a little DYK present for MF, following on a remark he made while we were working on the green children. Then it became a monster. Let me add that I'm an academic writer by profession and do not mind tweakage for more encyclopedic diction and syntax. However. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a super article. I'd like to see instances of "aforementioned", "additionally" and "however" reduced to a minimum or eliminated before I could support on prose. May be more comments to come, that's just on a first pass. --John (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and images - spotchecks not done
- Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
- File:Godwin_man_in_the_moone.jpg: if they author died more than 100 years ago, we can just assume he died more than 70 years ago - +100 is fine on its own
- FN14, 52, 53: page formatting
- FN15: page?
- Ranges should use endashes (not hyphens or emdashes)
- Be consistent in how ranges are abbreviated
- Be sure to identify foreign-language sources
- Be consistent in whether you include locations for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got all those except for the page numbers for FN15, which I don't immediately have access to, and flagging the language on a couple of the sources. As I wouldn't feel confident in distinguishing between Dutch and Flemish I'll leave that for Drmies to sort out. Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Jim Excellent article, just a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Spelling includes both AE and BE, should be consistently the latter, especially since you have both "favor" and "favour"
- Two of "Further reading" need language fields
- Lunar speculation—why is lunar capped here?
- posthumously, Jesuit, circumnavigation, Tenerife, Calvinist, genealogy —link?
- Sidereus Nuncius, Somnium sive opus posthumum de astronomia lunaris, De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas—Give a translation?
- 1630s also saw the publication —also seems redundant
- Peking —is this version rather than Beijing a conscious choice?
- Lunar Christianity—again, why caps
- Because "Lunar" is the name Godwin gives to the inhabitants of the Moon, therefore it's a proper noun here. I'll read through again to make sure we've been consistent in using "lunar" when we're talking about the Moon and "Lunar" when we're talking about the people. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- gansa—does the book actually say they are swans? It looks like the Indo-European root for "goose" (I don't have access to the OED, which presumably clarifies)
- Lunar inhabitants.— why caps?
- I added language parameters to the "Further reading". Personally, I wouldn't red-link journals, but then I wouldn't blue-link either, just a style thing. I had a quick look to see if I could spot anything else, but all looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That linking is my doing, no doubt, for reasons which have as much to do with the journals and their (future) articles as with this specific article. I'm a big fan of redlinks when appropriate, and I think (or I like to think) that I didn't add them for non-notable publications. Malleus's mileage may vary. Or can vary. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Parrot of Doom comments. I've worked with Malleus on several articles but have had no input on this one, indeed this review will be the first time I've read it. Due to restraints on my time, I will review only the text; citations et al I leave to others.
"Initially considered an early work of Godwin's" - minor thing but this sentence made me check who Godwin is, despite him having been mentioned in the previous sentence. Can you not just write "Initially considered to be one of his early works"?There are lots of citations in the lead section, are most of them necessary?"Godwin proposes that the dark spots on the Moon are seas, one of many similarities between The Man in the Moone and Kepler's Somnium sive opus posthumum de astronomia lunaris of 1634" - this sentence, from the lead, is almost identical to a sentence in the first paragraph of "Scientific advances and lunar speculation". Is it possible to reword to avoid a sense of deja vu?- "lunatic church" - is there any connection between this phrase and the old lunacy/lunar connection?
Who or what are/were Grant McColley and William Poole?- I've added a parenthetical note explaining that McColley is "a historian of early Modern English literature". I'm not sure that Poole needs to be similarly introduced though, as he's clearly described as the author of the 2009 edition of The Man in the Moone. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Dating evidence" - there's quite a lot of valuable information in this section but I wonder, would a small preface make it more readable for the casual observer? Something about how the dating evidence is found in historical authors, clerics, old texts, etc? Also, some of the authors are only given names, while others - "based on a manuscript by Matteo Ricci, the founder of the Jesuit mission in Beijing in 1601" - are given titles. I'm no historian, so I had to click to see who was what. Later in the article, other writers and historical figures are given titles, so perhaps there's a little bit of inconsistency there.
Who was Kathleen Tillotson?- She was professor of English at Bedford College London, and a noted Victorian scholar, particularly of Dickens; I'm a bit surprised there isn't an article on her. For our purposes I've added a description of her as a literary critic, which she also was. Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Lawton's 1931 article mentions a copy" - Lawton's full name and title is missing, and also the title or purpose of his article."The printer of the first edition is identified on the title page as John Norton" - to which copy does this refer - McColley's, Lawton's or Poole's?- "The partial revision of the manuscript " - same question as above
"and so do the many translations based on Baudoin" - would it be appropriate to substitute "it" for "Baudoin"?"Eventually he comes to rely on a species of bird he describes a some kind of wild swan" - typo?"When Gonsales first encounters the Lunars" - I can probably guess who they are, but the plot section doesn't mention him meeting "Lunars", only "inhabitants".Is it an omission that we only learn of Godwin's protestantism half way through the article? In fact, the article doesn't exactly make it clear what his religion was."discussion on the plurality of worlds had begun to favour the possibility of other inhabited worlds" - repetition of worlds- Who are P Cornelius and H. Neville Davies?
- Some foreign language titles are translated, whereas others (De Magnete, L'Autre Monde: où les États et Empires de la Lune for instance), are not.
- FWIW, I asked above for some of the less transparent titles to be translated. I can see that leads to a bit of inconsistency, but De Magnete is pretty obvious, and I would have thought L'Autre Monde: où les États et Empires de la Lune was accessible enough Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Who and what is Knowlson?
"The Man in the Moone became a popular source for "often extravagantly staged comic drama and opera".[59] These" - I'm nit-picking but is drama and opera singular, or plural?"Gonsales's gansas have also left their mark." - that might be better written as "Gonsales's load-carrying birds" or similar.
I can't think of much that's possibly missing from this article, although truth be told, I found some sections, particularly those discussing other, similar works, to be slightly impenetrable. But the above criticisms aside, I'd definitely support this. Parrot of Doom 17:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I've read this a couple of times now, and aside from a few minor points listed below, can find very little to fault. It is well-written, clear and interesting. The points below do not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we need a touch more about the plot in the lead? It seems a bit light on that aspect.
- "During his life, he was known as a churchman and a historian": I wonder if we need to say that he is a churchman? As he was a bishop, I'd imagine that was pretty clear.
- "The influence particularly of Nicolaus Copernicus led to what was called the "new astronomy"": I imagine the intention here is to say "the influence (particularly of Copernicus) led to new astronomy", but it does not quite say this, and "the influence … led" does not quite make sense. Should it be something like "These influences and particularly those of Nicholas Copernicus, led to…"? I'm not sure if I'm making sense, but there is something slightly off in this section.
- I wonder if Astronomia nova bears any relation to this? Parrot of Doom 20:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "while poets including Edmund Spenser were proposing that other worlds": Could this just be "proposed" instead of "were proposing"?
- "it had been considered that Godwin wrote The Man in the Moone relatively early in his life": To me, "it had been considered" is a little cumbersome; I'd prefer "it was thought", but not a big deal.
- I wonder is the dating section a little long? It is almost as long as the plot section, and seems to labour the point that he wrote it later than originally thought. But not a big issue for me.
- It's two big fat paragraphs, that's true. One reason for its length is that it was a pretty big deal, at least until it got settled. Another is that the grounds for dating the text involve some pretty big things--other texts, borrowings, and the growth of scientific knowledge--and they can't just be mentioned but have to be contextualized. As such, it also serves to introduce some of those scientific and historical issues, like the Chinese Jesuit mission and the relationship to Burke. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "resulting in the Martin Marprelate controversy": Is it worth saving the reader a click or two by explaining this in the text? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, as one of the nominators(!), I've been so busy watching the ongoing edits, I've only just spotted something that dates back to April 2011 under "Dating evidence" - "it was thought that Godwin wrote The Man in the Moone relatively early in his life, perhaps during his time at Christ College from 1578 to 1584". Now I may have been at "the other place" myself, but I'm pretty sure it's never "Christ College" in Oxford. Under "Background and contexts" he's more correctly described as "a student of Christ Church, Oxford" with a wikilink (and the link reminds us that "'Students of Christ Church' [note capital "S"] are not students, but rather the equivalent of the fellows of the other colleges" - does this need explanation?). - John O'London (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "one of which also a lunar travel narrative" I assume there's a word missing?
- the subscription required template isn't required after JSTOR links; this is typically given if the title is linked (i.e., via the "url="parameter) and the reader might be expecting to find the full document when the link is clicked through. Also, it is redundant to give both the doi and the JSTOR link, as the doi leads to the JSTOR page.
- ref#20 (McColley) is missing a year, and the title is in sentence case, unlike most others in title case. Not sure what the first number in "4 17 (4)" represents.
- page ranges are not given consistently: compare pp. 23–24 with pp. 153–4.
- "Frederiks & Branden (1888–1891)" -> (1888–91) per MOS:YEAR?
- does Bennett 1983 not have a JSTOR link? How about Dziubinskyj 2003 and Sharpe 2011?
- does the title of Hutton 1983 really not have a possessive apostrophe in "Godwins"?
- should the hyphen in the title of Frederiks (1888–1891) be an endash ("der Noord - en Zuidnederlandsche letterkunde")?
- Sorry, but I have to change that back as well: the hyphen indicates elision ("Noordnederlandsche en Zuidnederlandsche letterkund") and "belongs" to the adjective.
- Godwin 1768 has the title in sentence case
Delegate comments
- Pls go through dup links with the checker and see what you really need, if any.
- I'd expect the last sentence of English editions and translations to be cited.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- re "I'd expect the last sentence of English editions and translations to be cited." - just move the Poole and Buisman citations (notes 27 and 28) to the end of the sentence. John O'London (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the logic is exactly the same as it is for the plot section, in which the book itself is the source, so I don't think that sentence needs to be cited. Eric Corbett 01:45, 26 May 2013 (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) 02:36, 1 June 2013 (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 following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [31].[reply]
Charles Inglis (engineer)
This is an article I created five years ago and have slowly been building up ever since. It passed a Mil Hist A class review last month during which Dank kindly copyedited it. I believe the article to be as complete as I can make it and suitable for consideration as an FA. If promoted I believe this would become our only FA on a civil engineer (we have a few aeronautical engineers and an electrical engineer and Isambard Kingdom Brunel was an FA in 2006). Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2013 (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) 23:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I reviewed this in some detail at the ACR Dumelow links in his nomination statement (and examined the edits made since then), and I believe it to be of featured quality. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- File:Lake_Biwa_Canal_Museum_of_Kyoto_IMG_5473_a-9.JPG: medals are considered 3D works, so you need a licensing tag for the medal as well as the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I could find very little to fault with this article; as far as I could tell it satisfies the criteria for FA status and thus I'd like to provide my support. Nice job. Praemonitus (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sources: It would be more convenient to readers if online links were all contained within the citations (as they indeed are in most cases). In refs 2, 5, 6, 37 and 56, however, the reader has to go to the bibliography and search, before finding the link. Brianboulton (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Brian. I have always kept journal articles and books separate from other sources so they can be cited by page. I have played around a bit and converted all my citations to harvnb style. This allows the reader to click the citation to be taken to the relevant entry in the bibliography. Hopefully this solves that problem (and I think more elegantly than repeating the full citation in the references section). Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2013 (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) 01:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.