SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) promote 11 |
promote |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==October 2009== |
==October 2009== |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rolls-Royce Merlin/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drapier's Letters/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bramall Hall/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sydney Riot of 1879/archive2}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moors murders/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Moors murders/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barbara L/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barbara L/archive1}} |
Revision as of 19:52, 6 October 2009
October 2009
- 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 Karanacs 19:52, 6 October 2009 [1].
Rolls-Royce Merlin
- Nominator(s): Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets all of the featured article criteria. The article follows the structure guidelines given at the recently formed Aircraft Engine Task Force with the addition of a 'Production' section that was felt necessary. A sub article, List of Rolls-Royce Merlin variants, was created during the process to reduce article length. Recent extensive work by several editors including myself has concentrated mainly on compliance with the Manual of Style, copy editing and verification of references. A recent peer review (now archived) did not reveal any major problems. I realise that there may be minor issues remaining and am fully prepared, as nominator, to act on any requirements noted. The Rolls-Royce Merlin is a logical choice due to its relatively high historic profile, if the nomination is successful it would be the first aircraft engine featured article on Wikipedia. I have no particular bias towards this engine, I have a reasonable set of reference books and my aircraft engineering background has helped. Units in the 'Variants' section have been left abbreviated as they have in the 'Specifications' section. Many thanks Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've watched most of the recent editing on this article. When the first suggestion of this as a FA came up, I made several comments. All of my points were addressed to my satisfaction. The article itself covers and important topic in aircraft engines and covers it well. Detailed descriptions of the development and improvement process are excellent. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Alt text done; thanks.
Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.Please see the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review subpage. Eubulides (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thanks. I've got that and will work on it now. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added alt text to the captions now, the infobox image is still not showing as having alt text using the tool, I tried to null it with the '|link=' parameter in various positions as there was no caption originally but this did not work, perhaps this is due to it being used in an infobox? Forgive me if the alt text is not perfect, this is the first time I have added it to an article and can understand the need completely. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that was quick! I fixed the infobox problem and tweaked the alt text to avoid phrases like "is shown" as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid.
Some more phrases that need to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability and WP:ALT#Repetition include "in a museum" (multiple times), "in a Spitfire", "the carburettor, supercharger and intercooler". Finally, the alt text for File:RR Merlin labeled.jpg doesn't convey to the visually impaired reader the essence of that diagram, which which is that the engine is centered around a large propeller shaft, and that there are two cylinder heads in a V shape at the top, each with six cylinders. The alt text for that image need not list every label and detail, but a bit of the essence would be helpful.Eubulides (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that was quick! I fixed the infobox problem and tweaked the alt text to avoid phrases like "is shown" as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid.
- I have added alt text to the captions now, the infobox image is still not showing as having alt text using the tool, I tried to null it with the '|link=' parameter in various positions as there was no caption originally but this did not work, perhaps this is due to it being used in an infobox? Forgive me if the alt text is not perfect, this is the first time I have added it to an article and can understand the need completely. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I like to keep on top of things!! I need to speak with the aviation project template co-ordinator to have the alt text parameter added where needed, I would guess that our many other templates do not have the facility. Will adjust the last mentioned image. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a link to ram air, a disambiguation page. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Short Sturgeon.jpg has no source. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I have replaced the link to the Ram air disambiguation page with expanded plain text. The definition of ram air given there is not entirely correct and none of the six possible articles listed relate to this type of ram air. I have replaced File:Short Sturgeon.jpg with a similar related image (File:De Havilland Hornet F1.jpg) with a source. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great. Image check OK. Stifle (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I have replaced the link to the Ram air disambiguation page with expanded plain text. The definition of ram air given there is not entirely correct and none of the six possible articles listed relate to this type of ram air. I have replaced File:Short Sturgeon.jpg with a similar related image (File:De Havilland Hornet F1.jpg) with a source. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- With your citations, you've run the publishers into the link titles, they need to be separate. Some also lack publishers entirely.
- What makes the following reliable sources?
http://www.unlimitedexcitement.com/Pride%20of%20Pay%20n%20Pak/Rolls-Royce%20Merlin%20V-1650%20Engine.htmhttp://www.spitfiresite.com/http://www.fathom.com/feature/122596/index.htmlhttp://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/engines.htmhttp://www.spitfireperformance.com- http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html\Y(link has been removed from page)
- http://www.spitfireart.com/merlin_engines.htmlY(link has been removed from page)
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/merlin-lovesey.pdf is a reprint of an article.. does the site have permission to reprint it? It should be listed as the original article would have been, it's only being hosted by the site you found it on.http://www.icons.org.uk/theicons/collection/spitfire/features/the-merlin-engine will not load for me.
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I will look at them and replace them with reliable sources if they don't quote their sources, I should note that I did not add any of those links, preferring to use books instead. Can you clarify the point about publishers and link titles? The 'icons.org' link just opened for me. Will take a little time to do this and I am working for the next three days. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What you have is something like this:[http://randomurl.example.html PUblisher - Title of Link] (date retrieved) when what you want is [http://randomurl.example.html Title of Link] Publisher (date retrieved), with the name of the publisher outside the external link. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I was worried that this applied to the book cites, I suspect that I will be replacing most if not all of the web links with book references. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have replaced 'fathom.com' with a book cite, I have removed the 'spitfiresite.com' link and the text that it was supporting as it wasn't mentioned there, I removed this text previously as there is no mention of this engine testing programme from other book sources that I would expect to see it in. It can be re-inserted if someone finds a reliable source.'Icons.org' is a UK Government sponsored site as part of the Department of Culture and is staffed by journalists and academics. The section of 'unlimited excitement.com' used quotes Graham White, "Allied Piston Engines of World War II", 1995 Society of Automotive Engineers as the reference source, I don't possess this book but I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. Will look at the others in due course. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Undent) I have moved the Lovesey pdf lecture to the external links section, it had a permission of 'courtesy of Harry Phil' (may have the surname wrong there) but I can not clarify beyond that. To replace this reference I have cited the original journal that it featured in. The lecture is available to purchase online at a cost of £13. Clicking on the blue date links at http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html reveals scanned copies of the original test reports which being UK government documents are in the public domain after 50 years (to the best of my knowledge). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.spitfireart.com/merlin_engines.html lists 12 reference books at the bottom of the page, several are the same books that I am using (Lumsden, Gunston, Pugh), I can replace these cites with the author, year and page numbers in a conventional cite style if that is desired. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have removed http://www.spitfiresociety.demon.co.uk/engines.htm as it shows no sources on that page at least, also removed the text that it was supporting as I can not find that in my references, again this can be re-inserted if it is found in a book. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.spitfireperformance.com is similar to 'wwiiaircraftperformance.org' and shows a scanned part copy of the original unclassified test document and appears to have copied the document out in HTML format verbatim. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.spitfireart.com/merlin_engines.html has been replaced with Jane's book cites, specification figures adjusted to match the different Merlin variant described. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.spitfireperformance.com has been replaced with a book cite from Price where the same report is given. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 08:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Lovesey PDF has now been removed from the external links section (per WP:EL) as the permission can not be readily ascertained. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- References using http://www.unlimitedexcitement.com/Pride%20of%20Pay%20n%20Pak/Rolls-Royce%20Merlin%20V-1650%20Engine.htm have been removed as surplus, the section is covered by a single Jane's cite given at the first line. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the paragraph supported by the questioned source http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html. I personally believe this source to be valid due to the original documents being shown. All of the questioned web reference sources have now either been removed from the article or replaced with book cites. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 19:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewer notified of unstruck questioned sources [2] as suggested in the FAC process instructions. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Article has quality writing and is well cited. Issues brought up above appear to have been addressed. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It looks ready to me. Let's move forward on this. - Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is quite a lot of text in the "Prototype engines" and "Variants" without in-line citations and appears to be un-sourced. Surely, it would fail to attain FA status because of this alone. Snowman (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will have a look at this, was rather hoping not to add a cite after every line, will take a short while. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a blanket cite to Jane's at the top of "Variants", and another for the preceding text. --Red Sunset 20:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have cited all the prototypes now and added a tiny bit of extra information while I was there. I can cite all the variants if the Jane's blanket cite just added is not sufficient. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a blanket cite to Jane's at the top of "Variants", and another for the preceding text. --Red Sunset 20:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a number of other blocks of text scattered throughout the article where the verification is not clear. Snowman (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that it would be good practice to make sure all of the images are on commons. The image of the Vickers F.7/41 has a narrow border, which could be removed. I think that the caption "Merlin ejector exhaust detail" could be improved. Snowman (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Edit conflict)The images have been passed as ok above, it's non-free images or unsourced ones that can cause problems is it not? I cropped the border of the Vickers image very slightly, had not noticed that before. On the exhaust caption I kept it short originally to stop it displacing the section header below, although I think text has been added in since, I could lengthen it but unfortunately I can't remember what mark of Spitfire it was! I do know that it was taken at Duxford, could add that. On the variants referencing Jane's covers very comprehensively the variants up to the Mk 266, it stops there as it was originally written in 1945. Lumsden covers all the marks up to the Mk 724 and includes the Packard V-1650-1 to 25. For the earlier marks Jane's is possibly the better reference as it gives the weight and power output of every mark. That section could be shortened as we split off a big list and duplicated table to List of Rolls-Royce Merlin variants, similarly the Packard V-1650 article was created from the Merlin article, it really was very long before the splits happened. Will have a look at the 'stray blocks.' Thanks for your input, much appreciated. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found two paragraphs without cites, have now added them. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could it be the 'Grace Spitfire' based at Duxford – originally a Mk. IX? --Red Sunset 22:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I would have noticed the second seat! I don't think it is MH434 either. Just a note that I will be only be able to pop in for the next three days in the evening (GMT) so apologies if there is no immediate response. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could it be the 'Grace Spitfire' based at Duxford – originally a Mk. IX? --Red Sunset 22:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found two paragraphs without cites, have now added them. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the image check above was for obvious copyright problems only. My comment about the images is regards different aspects to that mentioned above. Commons is an ideal place to store images. To reflect the best of the wiki and good practice I think that images should be transferred to commons - that may not be a FA criteria, but I think that it would help to give a good impression. I think that you are going to need every point you can get to reach FA status. One of the images still has a narrow border and is inconsistent with the other images that do not have borders. Snowman (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded the exhaust caption now that I have identified the aircraft from my original uncropped version. I checked all the images for borders just now and can't see any, have you purged since I edited the Vickers one? If it is a different image please let me know which one it is and I will fix it (my eyes are not what they were!). Really got to go as I have to be up early for work in the morning, cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a bit of mouse clicking and the narrow border has gone now. Snowman (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All images now on Commons. --Red Sunset 18:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Marvellous, thankyou. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just spent 20 mins or more tidying up the images - putting the aircraft image in a category on commons, tagging the old image on en wiki for deletion, uploading the original image to commons and tagging it with "original", tagging the modified image with "retouched". I think that makes the images easier to find and people can also refer back to the original. Snowman (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Marvellous, thankyou. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All images now on Commons. --Red Sunset 18:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a bit of mouse clicking and the narrow border has gone now. Snowman (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded the exhaust caption now that I have identified the aircraft from my original uncropped version. I checked all the images for borders just now and can't see any, have you purged since I edited the Vickers one? If it is a different image please let me know which one it is and I will fix it (my eyes are not what they were!). Really got to go as I have to be up early for work in the morning, cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an omission that there is not a photograph of a Spitfire? Snowman (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any photographs of the factories to add some more variety to the images? Snowman (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure, but they might help if anyone can provide suitable ones. --Red Sunset 22:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there are! I did not think to look in the Rolls-Royce category, I have added two images from Commons, editing the factory photo to remove an intrusive lamp post. With information from that photo I managed to refine the factory location wikilink. They compliment the text nicely. The location of the production line image is unknown unfortunately. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure, but they might help if anyone can provide suitable ones. --Red Sunset 22:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Introduction: I think that the introduction is very difficult to read. I am not even sure what the main topics of the paragraphs are - it looks like content had been added randomly. The introduction is often the last thing to put right, so there is no hurry. Having looked at the source website, I was not sure about the bit about being considered <by who> a British icon, so I have deleted that bit - it does not appear anywhere else in the article anyway. I have reordered parts of the introduction, but parts of it still need to put in plain English, and more key facts probably need to be added. Snowman (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think to understand the Merlin, its wartime importance must be mentioned with reference to enemy aircraft, engines, and perhaps rockets. The article seems to be about bits of metal mainly of interest to mechanics. I am sure the main editors will know what to add. Snowman (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above two comments will be taken into consideration, but note that the iconic status of the Merlin is mentioned in the Survivors section. --Red Sunset 22:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The content of the four paragraph lead (as it was) had been carefully considered by many editors over a long period, the article talk page and revision history would indicate the care and thought that had gone in to it's 'moulding', it was in effect the 'consensus' version that everyone was happy with. I personally believed that it summarised the content of the article well without going into excessive detail. The lead is still being edited today, a product of a Wiki where everyone has a slightly different view of what words exactly should be in there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not talking about a slightly different wording, I said that I thought the the introduction was difficult to read and that it looked like content had been added randomly in places. I note that the introduction is being improved and I know how difficult it is to write introductions. Snowman (talk) 12:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The content of the four paragraph lead (as it was) had been carefully considered by many editors over a long period, the article talk page and revision history would indicate the care and thought that had gone in to it's 'moulding', it was in effect the 'consensus' version that everyone was happy with. I personally believed that it summarised the content of the article well without going into excessive detail. The lead is still being edited today, a product of a Wiki where everyone has a slightly different view of what words exactly should be in there. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a guideline at Wikipedia:AETF#Images where it is recommended that images of rarer aircraft types are included in the 'Applications' section, I believe this makes an aircraft engine article more interesting and balanced, an image of a Spitfire could be included, where best to place it I don't know. I agree that an image or images of the factories would be welcome to break up the text, that section was written quite recently, unfortunately so far I have not found any Commons images to use there yet. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am afraid that most aircraft engine articles are just about 'bits of metal mainly of interest to mechanics' (I would add 'enthusiasts'), how to describe a particular engine's 'operational history' is difficult and is probably why it is avoided in engine reference sources beyond reports of reliability and performance, leaving that aspect for historians who cover the parent aircraft type. It could be stated that 'the Merlin won the Battle of Britain' for instance but clearly referencing a statement like that is very difficult and would be prone to questioning. At times major edit warring has broken out in the Supermarine Spitfire and Messerschmitt Bf 109 articles, this unfortunately overspilled in to the 'Fuel' section of the Merlin article and, more recently, the supercharger article. One of the Good Article criteria is 'does the article remain focussed on the topic?', I believe that this article does. In other words I am personally reluctant to add lengthy accounts of wartime operations here although other editors remain free of course to do so if they wish. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not indicate "lengthy accounts of wartime operations", but I think that its place in history should be mentioned with reference to other manufacturers' engines. One FA criteria is that the subject should be fully covered. I also think that earlier engines, later engines and early jet engines, should also be briefly mentioned to outline the Merlins place in history. I do not see why historians views of the engine should not be included; in fact, I think that it is an omission that these sort of holistic viewpoints are not included. Snowman (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as British engines are concerned they were few competitors to the Rolls-Royce V-12 range, the Fairey Prince (V-12) project (three built) was actively discouraged by the government of the day, the Merlin's closest earlier relative, the Rolls-Royce Kestrel, is mentioned. The nearest equivalent German engines were the Daimler-Benz DB 600 series, the Daimler-Benz DB 601 is listed with four other comparable engines of different nationalities in the 'See also' section for readers to visit. I would include historian's views of the Merlin if references could be found for them, the book Sigh for a Merlin by Alex Henshaw (listed in the 'Further reading' section) is one that I don't possess yet and may contain extra information although I believe that it is limited to his experiences of test flying brand new Spitfires in England. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and comment as a know-nothing on this topic, I found this interesting and well written. Three queries
- In origins, "Merlin C and E engines" Why are the letters italicised
- Although I would not go as far as Snowman, I did wonder what superseded this engine?
- In the lead "most numerous" reads slightly oddly, but factually and grammatically correct, so it's probably just me
- Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for the positive comments and taking time to read through the article, I see the formatting point and the 'most numerous' wording in the lead has been adjusted for the better. The immediate successor to the Merlin was the larger capacity Rolls-Royce Griffon mentioned in the last paragraphs of the lead and the 'Origin' section. As a 1930s design it is not mentioned in references that the Merlin was replaced by the jet engine, several other late WW II engine designs and projects were cancelled or production curtailed due to the advent of jet power, the unflown Rolls-Royce Crecy definitely being one of them. The Merlin was not, it appears, in the 3,000 horsepower plus piston engine class that the jet engine effectively took over from. The end of large scale Merlin production is more related to the end of the war with 'new crankshafts being thrown out of the window for scrap the day after the Japanese surrender' according to the author Alec Lumsden. Thanks again. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Article has quality writing and is well cited. The intro reads well and is nicely rounded off. I'm not an engines buff but this article held my interest. --TraceyR (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2009 (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 Karanacs 19:52, 6 October 2009 [3].
Drapier's Letters
- Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) and Ottava Rima (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it's up to the required level. This is a co-nomination between me and User:Ottava Rima; we've been discussing and working on proposed changes in the background for quite a while, and now that we've implemented them we feel it's time for FAC. Ironholds (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added my name to the nom to confirm. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Most of the images are text-only; WP:ALT#Text provides particular suggestions for that case. WP:ALT#Portraits can be consulted for the portrait. Eubulides (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do. I forgot about that somehow. Haha. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added alts - unfortunately, they are quite long as per what was required on the page you linked. Hopefully, no one will mind. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that was quick work. I tweaked it a bit for brevity but couldn't resist transcribing the Horace. The alt text could be made somewhat briefer still and nobody would mind, but like Pascal we lack the time. Eubulides (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I left Horace out simply because it is translated in the caption. However, I don't know how to deal with such situations to be honest. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that was quick work. I tweaked it a bit for brevity but couldn't resist transcribing the Horace. The alt text could be made somewhat briefer still and nobody would mind, but like Pascal we lack the time. Eubulides (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Source comments: All fine. RB88 (T) 01:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs and links: http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py?page=Drapier%27s_Letters One case needs disambiguating. All fine. RB88 (T) 01:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments:
They may be too many citations in the lead. If indeed the material is also covered in the text, then the citations in the lead can safely be removed. If not, then some of the material may need to moved into the text and the lead possibly rewritten slightly.- From the readers point of view (and mine), this "Even Swift's satire of Wood's character was based on actual evidence and added very little to what Wood provided the public through his words and actions." is cited to Treadwell p. 76–91. That's 15 pages. Could you give an explanation? (If the citation covers other preceding material, too, then add more citations to Treadwell as appropriate, preferably to specific pages).
This "The Drapier does not directly attack Isaac Newton's assay of Wood's coin, but instead attacks the process behind the assay and the witnesses who testified before the Privy Council. In his criticism of the Privy Council's report, the Drapier claims that the report is part of Wood's propaganda and lies, because Wood released three proposals concurrent with the report: lowering the patent production quota from £100,800 to £40,000 worth; that no one is obliged to accept more than five pence halfpenny per transaction; and to sell the coin at 2s 1 d a pound or his raw copper at 1s 8d a pound." is cited to Ehrenpreis p 226;229-230;249-250. The three citations have to be separated and put in their respective sentences to improve reader scholarship because, as it stands, the ref is a bit clunky and confusing.
RB88 (T) 01:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The citations in the lead are duplicates of citations and passages in the body. However, the comments are -controversial- (as this is a pro-Ireland, anti-England subject), even if duplicated, and thus require a reuse of the citations.
- "Could you give an explanation?" - it is a summary of what Treadwell points out, as Treadwell goes step by step and lays out examples. For the second section, it cannot be broken down, as Ehrenpreis builds the argument over those pages. You would have parts from page 229 before 226, or things in 250 before 230, etc. It would make it even more complicated plus condensing of references when it is the same author and the citations are back to back is standard practice, so the numbers would need to be united. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review by NuclearWarfare (Support criterion 3)
- Because File:377px-Swift-works.JPG is a derivative work of File:Swift works.png, the latter needs to be all nice and shiny too. Unfortunately, it needs a source. Can you contact Geogre and see if he can remember where he got that image from?
- ✓ Done
- Please check if I got the source for File:Drapiers Letter 5.JPG correct, and fill in the date. Also, please add which edition you scanned it from, if you can remember, though that isn't such a big deal.
- ✓ Done
- File:SwiftLetterPeopleIreland.png looks good.
- File:SwiftLetterObservations.png looks good.
- File:SwiftLetterHarding.png looks good.
- File:Jervas-JonathanSwift.jpg looks good.
- Because File:377px-Swift-works.JPG is a derivative work of File:Swift works.png, the latter needs to be all nice and shiny too. Unfortunately, it needs a source. Can you contact Geogre and see if he can remember where he got that image from?
- Regards, NW (Talk) 03:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support, 1a. Although I haven't scoured it completely, it looks pretty well written. Bit overlinked (coin? English? Patent ... English-speakers supposed to know it means a monopoly). Lower down, "papal"? There is a section of the article on "Pope" that is more focused, is there? Same with "copyright"—surely there's a more focused, relevant target than the top of that article). The hated "in order to" (hated by Tony1).
- "These coins would take away valuable silver coins from the Irish economy"—Unsure what "take away" means in this context. Dilute the value/status of?
- "analyzed"—US and Canada only. S required for BrEng.
- I guess an idea of what a vast fortune 108 thousand pounds was in those days is hard to convey neatly and accurately. And indeed a bribe of 10 thousand. Tony (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear, Ironholds missed analyzed. :D The Queen wont be happy! Okay, for "papal" - are you saying that you want a better link than Pope? Because papal merely means the Pope's influence (i.e. his name is "il papa", so the adjective of papa is papal). Or are you saying that you want papal influence to be linked with some kind of historical page? If you could find a page devoted to post Reformation British fears of Catholic take over, I could link that (and if there isn't one, there probably -should- be one). Take away literally means the coins would be taken out of Ireland, stripping them of any hard currency. Ireland would have money -leave- Ireland without having any come in. I don't know the economics term for such a thing, but it does destroy economies (and creates massive deflation in a way similar to a loss of credit). I'll put a money converter for those figures. £14,697,000 and £1,360,800 respectively (or, about 26 million and 2 million). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed some of the "in order to" but I wont remove the one from Swift. :P The first one is necessary to express a cause and effect that would be lost (if you can think of another way to accomplish it, that would help). I changed the link to copyright to Statute of Anne (the specific copyright law). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (e.c.) "Papal"—it's a normal English word; I'm just searching for a better reason to link it. English-speakers are supposed to know what it means, and this is not Wiktionary. At a pinch, this section-link might suffice (it's not my field, though—better for your expertise to be the judge). OR History_of_the_Papacy#Reformation? Or better still Catholic_Church_in_England#Tudor_era? Sorry, I'm being lazy about the exact period. My point is that we can and should direct readers towards a much more specific part of WP than merely a definition (which they should know or look up in their dictionary).
- I raised the currency conversion issue knowing that it's a vexed one for historians. WP:MOSNUM#Currencies says a few interesting things. You could provide an "approx." equivalent or be safer and say something like "a vast amount of money at the time". Unsure.
- Would "removed from circulation" be acceptable for "taken away"? Tony (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Queries I've made a few small tweaks, but wonder if you could check your sources about:
"The first three pamphlets were written as a set intended to conclude the matter. However, when Lord Carteret was sent to control Ireland and placed a bounty on the Drapier's head, Swift felt that a fifth pamphlet was necessary." So what happened to the fourth?- "Regardless of how secret Swift may have wanted his identity to be, it is certain that most people in Ireland, including members of the Irish Privy Council, knew that Swift was the author of the letters." Most people in Ireland is a petty big claim, especially in an era before radio and television. Would you mind checking your sources, is there any chance that this was referring to the opinion formers and the intelligentsia such as the limited number of people who could vote, or the people likely to have read a pamphlet with a circulation of 2,000?
" Wood is the giant invader who wears his brass coin as armor and Swift is just the small merchant who is not big enough to fill the king's armor" Would that have been Drapier not Swift?- "Although the language and examples employed by the Drapier to describe the possible economic harms were viewed as over the top," viewed by whom? ϢereSpielChequers 09:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the two typos (fifth instead of fourth, Swift instead of Drapier). There was more than just those that could read who heard about the Drapier and Swift's actions. Remember, this is a major constitutional issue for Ireland. Swift was a figure as wide known as Parnell. Most would only require 51%, and multiple sources verify it. As for the last query - "many critics and historians" follows that clause, and that is the subject of the sentence. The clause refers to them. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for fixing those two points. I don't see that phrase as clear as to whether his comments were regarded as over the top by his supporters at the time, neutrals at the time or "many critics and historians". But now that you've clarified what it should mean I will try to clarify the sentence. ϢereSpielChequers 11:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for checking your sources about most knowing Swift was the author. I still think that "It is certain that most people" is a bit strong especially when qualified by "including members of the Irish Privy Council" (we don't exactly have MORI in that era). What do you think about "Regardless of how secret Swift may have wanted his identity to be, it became an open secret in Ireland, with even members of the Irish Privy Council knowing that Swift was the author of the letters." ϢereSpielChequers 12:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for fixing those two points. I don't see that phrase as clear as to whether his comments were regarded as over the top by his supporters at the time, neutrals at the time or "many critics and historians". But now that you've clarified what it should mean I will try to clarify the sentence. ϢereSpielChequers 11:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Decline: Footnote two is unverifiable as it lacks information about the location of the evidence for the claim within the work. "^ Coxe" is the footnote.[reply]Minor nitpick: "^ Dublin Journal 3 December 1726" is not in common style. Also, it lacks location information. I know regarding 18th century newspapers, but you can always "¶beginning Birthday of Foo..."Poor formatting, double period, "Goodwin, A.. "Woods Halfpence". The English Historical Review LI (1936): pp. 647–674. doi:10.1093/ehr/LI.CCIV.647."Same, "Treadwell, J.M.. "Swift, William Wood, and the Factual Basis of Satire". Journal of British Studies 15.2 (1976): pp. 76–91.."Same, "Weedon, Margaret. "An Uncancelled Copy of the First Collected Edition of Swift's Poems". The Library 5.XXII (1967): pp. 44–48.."Maybe your citation template is acting up on periods? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. That second citation lacked the numbers but the inline citations for the actual text has the numbers later. This was added back in to the first position. 2. The citation was a stray citation and was moved there. I removed it, as the passage is to Ehrenpreis. 3. Fixed. 4. Fixed. 5. Fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – overall a nice article about an interesting topic. A few quibbles:
"Patent" is used in an uncommon sense, as nowadays patent implies an invention. Suggest changing repetition of patent to monopoly, thus "William Wood was granted a patent to mint the coin, and Swift saw the licensing of this monopoly as corrupt." and in the Backgound section "In 1722, hardware manufacturer William Wood was granted a patent to produce copper coinage of up to £108,000 (approximately £14,697,000 as of 2009) for use in Ireland.[8] This monopoly was secured by a bribe of £10,000". Note the piped links are to Letters patent which seems appropriate.- Throughout the article there are references to the English government and the English Parliament. Much as I like to blame the English for any nastiness, the period is after the Acts of Union 1707 and so it should be the Parliament of Great Britain, and hence the British government. Dominated by the German king and the English nobles, but nominally British. Similarly, in the To Mr Harding section, "the English Privy Council" is presumably incorrect, safer to follow Swift's later usage and call it "the Privy-Council in England".
In Background, "These coins would remove from circulation valuable silver coins from the Irish economy, and since the new copper coins would not be minted under Irish authority, there was no way for the Irish to control the quality and amount." is a bit of a guddle. Suggest "These coins would remove valuable silver coins from circulation in the Irish economy, and since the new copper coins would not be minted under Irish authority, there was no way for the Irish to control the quality and amount."Also, "Wood's coin was only one aspect of "an unfavorable balance of trade" that hurt Ireland;[11]" is presumably quoting Moore p. 66 directly, and introducing US spelling into a European English article. (note care to avoid saying the Irish are English! :) Why not just omit the quotes and call it unfavourable? The same reference is also cited for the preceding sentence, so that earlier inline cite is superfluous.Pamphleteering – "a religious devout individual who believes in scripture" seems wrong, should be "a religiously devout individual who believes in scripture" or "a devout religious individual who believes in scripture" in my opinion.Pamphleteering – "meant as an important aspect to the Drapier's identity" should in my view read "meant as an important aspect of the Drapier's identity".Pamphleteering – "four more pamphlets, filled with invectives and complaints" should I think be "four more pamphlets, filled with invective and complaints".To the Shop-keepers – "Tenant farmers would no longer be able to pay their landlords, and , after the tenants are removed, there will be fewer crops grown in Ireland; the increase of poverty and the decrease of food supply would completely ruin Ireland's economy." – shouldn't that be past tense throughout?To the Shop-keepers – "The Drapier makes sure to use Wood as the primary target" seems awkward, it might be better as "The Drapier is careful to use Wood as the primary target" or "The Drapier makes sure that Wood appears to be the primary target".[surplus "to" removed by me as minor edit]10. To Mr Harding – "Wood's choice of wording, that the Irish he would be "obliged" to accept the coin" presumably has a surplus he, also "the king is unable to constitutionally force any money to be accepted by his people except that made of gold or silver." might read better as "the king is unable to constitutionally force his people to accept any money that is not made of gold or silver."To the Nobility and Gentry – "This document was released by Walpole as a defense of Wood's coin; the report argues that the coin was important to the people of Ireland." mixes tenses, "argued" would be more consistent. "Wood is the giant invader who wears his brass coin as armor and the Drapier is just the small merchant who is not big enough to fill the king's armor." should be armour.To the Whole People of Ireland – "£300 were offered as a reward for the identity of the Drapier." is technically correct but looks awkward, I'd have been inclined to say £300 was offered, or perhaps a reward of £300 was offered.- Hope these suggestions help, dave souza, talk 08:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironholds is the law expert so he can deal with the first one and the second one. 3. Changed (added "and gold" after silver). 4. I reworded to "Also, Wood's coin was only one example of unfavourable economic practices that hurt Ireland". 5. Fixed. 6. Fixed. 7. I don't know if "invective" is a natural plural but I made the change anyway. 8. It should be seen more as a hypothetical than as any specific tense, but I think I made changes to fix it. 9. Fixed. 10. I reworded the sentence and the next. 11. Changed. 12. Fixed. I'm thinking that all of the present tense used in the article about the letters might need to be changed over in order to avoid future inconsistencies with tense. It is frustrating to have to deal with documents in present tense but historical events in past. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, will see whether Ironholds agrees with the legalities of the first two points, though of course there was (and is) a common practice of saying "England" when "Britain" is intended.
- 10. as reworded looks a bit better to me, but "As the Drapier points out, the constitution establishing Ireland as a kingdom limits the authority of the monarch because it forces the people of Ireland to use only gold or silver coins as official currency" seems to imply the king can force the people to not use coppers. Suggest "As the Drapier points out, the constitution establishing Ireland as a kingdom only gave the monarch authority to establish gold or silver coins as official currency, and did not give him powers to set copper coinage." Legal tender may be worth linking from official currency, if applicable: best check that with Ironholds. (aside: the banknotes in my wallet aren't legal tender, but as Royal Bank of Scotland and Clydesdale Bank notes they're much nicer designs than the Bank of England notes, and in practice work just as well)
- Agree that the tenses get tricky when describing documents, we had some issues with that on The Origin – think it's looking better now. . dave souza, talk 15:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "seems to imply the king can force the people to not use coppers" My reading of the sources seems to verify that implication, but I don't know about the actual law and I could be misreading sources. I asked Ironholds to hurry up and make an appearance here and I will differ all knowledge on the constitutionality to him, as he is an expert on British law. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironholds is the law expert so he can deal with the first one and the second one. 3. Changed (added "and gold" after silver). 4. I reworded to "Also, Wood's coin was only one example of unfavourable economic practices that hurt Ireland". 5. Fixed. 6. Fixed. 7. I don't know if "invective" is a natural plural but I made the change anyway. 8. It should be seen more as a hypothetical than as any specific tense, but I think I made changes to fix it. 9. Fixed. 10. I reworded the sentence and the next. 11. Changed. 12. Fixed. I'm thinking that all of the present tense used in the article about the letters might need to be changed over in order to avoid future inconsistencies with tense. It is frustrating to have to deal with documents in present tense but historical events in past. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In regards to the Privy Council - English is commonly used (to distinguish between the Council and other, albeit abolished bodies, such as the Scottish Privy Council) but British would be best in this situation. There was "England" and "Scotland" prior to 1707, but since those two bodies were then unified "British" is technically correct. Alternately we could use the official "Her Majesty's Most Honourable..." but that'd just confuse people. To summarise; "English" is sometimes used, but "British" would be the closest to a correct term that doesn't confuse people. I appreciate this statement may have confused people; in my defence I just had a financial services law lecture. Ironholds (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed. This raises an additional problem - Parliament. British or English? Technically British, so I've changed it to British, but it occurs to me that this might confuse people when you have "the English did this, the British Parliament did that". Do we change all instances of English to British? Ironholds (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume we are going to have to. I blame the Scots. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed. This raises an additional problem - Parliament. British or English? Technically British, so I've changed it to British, but it occurs to me that this might confuse people when you have "the English did this, the British Parliament did that". Do we change all instances of English to British? Ironholds (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking this on board, Damien Scheme or no. I'd be inclined to follow the sources: Scots and Welsh were probably not noted as involved so much in the opression of the Irish of that time, and it's likely that complaints were against the English as being the main group in charge. So yes, I'd think it best to keep official bodies correct, but we could be more relaxed where sources refer to English people. Even people who are unaware of these nuances are unlikely to notice that as being anything amiss, as British and English are rather often used interchangeably. . .dave souza, talk 19:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Without checking right through, the lead has "...prompting from the English government... Many Irish people recognized Swift as a hero for his defiance of English control over the Irish nation." Thought you'd want to review how that looks with British government, and of course I don't have the source for the second statement to hand. Have you any thoughts about patents really being letters patent giving a monopoly, as my first point? . dave souza, talk 20:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and made more changes of English to British along with put "letters patent" in two places (beginning of lead and beginning of background). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also just realized that there was an extra "he" that you pointed out above. I removed that. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, you've acted to meet my concerns, even if the poor old Brits are getting most of the blame now! Don't know if others will want to review these changes, but that's sufficient for me. Couple of points for you to ponder: I'm uncomfortable about "British copyright law" as I've been brought up to think of English law and Scots law being separate but related systems, as shown in British law. However, there is clearly British (and subsequently UK) legislation, so it may well be valid to call it "British copyright law". As someone used to dealing with contract and acting under legislation rather than a lawyer, it's beyond my expertise. Also, not sure if the term is singular or plural, it seems a bit odd saying "a letters patent" but as far as I can tell it's correct. Thanks again for tackling this and checking for ones I'd missed. . . dave souza, talk 21:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a law student, so I can handle this stuff :). Letters patent is the correct term. In regards to "British law", many areas of law are "British" - company law, for example. Most statutes in such areas cover the entirety of the UK. What distinguishes Scots and English law in such situations is the interpretation by judges of the statutes. Because of that there is both "British" copyright law and "English" or "Scots" copyright law. In the context of Motte v. Faulkner it is "English copyright law", since it's an English interpretation of a statute, but if we're just talking about the Statute of Anne it's British. This could be easily resolved if we just used "Statute of Anne" instead of "British copyright law" - thoughts? Incidentally Motte v. Faulkner needs to drop the . - I'm editing that out now. Ironholds (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that educational and informative clarification, I was conscious of there being a complex situation but am not knowledgeable enough to advise. I did consider ""British copyright legislation" but leave the decision in your capable hands. Much appreciated, dave souza, talk 22:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a law student, so I can handle this stuff :). Letters patent is the correct term. In regards to "British law", many areas of law are "British" - company law, for example. Most statutes in such areas cover the entirety of the UK. What distinguishes Scots and English law in such situations is the interpretation by judges of the statutes. Because of that there is both "British" copyright law and "English" or "Scots" copyright law. In the context of Motte v. Faulkner it is "English copyright law", since it's an English interpretation of a statute, but if we're just talking about the Statute of Anne it's British. This could be easily resolved if we just used "Statute of Anne" instead of "British copyright law" - thoughts? Incidentally Motte v. Faulkner needs to drop the . - I'm editing that out now. Ironholds (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as above, dave souza, talk 21:18, 5 October 2009 (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 Karanacs 19:52, 6 October 2009 [4].
Bramall Hall
I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. Majorly talk 00:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Alt text is done. Alt text is present (thanks)
, except that the two images in the lead infobox need alt text (use. Eubulides (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]|alt=
and|map_alt=
)
-
- Thanks. The lead image looks good now.
Could you please modify the alt text for the map so that it describes where Bramhall Hall is within Manchester, and where Manchester is within England? That's the gist of the map. Details like "red circle" should be omitted as they're not important. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for details.Eubulides (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. The lead image looks good now.
- Comment I've moved some text around in the lead, so as to assert its importance earlier. Nevertheless, I feel that the lead could be developed further per WP:LEAD. It currently stands at one and a quarter paragraphs, with some very important details omitted, such as its mention in the Domesday Book. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I believe the lead is much better now. Having read more on this fascinating subject, it's obvious that the Davenport family history is deeply tied to the estate's. From the absence of any links to individual Davenport or family, I assume no article about them has been written so far. I feel some of the fine detail which would be better spun off to an article about this clearly notable family, as I fail to see a demonstrable direct connection between some of the given facts and the property. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on sourcing. I was asked to look at the page in order to help with some aspects. In doing so, I checked various sources and looked into the sourcing for various components of the page. I found no problems and I feel that the sources I was able to check were done well. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A well written and comprehensive account of this manor house and the families who lived in it. I actually failed this at GAN some time ago, so it's great to see how it's come on since then. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Images:
- File:Bramall Hall 3.jpg lacks verified author info (especially since it was originally uploaded with C Hoyle, which one can assume might be the actual photographer.) Same issue with File:Bramall Hall 2.jpg, File:Bramall Hall lakes.jpg.
- C. Hoyle is the photographer and originally uploaded it. There is no reason to doubt they are the creator of these images. Majorly talk 15:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It needs to be made expressly clear than. The image descriptions are junk. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Davenport.gif has the wrong license if the dates of the artist's death are not known. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No idea what an appropriate license is for this image published in 1851, if pd-old isn't right. Majorly talk 15:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We need sources and death dates for the artists if you want to assert that it's public domain because they've been dead more than 70 years. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the license is appropriate, you just want extra things. Please be clearer next time. I'll see if I can fish out a source for the author's death (though I doubt I'll be able to find one). Otherwise this clearly public domain image (published in 1851) will have to go. Majorly talk 21:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:William Davenport.JPG and File:Dorothy Davenport.JPG; same issue as above
- File:Salusbury Davenport.JPG, File:Bramall withdrawing room.jpg, File:Bramall 2.jpg, File:Bramall 19c.JPG, File:Bramall banqueting room.jpg also same issue
- File:Bramall Hall.jpg need a verifiable way to prove author is copyright holder; at very least some sort of tangible contact info, etc.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - subject to resolving the image licensing issues. A beautifully written article. Is this doubling of name intended, "Her eldest son, William Davenport Davenport"? Graham Colm Talk 15:58, 4 October 2009 (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 Karanacs 19:52, 6 October 2009 [5].
Sydney Riot of 1879
- Nominator(s): –Moondyne, User:YellowMonkey 13:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: WP:FFA, has already been on main page
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all of the criteria and provides a thorough treatment of an interesting event. The article was a former FA and a TFA in February 2006. It was delisted mostly on concerns of inadequate citations. Since then has been expanded and thoroughly referenced, with particular assistance from YellowMonkey. –Moondyne 13:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's something odd with the FA archives - this may be the problem. Grateful if an admin can fix. –Moondyne 14:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It reads well and the prose is good. The image alt-texts are problematic, though. They all just rephrase the captions. As per WP:ALT, an image's alt-text should describe the visual dimension of the image and nothing more. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very interesting! I decided to read it because of the title and was ready to be disappointed when I found out it was about cricket, but it managed to keep my historical interest! Some random comments:
Could we not repeat "riot" in the first sentence?
There are a couple of one or two line paragraphs that are not real paragraphs; there need to be three or more sentences. These little orphan ones should be merged or fleshed out.
I'm not sure the entire text in the reaction sections of everyone's letter is necessary, especially since they are so long. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was half-expecting a comment about the letters. Their inclusion was discussed several times at the previous reviews and opinions were mixed. My view is the two letters in their entirety are important for context. They are the story of the backlash and a description or excerpts or paraphrasing just doesn't seem to work. If a reader wants to skip the indented letters they easily can. –Moondyne 00:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I defer to your judgement, then. It's all public domain so there's no real issue aside from taste as far as I know. Martin Raybourne (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It already has been pruned YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I defer to your judgement, then. It's all public domain so there's no real issue aside from taste as far as I know. Martin Raybourne (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was half-expecting a comment about the letters. Their inclusion was discussed several times at the previous reviews and opinions were mixed. My view is the two letters in their entirety are important for context. They are the story of the backlash and a description or excerpts or paraphrasing just doesn't seem to work. If a reader wants to skip the indented letters they easily can. –Moondyne 00:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nice read, I made a few tweaks, hope you like them - if not its a wiki. A couple of questions "including many XVIIIs" - what were they?,
"They put on 125 for the first wicket before Spofforth bowled Lucas for 51 and Hornby soon after for 67." - thats 118. I suppose there could have been 7 or more wides but that seems a tad high - can you check or were things different then?PS I think that including the letters works well. ϢereSpielChequers 08:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your contributions and your comments. Cashman (1990) p.107: "So from 13 May until 1 September [1880] the Australians played only five games against first-class opposition and another twenty-five against lesser opposition, against XVIIIs." List of Australia in England matches (1880), plus two in Ireland in June and two more in Scotland in late September. Any more detail is too obscure to be included in the prose, but I will add these links as references. –Moondyne 07:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The match record does confirm those numbers, and that extras were b 14, lb 3, nb 2 at the end of the innings, so it is quite feasible that there were 7 (or more) extras when the 1st wicket fell (118/248=47%; 7/19=36%). I'm certain I've read a contemporary newspaper account of the innings which discussed extras, but have lost the details. That's going to bug me now :( –Moondyne 07:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the number is referenced directly from the archival pages and, also Hornby fell a bit after so the No 3 batsman would have come in and could have added a few runs before Hornby fell YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - What a magnificent way to use wiki source. 10:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Decline concern at the slab quotes (if it makes me feel TL;DR, and is more than a screen length, its a concern). Paraphrase in prose while cutting length, only use the most pertinent and telling sections of the letters as quotes.Fifelfoo (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no requirement in the FA criteria for locations to be listed for references. While it's always nice to have locations, it is not a requirement for FA. Opposing an article solely for that lack is unactionable. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you link and quote that? Location is an essential element of source verification, particularly where publishing houses publish UK and US editions in the same year under the same house, which may have different paginations, and demanded by most style guides in the Humanities and Social Sciences. Given that this is a Sports History / Social History FAC, and the standards of history are highly demanding as regards quality citations, including location. Location is also remarkably easy to fix, easier than fixing missing or incorrect alts. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that neither WP:V nor WP:CITE make any requirement that any citation system is required. Note at the top of WP:CITE, that the example given is lacking a location. You'll also note that the FA criteria don't prescribe any particular citation style, so editors are free to chose a style they are comfortable with, as long as its consistent. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment very nice article, and (knowing very little about Cricket and Australian history) an interesting piece of history. I found the use of "Victorian" in the lede a little jarring - it might be common usage in Australia for someone from Victoria, but it sounds to me like it's referring to someone from the Victorian era!
Also the blockquote letters seemed far too long. I understand they are in the public domain, and they are great historical documents, but perhaps a paraphrase and a link to a copy somewhere else would be more suited to an encyclopaedia.Davémon (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments –
- Images desperately need a check. Several are of the "life of the author plus xx years" variety, but there is no proof of when the author died in these cases. It may be possible for these to be public domain in another way; I'm more familiar with U.S. requirements than those of the U.K. or Australia.
- Completely agree with a couple of the other reviewers on the blockquotes. Brief quotations from them would be great, but re-printing the entire letters is just too much.
- Background: "while promoters sought the best cricketers, they still had to agree terms with them." Should it be "agree to terms", or is the original how you would say it with British English?
- Space needed after reference 9. I'm reasonably sure the Manual of Style calls for references inside dashes for situations like this. Why references should be inside dashes, and not other forms of punctuation. I will never know.
- "Despite the presence of two professionals in the team, the team...". See the close repetition here? I'm guessing this would be "they" at the end.
- "Cheating was a regular occurance in 19th Australian cricket". Missing a word.
- "illegal bowling actions
in orderto use physical intimidation as a means of negating opposition batsmen." Little wordiness that's easy to remove and doesn't change the meaning. - "was prominent in his New South Wales pursuing a policy of condoning illegal bowling". I assume "his New South Wales" refers to Gregory's team? That was a shade confusing the first time I saw it.
- Match: "he was however yet to make his first-class cricketing debut." Don't like "was" here; check to see if "had" is any better. I also wonder if "however" could be moved up; although it's meant to provide contrast in this sentence, I felt that it got in the way somewhat.
- "At about 12.10pm in front of approximately 4,000 spectators". Manual of Style recommends colons for time, not periods. Not a big deal, but worth fixing up with these other suggestions. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wordy fixes done. Still looking into the erf/dash. Images and quote not done yet YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Letters removed per suggestions above. Paraphrasing may need some tweaks. –Moondyne 02:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanded a bit to show the contentious/testy parts of the exchange. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.
Ref 54 says both letters published in 1 April. NSWCA letter was written on 4 June.–Moondyne 02:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- YM fixed. It appears the NSWCA letter previously at WS was an abridged version only. Have expanded to full vesrion per NLA archive. –Moondyne 06:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Driver mug can be replaced with one on ADB, as date is known for sure for PD-Australia. Barton is fine. Coulthard is fine as he never left Australia so the painting must've been done in Aus. The rest, which appear to be taken in England, we don't know if the photographer died before 1939, in case they were 25 when the photos were taken and lived to 90, might have to be commented out. Unless an Australian one can be found for the Englishmen. 02:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for replacing the pic. Also added bit frome xpanded letter where they criticised Harris for encouraging the riot (in their opinion) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Driver mug can be replaced with one on ADB, as date is known for sure for PD-Australia. Barton is fine. Coulthard is fine as he never left Australia so the painting must've been done in Aus. The rest, which appear to be taken in England, we don't know if the photographer died before 1939, in case they were 25 when the photos were taken and lived to 90, might have to be commented out. Unless an Australian one can be found for the Englishmen. 02:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose on criterion 3File:Wg grace.jpg - This image needs to more information on the source. Either a link to the BBC website or specific information on which issue of Vanity Fair this was first published in.
File:GCoulthard.jpg - A little bit more work needs to be done to find information on this image. It looks like a cropped head from a painting or lithograph. We need to make an effort to find the original artwork. The facts about the person's life present on the image description page are not relevant to the copyright - only facts about the artwork are. Unfortunately, we don't know any of those yet. Currently, there is not enough information to support the license on the image description page.
Thanks for working on these! Awadewit (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although a central figure here, not a great deal is know about Mr. Coulthard except that he was probably more noatble as a footballer. (here's another pic) He died in 1883 aged just 27. As best we can tell he never left Australia—certainly he never left a record of having played cricket elsewhere. The picture appears to be of him in sporting gear, so its a safe bet that this is from a painting done in Australia. The image original source appears to be from the Wisden Group's Cricinfo website which states "Reproduced with permission from The Cricketer International", an monthly magazine (since 1921) now also within the Wisden group. There doesn't appear to be an image index for the magazine I can find. –Moondyne 01:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User:RossRSmith has solved the puzzle and informed that the Coulthard image comes from here. WP image page is updated accordingly. –Moondyne 12:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although a central figure here, not a great deal is know about Mr. Coulthard except that he was probably more noatble as a footballer. (here's another pic) He died in 1883 aged just 27. As best we can tell he never left Australia—certainly he never left a record of having played cricket elsewhere. The picture appears to be of him in sporting gear, so its a safe bet that this is from a painting done in Australia. The image original source appears to be from the Wisden Group's Cricinfo website which states "Reproduced with permission from The Cricketer International", an monthly magazine (since 1921) now also within the Wisden group. There doesn't appear to be an image index for the magazine I can find. –Moondyne 01:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Interesting, well-written and comprehensive article.--Grahame (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 23:54, 3 October 2009 [7].
Moors murders
- Nominator(s): Malleus Fatuorum and Parrot of Doom 22:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This an account of perhaps the most famous case of child serial murders in 20th-century England, mainly because one of the murderers was a young woman. Her accomplice is still alive, incarcerated in a high-security institution for the criminally insane, the longest-serving prisoner in the English system. Parrot of Doom and I have worked hard to make this a comprehensive and accurate account of the incomprehensible events more than 40 years ago that left at least five children dead. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been on my watchlist for years, so I've noticed Malleus and Parrot working hard on this recently. I believe it meets the appropriate criteria to become a featured article. It's particular great as it's one of those topics that can be very emotional, both to work on and to read (I worked on the James Bulger article about three years ago, and it was particularly emotional for me as I read about it, as he was only a little younger than me.) This article manages to describe the topic without it becoming too emotional or biased, and in a sensitive manner. It's also an important topic in British crime history, so well done and thanks for your hard work. Majorly talk 23:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto. This page was on my watchlist long before Fatuorum got its hands on it (am a Smiths fan). Its been fine to watch it develop over the last 3 months, and I've read it once or twice, or at least more time than I care to admit, at my age. Support. Ceoil (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review (Support on criterion 3)
- File:LowerBrushesValley.jpg needs a better link (to a page where you can click to the image from) to verify that it was taken from this page, and that the image is indeed licensed under CC-BY-SA-2.0.
- File:HoeGrain.jpg - Same as above image
- The non-free rationale used for File:Myra at John Kilbride's grave.jpg seems rather weak. It certainly shows the emotion of the moment, but it isn't really critical to understanding the article, I don't believe. What are your thoughts on this image?
- The rest of the images look fine. Good work. NW (Talk) 02:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replies
- I've altered the links to the first two images to point to the pages they came from.
- I think a fair use claim for the picture of Hindley kneeling over the grave is justifiable, on the basis that it's an example of the type of photograph the police were using to base their search of the moor on, but I wouldn't fight you over it.
--Malleus Fatuorum 14:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Excellent, well-written, comprehensive, very nicely structured. Three suggestions:
(a) With quotations, I prefer to know who has said it. For example, "Such a relationship was not unusual in Holloway at that time, as 'many of the officers were gay, and involved in relationships either with one another or with inmates'". I would write: "John Smith writes that such a relationship was not unusual in Holloway at that time, as many of the officers were gay, and involved in relationships either with one another or with inmates". In-text attribution, no quotation marks. Or keep the quotations marks in cases where the words are in some way distinctive or important, but I think in-text attribution is needed, unless it's obvious from the context who is speaking.
(b) I would like to know what happened to the dog who died during the examination to determine his age, which sounds like a very odd thing to happen, and immediately raises the question why.
(c) "Hindley was at liberty for four days following Brady's arrest, during which time she went to her employer and asked to be sacked so that she could go on the dole. While there she found some papers belonging to Brady, which she burned." I'd like this to be explained a little. While there: where, at her and Brady's workplace? Which papers and why burn them (assuming it's known)? Also, I think "dole" should be avoided given it's an international readership.
But these are just suggestions based on personal preference. Overall, it's excellent. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 04:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Replies
- (a) It was a former assistant governor (who wished to remain anonymous) who made the claim that gay relationships were common in the prison at that time. I've added that in.
- (b) The dog's death was left dangling a bit I suppose. I've added a paragraph to explain, as it also sheds some light on Hindley's mental state, but basically the test had to be done under a general anaesthetic, from which the dog didn't recover as it had an undiagosed kidney condition.
- "(c) I've changed "dole" to "unemployment benefits". Hindley went to her and Brady's place of work, where she found some papers belonging to him. They were in an envelope she claimed she didn't open, but she said later that she believed they were plans for bank robberies, so I guess that's why she burned them, to destroy the evidence. I've altered this section in an attempt to clarify.
--Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have some suggestions and comments:
- Arrest
- You can link Cheshire Police to Cheshire Constabulary.
- "While there she found some papers belonging to Brady, which she burned". Comment per SlimVirgin above.
- Initial Investigation
- I think you have done an excellent job in treating a complex and difficult subject with great sensitivity. My only quibble is with "Brady admitted to taking the pornographic photographs" - somehow the repetition of "pornographic" seemed unnecessary.
- Later investigation
- It's Hoegrain in the text but Hoe Grain in the caption. Is this a rivulet of some kind? I can see nothing on the OS.
- Personal backgrounds
- "He was also accepted for the Shawlands" "He also had a girlfriend". Neither "also" conveys much.
- " Within a year of moving to Manchester Brady was caught trying to smuggle a sack full of stolen lead seals out of the market,". The ambiguity of "lead" and "seals" had me wondering what was in the sack for a moment. Then I wondered why anyone would hide a sack of stolen goods in the market at all. Was he trying to steal them by smuggling them, or were they already stolen?
- What kind of business is "Bratby and Hinchliffe". All the others seem to get a mention.
- As murderers
- " Reade had been at school with Hindley's younger sister, Maureen, and had also been in a short relationship with David Smith, a local boy with three criminal convictions for minor crimes". I am not at all sure how to fix this, but we have already met Smith and at first I wondered if this was a second person with the same name.
- Hattersley is not a New town in the British sense - it's an overspill estate.
- Legacy
- I don't doubt that Hindley has been compared to Maxine Carr, (or rather vice-versa) but the comparison is, from Carr's perspective, unreasonable and I see no need to mention it here.
- Images
- Link "Mug shot" in opening caption (someone might think this is just a rude remark) and the alt text could make it clear the photo is b&w as this is an important aspect of the imagery associated with the crimes.
- The alt text for the Saddleworth Moor image is more interesting than the actual description, which could be a little more specific about the actual location (e.g. "looking towards..."). I realise that this may not be especially relevant to the murders, but I'm a geographer…
- I think the Wardle Brook Ave caption would be better worded as per the image description i.e. "The empty space where 16 Wardle Brook Avenue once stood…." It reads oddly in that we are told that is a picture of a house, then that the house is not there.
- Hollin Brown Knoll - my immediate thought on seeing the picture of the road, was - "which road?" Re the alt text, the road does not just run "from left to right in the distance", it also takes up much of the foreground.
- " Part of Stalybridge Country Park". Why "part of" ?
- Refs etc.
- Citation 41 re UKCPI lacks a retrieval date.
- What is it that is "official" about the Keith Bennett website?
- Replies
- I've added a link to Cheshire Constabulary.
- "Brady admitted to taking the pornographic photographs". I've removed the word "pornographic"; as you say, it doesn't need to be repeated.
- "I've rewritten to try and make it clearer that Brady had stolen the lead seals from the market and was caught trying to smuggle them out.
- "He was also accepted for the Shawlands" "He also had a girlfriend". Neither 'also' conveys much." Agreed, I've removed the "alsos".
- It's "Hoe Grain", I've fixed that.
- I've changed "new town" to "overspill estate".
- I've removed the Maxine Carr reference as I think you're right, it's more relevant to Carr than it is to Hindley.
- "I've changed the Wardle Brook Avenue caption to "The empty plot where 16 Wardle Brook Avenue in Hattersley, once stood."
- I've linked mug shot and added the fact that the photo is B&W to the alt text.
- "Part of Stalybridge Country Park" is how the photographer described it. It's not known exactly where Hindley's ashes were scattered, so being more specific, as in "Lower Brushes Valley, in Stalybridge Country Park", might give the impression that her ashes were scattered at the spot in the picture.
--Malleus Fatuorum 15:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I've been watching the expansion, tightening, and more tightening of this article. Good work all around. ceranthor 12:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There may be a problem with the following sentence in the lead: "The police were initially aware of only three killings—those of Edward Evans, Lesley Ann Downey, and John Kilbride." The first edition of Emlyn Williams's book Beyond Belief was published immediately after the convictions in 1965. In a postscript at the end of the book Williams draws attention to the Reade and Bennett cases and their similarities to those for which Brady and Hindley were tried. Hindley herself is quoted mentioning Pauline Reade. So the police were obviously aware of the other cases, though they lacked direct evidence that Reade and Bennett were dead or that their disappearances were linked to Brady and Hindley. Could the wording be revised? Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Emlyn William's book was a semi-fictional work based on his own surmises and suppositions, most of which have proved to be unfounded and discredited. The facts presented here are based on the official police records. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying Williams is a reliable source for the Moors Murders, but if he knew about two other missing children, surely the police did? Brianboulton (talk) 08:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The police certainly knew they were missing, but had no evidence to link them to the case, and did not know if they were alive or dead. Until you've got a body, or a confession, it isn't really correct to state that you're aware of a killing. It wasn't until 1987, when the confessions of Brady and Hindley were made, that the two children were tied to the case. Newspapers at the time mention that the police had a 'special interest' in those two children however, and that they searched on the moors for them - but still, they didn't know they'd been killed. Parrot of Doom 08:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact at the time that Williams' book was written the police actually suspected Keith Bennett's step-father of being involved in his disappearance, not Brady and Hindley, as the article says: "His {Keith Bennett's] step-father, Jimmy Johnson, became a suspect; in the two years following Bennett's disappearance, he was taken for questioning on four occasions". The Williams book can't be considered a credible source for anything. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true - they kept bringing him in for questioning, eventually Winnie Johnson went to the police station and insisted (pleaded) that they stop bothering him. She told them that if she suspected him of anything, she wouldn't still be living with him. After that, they left him alone. Parrot of Doom 11:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Most British people of my generation know a lot about these notorious murderers and their subsequent fates and, to be honest, I would not have read the article if it were not an FA candidate, but I am glad I did. I am very impressed with the prose, particularly the flow, which is very professional. But I am more impressed with the neutral point of view that is constant throughout the article. I imagine that this must have been difficult. There are a few very slightly odd expressions that I would not have chosen to use, but they give character to the article, so I'll let them be. This is the best prepared FAC I have seen this year. As I have said, I am very impressed. Graham Colm Talk 17:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm overwhelmed by your praise Graham. I think that because it was such a difficult topic to write about, Parrot of Doom and I had no option but to be very careful in our handling of it, and we were able to rein each other in whenever it became necessary. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to admit that I haven't slept well on more than a few nights, from reading some of the details of this case. Its been difficult to keep that tone out of my additions to the article. Parrot of Doom 20:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I quite understand. I also had some difficulty with some of the more gratuitous details of Rosewood massacre, and at times had to hold the topic with mental tongs away from myself. It's an odd mix: feeling or sensing pain helps my writing, but it's often so disturbing that better writing just may not be worth it. --Moni3 (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to admit that I haven't slept well on more than a few nights, from reading some of the details of this case. Its been difficult to keep that tone out of my additions to the article. Parrot of Doom 20:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
What makes http://www.murderuk.com/serial_myra_hindley_ian_brady.html a reliable source?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I raised this same question myself at one point, but the consensus as I recall was with the statement on the web site: "We are proud to be on the recommended reading lists of many university and college courses around the world, and are regularly used by TV and film companies conducting research. We are delighted to be acknowledged in many leading crime books." It appears to be accurate, and is probably a good resource to be listed as an external link. There's nothing that can't be sourced elsewhere anyway.
- Strong Support - I reviewed this article for GAC, and with a few exceptions my main thought was "why isn't this at FAC already?" An excellent article with (to turn a phrase) a distinguished editorial pedigree :P. Ironholds (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Very nice article. Neutral and interesting throughout, even to us Yanks. Good job, both of you. Tex (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Well written and fucked up. By coincidence I read this article some months ago before the earnest effort to improve it. It has grown quite well since then and may the forces of sanity be with you both when this gets on the main page. If Hindley and Brady have any kind of reputation similar to Ted Bundy, there will be no mercy on written language representing what they did. --Moni3 (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If this FAC passes I think we'd be quite happy never to see this article on the main page. You wouldn't believe the obscenities that were scibbled in some of the books I got from the library over the pictures of Brady and Hindley. TFA would be a nightmare I think. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a fine article - bravo to the authors. Murder of James Bulger desparately needs as much attention as this article has been given.
- I want to support. However, given that this article also stands as the biography of Myra Hindley and Ian Brady (following the recent AFD) I am not convinced that all of the relevent details from their separate articles been merged here. In particular, I am unhappy at the omission of the controveries regarding The Smiths's "Suffer Little Children" and Marcus Harvey's "Myra" (see Sensation (exhibition)). There is some relevant discussion on the talk page, but in my opinion both of these are notable and important, and the article is not "comprehensive" without them; neither of them is the dreaded "In popular culture". -- Hyphen8d (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think its probably a good idea to include a link to the talk discussion, which better summarises how the two main editors (of which I am one) have approached the situation. Parrot of Doom 20:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did mention it, but thanks for adding the link. I would not advocate, for example, adding links to The Pretenders or Chrissie Hynde (a name of a minor precursor band), Steve Cox (his paintings have not had the same reaction - and you can see why) or From Hell or "No One Is Innocent" (only minor references). -- Hyphen8d (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think its probably a good idea to include a link to the talk discussion, which better summarises how the two main editors (of which I am one) have approached the situation. Parrot of Doom 20:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In retrospect, I think punk band The Moors Murderers also deserves a mention - they intended to shock, like Harvey, but in a rather less sophisticated manner. The widepread visceral public reaction to inappropriate reference to the murders can and should be mentioned. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Myra Hindley, by the way of her mugshot, has become an iconic character. This article mentions little on her impact and public perception. There is nothing on the Sensation exhibition - which evoked an outcry even when it appeared last year on an Olympics promotional video, nothing on Jane Kelly, or on other depictions in art or media. Mentioning them in this article, may give it undue weight, so I would suggest that it belongs on the Myra Hindley page. Only that doesn't exist due to the AFD. Right now, there is no suitable article to drill through their depictions in contemporary culture - we can do better. - hahnchen 21:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My view is that the Sensation article ought to link to here (as it does), not necessarily vice versa. The strength of feeling is already adequately covered in several places in the article, so I see no reason to labour it yet again with the beginnings of an In popular culture trivia section. I wouldn't object to a link in a See also section though. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does one draw the line? In my view, between icons and bands like The Moors Murderers, and the murders murderers and victims. Parrot of Doom 23:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is barely a mention of their media depiction, or the persistence of their notoriety in contemporary culture. Hindley has been depicted multiple times in artwork, and still generates controversy. A link in the "see also" section provides absolutely no context, the reaction to pieces shows the lingering press and public sentiments over the case, and over the person. How the public reacts, and how artists interpret the acts are important - the aftermath is as important as the background, culture is not trivia. It's possible that detailing that would give in undue weight in this article, in which case splitting off Myra Hindley, or creating a new article, may be appropriate. If a reader wanted to find out how this crime and their perpetrators were interpreted by the press and by the art world, they'd have to search through many different articles, and piece things together themselves. That is a bad solution. - hahnchen 19:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Their media depiction in newspaper reports is already covered; what you're talking about is an X in popular culture section, which ain't gonna happen, for reasons already explained. I feel so strongly about this that I would rather see the article fail than be trivialised in that way, and I believe I speak for Parrot Doom as well. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The notoriety of the case stems from the fact that they sexually abused and murdered children, that one murderer was a woman (almost unheard of back then), and that the woman repeatedly appealed for her freedom. There are many more important elements of this case than a minor furore caused by an artist's work—such as the long-term effects on the families of the murdered children. Compared to the gravity of the crimes, an artist's work is trivial, and is but a tiny footnote in the story, and one that IMO barely deserves mention. A much more important facet, and one which is barely covered because I haven't yet got the source material, is the 1977 BBC discussion on Hindley's release.
- What relevance does the art world have, to this case? If its so relevant, then mention this case in the art world articles - culture, generally, may not be trivia, but it certainly is here. I very much doubt that the reader will be left wondering what the social impact of these crimes was, after reading the cited articles linked from the Aftermath section. Parrot of Doom 19:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How does an expanded section on their depictions in the media and in art "trivialise" the article? How does it reduce the impact of the crime? If anything, showing that their memory still persists in popular consciousness reinforces its gravity. And The Moors Murderers does link to this article, but you're suggesting that anyone wanting to find out about the public reaction should resort to Special:Whatlinkshere. People don't generally think like that, they're not all wikigeeks. As an aside, if the 1977 BBC debate is so important, and you've not seen it - how can this be comprehensive?- hahnchen 21:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't reinforce its gravity. What it does do is detract from the enormity of these crimes. You might as well ask why the Barack Obama article does not contain a link to every single mention of him by a notable public figure. Its an editorial decision that Malleus and I took, and we're standing by it. We made a decision to limit the impact to those people directly affected by the crimes. Adding information about barely-notable punk bands and artists just because they decided to exploit the case for their own ends isn't something we want to do, and nothing is going to change my opinion on that.
- As for your final point, I find it facile. If you expect me to pull a 32-year-old BBC live broadcast that contains Lord Longford, contributions from family members including Ann West, and also a supporter of Hindley who was later betrayed by her confession—out of a hat and comment on its content, well what can I say to that, except I'm not perfect. But I'm trying, and that's all that can be asked of me. You're welcome to try also. Parrot of Doom 22:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "... nothing is going to change my opinion on that". Nothing is going to change our opinion on that. Support or oppose I really don't care, I just want this article to be the best it can be. If the choice is add an In popular culture section or else I'll oppose then so be it. It just ain't gonna happen. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- [e/c] I don't understand the reluctance to mention the influence of the murders on, inter alia, music and art, when the article already includes references to two television dramas. As I mentioned above, adding a sentence or two about The Smiths and Marcus Harvey - or indeed The Moors Murderers - does not amount to adding a full "In popular culture" section. It should be possible to weave them in sympathetically; something like:
- The sadistic murders and their perpetrators have become a prime examplar of 'evil' in modern Britain, triggering strong reactions of offence and disgust when they have been referred to in contexts that may be considered inappropriate or disrespectful to the victims. Hindley's striking mug shot from 1965 was published repeatedly in the media until her death.[9] The popular song "Suffer Little Children", released by The Smiths in 1984 to commemorate the murders, caused a brief media controversy until the mother of one of the victims voiced her support for the band. Other artists have deliberately employed the notoriety of the murders to shock their audience, as with the short-lived punk band The Moors Murderers in 1977-8, and Marcus Harvey's large portrait of Myra Hindley, created from the handprints of children, which had to be temporarily removed from display at the Sensation exhibition at the Royal Academy of Art in 1997 after it was attacked in two separate incidents on the opening day.[10]
- This will need references, of course - the two books linked above are a start - and the language could no doubt be improved, but this should not be disrespectful. There is plenty of interesting discussion of the cultural impact of the murders in Crime and punishment in contemporary culture.[11]
- In any event, the repeated use of Hindley's mug shot in the media is something that should be noted. Some references describe it as the "face of evil". -- Hyphen8d (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're looking at this arse about face. The murders had absolutely no influence on music or art. Period. None. Sure, Morrissey wrote a song, and somebody else painted a picture that got vandalised, but that's hardly any kind of a "legacy". Did the murders change or indeed have any effect at all on either music or art? Clearly not. The televised accounts of the murders are accounts of the murders, just as are the books in the Further reading section, not the work of publicity seeking artists. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be saying that it would be inappropriate to discuss cultural influences or artistic depictions of (for example) Myra Hindley and her iconic mug shot in this article, because it is only a minor facet of the murders. That is what I suggested at the AFD, but the biographical articles were merged into this one anyway. If we are not going to have an article on Ian Brady and Myra Hindley separate from this article on the murders, then this is the only place to discuss the cultural impact of the murders and the perpetrators, and all the things that go along with them (what they said, how the looked, how people reacted, media depictions, and so on).
- The fact is the murders have had a palpable cultural impact. Morrissey was inspired to write a notable song commemorating the murders, and a notable punk band was deliberately named The Moors Murderers - and Marcus Harvey painted his painting - because of the murders. All of these things came about as a result of the murders: that is a cultural influence. Here we have a book saying "In the 1970s the Moors murderers became cult figures for the alternative art and music scene"... and lots of discussion about Hindley's grotesque "iconicity". -- Hyphen8d (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. What I'm saying is that if the murders had a "palpable cultural impact" on Morrissey or Marcus Harvey, then that should be reflected in their articles, not this one. This article is about the murders, the murderers, their victims, their families, not about any particular artist's claimed motivations or inspiration. Does there not seem to you to be a clear disjunction here? Winnie Johnson and her family continue to search Saddleworth Moor looking for the body of her son, but you're bothered that a pop song isn't mentioned? Do me a favour. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why the Brady article was deleted, but the argument that this is a reason to include the other material here is fallacious. By all means start a "cultural impact of the Moors murders" article if you think it important, but the subject in question here is one does not lend itself to a "popular cultural references" section and (whether or not the artistic value of the work concerned in different circumstances might merit it) many readers of this article would simply find such material grotesque. Ben MacDui 21:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Brady article was deleted because it was pretty much an uncited copy of the Hindley article, which in turn was pretty much an uncited copy of this article. Your point is well made; if the murders have had a significant cultural impact, which I frankly doubt, then someone should get down to writing that article. That a song was written and a painting had some ink and a couple of eggs thrown at it doesn't equate to "significant cultural impact" as far as I'm concerned. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is that, do me a favour? How does mentioning artistic interpretations, and the continued presence of the moors murderers in public consciousness diminish the plight of the victims? Should the Bombing of Guernica omit references to Guernica (painting)? Should we ignore the Muhammad Cartoons in Depictions of Muhammad? After all, they were the works of "publicity seeking artists". - hahnchen 21:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an FAC, not a UN debate, I believe that I've made it clear that I will not be adding any of the pop culture stuff you're demanding. If as a result you feel that this article fails the FA "comprehensive" criterion, and so oppose its promotion, then so be it. I'd rather that than trivialise it. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree completely with the nominators on this. Graham Colm Talk 13:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, me too - new "Popular Culture" is old "Trivia" writ large Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree completely with the nominators on this. Graham Colm Talk 13:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an FAC, not a UN debate, I believe that I've made it clear that I will not be adding any of the pop culture stuff you're demanding. If as a result you feel that this article fails the FA "comprehensive" criterion, and so oppose its promotion, then so be it. I'd rather that than trivialise it. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not asked for a section entitled "popular culture" - indeed, I have expressly said that I do not want such a thing, let alone "trivia". What I have suggested is that the short "Legacy" section could be made more comprehensive through the addition of an extra paragraph explaining how the events have been found expression in various forms of art, and expanding on the reference to Hindley being a "figure of hate in the national media". No-one has even commented on the paragraph that I suggested above to do that.
- Even more important than The Smiths and The Moors Murderers and Marcus Harvey (which I accept some may consider grotesque - although something being grotesque is not a reason to exclude it as encyclopedic content) is some discussion of the impact of Hindley's mug shot. As I said above, there are plenty of sources calling the "face of evil": the ODNB says "A police photograph of her taken in 1965—showing a Medusa with peroxide-dyed hair and staring eyes—became an infamous symbol of evil." There is also the quote from The Sun - a pretty sure touchstone of public sentiment: "Myra Hindley is to be hung at the Royal Academy. Sadly it is only a painting of her."[12]
- By way of comparison, it would be hard to image an featured article on Jack Sheppard (another criminal, but a popular hero rather than a pariah) that did not include some discussion of the engravings and plays based on his life. This just illustrates why we need a separate article on Hindley, where this sort of thing would be more appropriate. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The television programmes discussing this case are already mentioned. If you feel so strongly that this painting and song represent a significant cultural impact then I suggest that you get down to writing that Cultural impact of the Moors murders article, as suggested above. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I only found a few minor problems:
- In the lead: The body of a fourth victim, Keith Bennett,. This is confusing: Keith Bennett was actually the third victim. I understand what it is supposed to mean but still recommend dropping "a fourth victim,".
- In the Aftermath
- was attacked in the lift where she and David lived. I do not think that they lived in the lift.
- He later remarried, and moved to Lincolnshire, with his three sons, Does this refer to the same marriage as On his release from prison, David Smith moved in with the girl who would later become his second wife, and won custody of his three sons. ?
- Patrick Kilbride mistook Bill Scott's daughter, Ann Wallace, for Hindley. Is she his daughter from the first marriage?
- I think the last two paragraphs in this section should be move into the previous section 'Hindley'.
- Replies
-
- It wasn't a race, and the wording doesn't imply anything about the chronology of the murders. The lead says "The murders are so named because two of the victims were discovered in graves dug on Saddleworth Moor; a third grave was discovered on the moor in 1987, over 20 years after Brady and Hindley's trial in 1966. The body of a fourth victim, Keith Bennett ..." The word "fourth" in that context clearly doesn't refer to the sequence of killings. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the lift bit.
- Yes, its the same remarriage. I haven't named her yet as I don't know her maiden name.
- It can only be, unless Myra looked young for her age. I've clarified it. Parrot of Doom 15:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support On a single read through I saw nothing that raised concerns Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:11, 1 October 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 23:54, 3 October 2009 [13].
Barbara L
I am nominating this for featured article because it's a comprehensive look at the life of one of the members of the American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame. Sometimes the girls don't get their fair share of glory, but hopefully this won't be the case for Babs here. Copyedited by Malleus, who labored to work my prose into something decent. Any remaining problems with the prose are mine, I'm sure! While there may be some sources possibly touching on her life, I'm not aware of them, as I've consulted most of the available ones. She was a pretty decent race mare and went on to become an outstanding broodmare. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
One further bit... I promise the next one won't be a horse OR a bishop! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (I'll hold you to that. Fancy doing an album article?) In the meantime:
- Source comments:
- All links, dabs, sources check out, but:
- Surely if you give the full citation in the references section, you don't need extraneous detail in the footnotes, only author surname and page number? See refs 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14.
RB88 (T) 22:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer to give the title, especially when there is more than one work by an author. It's the system I've used at FAC for quite a while (see... oh... Easy Jet, Go Man Go, Chicado V, Wilfrid, Gilbert Foliot, etc.). My feeling is that it helps to make it clearer what the work is that is being used. (oh, and no, the next one up is already set, just need the copyedit... and it's a person) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Nitpicks, really:-
*Can the "racehorse" and "races" repetitions in the first sentence be avoided, e.g. by: "Barbara L was a Quarter Horse who raced during the early 1950s, often winning against some of the best racehorses of the time."
::Er... not fixed, actually. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Six not 6 per MOS
*I think just (AQHA), not (or AQHA) - it's not an alternative title.
*Earnings: I'm a bit concerned about the degree of spurious precision in the "current value" figure of $261,300. The earnings of $32,836 were accumulated over the six years 1949-55, so it is only possible to get an approximate current value. Your calculation is based on 1955, which is fair enough, but I think the "r" factor in the conversion template should be adjusted to -4, and the word "about" introduced. This would give "She earned $32,836 (about $370,000 as of 2024)" which I think is a bit more realistic. See also comments re later current values
- I'll defer to Malleus here, as he's the one who adjusted the rounding values, not myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a fair point Brian, I'll change it to -4 as you suggest. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed the one in the lead, you've done the one lower down. Both OK now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Unnecessary linking of American Quarter Horse Association in Early life section - just been linked in the lead
*"...dam, or mother, traced..." - "was traced"? (I don't know breeders' lingo)
- :* Fixed, changed to "descended from" ("traced" is actually correct, it's genealogist/horse breeder terminology for "way back in the pedigree...") Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*"...sold at an auction" - "sold at auction"?
*Lumpkin becomes "Lumkin" - which is correct? (Lumkin also in infobox)
*Intrusive comma after "Green continued to race her". (The ref could be shifted until after the date)
*"Barbara L raced for seven years,..." I make 1949-55 six years. Possibly seven seasons?
*"placed second in four..." → "was placed second in four"
- Actually "placed" is correct. "Place" is a verb in this context (see Glossary of equestrian terms#P, and it's always better to use active than passive. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Foals' earnings: $1.77 million should be qualified by "about", for reasons stated earlier. My feeling is at that all the current values of earnings in the second and third paragraphs should be rounded and described as approximate.
*Mr Bruce's 6 wins should be six
*Again, "was placed"?
These are not major issues and should easily be fixed, to give a nice, compact article. Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: All my concerns quickly attended to (I like that). There could be a few more "abouts" and roundings of the values in the foals' earnings section, but otherwise no problems. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Read through the entire article and saw no concerns at all. Short but comprehensive for the topic, and as might be expected by now, all of the sources are top-notch. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I've got a few minor suggestions, but they don't hold me back from supporting:
- You spell out American Quarter Horse Association in both the lede and first paragraph ... do you feel this is necessary?
- The listing of race locations is very confusing. I'm uncertain if some of these locations are with their states or if the states are given as separate locations. I've put semicolons where I think they should go, but please check them to make sure I'm not in error. I strongly suggest alternating commas and semicolons. Forex: "Raton in Albequerque, New Mexico; in Colorado; ..."
- I'm not sure the definition of "seconds" allows its use in the sense of finishing second. I'd suggest rewording this.
- I gave it a quick copy edit, but please don't hesitate to revert any of the changes if you've got a good reason. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:26, 30 September 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 23:54, 3 October 2009 [14].
Battle of the Alamo
Of all the articles I have worked on, I am most proud of this one. I originally intended to complete the article by April 2008, but the sheer amount of research necessary pushed the date out just a bit ;) The Battle of the Alamo is probably the most famous event in Texas history, and I suspect most people have at least heard of it. For this article I consulted both the first full-length book written about the battle as well as the most recent research available plus lots of what was written in between. It amazed me to see how much of what I learned in school was inaccurate or POV. Please put aside any preconceptions you might have of what happened and enjoy this comprehensive overview of what actually occurred. Much thanks to User:Awadewit, User:Ealdgyth and User:Oldag07 for their very helpful comments in the October peer review. This is a long article, so thank you in advance to all reviewers who make their way through it. Karanacs (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources, links, dabs All fine. A shining example to all, boss. RB88 (T) 17:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (not a full image review; sorry): File:FalloftheAlamo.jpg needs a source. NW (Talk) 18:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've uploaded a new version and added the source information. Thank you. Karanacs (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks so good, I am likely to support, but have not gotten past the LEAD yet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tweaks needed
Opposesince there has been no response to my tweaks below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]"In the Mexican border region Texas," seems awkward. Should region be followed by a comma or the word "of"?- Done...Modernist (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the "of" because it is unnecessary. "Mexican" and "border region" are both used as adjectives. Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Of is only redundant if the entirety of the Texas republic is considered Mexican border region. Otherwise it is necessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the "of" because it is unnecessary. "Mexican" and "border region" are both used as adjectives. Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done...Modernist (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Mexican forces had left behind 19 cannon, including an 18-pounder, which Jameson installed along the walls." - cannons should be plural.- "Cannon" is both plural and singular. Modernist pointed out a few instances in the text where "cannons" had been inserted and I've removed those so that the article is consistent. Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I learned something today.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Cannon" is both plural and singular. Modernist pointed out a few instances in the text where "cannons" had been inserted and I've removed those so that the article is consistent. Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"on January 14 Neill approached Houston for assistance in gathering supplies" - comma after 14"the Texians had neglected to spike their cannons before retreating" - what does spike mean?- I linked to wiktionary. Spike means drive something in the hole so that the gun can't fire. Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Has this been undone.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I linked to wiktionary. Spike means drive something in the hole so that the gun can't fire. Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is "his famous knife" explained or linked above?"In July 1936" should be followed by a comma.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Did you miss this comment the first time?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Modernist. Tony, I don't usually edit on the weekends (beginning Friday afternoon), and it often takes me all day Monday to catch up on my watchlist. I promise I wasn't ignoring you! Karanacs (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support-Issues resolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bernstein2291 (Talk • Contributions • Sign Here) 01:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep in mind that FAC isn't a vote, and generally rationales are expected to accompany votes. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 05:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why is the WP:LEAD so wordy. At 3388 characters it seems to long by simple measure and seeing redundant use of a phrase like "On Santa Ana's orders"" and other overly verbose uses, I can't help but think the lead could be cut down 5-10% fairly easily.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is very good (thanks!).
A few problems:
File:Alamo texas.jpg is missing alt text.The alt text for File:Fall-of-the-alamo-gentilz 1844.jpg lacks what I see as the essence or gist of that image, which is the feeling of low walls in a shallow valley overlooked by rolling hills. That essence isn't described (and isn't really needed) in the adjacent text; could you please add it to the alt text?Generally speaking alt text should not contain proper names as they cannot be verified by a non-expert who's looking only at the image, and anyway they're just repeating what's in the caption. Could you please reword/remove the following proper names from the alt text: "Long Barracks"; and "Mexican" and "Texian" in the phrase "dead Mexican and Texian soldiers".
- Eubulides (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I'm a little confused by Antonio López de Santa Anna - was he a General or was he the President of Mexico? Or both? When did he storm the Alamo or mess with the constitution (dates?) it looks like first he was the president and messed with the constitution, and then he was the general who stormed the Alamo...Modernist (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question. Santa Anna was a general who became president and, while in office, led the army against Texas. I've added the date of the revocation of the Constitution to put that in better context, but I'm not sure how to clarify Santa Anna's roles better. I could add a footnote mentioning his previous military service? Do you have a better suggestion on how to make it clearer? Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion The confusion is compounded in the second sentence of the lead. Perhaps you should say: Following a twelve-day siege, Mexican troops under General Antonio López de Santa Anna, the president of Mexico launched an assault on the Alamo Mission in San Antonio de Béxar (modern-day San Antonio, Texas). - without the bold...Modernist (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- The numbers in the info box don't add up with 2 survivors from a strength of 182–260 we have 182–257 killed ? should the casualties be 180–258 ?
- Most Americans, however, are more familiar with the myths spread by many of the film and television adaptations, including the 1955 miniseries Walt Disney's Davy Crockett: King of the Wild Frontier and John Wayne's 1960 film The Alamo. - If you going to lave this in it need a cite --Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review:
- Not sure about File:Alamo texas.jpg, architectural works may be photographed in the USA and the photographs reused without permission, but other works of art may not.
- File:San Antonio 067.JPG I suspect is old enough to have its copyright expired (if it ever qualifies for one in the first place), but a confirmation of its date would be handy.
- File:AlamoMemorial-5478.jpg, on the other hand, may not be. When was the memorial erected?
- I haven't checked alt text, only copyright status. Stifle (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not familiar with the rules about structures, so I will bow to your wisdom. If you think any (or all) of these images are inappropriately licensed I'll take them out.
- I have no more information on the first image than what is on the image display page (and I assumed since it was on Commons it was okay).
- San Antonio 067.jpg - this urn was built after 1939; I am not sure when.
- The Alamo Memorial was erected in 1939.
- I am not familiar with the rules about structures, so I will bow to your wisdom. If you think any (or all) of these images are inappropriately licensed I'll take them out.
Karanacs (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've nominated the first image for deletion; the other two would appear to be fine due to {{PD-Pre1978}}. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One minor thing I just wanted to point out that Davy Crockett, King of the Wild Frontier specifically refers to a 1955 film compilation of three episodes of the miniseries. The miniseries debuted in 1954, though the episode "Davy Crockett at the Alamo" did air in February 1955 (according to Disney A to Z). Zagalejo^^^ 07:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional supportSupport
("Provisional support" just means that I haven't read the entire article yet, but like what I've read.)
The main text (post-lead) is nicely done. It has enough details to keep us on our toes and the narrative flows nicely. However, the lead will likely be confusing to readers unfamiliar with the history. One reason for this, of course, is that San Antonio, in March 1836, was in an unsettled time (no pun intended). It was formally still in Mexican Texas, but one from which all Mexicans had been driven out in December 1835. (Britannica, for example, begins its narrative in 1835 and it can then proceed in a linear fashion.) In a lead the author has to mention the pivotal event first and this creates a bit of a dilemma, if they are also trying to be sensitive to the needs of unversed readers. I've mentioned some of these things in the detailed comments, Talk:Battle_of_the_Alamo#F.26f.27s_detailed_FAC_comments_on_the_text, I've just left on the article's talk page.
Could we also have a higher resolution map or plan of Alamo? There is one hi-res one at the Texas State Legislature Web Site. Not sure, though, if it is old enough to be uploaded as PD-US-1923. The author McArdle (gifted the collection in 1927), but the sketch was very probably done much earlier. It has the Long Barracks, the Low Barracks, and the palisades clearly marked. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Fowler, I'll work my way through your prose suggestions soon. The McArdle collection is PD (he died before 1923). I saw that drawing, but I thought it was pretty messy (I can't read most of the handwriting) and didn't know if it would help. Let me think about whether I can create a custom diagram based on that (images are not my strength). Karanacs (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now added my remaining comments on the article's talk page. Changing to support. Congratulations on writing an informative and enjoyable article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Small note. As part of the FAC, I suggest double-checking the accuracy and completeness of List of Alamo defenders. While working on Wikipedia:Find-A-Grave famous people, I (and others) have created numerous redirects to that list. Many individuals listed on the Find-A-Grave website are Alamo defenders who seem to be otherwise non-notable. That being said List of Alamo defenders also includes links to a dozen biographies for more prominent Alamo participants. There are most likely a few more individuals for which a separate biography is warranted and these should be identified (say on the list's talk page). It's also quite possible that some members of the list already have an article even though the list has no link to it. I know that this FAC is really about the Battle of the Alamo article but the list is so closely tied to it that we should make sure it also meets basic quality standards. For the same reason, it makes sense to verify that Category:Alamo defenders and {{Battle of the Alamo}} are accurate and complete. Pichpich (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list of defenders article needs much, much work. I started on it ages ago and got distracted. I am intending at some point to attempt to bring that to featured list quality, but not any time soon. In response to your post, though, I scanned the list just now, and I suspect that at most there are two individuals who don't have their own articles and may justify them (one of those Anthony Wolf, has had the article previously deleted; as for the other, William Ward, I'm not sure if this is the same man as William Ward (soldier)- more research is needed). As far as I know, the template is as comprehensive as it should be - I chose the most well-known individuals to list, not all who have individual articles. Karanacs (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. My only concern was to make sure that the list was accurate: the rest can wait of course.
As for the template, I think a link to List of Alamo defenders or to Category:Alamo defenders would be a meaningful addition for readers.I just compared the bluelinks on the list with the contents of the category and added the category to George Washington Cottle and Isaac Millsaps. I also found three slightly problematic cases but since I have no expertise on the subject I'll leave you to decide how to resolve them. One interesting case is Moses Rose who is included in the category but not in the list. It's a tricky situation since he apparently left the battle but he might need to be added to the list. The same sort of problem applies to Juan Seguín who appears in the category but not in the list. As for George C. Kimbell, there's currently a separate article but it should perhaps be replaced by a redirect. Pichpich (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- The list of defenders is linked from the template; it is shown as "Defenders" in the left column; a few of the more notable people are listed to the right. The list is not complete or entirely accurate at this point. As you mention, several of the survivors have been omitted, and I believe that others who died during the battle are also omitted. There has been a lot of relatively recent research on who was actually at the Alamo, and I haven't finished reading enough of it to go back to this article. Karanacs (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. My only concern was to make sure that the list was accurate: the rest can wait of course.
- 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 SandyGeorgia 23:54, 3 October 2009 [15].
Star Trek: First Contact
- Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After a peer review and some tweaks here and there, I think that this article meets criteria, natch. Read on if you want to learn about how you make a walking cybernetic being with clammy grey skin and a mechanical spine sexy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Though I've done some editing on article) , Images (both non-free and free) appear to be fine, but we need alt text on them. I tried on the poster image for a start. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The other ones should all have alt text... can't believe I forgot about the infobox one though, thanks! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is 1996 in film supposed to be linked like that? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno. I've always done it, and I've seen others do it, so... *shrug*. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- What makes http://trekmovie.com/ a reliable source?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TrekMovie is generally blog-formatted, but it's the largest independent Star Trek news site according to the Chicago Tribune.[16] Either way I think both contributors used meet WP:SPS. John Tenuto, in addition to serving as merchandise editor at the site, is a professor of sociology whos pop-culture-inspired courses have made something of a splash;[17] Anthony Pascale is editor-in-chief, has been quoted widely by the more mainstream media[18][19][20] and is apparently close enough to the franchise-keepers that he recorded audio commentary for the Blu-ray release of First Contact. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. The prose is mostly good. Promising candidate. I haven't scoured through the whole article, but count me as a Support as long as it's sifted through for MoS and the odd improvement to the prose.
- Revert if you wish, but I am certain 1996 in film under "See also" will attract many more clicks that 1996 at the opening, which is "hidden", and worse, looks like a plain year-link. See WP:LINKING. Apart from that, the linking technique is excellent.
- First para is about release, cast, award, etc. Then it bolts straight into a one-sentence summary of the plot. Can this be integrated smoothly into the second para? The paras need easy themes—hold the readers' hands through this.
- "The script necessitated the creation of"—English can be ugly, and most of this is reasonably well written. How about "required"?
- "collaborated to create": c ... c sounds; even "worked together to create", or "collaborated to make". Not sure these are the answer, but there's a better way somehow.
- "Commenced". Plain and simple (i.e., Germanic): "started", or even "began".
- Could to to be avoided in "moved to new sets to film ship-based scenes" by saying "moved to new sets for the ship-based scenes"?
- "While Picard offers himself to the Borg in exchange for Data's freedom, Data refuses to leave." Not simultaneously, but "Although Picard ...".
- The bullet list of cast members comes as a surprise. Can we have a sentence that leads smoothly into it? This is especially the case because each element in this list is just a nominal group.
- Image sizes: my slight enlargements OK? Reduce if you don't like it, but a little larger than default would be good.
- Sovereign-class image: ooh, bit wobbly with the copyright? Has anyone checked it? I'm glad that one is small. Please consider rationing the text in the caption, which wraps down and down. See MOS.
- "50 mm to 70 mm focal lengths"—please see "Ranges" under User:Tony1/Beginners'_guide_to_the_Manual_of_Style#Unit_symbols_and_abbreviations.2A. Tony (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've made all your recommended changes or attempted to. It didn't seem like the plot made any more sense in the second paragraph, but I reworded the beginning of it so it hopefully fits better; I also cut down the image caption a bit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Media review (Support on criterion 3)
- File:Star Trek 08-poster.png seems to meet the NFCC.
- File:S08-first contact borg queen assembled.ogv is certainly interesting. I think it meets the NFCC, but I would recommend slicing off the last two seconds of the video and perhaps removing the sound; they don't particularly add anything to the article.
- File:St08-uss enterprise e.png seems to meet the NFCC.
- File:RonaldDMoore.jpg. Normally I would be a bit skeptical of this, but I think we can assume that User:Cbrown1023, of all people, sought out his father's permission before uploading and licensing this.
- I know very little about ICBM silos' security protocols, but it seems very unlikely that a Wikipeidan managed to get access to and take File:Tucson05 TitanICBM.jpg. What are your thoughts?
- I gave File:Jonathan Frakes cropped1.jpg a little cleanup; it should be good now. NW (Talk) 19:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the silo, it's been decommissioned for years and is a museum now, it's pretty easy to snap[21] so it's not like there are any state secrets :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think this is very well-written. I'm not much a fan of Star Trek, but I like how most of the article is more like a history piece than plot. One thing though, I was looking through and it doesn't look like all the numbers have nonbreaking spaces. Martin Raybourne (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:NBSP not all units, etc. need a nonbreaking space, only items that belong together or would look awkward split; however you're right, I have added a few nbsp to the lead and other places I missed. Thanks for the review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the only Star Trek movie I've seen so far, and a really impressive article. igordebraga ≠ 15:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Another fantastic film article from David! Especially loving the video clip; it adds an exciting new element. I suspect that my concerns will be minor and related to copy-editing, so I will go through the article and copy-edit where needed. I wanted to ask, though, before this action and lending my support, would you consider removing the bold formatting from the actors and roles in the "Cast" section? While we have applied this formatting traditionally with film articles, it is not in line with MOS:BOLD, and a film article should be able to survive without the formatting. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed quotation mark issues per MOS:QUOTE#Quotation marks. I want to make another observation. I understand that you moved the "Cast" section's paragraphs up to address Tony's concerns, but by doing so, there is an odd focus on the minor roles before the major roles. I recommend moving the paragraphs back (except for the very first sentence) and possibly adding a couple more summary-style sentences to the first one. This way, readers can be led by prose into the list of major roles, then they can read prose of the minor roles. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for implementing the changes. I've stripped out the bold formatting and reorganized the cast section. Better? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Steve T • C Looking good so far. I participated in the peer review a couple of months back, so most of my issues with the article were resolved back then. A few items remain from that list, as well as a couple of new ones. Nothing major, and I anticipate supporting at some point. Let's get to it then:
- "The television cast is joined by ... Academy Award-nominated actors James Cromwell and Alfre Woodard."—I don’t see the relevance of "Academy Award-nominated" here; it lacks context, and some might see it as a bit promotional.
- "In the film's plot, the crew of the USS Enterprise travel back in time to the year 2063 to save their future after the cybernetic Borg conquer Earth by changing the past."—all that time-hopping makes it a little clunky, and to those unfamiliar with the franchise, saying "back" to 2063 might stir up a little cognitive dissonance without the context of TNG's setting. Perhaps something like, "the crew of the USS Enterprise travels from the 24th to the 21st century to save humanity after the cybernetic Borg conquer the Earth by changing humanity's timeline."
- "Braga and Moore wanted to feature the Borg in the plot, while producer Rick Berman wanted a story involving time travel. The writers combined the two ideas, changing the time period the Borg corrupted to the mid-21st century after worries that setting the film during the European Renaissance would be too kitsch"—at the point it's mentioned, it still hasn't been established that the original time-travel pitch had the story set during the Renaissance. This could be resolved by moving it up slightly, so it reads something like: "The writers combined the two ideas; they initially set the film during the European Renaissance, but changed the time period the Borg corrupted to the mid-21st century after fearing the Renaissance idea would be too kitsch."
- "The film made $92 million in the United States and an additional $57.4 million in other territories, for a theatrical run of $146 million worldwide"—149.4 million?
- "... the Borg Queen has grafted human skin onto Data, giving him the sensation of touch to obtain the android's encryption codes to the Enterprise computer."—it might not be clear to someone unfamiliar with the film why giving Data "touch" would allow the Borg Queen to get Data's copy of the encryption codes.
- "Stewart noted that Picard was more physical in the film compared to his usual role."—physical as opposed to ... incorporeal? Perhaps try "physically active". I might be parsing that wrong, but as Stewart has the role, not Picard, maybe "compared to his usual depiction" or similar would be a better fit.
- "Frakes did not have much difficulty directing and acting at the same time, having done so on the television series."—as this is from the horse's mouth on the DVD commentary, it might be better to temper the claim by using "Frakes said he ..." He might have had a torrid time of it, but we'd probably never hear that from him (I wouldn't trust the TNG cast as far as I can throw them, after hearing them describe Stuart Baird as a bona fide genius during the pre-release promotion of Star Trek: Nemesis!)
- Perhaps link to redshirt at the first mention, rather than the second?
- "Ridley Scott and John McTiernan reportedly turned the project down. Stewart met with one of the potential candidates and concluded that 'they didn't know Star Trek'."—do you think the implication here is that the director Stewart met was Scott or McTiernan? I don't think that's your intention, so perhaps the link between the two statements could be weakened.
- "The lion's share of First Contact's effects"—I'm sure a print encyclopaedia wouldn't use "the lion's share" when it simply wants to say "most of", but YMMV.
- "Acting was conflictingly received."—right then, Mr Fuchs, I've twitchingly overlooked most of your omissions of the definite article, as I'm not one to try to run roughshod over personal preference, but my body simply won't allow me to let that one pass without having some kind of fit. So here it is.
- And that's pretty much it; as I say, most of everything else seems to have been cleared up in, and after, the peer review. Nice work. Steve T • C 10:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've hit your above concerns; I added "about" to before $146 million because the sources are quite certain, it's most likely an error on the part of Box Office Mojo but I cannae' be certain (I don't have a better source anyhow). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As it's so prominent in the lead, it still produces a bit of a speedbump that I think readers will wonder over, even if they might not think to mention it on the talk page. Would it be better to instead summarise it more concisely as: "The film made $92 million in the United States, contributing to a theatrical gross of $146 million worldwide"? Steve T • C 09:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've hit your above concerns; I added "about" to before $146 million because the sources are quite certain, it's most likely an error on the part of Box Office Mojo but I cannae' be certain (I don't have a better source anyhow). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Another fine instalment in David's Star Trek film article series, and probably the most comprehensive single source available about the film's development, production and reception. On the trekmovie.com source questioned above—and left for independent reviewers to judge—I'm happy with its use due to its continued reference in the mainstream media and its contributors' credentials ([22], [23], [24], [25], [26]). The prose is generally very good—in fact I'd say it came to FAC in a better starting condition than David's other Trek film articles, which required a bit more work in this area (don't take that as a slur, David—it's meant to reflect the noticeable improvement in your writing at each successive FAC nomination). All images seem to comply with fair-use guidance, and as for the video—I'm delighted that this could be the first film FA to feature a fair-use clip of the film in question. To ensure Wikipedia's continued relevance, it must adapt to changing web technology, and our best articles will have to eventually reflect this. As such, I fully support its inclusion; it's a bold move, and one that I hope will pay off. Nice work yet again, Steve T • C 09:49, 2 October 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 23:54, 3 October 2009 [27].
Otto Julius Zobel
- Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 15:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because comments from this article's first FAC have all been substantially addressed. The previous FAC seemed to suffer from a lack of editors interested in the subject willing to carry out reviews. Statement the purpose of transparency: I am intending to notify a number of editors I know to be interested in this area of electronics of the existence of this FAC. SpinningSpark 15:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Comments:
There is a strange pattern in Zobel' references - as if he stopped publishing between ca 1931 and 1950 (much longer than the WWII). Any clue? Is it only because of a limited selection in this article?Zobel apparently was a Distinguished Alumni Award Recipient at Ripon. Given the meager personal info, I would add this to the article, briefly explaining what that meant (e.g. it seems there were only few recipients each year).Suggest wikilinking: "conventional LC technology", "k-type" and "constant k" (both, as not everybody would know they are same)."and good stop-band rejection of the constant k." is missing a noun.The image "A harmonic analyser" is somewhat disconnected from the text and the term "harmonic analyser" is not clarified.
The above comments are from User:Materialscientist who seems to have accidently deleted his name in a subsequent edit. Yes. thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 09:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Stopped publishing 1931-1950. The best of Zobel's work is undoubtedly 1920s and early 30s. I believe that he really did publish very little from this point onwards (as opposed to we just have not unearthed it), and what there is is rather trivial compared with his earlier ground-breaking work. I also have information that he married one Irene Staab Zobel (possibly this Irene S Zobel late in life, the couple having waited so long so that Irene was able to pursue her career without any stigma. It may well be at the point Irene ended her career, Otto suddenly found he had other interests. No reliable sources for any of this at the moment, so it can't go in the article.
- Alumni Award. done
- Wikilinking. done
- Missing noun. I don't really agree that anything needs to be added. Giving a fuller quote, "Zobel overcame this problem by designing hybrid filters using a mixture of constant k and m-type sections. This gave Zobel the advantages of both: the fast transition of the m-type and good stop-band rejection of the constant k." shows that the context is set by the first sentence so there can be no possible ambiguity of the implied noun in the second. I tried various constructions to address the comment but they all seemed quite awckward to me. No objections, though, if someone else thinks they can improve the sentence.
- Harmonic analyser. Done.
- SpinningSpark 22:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - with comments.
- I can't believe this didn't garner comments, he used to live near me! ;)
- He first studied at Ripon College, where he received his BA in 1909. He then went to the University of Wisconsin and graduated with an MA in physics in 1910. - could we cite both sentences with one cite after the 1910, please?
- In 1926, compelled by his work for AT&T, he moved to New York. - AT&T is used one sentence before, could this be replaced with the company or... the organization?
- In 1934, he began working with Bell Telephone Laboratories (Bell Labs).[10] - this isn't a very well-structured sentence, reading the ones before it. How about He switched (think of a better verb, I'm not creative atm) to ... in 1934?
- I think since this is an American article, the prose might be better off with american english. This is an arbitrary comment, it won't have any effect on the FAC.
- Around 1923, Zobel's filter designs were reaching the peak of their complexity. He now had a filter section to which he had doubly applied the m-derivation process resulting in filter sections which he called the mm'-type. This had all the advantages of the previous m-type, but more so. An even faster transition into the stop-band and an even more constant characteristic impedance in the pass-band. At the same time one side would match into the old m-type, just as the m-type could match in to the k-type. Because there were now two arbitrary parameters (m and m') that the filter designer could adjust, much better end matching half-sections could be designed. A composite filter using these sections would have been the very best that could have been achieved at that time. However, the mm'-type sections never became as widespread and well known as the m-type sections, possibly because their greater complexity has deterred designers. They would have been inconvenient to implement with microwave technology and the increased count of components, especially wound components, made them more expensive to implement with conventional LC technology. Certainly, it is hard to find a textbook from any period which covers their design.[34] - Could the references be better distributed throughout this paragraph? ceranthor 23:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- American English. I agree this article should be in American English but have not done it myself because I would probably get it wrong. Are you willing to do this task? If not, I can try and find another editor. I will deal with the rest of your comments later in the week, no more time right now. SpinningSpark 22:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He first studied at Ripon College.... Not sure what the issue is here, that whole block of text was put in with this edit and all appears to be referenced to ref 7. Are you suggesting that ref 7 should be in the same paragraph twice, or that ref 7 may not cover all the claimed facts? (I am not able to read it online). SpinningSpark 19:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In 1926, compelled by his work for AT&T... and In 1934, he began working with Bell Telephone... both done.
- Could the references be better distributed throughout this paragraph? I don't understand this request. The paragraph referred to has only one reference. SpinningSpark 19:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind. Good luck with this article. ceranthor 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Pursuant to a request from Spark, I've gone through a modified the article to American English. Truth be told, I didn't find large numbers of things needed correction — mostly an occasional "analyse" that became "analyze". I feel that that prose could use some more work in places, but I don't have time just now to do a more thorough review, or offer in-depth copyediting services. Kudos on the comprehensive research! Scartol • Tok 14:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The article appears to meet all the FA criteria, though I couldn't say whether or not it is comprehensive (criterion 1b). I very much enjoyed reading it. --catslash (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support no glaring concerns on a single read through Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources checked at the first FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 23:54, 3 October 2009 [28].
Rhodotus
In my biased opinion, I believe this article is the most thorough and up-to-date source of information on this mushroom genus/species that is available on the web or in print, and think it is ready to be vetted by the FAC crowd. Looking forward to hearing your suggestions for improvement. Sasata (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from J Milburn
My initial reactions are that this article is beautifully illustrated (I use the lead image as my sign-on icon on Windows), but perhaps a little on the short side for an FA. I'll have a read through and see what jumps out at me.
- I don't like the idea of an FA with only a single lead paragraph, even if the article is quite short...
- Is "North Africa" a place in the same way North America is? Would "northern Africa" not be better?
- I think both are acceptable (see North Africa), but have changed it as I agree with your reasoning. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The type species of genus Rhodotus" It's the only species, so the "type species" mention seems a little odd.
- This I've kept as is, as here I'm specifically referring to the historical designation of the type species. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Kühner and Romagnesi" Who? Link? Explanation? Full names?
- Random mycologists who wrote something about the subject once. GGirl asked about this too; I'm going to hold off putting redlinks until I'm sure they have enough info to warrant articles. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Besson"- again.
- "Pseudohiatuleae" No article? Surely it's notable- a redlink is not necessarily a bad thing.
- Sure, I have enough info to start an article on this. Redlinked. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, I think the fact you have the mycomorphbox opposite the image of the young specimen, sandwiching the text, means that the placement is not MOS compliant. Doesn't bother me personally, but...
- Damn mmbox cramping my style again! Made changes so that not all the text (only about 1/3 now) is sandwiched. If I hear the voice of an FAC director booming from the heavens above to fix it even more, I will try. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "nuclear large subunit" Sorry? Went way over my head.
- "euagarics" Again.
- Repetition of the word "clade", and the second is linked rather than the first.
- One sentence paragraph at the end of taxonomy.
- Have now expanded to a new subsection in taxonomy. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Lentinula reticeps (Murr.) Murr." As he is known as "Murr.", do we not need to have a second period? Also, what's the deal with that authority? What's the difference between that and just "Murr."? Also, "(Peck.)"- why not just "Peck."?
- GGirl asked about this too. Further investigation revealed that the 1986 Redhead paper I used as the source actually had the authority incorrect - it should be (Mont.) Murr. It was strangely satisfying to know I had found an error made by an experienced, widely-published mycological veteran :) Anyway, I think I've presented the synonymy and the authorities in that section in a more reader-friendly manner. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "gelatinous" Link?
- "The gills have an adnate attachment to the stem, that is, broadly attached to the stem slightly above the bottom of the gill, with most of the gill fused to the stem; the gills are thick, packed close to each other, with veins and color similar to, but paler than the cap." That sentence doesn't read well. Also, there should be a comma between "than" and "the".
- "in mycological jargon"?
- "µm" Linky?
- Are there no uses for this at all? No obscure chemicals? No witchdoctory medical stuff? The article feels a little incomplete without any discussion of uses. Is this species only really known for looking distinctive and the arguments about how to classify?
- I've scraped my sources again. No "uses" nor bioactive compounds unfortunately, but I did expand the light requirements section, as I think this is what sets this species apart. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Rhodotus palmatus is saprobic, and obtains nutrients from decomposing organic matter." Tautology?
- "basswood (genus Tilia), (Acer)," Rephrase? Not clear what this means.
- Removed instances of Latin genus names for the trees and just linked the common names. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "by canopy." Should this be the canopy? Perhaps a canopy? It doesn't look right at the moment.
- "spring to fall in the" I appreciate the article is in American English, but "fall" is not a word we, as Brits, are familiar with. Our article is entitled Autumn- is "Autumn" a term you use? It's a much prettier word :)
- I did not know Brits didn't use "fall". Will use Autumn from now on. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Europe and Britain." Would we not count as Europe? "North America and Canada"?
- Bring it up with Michael Jordan (not the bball player, the author of "Fungi of Britain and Europe"). Have reordered to put Britain in front of Europe—hopefully this will offend British sensibilities slightly less :) Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "West Germany" Again, western Germany? Germany? Or are you referring to it from when it was known as West Germany? Perhaps an update?
- "the area formerly known as the USSR," Ref? It looks odd without a ref on one of the entries.
- "It has also been collected in New Zealand." Why separate? Is this a surprise?
- No, a disjunct resulting from a prior add-on. Merged. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The species gained legal protection in Hungary in 2005." Very interesting- more info?
- "The 1993 National Environmental Status Report for the Baltic countries Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania report it as "extinct or probably extinct"." Just in those countries, I assume?
- Reworded for clarity. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is possible to use a term regionally extinct, which is commonly used for such cases. It can be also written like this: ...it is considered by the Environmental Protection Ministries (a branch of government charged with implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity) to be regionally extinct reported as "extinct or probably extinct". --Snek01 (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "resurgence.[29][5]" Switch refs around so in order?
- "field – such" That the right sort of dash? I think you used a different one above?
- Changed to emdash. Before Wikipedia, I didn't know the difference between a hyphen and the dashes. Now the "corseted aesthetic" implied by emdash usage is growing on me. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure the light requirements stuff needs to have a section of its own- I'd be much more interested in a separate section discussing rarity, extinction and protection.
- I've added some info to this section, so hopefully now you will think it warrants its own section. "Rarity, extinction and protection" is covered in the new final paragraph of distribution. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Cited text"- you obviously know academia better than me, but shouldn't that be a plural?
- "Index Fungorum genus listing"- perhaps "Rhodotus at Index Fungorum"? That's how we do it with music articles
- I like that - will start using that format from now on. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No Commons cat to link to?
- You've missed the New Zealand/Australasia/Oceana cat
In all, I feel the article is lacking something- compared to other FAs, which have discussions of uses, this one seems to focus on the biology of it. I'd love to see an expansion on the details about rarity, extinction, protection and so on, and any further details about edibility (or the lack thereof) or any other uses would be a big plus. J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much for your comments again, they have been very helpful and have motivated me to look for more info to add. Your comments about the article "lacking" are well-received; I see this as an opportunity to guage what sort of quality/information availability is required for a fungal taxon FA, and perhaps this subject is on the borderline. While digging deep in the Google search results (~page 30) I found this Chinese paper which looks tantilizingly like it might have some interesting info I could add. Will contact a Chinese-speaking colleague about a translation. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, a couple more quick thoughts, mostly boring ref formatting issues-
- Horse chestnut is a dab link
- "the baltic countries" Caps?
- "It was one of 35 species to gain legal protection in Hungary in 2005.[49]" Sorry to bring this up again, but what precisely does this entail? You're not allowed to pick it? Or what?
- Shouldn't "Red list" be "Red List"? That's how our article on the subject capitalises it.
- "it is considered "extinct or probably extinct"." By whom?
- Perhaps the lighting requirements section should be a subsection of the habitat and distribution section? Seems it's mostly a discussion of where it fruits.
- Can we have a link for the word "reitculations"?
- "Rhodotus palmatus tends to fruit in cooler and moister weather" Perhaps refer to it as R. palmatus there?
- Sorry to be a pain, but perhaps a few more links in the refs? If we have articles on any of the publishers, links would be useful.
- "Vedett nagygombafajok Magyarorszagon. [Protected macrofungi in Hungary]" Is that a standard way to translate titles? I've not seen it before... Perhaps a note on the original language of the paper? There is a feature for that in our citation templates. There seems to be a bit of inconsistency about this in the refs.
- Link hasn't formatted in ref 45. You need http:// before the www.
- Ref 29, you don't need to mention MushroomExpert twice.
- Ref 5- "van der Gaag H.". I work in a bookshop, and we would list him, as an author, as "Gaag, H____ van der". Of course, I'm not really familiar with your citation style.
- Ref 31, "Rhodotus palmatus" seems like a more sensible page title than the current one.
- Similar with ref 20- how about Rhodotus palmatus - Names Record" instead?
- Ref 9, I take it there's no reference number? The ISBN of the journal world?
- Not sure what you mean by "reference number", please clarify. Sasata (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- International Standard Serial Number, PubMed Unique Identifier, PubMed Central article number, Online Computer Library Center ID number or digital object identifier. I got these from Template:Cite journal. Is there no means of tracking it? J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 47 could do with better formatting.
That'll do, that's mostly ultra-minor stuff anyway... J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed most of these suggestions above (except for the one clarification required). Have moved the light requirement paragraph into the Habitat and Distribution section like you suggested, and made a new section called "Conservation status". I like the change, for one thing, it lines up the final picture to the section that talks about phenotypic variations in fruit body appearance, so it fits nicely. Thanks for the attention to detail. Sasata (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I spent a couple hours tonight in the library and managed to find a couple more sources to add. Check out the new section on antimicrobial activity (the activity is weak, but at least the info is there now), and the new sentence discussing wood preference, and position in fungal succession. Sasata (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC) ... and another synonym, and a 1908 paper reporting its ability to produce chlamydospores. Sasata (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also couldn't resist adding a couple more photos (they look so cool), but let me know if you think it's too much. Sasata (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The photos look great, the anti-microbial information really adds to the article, love the conservation status section (and thanks for clarifying what the protection entails). My only criticism of the discussion of wood preference is the repetition of the word "wood". Sorry to pick at this sentence yet again, but "It was one of 35 species to gain legal protection in Hungary in 2005, making it a fineable offense to pick them." I assume that means one of 35 fungal species? J Milburn (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also couldn't resist adding a couple more photos (they look so cool), but let me know if you think it's too much. Sasata (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I spent a couple hours tonight in the library and managed to find a couple more sources to add. Check out the new section on antimicrobial activity (the activity is weak, but at least the info is there now), and the new sentence discussing wood preference, and position in fungal succession. Sasata (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC) ... and another synonym, and a 1908 paper reporting its ability to produce chlamydospores. Sasata (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as all of my requests (even the picky ones) and more have been dealt with brilliantly during the FAC. I feel this is now a fantastic example of our best work. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Index Fungorum is published by CAB International, publishers of the "Dictionary of the Fungi", the "bible" of mycology, and the website is maintained and updated by professional mycologists. Mushroom Expert is published by respected author Michael Kuo; reviewers were ok with the use of this source in the last fungal taxon FAC. Sasata (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
- Its range should go in the heading paragraph, if not sentence. Check out the other animal & plant FAs.
- Tangential - Circumboreal_region really needs a map. Might be worth posting to whatever wikiproject you are in.
- Why does it look like a mushroom in some pictures File:Rhodotus-palmatus-47800-cro.jpg and a ball File:Rhodotus_palmatus2.jpg in others?
- Some of the pictures are mature specimens, taken looking down on the cap so that the stem isn't seen; others show the species in a young stage of development where the cap hasn't opened up yet. I've made the caption for the taxobox image more descriptive so the reader knows exactly what they're looking at.
- "It is sometimes seen "bleeding" a red- or orange-colored liquid" - is it know why it does this? Is this special to this mushroom? This feels like a gun mentioned on the first page of a novel never to be heard from again.
- These droplets are probably the result of whatever pigment is in the caps leaching out into the moisture that accumulates on the stem... but that's just my opinion, not written anywhere else that I know of. However, I did find a tidbit of info about a similar secretory phenomenon occurring in laboratory culture and have added that. Is that sufficient to whet your appetite? Sasata (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Characteristics section is pretty dense to a lay person like me. Not sure if it needs tweaking or not.
- "Edibility" - If it's not poisonous it's edible, right? Is there any mention of it being poisonous?
- It's edible in the sense the cardboard is edible. "Edible" in the mycophagological sense means "commonly used as an edible species", although of course there can't really be a clear distinction as tastes vary. This species is uncommon enough to not have had its edibility extensively tested and documented. I'll check the sources again and if one of them specifically says "non-poisonous" I'll add that. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Though not mentioned in the sources it wouldn't take a hard leap to think that once dutch elm has wiped out a large amount of elms and they have completely decayed this mushroom will begin to lose range again. There may be a ref saying that?
- Image review - No problems (beautiful photos!). Awadewit (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Description by Bulliard is not on the page 216, but on the plate 216 (and these plates are sorted irregularry), the certain link is http://www.archive.org/stream/herbierdelafranc193240bull#page/n48/mode/1up There is also a cross-section through the fungi. --Snek01 (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a great link... have added it to the cite. Also added "plate" in the page parameter, but that makes it show as "p. plate 216"... if anyone knows how to make that look nice, do tell. Thanks Snek, Sasata (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and comment Another nice fungal article. Does FeSO4 assume too much, even with the wikilink, or would Iron(II) sulfate (FeSO4) be better - no big deal either way Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and support (I'm sure all the below will be dealt with promptly. Nice article on a nice mushroom! Congrats.)
Molecular phylogenetics analysis has helped determine that Rhodotus is most closely related to genera in the Physalacriaceae.
- Maybe link this sentence to the previous. The transition is a bit blunt. Maybe "More recently, molecular phylogenetics"
A 1986 paper reported that the species Pleurotus pubescens, first described by American mycologist Charles Horton Peck in 1891,[10] was equivalent to, and thus synonymous with Rhodotus palmatus.
- The species is not synonymous, its the name.
According to the same publication, another synonym is Lentinula reticeps, a species described by William Alphonso Murrill in 1915
- Same problem.
ornamentation
- Does this deserve a link?
core Euagarics clade
- Could we have a plain English quick explanation?
convex
These short gills, called lamellulae, form from 2 to 4 groups of roughly equal length.
- 1)Can we remove 'from' to avoid 'form from', and because it's redundant? 2) Can we change 2 to 'two' etc.?
The stem is 1.5–3.0 cm (0.6–1.2 in) tall by 0.4–0.6 cm (0.16–0.24 in) thick
- I have never seen before the construction "X is x cm tall by y cm thick". Maybe replace 'by' with 'and'.
iron salts
- Link?
- There's a link already in the sentence to lead to chemical tests in mushroom identification. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
have a roughly spherical shape, with dimensions of 6–7.2 by 5.6–6.5 µm
- Seems to be more of an ellipsoidal shape then, rather than spherical.
cheilocystidia
- Link?
the number of dead elms (resulting from Dutch elm disease)
- I find the bracketed information interesting. Maybe integrate in prose.
fineable
- 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 SandyGeorgia 23:54, 3 October 2009 [29].
Jackie Robinson
- Nominator(s): Peregrine Fisher (talk); BillTunell (talk) (contribs) 04:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria. I took this article through GA and one FAC about a year ago. I disengaged after that, and User:BillTunell then put in 1250! edits during two more unsuccessful FACs. It's hard to say exactly why it wasn't promoted, but all the sources questioned and non-free images objected to have been removed. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article is informative, well structured, and interesting. There are some writing and historical issues that I will bring up on the article talk page, but that I will summarize here. I'll leave it to others more knowledgeable to deal with sources and images. I did check for dabs with the tool, and there are none. My issues are dealt with. Nice article. :) Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
*footnotes in lead?
[reply]
- relating to CR movement and Robinson's career as a precursor to it
some word choices, wordiness, and wording issues
These are "generally" the issues I have. I'll bring up the specifics on the talk page and report back here. Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nominator comments
From the last FAC nonmination, there appear to be two classes of outstanding issues:
(1) Non-free pictures. There are only two: the Satchel Paige pic (here)] and the Pasadena statue/memorial pic, now removed. I thought the latter would be non-controversial by now (there's an established guideline for pics of public statues), but I guess it isn't. The former I expected to be controversial, and I suspect that whatever the rationale, someone will always object to any non-free pic in an FA-nominated article.
I'll still argue for the inclusion of the Satchel Paige pic as the "significant" under criterion #8 of the policy on non-free-content). user:Jappalang, among others, has argued against its significance. Despite the fact that the picture has been removed from the current verison of hte aarticle, I'd like I'd like closure on the rule interprtetation from wikiadmisntrators if possible. Otherwise I consider it as a candidate for re-insertion later.
(2) Reliablility of sources. Basically this relates to my conversation with user:Giants2008 concerning reliability rules in the last nomination phase. The issue here is whether a claim that is otherwise referenced using a reliabe footnote can be supplemented with backup footnotes from less-reliable sources that nonetheless have some other rationale for inclusion. The way I read the rule, every claim within the article's text has to have at least one reliable citation. The scope of the issue seems to be down to about 5-6 footnotes, because I've previoulsy eliminated any footnotes that seemed worthless or merely duplicative. I think the only furtherchange I anticipate making here would be elimination of the SportMag.us biography footnotes. BillTunell (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I took out all the refs that Giants2008 objected to, including the sportmag one. User:DCGeist and User:Eubulides have also adjusted the refs a ton (thanks guys). Here's the diff. Apparently we've made 142 edits since. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you've done a lot of work, which I'm still reviewing -- but so far it looks good. One request: can we re-insert the BlackFivesBlog citation? Although it's a blog, it's well-researched with unique content. user:Giants2008 didn't have a problem with it necessaily, he just asked for a defense of the blog content, which I later provided. BillTunell (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That wouldn't bother me, although its more up to the reviewers. We might put it in the External link section, although it's probably frowned upon by Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
"Robinson's daughter, Sharon, became a midwife, educator, director of educational programming for Major League Baseball, and the author of two books about her father." appears to be sourced to wikipedia articles?Current ref 191 (Announcement of the recipients...) lacks a publisher
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think the Larry Lester source is reliable. He has founded a negro league museum and worked for the Baseball Hall of Fame. His list of novels (see here) about black baseball is also very extensive. I've removed the two school refs, and I'll remove the mrbaseball.com one as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not remove the Mr.Baseball reference. The website is not the source; the source is the article author, Jules Tygiel who, like Lester, is an accomplished biogrpaher of Robinson. It just happens to be hosted on Mr.Basebnall.com.
- The Sharon Robinson sentence is not sourced to a wikipedia article. It's sourced to the books referenced in the sentence, and an independent newspaper artice. I've inserted additioanl language ot make that clear.
- I don't really care about the school footnotes, but for the purpose for which they are cited (i.e., confirming the existence of the elementary schools referenced), there is nothing unreliable about them. The schools exist. BillTunell (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but you're not citing to the actual school website, you're citing to some sort of aggregator site, so the reliability or unreliability comes into play. As for Mrbaseball, do they have permission to host that information on their site? How do we know they reliably transcribed it? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the school stuff. I found at least one of the actual schools website, but it looked kinda funky. We add some schools with better refs probably, if we care. I removed the mrbaseball ref and replaced it with a book by the same author. It said exactly the same stuff. I think the mrbaseball site was just taking excerpts from his book. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is really hopping. I'm not sure which ref is missing its publisher. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
What can I say? Once in a while you come across an article that has an exceptional subject, is fact-filled, and has a narrative that flows, the happy confluence of a reviewer's dream. Although the ending perhaps was a little abrupt, and here and there I noticed a few speed-bumps in the prose (and one spelling mistake), pointing them out now would be bad form. I'll leave a post on the talk page later sometime. Yours was one of the few articles on Wikipedia that I've enjoyed reading start to finish. Let me offer the authors my congratulations on a rare effort and hope you receive your FA star very soon. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. And if there are any spelling errors left please don't be shy in pointing them out. BillTunell (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the kind words. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – It makes me happy to see that the sourcing quality is much better this time around. I'll offer a few prose nit-picks to help in that respect, and would like to go through the article myself at some point. Wil probably wait until after an image review to support, given the questions asked in the past.
I suggest placing MLB in parentheses after the first use of Major League Baseball. This will avoid any possible confusion regarding the initials.In a similar vein, consider spelling out MVP in the award. Sports fans would know what an MVP is by heart, but we can't assume that all of our readers will.Watch for overlinking. Early in the body, I see a link to gang (a common word) and multiple links to Matthew Robinson where just one would do. A couple later examples of unnecessary repeat links are the Los Angeles Bulldogs and Kansas City Monarchs.Third paragraph of Military career: I don't understand what Robinson not smoking has to do with the charges made by the commander. Was a smoking-related charge among those not mentioned?Negro Leagues: "began to scout the Negro leagues for a possible addition to the Dodgers' roster." Capitalize "leagues"?
- Wikipedia does not capitalize the "L" in Negro leagues, unless it in some way is incorporated into a proper name (like "Negro League All-Star Game"). See this discussion and WP:MOSCAP. The Negro leagues were never unified into a single organizaton and therefore are not referred to collectively as a proper noun. This treatment is also in line with the usage at Negro league baseball. So I've changed this back to the original usage. BillTunell (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The offer allowed Robinson to leave the Monarchs with their grueling bus rides behind". If "with" was replaced by "and", or "along with", the flow of this sentence would be much better. Try it and see for yourselves.Skipping to 1947: "Greenberg had advised him that the best way to combat the slurs from the opposing dugout was to beat them on the field." The way this reads, it sounds like "them" is in reference to the slurs, but I know this isn't the intention. Perhaps "the slurs from opposing players"?
Writing looks pretty solid overall. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. I've implemented your suggestions.[31] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and I think all the images are verifiably free. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One quick referencing flaw I found while doing some formatting work: The Baseball-Reference Bullpen (reference 241) is a wiki, and therefore does not qualify as a reliable source, unlike the rest of the Baseball-Reference site. A different reference will be needed for the intentional walk note. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just removed it. It was already double refed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One quick referencing flaw I found while doing some formatting work: The Baseball-Reference Bullpen (reference 241) is a wiki, and therefore does not qualify as a reliable source, unlike the rest of the Baseball-Reference site. A different reference will be needed for the intentional walk note. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peregrine, One of the things I was disappointed in from BillTunnel's efforts was the inability to find information about the Robinson-Walter O'Malley and Robinson-Rickey relationships mentioned at O'Malley's article. Do you have any information in this regard?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't, but I could probably add some if you think that it fits in this article without going into to much detail. This has a lot (as you probably know). I didn't happen to run into much on him when I was doing the GA research, so I don't know how important it is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From the link you posted, O'Malley should be mentioned in the Robinson article in some way. The two bios should mesh on issues of there relationship to a degree if both are reliably sourced.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It does mention him. It says "Robinson's Hollywood exploits, however, did not sit well with Dodgers co-owner Walter O'Malley, who referred to Robinson as "Rickey's prima donna".[141] In late 1950, Rickey's contract as the Dodgers' team President expired. Weary of constant disagreements with O'Malley, and with no hope of being re-appointed as President of the Dodgers, Rickey cashed out his one-quarter financial interest in the team, leaving O'Malley in full control of the franchise." I can certainly add more, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony: I'm still nto sure in understand your comment. But if the information you're talking about is already contained in the Walter O'Malley article, then we shouldn't be duplicting the same content in another article. If it's different content then I'm not sure what you want to add. At the end of the day, IMO, what you're suggesting is a talk page topic (future improviement of the article) not an FAC review topic (review of the current article under FAC criteria). BillTunell (talk) 20:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I missed that paragraph. That is sufficient for this topic. My primary issues in prior FACs have all been addressed. I am now able to support.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with comments
- All in all this is a great article; however, there are a few things that are lacking a source-
- He single-handedly kept the Dodgers in the race for the 1951 pennant. During the final game of the regular season, against Philadelphia, he made a season-saving defensive play in the 12th inning and then hit a game-winning home run in the 14th. This forced a three-game playoff against the Giants.
- The graves are located about a half-mile south of the Jackie Robinson Parkway, which bisects the cemetery.
- The Yankees' Mariano Rivera is the last player in the major leagues to wear jersey number 42 on a regular basis.
- Robinson also has an asteroid named after him, 4319 Jackierobinson.
Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added refs, and changed the wording a little bit when the ref info was different than what the article had.[32] I see a typo on that diff, which I'll also fix. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
The Jackie Robinson Foundation will open The Jackie Robinson Museum on Canal Street in the west side of Lower Manhattan in 2010, I think it should be mentioned and be included as a part of the family etc. section.
- Questions -
How old was Jackie Robinson Jr. in 1971? When were Sharon and David born?Weren't there better black star ballplayers than Jackie Robinson, like Josh Gibson, Monte Irvin, Satchel Paige who were resentful that he was selected over them in 1947 to be the first to play in the majors?...Modernist (talk) 00:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
I'm trying to find the source for this I read it somewhere (maybe Bill James) - Robinson was getting criticized from both ends. The big star veterans of the Negro Leagues were for the most part too old, and they decided on JR because he was a good ballplayer and old enough to take the heat. - Good suggestions. I've started implementing them. Do you have a ref for the museum? I did a few quick searches, and only found stuff from 2008, saying it would open in 2009. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the Foundation homepage [33] scroll down for more information about the Museum, it's next door to the Metropolitan College of New York...Modernist (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I have addressed your comments.[34] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well done, - as an aside Henry Aaron wrote in his autobiography how JR's success in the majors fueled his own ambitions and served as an inspiration to his entire generation of black ballplayers...Modernist (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support An extremely well written article. Great sources, and very well put together. This is certainly featured article material.
- Comment
- Questions -
Oppose on criterion 3 - These issues should be easy to fix.
File:Jackie robinson story.jpg - Link to source needs to be fixed and license needs to be fixed (see conflicting information between dates in license and publication date).
- I've finished fixing this one up. Notice that the license used to say it was in the PD because it was published before 1923, but the date of publication was listed as 1950. Now the license says it was published between 1923 and 1977 and the copyright was not renewed (verified by the LOC). Awadewit (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:Jrobinson.jpg - Who is Bob Sandberg? This image is under copyright if he is one of Look's photographers and we would need to investigate this further.
File:Jackie Robinson No5 comic book cover.jpg - License does not match information on the image description page - note that the dates don't match up.
File:Jackie Robinson Memorial.JPG - I agree with the uploader of this image that there probably is no copyright in this image, but I would feel more comfortable if others weighed in on this, perhaps a Commons admin?
I look forward to striking this quickly. Awadewit (talk) 02:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking at them. I'll fix them tonight and tomorrow.
- Jackie robinson story.jpg fixed - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the memorial photo, I agree that there is no copyright concern. For anyone interested, I spelled out my thoughts on it here. -Pete (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, did some research on sculpture copyrights and originality. This book talks a little bit about the amount of originality needed with regard to three dimensional sculptures. Someone tried to assert copyright on a plastic version of a PD cast iron bank. They were rejected. It's 3D to 3D, not 2D to 3D, but I would think it wold work the same with 2D to 3D. The point is that sculptures can lack originality, and in that case, I would think a 3D number would be about as unoriginal as one can get. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the memorial photo, I agree that there is no copyright concern. For anyone interested, I spelled out my thoughts on it here. -Pete (talk) 04:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been doing some research on Bob Sandberg. It looks like he was a member of the Look magazine staff, so his photos should be public domain. This book says he was on their staff. He did a ton of covers for them, to the point I don't think they'd be letting him do that many freelance. Plus, the LOC has so many of his Look photos, again, I don't think he's freelance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Jackie Robinson No5 comic book cover.jpg: Not sure what you mean when you say the dates don't match up.
- OK, some of the images aren't totally clear cut. If what I've said here, plus Pete's comment, is enough, I'll leave them in. If you're not sure about any of them, I'll just remove the ones you're unsure of. Copyright stuff is always hard. Even a lawyer wouldn't necessarily be able to tell you, they'd just say it can only be determined by a court. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. Thanks for the image love. Sorry you had to do so much yourself. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 2 October 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 23:54, 3 October 2009 [35].
Virginia
I am very excited to announce Virginia is ready for FAC. I, and a handful of editors, have given a great push to get it to featured quality. This is the third time I am nominating it, but the third time's the charm. We have taken measures since the last nomination to correct any errors in the prose, including a fourth peer review, and have tripled our textual sources. We also recently moved to Harvard style citations, so if you catch any lingering errors from that migration, let us know, though I am confident in our system. While the page is long in wikitext, the prose is the same length of similar articles on Oklahoma and Minnesota, the two other FAs on states which have been a guide for us. All comments are welcomed!-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 00:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I've only had time for a quick spot check so far:-
- Page ranges in refs shold be marked "pp." not "p."
- Those page ranges should be separated by ndashes (some are, some have hyphens)
- Some no-break spaces are missing
- The Religious Affilation table is confusing. The "Christian" percentage is 76, but the denominational breakdown only totals 48%. The non-Christian breakdown only totals 18.5%
- Presentational point on image placement: The left-right zigzag seems to have been abandoned midway through the article – all the later images are right-aligned.
- Values such as "over $2 billion" should be made date-specific
These are nit-picks on what looks like a well-prepared and presented article. Wiki-time for me during the next week will be very restricted so I may not be able to extend this review. I hope the above pointers were helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I found three that only had one "p", were there more? Are the hyphens in the Harvard style or the other citations? I know you're busy, so I'll see what I can do. Also, I could add a line with "other christian" with the remaining 28% percent, but it might be confused for a cohesive group and I felt it was self-explanatory. The remainder below 100% are
"unaffiliated", which is different than "non-religious". I also got a date for that value, 2006. And, thanks to our editors, the zig-zag continues somewhat now, though its function is generally only used for sections with multiple images, and ones with just one image have it on the right, per the MOS.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I've fixed the three remaining hyphens in page ranges. As to the table, I believe that if a table shows percentages the total must add up to 100%. I assure you that "Other Christian" is much less confusing than leaving readers wondering who the other 28% are. Also, show the unaffiliated figure for the same reason. Has anyone checked out the no-break spaces? If the article is still here in a week's time I'll try and look at the prose (which looks pretty good on a rapid glace-over). Brianboulton (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a bunch for getting those dashes! I added the row for "Other Christian" and will for the Unknowns, but I don't agree that we need it. "Unaffiliated" was the wrong word, that does actually that same as "Non-religions." We use data from two different religious surveys done in 2008, and they use the different words. The first survey gives us five divisions in Christianity, but none in "other religions", and the second unfortunately lumps Christians into Evangelical, Non-Evangelical, and Black, but gave the breakdown of the four other major world religions. Both surveys have margin of error, i.e. people they spoke to but refused to answer. So I can add a row that lists 5% as either "Unknown" or "Refused" if you want, but I don't think we need it. Accurate numbers probably would add up to more than 100%, since many people hold more than one religion.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 23:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- done. No links to disambiguation pages. A few images (the infobox ones, primarily) lack alt text. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image copyright check:
- File:Shenandoah deer 20050521 191017 1.3008x2000.jpg should specify the image from which it was derived, for GFDL compliance. If it was the previous version of that image, it should say so.
- File:Virginia Civil Rights Memorial wide.jpg is a copyvio as it stands, as the statues are copyrighted and freedom of panorama in the USA is for buildings only. While it can be uploaded locally and tagged with appropriate non-free tags, its use in this article will fail WP:NFCC#8. It can still be used in Virginia Civil Rights Memorial.
- File:Virginia sign.JPG is probably a copyvio unless the sign is known to have been there since 1977 or earlier
- Not a matter for opposing, but it would be awesome if someone could come up with a version of File:Virginia population map.png as a vector image.
- That's all I can see for now. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking at the images for us! The infobox template sets the alt text for those images, and I don't currently have control over them, but they do have alt text. I've asked repeatedly about these images you see concerns about, and not got a straight answer. Ultimately, I believe the contextual significance for the Civil Rights Memorial is appropriate, just as WWII memorial would be significant to the article on WWII, and not only the article on the memorial. I was also told over at WP:IMAGEHELP that the welcome sign probably wasn't "creative enough" to be copyrighted. As for the population map, I doubt anyone would take the time to do it, especially since it's already ten years out of date. Perhaps next year after the new census we'll get an SVG. Best-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I don't think the deer is a derivative file. I touched up the colors, and it was later migrated to the Commons, but I don't see where its a derivative. Am I missing it?-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- Unrelated to sources, but WAY too much linking going on... at least a third of the words in the article are blue! Need to seriously cut down on the links to thinkgs like "Haze" "black bear" "beaver" "tobacco" "median household incomes", etc.
One unreferenced paragraph in "Civil War"- Other unreferenced bits that need referencing "World War II and the Cold War led to massive expansion of national government programs housed in offices in northern Virginia near Washington,..." ... need to double check that no other bits are lacking citations.
Personal pet peeve, but there is no need to link to an external website for the publisher name in your references when you already link to the site in the link title. It just adds to the sea of blue. An example is Current ref 36 (Virginias' Forest Resources) which has THREE external links in it. One for the link title (which should remain) one of rthe title of the work on the website and one for the home page of the website with the publisher name. Overlinking here, just need the original link.Current ref 118 (The Best States for ...) lacks a publisherCurrent ref 170 (Virginia Council for private Education...) lacks a publisherDouble check that all your newspaper titles are in italics. I noted Current ref 205 (Hart..) but there are probably others.What makes http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/bowls/current_consecutive.php a reliable source?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking over the references. Good eye catching the non-italicized one, it was listed as the publisher. I've added sources for the Civil War and the federal government, and replaced the one questionable source with a newspaper. I'll see what I can do about the wikilinking and external source linking.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 19:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A first-class article in every way.
Comment.Alt text is done. Alt text is present and is in pretty good shape (thanks), but I spotted some problems:
In the lead infobox, please supply|FlagAlt=
,|SealAlt=
, and|MapAlt=
parameters which I just now added to {{Infobox U.S. state}}. For example, the|MapAlt=
parameter should tell a blind reader the gist of the locator map, which is that Virginia lies on the Atlantic coast, just north of the midline of the country, and mostly runs east-west.The alt text for the maps doesn't convey to the visually impaired reader the gist of what the maps tell you. Please see WP:ALT#Maps for advice. I discussed the locator map in the previous bullet. Other maps whose alt text need revamping in this way include File:Virginia painted relief.png, File:Virginia population map.png, File:Virginia Ancestries by County no text.svg, and File:National-atlas-virginia crop.png.Some phrases can't be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and need to be reworded or removed as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. These include "in Williamsburg during winter", "nobleman" (this word happens to be incorrect anyway), "of Richmond", "Capitol" (twice), "James River"."Autumn" shouldn't be capitalized.Several alt text entries start with "The" but "A" would be better, e.g., "The swooping airport terminal..."
- One comment that is not alt text related:
- File:Pocahontas.jpg is kinda romanticized. Wouldn't it be better to use a historical image that likely better shows what Pocahontas looked like, such as File:Pocahontas by Simon van de Passe.jpg? Or, if the goal is romance, why not tell the popular story and use File:Pocahontas-saves-Smith-NE-Chromo-1870.jpeg?
- Eubulides (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Quick question with your FlagAlt and SealAlt: can I describe the seal in detail, then in the next field, refer to that description, or do I have to repeat the seal's description in the flag?-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, those are all added and the touch ups are done. Can you confirm that it meets standards now? With Pocahontas, I realize its romanticized, and the caption admits that up front, but the other images of her have their own historic issues as well. In general, we use Pocahontas to introduce the breath of Virginia's history and her status as a native, not specifically the colony or anything about the person. If I replaced it, I'd want one that attempted to show how natives looked, rather than how a native in European clothing looked.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Later alt texts can (and in this case should) refer to earlier ones to avoid repetition.
- Other changes to alt text look good; thanks.
- The suggested image File:Pocahontas-saves-Smith-NE-Chromo-1870.jpeg does show native dress, not European dress. Plus, it depicts the context of her most famous action, which was in Virginia. Isn't it a better image, if the goal is to introduce the breadth of Virginia's history?
- Eubulides (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, with suggestions:
The writing in the second paragraph of the climate section, first two sentences, is stilted and a little ambiguous. It could use a little work.You may wish to consider whether the demographics table should go in the separate article on the state's demographics. It is difficult, and may have a level of detail unnecessary here, given the existence of Demographics of Virginia.Kablammo (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I like to spot-check the sports section in articles such as this one. Not only is it my area of interest, but I find a check of a section buried deep in the body as a good test. I'm pleased to report that the writing in this one section looks fairly clean to me,
with this exception: "Virginia is home to two NASCAR tracks currently on the Sprint Cup schedule". Technically, NASCAR schedules races on tracks, not tracks themselves.Giants2008 (17–14) 23:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Good work, you should be especially proud to have done most of the work yourself. Over 27% of the edits to the article, compared to 2.7% for the next person. [36]
- Pretty close. Overall the content is there, the presentation just needs some cleanup.
- Overall work needs to be done to have the first one/two sentences in each section (and sometimes paragraph) support the rest. For example if you take the Minnesota article and read the first two sentences of each section or major paragraph you wind up with a good overview of the article.
- Isn't tobacco important enough to get more mentions in the article and possible go in the header? History_of_tobacco#In_the_United_States pretty much only talks about Virginia.
- We do note its drawing power in the history section and the plantation economy in general in the lead, but I think the introduction should stay with the current way of things, noting computer chips. History of tobacco has a short section about John Rolfe, but I think the topic is better covered by History of commercial tobacco in the United States, which doesn't even mention Virginia.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The geography and climate of the state are shaped by the Blue Ridge Mountains and the Chesapeake Bay, which are home to much of the state's flora and fauna." - isn't backed up in the main article body, but is true from what I found - [37]
- I added a sentence in Flora and fauna that says the mountains and the coast have most of the wilderness, and there's always been a sentence noting the Chesapeake is home to a variety of fish.
- Can you find a better pic for geography? It's tiny as heck and has no details.
- "The state population is nearly eight million.[5]" - might be worth expanding this sentence?
- We used to note that it was majority white and Baptists, but that was rejected, and then we noted its black minority, but that's no good either. Right now it just hangs off of the previous sentence about the cities.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "More than four thousand caves exist in Virginia, with ten open for tourism." Any good wikilink for this, or reason why so many exist?
- Added carbonate rock as the reason for the caves.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The climate of Virginia varies according to location." - States the obvious. Maybe have it mention that it crosses two climate classifications?
- Combined with another sentence to better introduce the section.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a dumb northerner :) - Does the whole state receive snow in the winter? What about reaching freezing temperatures regularly?
- The whole state gets snow. More in the north than the south, but that seems like, again, stating the obvious.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious to you, but not to others. "humid subtropical climate" areas vary greatly. The tip of Florida is in the same zone and will see snow once a decade or less. Any 3rd opinions on this?
- "The deciduous and evergreen trees emit hydrocarbons which give the mountains their distinct blue haze.[38]" - This sentence feels like it was taken out of some other context. May want to work in the sentence from Blue Ridge Mountains about how this is why they get their name. Why does it start with "The"?
- Remove the word "the" and moved this sentence into a caption with a new image, where we note the color.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to touch up the parks paragraph with an overview sentence.
- Combining the first sentence with a later one as Ruhrfisch suggested may have done just this.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The opening to the history section needs improvement. Why is it starting with mentions of an event/organization?
- I've added some more to this introduction, but we just want to note the three major cultures of Virginia, and its 400 years of history.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't like how it opens with the "Jamestown 2007" thing, but I can live with it.
- Native_American_tribes_in_Virginia "an area estimated to have been occupied by indigenous peoples for more than 12,000 years." - Virgina "The first people arrived in Virginia about 5,000 years ago, and farming began there by 900". The articles disagree and the statement seems unsupported by a reference.
- I think there's a difference between the arrival of nomads, and the arrival of groups, such as the Algonquin, which I think is the lower number. I'll see if we can change the sentence, but historians really aren't sure about this anyways, and some push arrival back to 17,000 BC or further. "5,000 years ago" is covered by the reference two sentences later, which is a book used throughout the history section. I'd generally prefer to stick with the one source, than just find one for this date.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Virginia is sometimes called "Mother of States" because of its role in being carved into several mid-western states.[70]" - would be made clearer with one of the maps from Colony_of_Virginia
- It is, but there's no room. That's why we have those subarticles.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Modern Times" almost exclusively focuses on race related items. There has to be other things that are important enough to mention.
- Virginia's modern history is more tied to that of the United States. Yes, there was a depression and two world wars, but these aren't unique to Virginia. Uniquely Virginian events, like major conflicts, are race related in this period, with the exception of 9/11, which is noted.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Metropolitan Statistical Areas" section is a little messy. Flips between metro areas and cities, some have population counts some don't.
- Might be worth noting that the state is fairly populous, but the population is not concentrated in one area.
- This is now noted in the caption for the population map.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Due to their ties to the U.S. Navy, Hampton Roads has a sizable Filipino population, numbering about 45,000 in the area" - why are Filipinos tied to the US navy? Is that common knowledge?
- "In November 2006, fifteen conservative Episcopal churches voted to split from the Diocese of Virginia over the ordination of openly gay bishops and clergy;" - on which side of the split did they fall?
- Changed the ordination to a possessive, "its", to clarify who was naming the gay bishops.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Virginia's economy is balanced, with many diverse sources of income, and is made up of 4.1 million civilian workers." - what is balanced intended to convey here? Also why exclude federal workers?
- Federal workers are civilians. This doesn't include the standing military jobs, though we do note the number of veterans. I've changed this around with the following sentence to be more of an introduction.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More discussion of coal and tobacco in economy since they historically carried the state?
- Coal is noted in the Geology section and in the economy for its impact. Again, the historic economy isn't as relevant as the current one, but I've added a sentence about tobacco to the paragraph on agriculture.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fine and performing arts" - might be worth mentioning the proximity to washington DC and all that it offers?
- "There are however racial and social health disparities, with African Americans experiencing 63% more premature deaths than whites, while 14.1% of Virginians lack any health insurance.[186] " - bad sentence. Rearrange and split up. How does the 14.1% compare?
- The lack of health insurance is a social disparity, and the sentence is set up to give examples of both racial and social problems.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tweaked Law and government a little - this ok? [38]
- A quick search turned up 2 featured pictures related to virginia File:Opossum_2.jpg and File:Richmond_Virginia_damage2.jpg. They may be worth including.
- I'm not sure where the Opossum photo was taken, and I think the current image of Richmond destruction gives more context.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pocahontas is pictured but not mentioned in the text. Perhaps provide a picture that supports the text instead?
- Pocahontas is now mentioned in the history section's introduction. I do wish there were better images of Pocahontas.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a picture of the blue ridge mountains would be nice.
- Isn't this a better picture of Virginia Beach? File:Virginia_Beach_from_Fishing_Pier.jpg
- We used to use that one. New buildings have gone up since it was taken, and our new one shows even more tourists. Still, its a toss up.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There aren't any scenic pictures of Virginia.
- I'd like to think that the deer, that Wolf Trap, and maybe Christ Church or Richmond are somewhat scenic. Nevertheless, there's now an image of the mountains.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a great review, and has some terrific suggestions. The big thing I will look to get are more broad or introductory sentences for sections. The images are tough, since there's limited space for them. For example, we used to have an image of the Blue Ridge, but the climate chart pushed it out. I don't see us getting the map from the Colony page or other scenic photos in without removing what's already there. Also, while that is a Virginia Opossum, I don't know if the photo is taken in Virginia. I also like our image of Civil War Richmond because of the Capitol in the background, which makes it a little more specific, but am not married to it. I suppose we might add more to the modern history section, but I worry about length and contemporary bias, which is why the Virginia Tech massacre was ultimately removed. So we will continue to look to articles like Minnesota for some guidance, feel free to make whatever edits you think necessary. Thanks again!-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 18:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry to see you oppose. We've added items like reasoning for caves, noted the population dispersal, and clarified the gay bishops and Filipino immigrants. I still hope to address other items as we can, and even get a scenic photo in there for you.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 22:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a great review, and has some terrific suggestions. The big thing I will look to get are more broad or introductory sentences for sections. The images are tough, since there's limited space for them. For example, we used to have an image of the Blue Ridge, but the climate chart pushed it out. I don't see us getting the map from the Colony page or other scenic photos in without removing what's already there. Also, while that is a Virginia Opossum, I don't know if the photo is taken in Virginia. I also like our image of Civil War Richmond because of the Capitol in the background, which makes it a little more specific, but am not married to it. I suppose we might add more to the modern history section, but I worry about length and contemporary bias, which is why the Virginia Tech massacre was ultimately removed. So we will continue to look to articles like Minnesota for some guidance, feel free to make whatever edits you think necessary. Thanks again!-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 18:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the current status on the image issues raised above? Karanacs (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Virginia sign.JPG was Kept after its RfD, and File:Virginia Civil Rights Memorial wide.jpg was moved off the commons. I believe those were the two issues.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 20:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Stifle will be away until September 28, so we could get a further response if you wanted to wait.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 17:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I find many flaws in the prose at the top, which strongly suggests that the whole text needs surgery.
- Thanks for the suggestions, and I'm sorry you feel that way about the article. The introduction tries to compactly go over each of the sections and highlight that which is unique about the subject, per the MOS. Understand that this article has now been through GAN, five peer reviews, and two previous FACs.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Logic problem: "Virginia is known as the "Old Dominion" and sometimes as "Mother of Presidents", because it is the birthplace of eight U.S. presidents." The comma makes the meaning that "Old Dominion" is also attributable to the eight presidents. Can you move the comma earlier?
- "of the state" and "the state's", three seconds apart. Try to avoid "state" twice.
- is is is. You could ellide (remove) the third one.
- A fourth "is". Perhaps "There are nearly eight million Virginians"?
- "both major national parties are competitive in modern Virginia"—well ... in which states are they not both "competitive"? And this refers to both federal and state representation, one presumes. Do you mean that it's a swing state?
- "The state government, home to the oldest legislature in the Americas, has been repeatedly ranked most effective among U.S. states." I'm sure I could easily find people who would react very badly to that claim. What criteria and tests are used to arrive at it? Impossible to avoid POV. The next issue is that the subsequent statement has an unclear relationship to this assertion: "It is unique in how it treats cities and counties equally, maintains most of the state's roads, and prohibits its Governors from serving consecutive terms." Are these reasons it is claimed to be the "most effective" state legislature? If so, a colon is required. Maintaining "most of the state's roads", wow, I can't believe it, that is amazing. (Sorry to appear sarcastic: there's a bit of puffery here that needs to be wound back. As well, you'd need to explain why double-term governors are such a good thing—some people would bring up the experience argument, so why go there at all?)
- It is actually very odd in the U.S. that the state government controls the local roads inside counties and cities. "Manages" is probably a better word though. These aren't really reasons for the Pew Research Center's grades, only that its the same topic. I think any number one ranked school, program, or group might mention that in their summary. We've been told to highlight what makes the subject unique in its field, which is the reason for mentioning the governors, roads, and counties.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still comes over as puffery, the ultimate claim. It is appropriate to let us as the readers come to that conclusion after reading the whole article; or at least to pitch the claim as not of WP's making, but the Pew Center's (lower down in the body of the article). Tony (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is actually very odd in the U.S. that the state government controls the local roads inside counties and cities. "Manages" is probably a better word though. These aren't really reasons for the Pew Research Center's grades, only that its the same topic. I think any number one ranked school, program, or group might mention that in their summary. We've been told to highlight what makes the subject unique in its field, which is the reason for mentioning the governors, roads, and counties.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Virginia's economy has many sectors: agriculture in places like the Shenandoah Valley; federal agencies in Northern Virginia, including the Department of Defense and CIA; and military facilities in Hampton Roads, home to the region's main seaport." So the "many" are agriculture and government, yes? The list items, separated by semicolons, are not entirely logical: "military facilities" are not "federal agencies"? And they are lumped together with a seaport? Then there's a period, which suggests that the list of economic sectors has come to an end. But has it? "The growth of the media and technology sectors have made computer chips the state's leading export, with the industry based on the strength of Virginia's public schools and universities." Computer chips are a low-grade product made in cheap-labour countries in east Asia. Surely you don't need a high-class education sector for that. What a jumble.
- A military facility is a federal installation (a place), the DOD is more like a federal agency (a company). Jobs in computer chip design and production typically requires a BS/BE/PHD here and in East Asian countries, you may be thinking of computer software or computer assembly.--Old Guard (talk) 10:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are sports tacked onto the end of the last para? Tony (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well colleges are mentioned in the previous sentence, to go with the college sports. If we ignore sports I worry that the introduction wouldn't properly summarize the article, but I suppose we can do without the sentence.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like all writers, we get too close to the material; can you locate an independent copy-editor to go through it? Tony (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Earlier this year we used that advice to locate User:Dincher, who gave us an invaluable going over in May. The user is now one of our supporters. But yes, we can, it is always good to have more copyeditors.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 18:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like all writers, we get too close to the material; can you locate an independent copy-editor to go through it? Tony (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well colleges are mentioned in the previous sentence, to go with the college sports. If we ignore sports I worry that the introduction wouldn't properly summarize the article, but I suppose we can do without the sentence.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments from Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this a while ago and was asked to look at it again in FAC. While it has improved considerably, I still found many places where the prose could be improved or was unclear. I will attempt to list as many of these as I can here:
In the lead I think I would mention that Richmond was the capital of the Confederacy
In the Geography section this almost has to be an error: The southern border is defined as the 36° 30′ parallel north, though surveyor error led to deviations of as much as three degrees.[11] A degree of latitude is about 69 statute miles (111 km), so this is saying there are errors in the southern border of over 200 miles (320 km)?? My guess is that it is off by up to 3 minutes (very roughly 3 miles or 5 km).
- The source we have says "3°", but I agree, it must be the smaller number, since its about 8 miles off. However, is there a better word than "minutes of arc"? Can we say "by three percent" or something, if not "degrees"?-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 22:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awkward secntence in Geology (I know what it menas, but there has to be a better way to say it): These form three peninsulas into the Chesapeake.[15] (referring to four rivers)Agreement between subect and verb - are the five regions each a singular or a plural (it seems to me they should all be the same). So "The Tidewater is..." (singular), but "The Piedmont are a series of sedimentary and igneous rock-based foothills..." (plural verb - I could see "The Piedmont is formed by a series of..."). Then we have "The Blue Ridge are a physiographic province ..." (plural verb but singular nouns "Ridge" and "Province") I can see either "The Blue Ridge is a physigraphic province..." or "The Blue Ridge Mountains are a physigraphic province..." (it seems odd to my ear to say Blue Ridge without Mountains)
- That's tough. Piedmont is French, meaning "foothills", but this is being EN, perhaps we ignore that. Google results are identical for "Piedmont are" vs. "Piedmont is", but the article Piedmont (United States) uses "is", so I've changed it to be singular. With the Blue Ridge, the phrase is always short for "Blue Ridge Mountains", though I added the word "Mountains" in there to be specific.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example Blue Ridge Mountains is linked four times in the article - twice in three paragraphs (in the Geology and Climate sections). My rule of thumb is to link something once in the lead, once in the infobox, and then the first time it is mentioned in the body of the article. Or one more example, Mesozic is linked twice in just the Geology section
Climate section has two awkward sentences Most of the state east of the Blue Ridge Mountains, as well as the southern part of the Shenandoah Valley, to the Atlantic coast has a humid subtropical climate ... perhaps something like "Most of the state has a humid subtropical climate, from the Blue Ridge Mountains and southern Shenandoah Valley east to the Atlantic coast..." would read better. I would also move the years in Although Hurricane Camille in 1969 devastated Nelson County, and Fran and Isabel in 1996 and 2003 caused flash flooding in the mountains, hurricanes rarely threaten communities far inland.[26][29] to something like "Although Hurricane Camille devastated Nelson County in 1969, and Fran and Isabel caused flash flooding in the mountains in 1996 and 2003, ..."
The MOS says to spell out percent in sentences like Forests cover 65% of the state.[37] - this is a very short sentence and the one that follows is on the types of trees, could they be combined?
Prose could be tightened in spots - two examples from Flora and fauna Other commonly foundtrees and plants include chestnut, maple,... andDeciduous and evergreentrees emit hydrocarbons which give the mountains their distinct blue haze.[39] (are there trees which are neither deciduous nor evergreen?) I also note the previous paragraph (in Climate) said Haze in the mountains is caused in part by coal power plants.[36] could these sentences be combined (probably in climate)?
- Perhaps these could be combined. For now I changed the second "haze" to "color", and its now in an image caption above.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 02:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another place where prose could be tightened by combining some Virginia has many National Park Service units, including one national park, the Shenandoah National Park. [2 sentences omitted]... Thirty parks and trails, such as Great Falls Park and the Appalachian Trail, are managed in the National Park System.[45] could be something like this (and there is probably a way to avoid repeating national park twice too): "Virginia has thirty National Park Service (NPS) units, including one national park, the Shenandoah National Park. ... Other NPS parks and trails include Great Falls Park and the Appalachian Trail.[45]"
In History, I would add either CE or AD to 900 in The first people arrived in Virginia about 5,000 years ago, and farming began there by 900.
Unless they moved the building, I would change the spelling to "capital" in After the capture of Richmond, the capitol was briefly moved to Danville.[76] might also help to add the year (1865)
Since Richmond was burned by its own citizens in the Civil War, and the photo File:Richmond Civil War ruins.jpg shows this, I would refer to this in the caption (which is now just the bland Richmond was the capital of the Confederate States of America.
Needs a ref Virginia was formally restored to the United States in 1870, due to the work of the Committee of Nine.
OK, that is it for now. I agree that the language needs to be improved to meet the FAC criteria, though this generally looks good. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking that over! Mistakes like capitol/capital are quite embarrassing.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 21:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Made some corrections, and will look at phrasing issues soon.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I struck some - will look at the rest of the article for more comments tomorrow. Looking good, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck the rest above, here are my last comments from the rest of the article (after History). I also made some copyedits - please revert if I have made things worse or introduced any errors.
- I struck some - will look at the rest of the article for more comments tomorrow. Looking good, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Made some corrections, and will look at phrasing issues soon.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 22:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a ref (or two): This method of treating cities and counties equally is unique to Virginia, with only three other independent cities in the United States outside Virginia. Incorporated towns exist and operate under their own town governments, but are also part of a county. There are also hundreds of other unincorporated communities within the counties. Virginia does not have any further political subdivisions, such as villages or townships.
- I got one for the uniqueness. Should we get one for the lack of further divisions?-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could this be trimmed?English is the only language spoken by 6,245,517 (86.7%) Virginians, though it is spoken "very well" by an additional 570,638 (7.9%) for a total of 94.6% of the Commonwealthwhich speaks English.
Missing word or phrase? People of English heritage settled throughout the state during the colonial period, and others of British and Irish heritage have migrated [there? to the state?] since for work.[108]
- Changed to "have since immigrated to the state...", though maybe the Irish are somewhat migratory...-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About seems odd here - the figure seems to be known exactly ...with about 48,745 Vietnamese statewide as of 2007.[109]
- That's the exact number from the census. I changed it to "about 48,000", since the number is surely volatile, and I think WP:NUMBERS#Large numbers recommends approximating.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a ref or two Tom Wolfe has occasionally dealt with his southern heritage in bestsellers like I Am Charlotte Simmons. Virginia also names a state Poet Laureate, currently Claudia Emerson of Fredericksburg. and "currently" should be "as of 2009"
- Got two. Will work on phrasing, but I'm having trouble changing the sentence to remove "currently". Maybe we can say she will serve until 2010?-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear / awkward last phrase in As of 2007, the Virginia state government owns and operates 84.6% of roads in the state, instead of the local city or county authority. I know what it means, but it needs to be clearer. Perhaps "...84.6% of roads in the state, which is unusual as the local city or county authorities own most of the roads in other states."?
- Added both a reference and a reason for the unusual situation.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the however needed (or in the right place?) in Democratic support persists however in union-influenced parts of Southwest Virginia...?
- Changed to "also persists", not sure about this though. The idea is most areas outside the big cites became Republican during the 70s and 80s, but because these places had some other influence (unions, colleges...) they didn't. It's actually pretty tricky to say.-- Patrick {oѺ∞} 16:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am done - am leaning towards support and made some copyedits just now, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can this be cited?
- The reasons for this include the lack of any dominant city or market within the state and the proximity of teams in Washington, D.C.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should this be musical artists?
- Virginia has launched many award-winning traditional music artists ...
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 3 October 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 23:54, 3 October 2009 [39].
First Roumanian-American congregation
I am nominating this for featured article because it is a comprehensive and well-written article on a historic Lower East Side synagogue. It was last nominated in March 2009, and since then it has been thoroughly copy-edited and requested detail has been added. Jayjg (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've removed the size parameter for the images where it is unnecessary (i.e. doesn't need to be a fixed size in order to appreciate the image). This, I believe (but I can never remember policy or find it again!), is as per policy on Images. If there is a valid reason, though I can't think of one, please revert it. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Detailed and well researched article on an important cultural landmark. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 01:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per Briangotts Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This seems a fine article, and good for FA status. Some minor suggestions:
I believe the floor/story numbering needs looking at, including the alt texts. For example, the second image's alt text says "A three story square building directly abuts a sidewalk. The facade is reddish brick, with three tall arched windows on the second floor. The main entrance juts forward from the facade, and is topped by an arch." In the text (section "Subsequent renovations and appearance in the 1990s"), we say that a fourth floor was added to the front of the building, meaning that the building was at least four-story and possible five-story, depending on whether the ground floor was considered the first floor in this instance or not. Compared to the three-story building to the left, it seems five-story. In the article body, we also say that the arched windows are on the third floor (clearly implying that in this instance at least, the ground floor was taken to be the first floor), rather than following the alt text in saying they're on the second. The alt text for the third image (demolition) again numbers the floors; it says the first (ground) floor is surrounded by plywood hoarding, and the second is visible to the street. I think the floor that is visible was the third (i.e. the one that had the arched windows on the façade), rather than the second. --JN466 17:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)I think this is fixed now, pls review. --JN466 23:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]The article is nominally on the congregation, but most of its content is on the building. While this seems quite appropriate, it would be nice if the article ended with information on the congregation, i.e. whether it continued/continues to exist and meet after the collapse of the building in 2006. --JN466 17:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)couldn't find any more sources on recent developments either. --JN466 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]Just out of interest (it might make a useful external link), there is a photograph of the original third-floor arched stained-glass windows, showing the top roundel with its three spandrels (two large, one small, as mentioned in the text) here: http://www.forgottensynagogues.com/image.asp?img=Roumanian_Congregation.jpg JN466 18:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)per Jayjg; same congregation name and window layout, but different city and synagogue altogether. --JN466 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]In "Early activities", 1st para, we say, "At the latter service, which was boycotted by Orthodox rabbis, Herzl was not eulogized, nor was his name mentioned." This sounds potentially a little strange, partly due to the mention of the boycott, as though Herzl was snubbed at his own memorial service by the large crowd that had turned up to commemorate him. I suspect the congregation was respecting Herzl's modesty; he had expressly asked that there should be no speeches at his funeral service. JN466 14:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)couldn't find any more sources on this specific service either. --JN466 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the thorough review, Jayen466. Responding to your points in order:
- You were correct, and good changes!
- The most recent information I can find is from 2006, when the congregation moved to Spiegel's mother's apartment, and vowed to re-build. There certainly has not been anything built since then, nor any stories on the congregation.
- I believe that's a different synagogue, the First Roumanian Congregation at 3622 W. Douglas Blvd. in Chicago. The website (and book) in question is about the forgotten synagogues of Chicago. You can see a picture of the whole wall here and here. The synagogue is also mentioned on p. 9 of this: [40] It has been the Stone Temple Missionary Baptist Church since 1954.
- You may be correct; the source doesn't indicate the reason, but obviously found it odd. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Proofread completed: this is good stuff, well researched, well written. Extra brownie points for all the work put in formatting the clickable footnotes and references. JN466 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Recent improvements have eliminated the considerations that I had last April. Well done...Modernist (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This is a good read and does a fine job telling us the history of the building itself, prominent people that attended as well as the sad demise of the synagogue. I know myself that though monies would have been more available to make repairs needed to keep the synagogue structurally sound if it had been placed on the NRHP, the constraints of such a placement oftentimes makes later alterations, especially those that alter the exterior appearance, subject to outside review that is oftentimes meddlesome. Extensive refs which all check out as best as I could see...nice job!--MONGO 03:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- '
Oppose'. This article appears to have difficulty determining its core topic. Is it about the building? Is it about the people? Here is how I see the current article structure:- Background information on Romanian Jews in NYC and the founding of the Congregation
- History of the building - this information is unnecessary in an article on the congregation (or could at least be condensed into a few sentences)
- Building purchase and initial renovations - again, this is overly detailed for an article on the congregation but would be appropriate in an article on the building itself
- More renevations - overly detailed for congregation article, appropriate for article on building
- Early activities - very detailed account of specific events between 1903 and 1911. Appropriate for either subject
- Cantor's Carnegie Hall switches focus entirely in the second paragraph to focus more on individuals than either the congregation or the building. I question why there are so many biographical details on some of the individuals, and I think what remains here should be rewritten to be a focus on either the building or the congregation
- Decline discusses both the congregation and the building
- Collapse again has focus on both the congregation (which no longer used the building) and the building
- What happened during the period between 1911 and 1980? We have a very detailed account of specific events that happened at the turn of the century, and not much on events that happen after that.
I recommend another copyedit. I copyedited the first few sections but stopped. There are issues with passive voice and overly circular sentences that can be difficult to digest.
Karanacs (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Karanacs, I think that the article should be about both the congregation and the structure...I'm thinking that integrating both subjects together gives the article a better overall feel than seperating them. Perhaps more is needed, as you mention, regarding the period between the early 20th century and 1980, if such material is available. It is very difficult to write articles about subjects that aren't well documented in either the news or in books...what we have here may be as comprehensive as it can be, so are the main arguments in opposition about the structure and prose or about whether the article lacks focus and depth?--MONGO 00:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Karanacs, thanks for your thorough review and copy-edits.
- Regarding the article, it is about both, of course, a congregation that occupied a notable building. Synagogues are a combination of structure and people, and the word itself, "synagogue", is used to refer to both. In this case the two were effectively inseparable for most of their existences; thus, the article discusses both aspects. Interestingly, on other FAs about synagogues I've gotten feedback that there wasn't enough detail on the structure.
- You are correct that there is more about the turn of the century and the past few decades than the period in between. Unfortunately, MONGO is right; there don't appear to be any sources that really discuss this period in the synagogue's history in any detail. To be honest, there's very little about any of its history, and—aside from the NRHP nomination form—certainly nothing with more than a paragraph or so; that's why I needed to find almost 90 sources to build the article. I am fairly confident that this is the most comprehensive resource that exists anywhere on the synagogue.
- Regarding discussions of individuals, when they are famous (e.g. Edward G. Robinson), the details given are the ones relevant to their relationship with the synagogue. Otherwise, (e.g. synagogue rabbis), a brief description of their lives is given, as Wikipedia does not have individual articles on them, and is not likely to. All of this is part of the social history of the synagogues; who worshiped there, who were the rabbis, what were their backgrounds and activities, etc.
- Finally, regarding the copy-editing, it has already been copy-edited several times, by (now 3) different editors. Of course, different people have different tastes in writing; I've had the unfortunate experience in the past of being whipsawed between different reviewers each insisting on their own personal preferences. I'll take another pass through it, and I do appreciate the work you've done on it, which I think improved it. It would be great if you could do more.
- Thanks again. Jayjg (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The prose is not my primary concern, and I would not have opposed on that basis alone.
- I understand that there may be a dearth of sources for some aspects, but including such detail about one time period and not others leads the article to seem unbalanced. The unbalance extends to the biographical information - we are given a lot of detail about a few people who aren't quite notable enough to have their own article and it seems out of place here. Perhaps that excessive information could be moved to footnotes?
- I am not very familiar with Jewish terminology. In my (Protestant) experience, "congregation" is used to refer to the people, while "church" could mean either the people or the building or both. I assumed, as you verified, that "synagogue" covers both aspects, but "congregation", to me, did not mean the same thing. If congregation does cover both meanings, that may need to be made much clearer in the lead for people of other (or no) faiths who attribute a different meaning to the term.
- Perhaps a minor reorganization and slight refocus of the article could lead to better flow and make more sense. In that vein, I'd start with the history of the building (what is now the Early tenants section). Incorporate the "origins" into the "purchase and renovation ..." section, as there is very little information on the previous location or activities of the congregation before they moved. Early activities would then go before "Subsequent renovations...". With a bit of careful prose and the restructuring, I think the article would make more sense and not seem to jump back and forth as much.
- Karanacs (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to your points, in order.
- Which people do you feel have material that could be moved to a footnotes? I'm happy to take a look.
- You are correct that "synagogue" is the term more analogous to "church". Perhaps it would help if the name were changed to "First Roumanian-American Congregation Synagogue"; that's what it's called in the NRHP nomination forms. BTW, even though the NRHP is really about buildings, the nomination forms also devote space to the congregation, the cultural milieu and background, etc.
- Those are good suggestions, and I'll attempt something in the next few days.
- By the way, please don't interpret my delay in responding as a lack of interest. I've been extremely tied up with other matters, and haven't been able to edit in a week. I'll be quite busy for the next week as well, but will have more time after that. Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K., I've re-organized it along the lines of your suggestions, and made some other changes which I hope will aid in readability and flow. Please let me know what you think. Jayjg (talk) 06:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I like it much better now and am striking my oppose. On reading it, though, I realized that you were right about placing the overview of the people first. I moved that section up and combined it with the origins of the building section into one overall "origins" section. I think having these two as subsections will make it even clearer that the building and the people combined to create this entity. (and if you don't like this change, feel free to revert it). As for biographical info, this time I was only surprised a bit by the detail on Chaim Porille and Mordecai Mayer; if the details that are given are important to the congregation itself (like their death dates), I can see their usefulness, but I don't see a link between most of the biographical information and the congregation. (I may be missing something.) Karanacs (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I like what you've done. Regarding Porille and Mayer, my reasoning is as follows: they don't have Wikipedia articles, and they served the congregation for decades each (essentially until their deaths or retirements). Each section gives a (very) brief summary of their lives, shorter even than their obituaries, and generally includes activities they carried out while rabbi of the synagogue. It's interesting to note that First Roumanian-American was hiring foreign-born rabbis throughout the 20th century. It's also interesting to note that, although this was a Romanian-Jewish congregation, from 1932 onwards the congregation hired Polish Jews as rabbis. Both of these facts are likely related to the congregation's Orthodoxy and traditionalism (the greatest supply of traditional Orthodox rabbis at that time would have been from Poland). Anyway, I don't think 3 or so sentences on each is too much detail to describe a career, but I'm open to other views. Jayjg (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I like it much better now and am striking my oppose. On reading it, though, I realized that you were right about placing the overview of the people first. I moved that section up and combined it with the origins of the building section into one overall "origins" section. I think having these two as subsections will make it even clearer that the building and the people combined to create this entity. (and if you don't like this change, feel free to revert it). As for biographical info, this time I was only surprised a bit by the detail on Chaim Porille and Mordecai Mayer; if the details that are given are important to the congregation itself (like their death dates), I can see their usefulness, but I don't see a link between most of the biographical information and the congregation. (I may be missing something.) Karanacs (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Responding to your points, in order.
- The prose is not my primary concern, and I would not have opposed on that basis alone.
- I see it as analogous to an article about a country, which could well have separate sections for physical geography and for government and culture; or analogous to a Wikipedia article about a person famous for a single incident, which could have separate sections for the person's early life, and for events leading up to the incident. A synagogue is as much a single concept (including both building and people) as is a country. (involved editor) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the fact that this article blends both architectural ("about the building") and cultural ("about the people") information makes it an improvement upon articles about either architecture and culture-- when an overlap is apparent. Structurally the only aspect I worry about is that it is sort of saddening with the three consecutive sections of "Decline," "Collapse," and "Controversy." But honestly, I think it is thoroughly featured article quality. Getting people reading and changing the wording may be beneficial, more so for their own reading of this article, but at this point the article does not need any more copy editing to be featured article quality, three times is sufficient in my view. Especially when it was already very well written. Best, DVD 02:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I think it is a fascinating and well-written article. As to the building/people thing, I have two comments. The first is purely anecdotal, but as a Jew my experience is congregation and synagugue being used interchangable. for example, the Conservative Movement's lay branch is called United Synagogue (the youth branch is United Synagogue Youth) - obviously it is not a union of buildings but of congregations - the point is, I think, "synagogue" or "bet ha Knesset" i.e. "meeting house" is for Jews interchangable with congregation, the people who meet regularly (to congregate) become an institution when they have a building. Similarly, the synagogue I belonged to growing up was the — Hebrew Congregation, which was definitely the name of the building as much as the name of the group the building served. In Hebrew, "bet" means house but it also means family, in the dynastic sense (e.g. the house of David = David's descendents); I see a strong connection between the idea of the physical structure and the group of people. Second comment, less anecdotal: as a social scientist I observe that the distinction between a building and a person, while certainly reasonable and meaningful, is like all such distinctions culture-bound. As reasonable as it is to view them as separate, it is just as reasonable to view them as functionally integrated. One could write just of the building - such an article I suppose would be of interest to architects. One could speak just of the people ... except it would be impossible to talk of this specific group of people without making constant reference to the building. And while an architect might value an article that was exclusively about the building, most social scientists would say that the building means nothing except in relation tot he people who use it. Which reminds me of a joke I can't help ending with. There is a shipwreck, the sole survivor is a Jew who is washed up on a small island. Throughsome luck and determination he surivives for several years until finally he a passing ship sees his fire and sends a rescue party. When they reach the island they notice three shacks. He runs into one, obviously his home, where he is packing the meager belongings he has held onto. Someone from the rescue party points to one of the other shakcs and aks if there is someone else one the island. The man says "no, I am alone ... but I wanted a synagogue to pray in." The rescuer points to the other shack and asks what that is. The man replies "Oh! And that is the synagogue I wouldn't be caught dead in!!" maybe you have to be Jewish to get it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I revised the article to clarify that the NRHP application document, used heavily throughout the article, is published by the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, not by the U.S. Dept of the Interior or the National Park Service, and I added link to the accompanying four 1997 photos of interior and exterior. I added mention, up front, that the building is NRHP-listed, in 2009, despite having been demolished in 2006. By a slow process of reporting to the National Register and their following up with error corrections and other changes (see wp:NRIS info issues, I and others in wp:NRHP will push towards getting the National Register to update about this (i.e. to delist this building). I haven't given the article a detailed review, but offhand it looks good! doncram (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 23:54, 3 October 2009 [41].
Brian Booth
- Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive article on Australian cricketer, who captained Australia twice. He also went to the 1956 Olympics in hockey, and is a lay preacher, retired education department official. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't read the article yet, but you need a ref for "In the Australian edition of the 2002 Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, he wrote a chapter titled The Curse of Sledging." Aaroncrick (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead - "He captained Australia for two Tests during the 1965–66 Ashes series while regular captain Bob Simpson due to illness and injury." Possibly change to, " ... while regular captain Bob Simpson was absent due to illness and injury."
- tweaked. very carelless YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Early Years - "Booth was recalled a month later for a match against Len Hutton's England cricket team at the Sydney Cricket Ground." English cricket team?
- tweaked YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "New South Wales fell further to 5/26 before Booth came in with a borrowed cap and bat to join Peter Philpott." Did he borrow other gear?
- I would think so, who would bring pads adn box but no bat, but the source doesn't mention anything else YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "He played in six matches and had few opportunities, managing only 157 runs at 31.40 and passing fifty on only one occasion." remove 'and'.
- tweaked YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "It was his 15th first-class match, and helped his state to seal a fifth successive title with a ten-wicket win over their arch-rivals." Removed 'to'.
- tweaked YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Booth passed 50 on two occasions, making 75 and 85." Better off saying 'both'
- No, these 50s occurred on separate occasions, not in both innings of the same match YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, misread. Aaroncrick (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, these 50s occurred on separate occasions, not in both innings of the same match YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Test Career - "Booth had a strong first-class season, scoring 718 runs at 65.27 with two centuries to place third on the run scoring lists." Aggregetes instead of 'run scoring lists'?
- done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "In a match against Tasmania, Booth struck a breezy 100 from 104 balls in 90 minutes of batting, including a six that flew out of the ground." Was the match at the NTCA Ground? As the road is only 70m away.
- No Hobart YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hitting the ball out the ground at he Domian is still no amazing feet. He would have only cleared, a small stand or a grass bank. Small boundaries as well. Not as if he was at the MCG/SCG. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to cut it out. I'm not sure if Robinson had anything in mind in highlighting that one YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless he hit it into the gale blowing off Mount Wellington brrr... Aaroncrick (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to cut it out. I'm not sure if Robinson had anything in mind in highlighting that one YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hitting the ball out the ground at he Domian is still no amazing feet. He would have only cleared, a small stand or a grass bank. Small boundaries as well. Not as if he was at the MCG/SCG. Aaroncrick (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No Hobart YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Another highlight was an 87 against the touring West Indies, helping New South Wales to complete an innings win." Is the first 'an' needed? Also is 'to' needed?
- It's fine I think YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- " ... he and Victorian opening batsmen Bill Lawry were the new faces and they were regarded as the last two players chosen." Is 'they' needed?
- Maybe, maybe not, but I reformulated the whole sentence anyway YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- " ... featuring in a partnership with centurion Bill Lawry." How many runs were put on?
- Added YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "English captain Ted Dexter attempted to shut down Booth's scoring by employing leg theory." Change to 'the leg theory'
- I don't think this is correct. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Temporary captain - " ... he was unaware if the rolling of the pitch after the toss was legal ... " Is this necessary?
- I think so, it shows his mindset YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aaroncrick (talk) 05:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I was skimming through this article I got the impression that there is very little in it other than Brian Booth's cricket career. It goes into many details about various games that he played in but has few details on his life apart from that. (I was unable to find either of his parents names, whether he had any siblings, or either of his children's names.) I also believe that the readability of the article could be vastly improved by using subheaders. 222.216.176.249 (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this is quite natural because he was a world-class cricketer, and while he was selected in Australia's hockey team, he never got to play. The other thing is that in the old days there was no regular first-class hockey season in Australia with interstate teams, unlike Australia, so basically nothing is written about them; there are basically no hockey history books sold in Australia, whereas with cricket there is a heap every year. As for his teaching, he would not have been notable for preaching, pedagogy or politics of itself. However I have managed to scrape out some more statistics about the 1974 election and a bit more about Booth to add. It is not necessary to add his family's names as they are private individuals. I think the RL part is quite ample, given that the "style" section is about his mixing of religion and sport. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More subheaders added YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this is quite natural because he was a world-class cricketer, and while he was selected in Australia's hockey team, he never got to play. The other thing is that in the old days there was no regular first-class hockey season in Australia with interstate teams, unlike Australia, so basically nothing is written about them; there are basically no hockey history books sold in Australia, whereas with cricket there is a heap every year. As for his teaching, he would not have been notable for preaching, pedagogy or politics of itself. However I have managed to scrape out some more statistics about the 1974 election and a bit more about Booth to add. It is not necessary to add his family's names as they are private individuals. I think the RL part is quite ample, given that the "style" section is about his mixing of religion and sport. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quickie comment: From the lead: "...had an inclination to use his feet to attack spin bowling." If I didn't know cricket I might think this meant he kicked the ball all over the place, as in soccer. It might be an idea to transfer this information to the main body of the article, where a short explanation could be added. Brianboulton (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Twaking YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Booth started the 1963–64 season strongly. He scored centuries in his first two innings, recording 121 and 169 not out against Queensland and Western Australia respectively.[5] His rapid innings against Western Australia at the SCG took only 94 minutes during the second session of the day. One six came from a Des Hoare beamer, which Booth hooked onto the roof of the stand on the hill.
- The 169* came in 165 minutes (see the duration of the innings in CA). Hoare did not play in the match.
- Fixed, and removed the beamer part, maybe Robbo got his wires crossed YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Booth did not pass 40 in the last three Tests and ended with 234 runs at 29.25 as Australia lost 2–1,[16] their first series loss since the 1956 Ashes series and their first series loss against a team other than England.
- Pakistan, 1956-7
- Fixed and clarified. I notice almost everyone when discussing the loss to the WI as the first series loss (not counting one offs) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some players felt that Booth would have been more popular among the playing group, while other cricket observers thought that he would not have been hard-nosed enough in pursuing his team's competitive interest.
- Not clear what you are trying to say here Tintin 15:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tweaked YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - See no problems except the ones raised by Tintin. They should be fixed soon. Aaroncrick (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment2 The identity of the Coleman book should be mentioned in the notes or references. Tintin 07:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, thanks for reminding YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.- Current ref 56 says the publisher is "Psephos" but who is that? What makes this a reliable source?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Psephos is run by User:Adam Carr, now retired but a legend of Wikipedia in the 2006 and before era. Apparently it is the biggest archive of electoral results in the world. He was a political official of Michael Danby and his archive was usually sourced everywhere all over Wikipedia, so most people accept, although for these purposes it might not be the best even though he just copied them from teh official govt log somewhere, which I'll try to track down YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- AC has a PhD in history and the site is also endorsed by any academic on its own wiki article Psephos YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Psephos is run by User:Adam Carr, now retired but a legend of Wikipedia in the 2006 and before era. Apparently it is the biggest archive of electoral results in the world. He was a political official of Michael Danby and his archive was usually sourced everywhere all over Wikipedia, so most people accept, although for these purposes it might not be the best even though he just copied them from teh official govt log somewhere, which I'll try to track down YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Comments –
If I remember correctly, a person's place of birth is not supposed to be in parentheses following the name. In this article, it creates repetition with the start of the second paragraph."Drafted in as an emergency after the start of the match". Feels like a word is missing. Do y ou mean "emergency substitute" or something like that?
- Subs are not allowed in cricket once the toss has been done. The source doesn't say explicitly, but Morris and Watson would have become unavailable on the morning of the match before the toss, but after Booth had gone to work and they would have had to phone him up to come to cricket. Except that would have taken some time because the toss is normally half an hour before the start. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is emergency used commonly like this in cricket? If so, don't worry about it. That just confused me the first time I saw it.Giants2008 (17–14) 00:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Subs are not allowed in cricket once the toss has been done. The source doesn't say explicitly, but Morris and Watson would have become unavailable on the morning of the match before the toss, but after Booth had gone to work and they would have had to phone him up to come to cricket. Except that would have taken some time because the toss is normally half an hour before the start. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Ashes: Two Ashes links in the section. Consider replacing one with a more specific link to that year's competition, if avaliable."In his rapid innings against Western Australia at the SCG, Booth scored 63 for his state against South Africa, but was unable to prevent defeat. ." Excess punctuation at the end.Vice-captaincy: "and sometimes irritated made derogatory comments towards teammates." Don't like the location of "irritated" Perhaps "and sometimes made derogatory comments towards teammates when irritated."?Temporary captain: An Old Trafford link here goes to the soccer stadium. You could just remove it, as I remember seeing a couple of links to the cricket stadium earlier.Style: "He was known for not hitting the ball hard but for his easy and relaxed style." I'm not sure "but for" works grammatically. Maybe "but having an..."?"Booth stood 181 cm and weighted 66 kg who refrained from...". I know "who" doesn't work grammatically in this one.Outside cricket: He has served as the club president among other positions on the executive". Again feels like a word is missing at the end.Commas before and after "or verbal intimidation tactics".Giants2008 (17–14) 01:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the rest YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisionalsupport pending resolution of the one sourcing concern. Bear in mind that I don't know if all the cricket terms are correct, even after reading numerous FACs in the subject area. Most everything appears in order, besides the one thing mentioned multiple times already. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the rest YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "Booth was born in Perthville, located 162 km (101 mi) outside the New South Wales regional town of Bathurst" Google Maps says they're 9.2km apart, needs checking.
- In the lead Booth was born in Bathurst, in the first line of the body Perthville.
- Fixed YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "He made 59 against the Marylebone Cricket Club in a match that was effectively a dress rehearsal for the Tests" only four of the MCC's XI played in that years Ashes so that seems an exaggeration.
- Fixed YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "featuring in a partnership of 46—the highest in Australia's innings—with centurion Bill Lawry. Australia managed only 190 on the bowler-friendly pitch." Lawry was a centurion in the second innings, this description sounds like the century came in the first innings.
- Fixed YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "as captain Richie Benaud needed quick runs; observers felt the need to attack cost Booth his maiden Test century" I know it's 'observers' opinion but it doesn't seem to tally with me. If you're leading 2-1 in an Ashes series do you need quick runs, also Australia scored 98 runs following Booth's dismissal without a declaration.
- After Booth was out they scored 98 in 110 minutes. Reasonably fast I think, considering the calibre of bowling England had at the time. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "As of 1997, he was one of only ten batsmen to have exceeded 10,000 runs in Sydney grade competition" Page 17 of this PDF (http://www.cricketnsw.com.au/nswgc/AA/2008/2008_GradeRecords.pdf) has 18 above 10,000 with Booth in ninth as of 2008.
- Note 7 is 'Perry (2005)' but the book in the refs is 2000, also other book notes don't have years.
- Fixed the two above YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a reason for the commented out images.
- An image reviewer Jappalang has come to the conclusion that PD-Australia doesn't work on US soil unless they are pre-1946, so I comment those out when it comes to FAC YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Jpeeling (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been remiss but I have a copy of Booth's autobiography Booth to Bat so if YellowMonkey (or whoever) is after added info (such as Booth's parents' names), I can supply. --Roisterer (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, info added YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 04:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review - File:Brian Booth graph.png - The source for the stats needs to be listed on the image description page. Awadewit (talk) 04:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional support (Note: Prose, source, and image review.) - I know next to nothing about cricket, so my ability to understand this article this somewhat limited. However, I don't think this is the place to explain the game of cricket. :) I could still grasp the gist of the article, especially the later sections, despite my shocking ignorance. I have a few questions:
- I am not an expert in cricket sources, so I cannot say if these are high-quality cricket sources, but I can say that they meet our WP:RS policy, with the exception of the one I mention below.
- I agree with Ealdgyth above that the Psephos site is a problem. It needs to be replaced - I don't see a reasoning provided that would make this a RS.
- In response to the question about the commented out images, YM wrote "An image reviewer Jappalang has come to the conclusion that PD-Australia doesn't work on US soil unless they are pre-1946, so I comment those out when it comes to FAC" - Does this mean that he adds the images back after FAC? I'm a bit concerned here.
- Not at all. No. These pictures were added before he told me that the template doesn't work, so I just comment them out at the FAC. None have come back, by me or by anyone else YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Like the IP above, I was surprised about the lack of information on other aspects of Booth's life, but I take it from YM's response that there is little info available. I accept that.
- Well he was famous for being a world-level sportsman and not a world-level pedagogue or preacher. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will be happy to support this article once the source issue is cleared up. Awadewit (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll email the owner of Psephos to ask what page the Vic election results came from YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - I now have a herniated disk and cannot promise to keep responding here in a timely fashion. I will leave it up Ealdgyth and other reviewers to decide the source issue at this point. Awadewit (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No reply, so removed that part. Will try and find it in hard print later YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - I now have a herniated disk and cannot promise to keep responding here in a timely fashion. I will leave it up Ealdgyth and other reviewers to decide the source issue at this point. Awadewit (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll email the owner of Psephos to ask what page the Vic election results came from YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:01, 29 September 2009 (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 SandyGeorgia 23:54, 3 October 2009 [42].
Tragic Kingdom
- Nominator(s): EA Swyer Talk Contributions 17:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC), User:Tezkag72[reply]
Well, I've finally got around to a third nomination. After a long wikibreak, Tezkag72 and I have resolved the comments brought up at the previous nominations. Tezkag will be along to add his name and comments soon. I'm nominating because I sincerely believe the article meets the criteria and I'll resolve any critism as soon as I can. Third time lucky? EA Swyer Talk Contributions 17:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Technical points: external links are fine, no links to disambiguation page. The one image is valid fair use but needs alt text. Stifle (talk) 12:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Links in quotations need to be removed per MOS:QUOTE and reviews in infobox should be sourced with citations to avoid linkrot per suggestion of the Album Wikiproject. Hekerui (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
Shouldn't the second paragraph of the tour section have citations?bridies (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- I vagely remember the references being removed because the material wasn't likely to be challenged. I have added 4 citations anyway, which should cover everything. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 12:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 34th Street is a magazine, from which I cite a review of the album. No facts are taken from it. The facts from popdose used to be cited from Billboard until their website revamp (and now I can't find or cite anything from it). Will replace everyhit with Chart Stats, which WP:GOODCHARTS lists as reliable. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 23:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UK chart positions now taken from Chart Stats. The facts taken from Popdose are from an interview with Billboard magazine's Director of Charts. I would cite directly from a page BB used to have on their website but their new website inspires expletives from me. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 23:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll leave this last one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review - The one image in the article, which is fair use, meets WP:NFCC. Awadewit (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but shouldn't references such as 27, 29 and 30 be placed after the punctuation? Spiderone 08:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support. Due to the large number of references citing chart positions, I have tried to place the refs as near to the information as possible so a reader knows which source to look up. Otherwise some sentences would have half a dozen references after the fullstop. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 14:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Has MOS changed its stance on discouraging the use of decorative quote marks and encouraging block quotes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.