→September 2011: +3 |
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) promote 1 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
==September 2011== |
==September 2011== |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fomitiporia ellipsoidea/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Northrop YF-23/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Northrop YF-23/archive1}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Grosser Kurfürst (1913)/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SMS Grosser Kurfürst (1913)/archive1}} |
Revision as of 19:38, 11 September 2011
September 2011
- 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 19:38, 11 September 2011 [1].
Fomitiporia ellipsoidea
Unlike my last nomination, this species is actually an important and interesting one: it produces the largest fruit bodies in the world. When Fomitiporia ellipsoidea was described a few years ago, it looked destined to remain obscure, of interest only to those few mycologists concerned with Chinese polypores. However, a few months ago, it was announced that an enormous fruit body had been found, weighing half a tonne, and the mainstream press around the world picked up on the story- it even appeared on the news section of the main page. I feel that the article is ready for FA status; I've got everything I can from the sources and even managed to get hold of a picture. Thanks to Sasata (talk · contribs) for a thorough GA review, to Danaman5 (talk · contribs) for translation of a Chinese article, to The Pink Oboe (talk · contribs) for the map image and to Dr. Bao-Kai Cui for the release of a free photo of the fruit bodies. J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No issues were revealed by copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 7: page(s)?
- It's the whole thing, really; I'm just making sure it's clear which one is the "original description". Should I give the whole page range?
- Ref 16: check punctuation
- Money 2011: journal name should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments. Nice to see a BE fungus! A few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- noted because of the discovery of a very large fruit body, the largest ever recorded — clunky, a specimen of which had the largest fruit body ever recorded?
- "Very large" is overworked throughout this article,
- hard, woody fruit bodies that are resupinate, and remain hard and woody — repeats "hard and woody"
- 5 and 8 pores per millimetre, with a somewhat thick space between. — How thick can it be with up to eight per mm?
- it is hard and woody (again)
- Methyl blue — why caps, unlike methyl violet or methylene blue,?
- "Similar species" — has too many "however"s
- I'd move the map to the right, it breaks subheading on my screen
- You have two conversions of hectares, but they should be to acres (US unit), not m2 (another metric unit)
- No further concerns, changed to support above, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support from Ucucha, with some minor comments:
"F. psedopunctata"—not pseudopunctata?- You can do better than those two maps just showing the provinces.
- I've made a request. J Milburn (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we need the synonyms of the oak on which they found the fruiting body?
- I can remove them if you like- there was some confusion. The original source used Cyclobalanopsis patelliformis, but Cyclobalanopsis is usually recognised as a subgenus of Quercus, and, annoyingly, that name was recently demoted to a synonym of Q. patelliformis. J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion of Armillaria seems rather too long to me.
- I've trimmed it a little. J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, it's still too much (I'd only say something like "Some Armillaria are also large, but their individual fruiting bodies remain small."), but happy to defer to you. Ucucha (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's quite important to provide the context- the journal article does so, and it's telling that someone posted on the talk page when it appeared on the main page, complaining that F. ellipsoidea wasn't the biggest, and describing an Armillaria species. J Milburn (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, it's still too much (I'd only say something like "Some Armillaria are also large, but their individual fruiting bodies remain small."), but happy to defer to you. Ucucha (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've trimmed it a little. J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, it's good work: well-written and using all the reliable sources I could find about the species. But you're saying Gymnopilus maritimus wasn't interesting? Ucucha (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments- having a read-through now. Queries below.Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The pair named the species Fomitiporia ellipsoidea. - short, crisp sentences are good, but this might be a little too abrupt. I must admit I can't find anything to connect it with as possibly a little long if connected with the following sentence (not a deal-breaker this as nothing jumps out as a clear-cut improvement)why is ellipsoid in italics rather than quotation marks? It looks a little confusing juxtaposed to italicised latin words... (?)I think I'd link "polypore"- any reason why " 8 millimetres (0.3 in) " is unabbreviated?
The shiny hymenium surface.. - looks a little funny as hymenium is a noun yet it is in an adjectival position sentence wise. I think if we make this "The shiny spore-bearing (or spore-producing) surface, or hymenium,..." (or you could have "hymenium" in parentheses) makes it more accessible to the reader without losing meaning.
Looking good otherwise. Easy fixes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support With COI as GA reviewer and fungus fan. I carefully reread the article again, and have a few more suggestions for prose tweaks. Sasata (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- in the first sentences, fruit body pipes a link to Sporocarp (fungi), while in the second sentence, the fruit body is defined as a basidiocarp. Both are technically accurate, but perhaps something might be done about the potentially confusing repetition?
- Rephrased, better?
- "…readily differentiated microscopically from other, similar species." not sure if the comma is needed.
- the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the lead is somewhat redundant with the 1st sentence (received/attracted international attention)
- Redundancy: "The species was first described…" and soon after "…describing it for the first time"
- "…it is firm, solid and reminiscent…" comma after solid?
- ellipsoid is linked thrice in the article; twice will suffice
- micrometers -> micrometres?
- change "wood-inhabiting fungi" to wood-rotting fungi?
- "After their initial encounter with the large fruit body, Cui and Dai returned to it on two subsequent occasions, so that they could study it further." Does this information add much value?
- I thought it added a little insight into the process for a non-scientist- the fact the BBC felt it was worth mentioning is perhaps illustrative. It's all too easy to imagine that people go for a walk, take a picture of something and then send it in to a magazine and it gets published; of course, the whole process is much more than this. I'll remove it if you think it's irrelevant. J Milburn (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "… Fungal Biology, in which the findings are to be published …" now published
Support with some minor prose tweaks listed below. Nice job. Choess (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "ellipsoid" is a noun; I think the adjectival form "ellipsoidal" should be used throughout the article, e.g. "distinctly ellipsoidal spores" in the lead.
- I feel as though "favorable circumstances" might be more suitable than "appropriate circumstances" in the lead to describe the conditions under which it grows large.
- I'm not sure it's quite our place to say "further research is needed." Perhaps "Preliminary research indicates that these may have pharmacological applications"?
- "in 2011 when it was revealed" should be "it was revealed in 2011"
- "spore producing section" should be hyphenated as "spore-producing".
- "and they measure from 4.5 to 6.1": it's not entirely clear what "they" refers to, as "The spore shape" preceding it is singular. Replace with "the spores".
- "easily identified with the use": should read "identified by".
- "are also septate (possessing of septa)": I would rephrase the previous paragraph to read "The hyphae are septate (divided into separate cells by septa)" and simply say "are also septate" here.
- I have one conceptual hitch in the chemistry material. As the translated article points out, "ergosterol is the main steroidal component of relatively advanced fungoid groups," so finding ergosterol in the fungus is not really noteworthy. (Indeed, the triazole antifungals work by blocking the ergosterol synthesis pathway.) Maybe say "...could be isolated from F. ellipsoidea with petroleum ether and (after defatting) chloroform. The nine compounds isolated from these extracts included the common ergosterol and its derivative ergosterol peroxide. Two of the compounds..."
- Media Review - Everything is good on this front. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The Mycomorphbox is incomplete. Please fill it out more. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the image review. The mycomorphbox is designed for fruit bodies in the form of "mushrooms", really, and is not so appropriate for polypores. I've added another "NA". I have no information on the spore print, as one cannot really take a "Spore print" from something like this, and while I can almost assure you that it is of no more culinary interest than most woods, adding that would be original research. J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear within the body of the article, but I'm not sure if you could find a way to add an "as of" date to this statement in the first sentence, so readers don't have to go looking:
- ... a specimen of which produced the largest fruit body ever recorded ...
At your discretion, since it is made clear in the body of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 11 September 2011 (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 Ucucha 14:29, 10 September 2011 [2].
Northrop YF-23
- Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because...the article had recently passed a MilHist A-class review with five unanimous supports, which gave me great confidence that it can go one better. I believe the article has met every FA criterion, but it's the community's thoughts that count, so please write down whatever you think about the article, no matter if they're positive or negative. I'd like to thank user Fnlayson for sticking by me for much of the article's development. Cheers! Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a reason why WIKICUP nominators are still not self-identifying? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, sorry I forgot. This is a WikiCup nomination. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 00:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't include harv links in Bibliography if they're not linked in footnotes
- Be consistent in whether website names are capitalized or note
- When a source includes info like page numbers, it's good practice to include it
- Don't italicize publisher names. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 01:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oppose Comments on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you guys find something that indicates whether the two YF-23s are still on exhibit at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force?
- Okay, there's nothing currently in WP:AVIMOS about this; I'll describe the general problem, you tell me what solution you want. Proposals and articles by engineers are often vague about whether they have a concept, a design, a non-working prototype or a working prototype, and their language reflects this vagueness. I don't have any doubt that your sources use "YF-23" to refer to all four stages, but to most readers, the distinction will matter.
I don't see a particular solution in the popular style guides, and I don't want to cite a technical style guide on this, so my proposal is that the common name (YF-23 in this case) will refer to one aircraft if at least one was actually built and is mentioned in the article; use for instance "series" when talking about both aircraft, and use words like "design", "proposal" or "submission" for events before the prototype was built.I'll make the edits; feel free to revert, but don't keep the language that hides the distinctions ... that is, don't use "YF-23" to mean all of the above. - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Note: it looks like we're now going with "YF-23" for the model, and something else for an individual aircraft. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"YF-22" is a judgment call; there's an argument that "to develop the YF-23 series, while Lockheed ... developed the YF-22." is nonparallel, but I don't buy the argument. Since the specific YF-22 prototypes aren't mentioned, I don't think there's enough room for misunderstanding to avoid the simpler "YF-22" throughout. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, I have no clue what you're talking about? What series? Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with the use of "U. S. Air Force" (without defining the acronym), "Air Force" and "USAF" all in the first section below the lead, because the lead defines the acronym. I think the arguments would be that there's not much room for misunderstanding, that variation can be good, and that the acronym is more suitable adjectivally. But there are other opinions on the proper use of acronyms; if anyone has a problem with this style, please let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 16:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "In 1981, the U.S. Air Force began forming specifications": What did they do, exactly? - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed "began forming specifications for" to "made its first request for"; change it (to something specific) if that's not accurate. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to oppose; at the moment, I'm concerned there may be more to do here than I'll have time to do, but I'll keep plugging away. - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- My word "series" was the wrong word ... sorry. But it's confusing to use one name to mean two different things, especially in the same or an adjacent sentence, so if you want "YF-23" to mean the model or the aircraft generally, then let's use something like "one of the YF-23 prototypes" to refer to a specific aircraft, not "the YF-23". I'll make the edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The U.S. Navy considered using one of the ATF aircraft to replace the F-14": I'm guessing that doesn't mean what it says; they weren't considering using just one plane, were they? - Dank (push to talk) 02:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So, "one of the aircraft" means multiple aircraft? Odd. - Dank (push to talk) 02:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "This would add a further 546 aircraft to the production program along with": "add", "further", and "along with" are triply redundant. It's sometimes hard to avoid using two of these, but you don't need all three. - Dank (push to talk) 02:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It means 1/one/singular type of aircraft as I already stated. Done.. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not following, but yes, it looks good now. - Dank (push to talk)
- It means 1/one/singular type of aircraft as I already stated. Done.. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "For other uses, see F23": For other uses of "F23"? F23 isn't mentioned in this article. - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "are on exhibit in museums as of February 2009": "were". Better would be to find out if they're still being exhibited, but I'm only commenting on the grammar.
- "The Lockheed and Northrop proposals were selected on 31 October 1986 to undertake a 50-month demonstration phase, culminating in the flight testing of two prototype models, the YF-22 and the YF-23.": I don't know what this means. My best guess is: The Lockheed and Northrop proposals were selected as finalists on 31 October 1986. Both companies were given 50 months to build and flight-test their prototypes, and they succeeded, producing the Lockheed YF-22 and the Northrop YF-23. - Dank (push to talk) 17:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A better link for the WMOF is http://www.wmof.com/display.htm. Your link gives an image of and story about the YF-23 ... and you'd think that would be the same thing as saying it's currently on display, but GLAMs can be sneaky about this stuff, especially on websites ... they'll give a story about something exciting they used to have or hope to have, and forget to mention that they don't actually have it. The link I gave should be good enough; it says the aircraft is currently on display, and although the website wouldn't be considered a reliable source for some purposes, it ought to be reliable for this purpose. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The aircraft has returned to the museum's new location ...": See WP:DATED.
- "all-aspect stealth": I don't know what "all-aspect" means in this context.
- I took a guess on this one, and changed "all-aspect stealth" to "to reduce the model's susceptability to infrared and radar detection." If "all-aspect" is something more than marketing blather, if it's a technical specification that includes other forms of stealth, please add the other forms. - Dank (push to talk) 16:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The USAF increased the runway distance requirement from 2,000 to 3,000 feet (610 to 914 m) in 1987, so thrust reversing was no longer needed. However, the engine nacelles were not downsized to match on the YF-23 prototypes.": What nacelle size has to do with thrust reversing won't make much sense to people other than engineers and aviation fans. It's not a stretch to figure out what thrust reversing is, and why the runway wouldn't need to be as long if you had it, but if a general reader doesn't have to figure things out on their own, that's always a plus. This might be a little easier for the general reader: The USAF initially expected that the aircraft would have to reverse the flow of their engines after landing so that they could stop within 2,000 feet (610 m). Later, in 1987, the USAF determined that 3,000-foot (914 m) runways would generally be available, so that the engines would not be required to reverse thrust, and their nacelles (housing) could be made smaller. ["housing" feels like a fairly common word to me, certainly more common that "nacelles", but there are still a fair number of readers who wouldn't immediately recognize it; suggestions?] - Dank (push to talk) 18:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "was a charcoal gray": was charcoal gray
- "— the latter": There shouldn't be a space after em-dashes per WP:EMDASH, but also per that link, this should be a comma rather than a dash, since the sentence has no other commas.
- "resembling the underbelly marking of the black widow spider ...": the hourglass is on their backs, not their bellies, that I'm aware of.
- "The second prototype was two-tone gray colored and was nicknamed "Gray Ghost". The second prototype was two shades of gray, nicknamed "Gray Ghost".
- "substantial area-ruling, and an all-moving V-tail.": You lost me. Per WP:Checklist, if many readers won't even be able to guess what the sentence means without clicking, give at least a clue to the meaning in the text in addition to the link.
- "Similar to the B-2, the exhaust ...": This style is so common that it can't be considered wrong IMO, but the job of a copy editor is to shoot for making everyone happy, and many style guides still advise that this would be wrong because "similar" dangles, that is, the B-2 is an aircraft, which isn't similar to exhaust; its exhaust is similar to exhaust. One easy fix: "The same as on the B-2, the exhaust ...". (This is right if it was the same, in the sense that the exhaust flowed through troughs lined with heat-ablating tiles.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The vehicle management system coordinated movements of the control surfaces for maneuvers and for stable flight, along with other aircraft functions." I would probably delete this sentence. Some readers won't be able to make sense of it, and to some, all it will say is "the aircraft's movement is controlled by the parts that control movement".
- I think it should be kept to tell the reader that the surfaces are controlled by a central management system. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 11:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better, I used that wording. - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it should be kept to tell the reader that the surfaces are controlled by a central management system. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 11:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The wing flaps and ailerons deflected inversely": I'd go with something like "Raising the wing flaps and ailerons on one side and lowering them on the other" if that's right; not many readers will understand "deflected inversely".
- "rotating both V-tails inward or outward ...": Be consistent on whether you describe this as two V-tails or as both sides (would "fins" be right?) of one V-tail. And ... we're talking about rotating the two sides up or down, right? "Inward" might mean swinging the surfaces to the front or rear. - Dank (push to talk) 19:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the correction. - Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "moving them in the opposite manner.": moving them in an opposing manner, or more simply, moving one up and one down. It's not clear what the "opposite" of "inward or outward" is.
- "on both sides simultaneously": I don't think this is a big deal, but if I leave it, someone's going to come by and say I got it wrong: "simultaneously" isn't needed here.
- "Although the YF-23 featured an advanced design, in order to keep costs relatively low, ...": I think this is clearer: "To keep costs low despite the novel design, ...". (But, for the "in order to" haters, note that a substitution of "to" in the original sentence would have completely mangled the meaning.)
- "nose wheel unit": I'm having a hard time guessing what, or even where (nose? wheel?), that is. Just a few extra words would help. - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Two aircraft were built. The first ...": Since you've already said that two were built, maybe: "Of the two aircraft built, the first ..."
- "high tempo combat demonstration": I don't know what that means. High speed?
- I see there's disagreement; I'll try "fast-paced". - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The YF-23s flew 50 times for a total of 65.2 hours.": There isn't a perfect answer here, I'd just like you to be aware that there's always a little room for tension or misunderstanding if we try to use "YF-23" to mean the model and a single aircraft, especially in the same or an adjacent sentence. We could emphasize that we're talking about both aircraft here by saying "The two YF-23s", and it's not totally clear whether each flew 50 times ... I'm guessing it was a total of 50 times, so say that: "The two YF-23s flew for a total of 50 times and 65.2 hours."
- "The contractor teams used evaluation results in their proposals submitted to win the contract ATF production.": This could mean one of two things with different shades of meaning; better would be either "in their submitted proposals to ..." or "in the proposals they submitted to ...".
- "The YF-23 design was considered stealthier and faster, while the YF-22 was more agile.": I talked about this a little bit above ... engineers are terrible about saying design when they mean prototype and vice-versa, and I don't fault you for following your sources ... but I think it's really unlikely that the USAF studied the design and decided that they thought it would probably be faster, when they had an aircraft sitting outside that could (and did) fly to test it out. So, something like: "They determined the YF-23 to be stealthier and faster, but selected the YF-22 as it was more agile." - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "YF-119": it would probably be better either to add a hyphen where this appears above or subtract the hyphen here, in case readers need to search to remember what this means.
- "to power production F-22s;": since "power production" has its own meaning, and since "production" as an adjective is kind of engineer-ese, I think I'd go with "to power new F-22s", with "for production F-22s" as a second choice.
- "the calibration of strain gauge results and loads": lost me.
- Sandy has already mentioned (below) the problem with the one-paragraph Possible revival section.
- In Aircraft on display, I think you guys aren't getting the main point of WP:DATED: "is on display at the National Museum of the United States Air Force near Dayton, Ohio. The aircraft was recently put on display following restoration and is located in the museum's Research and Development hangar as of 2009." You're giving 3 different times. Also: "The aircraft has returned to the museum's new location ...": Say that it returned on a certain date and is still there as of a certain date.
- That's all for now. I'm going to switch my oppose to a neutral, since I had time to get to the end, and I can see myself supporting if I'm happy with the results. - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We may need to get moving on this to avoid a non-promotion here at FAC; I'll ask for help at WT:MIL. I and others have been getting reverted often enough, and there have been enough misunderstandings here and at A-class, that it seemed like a safer bet to comment rather than to edit directly, but that means there's a lot left to do. - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing, nearly done. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 11:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do aviation articles generally list the serial numbers in two different sections (Aircraft on display, Development) in the main text? Would it be possible to move them from one of those sections to General characteristics? - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Sandy's puzzlement over "requirement"; I think the problem is that the word is used in two different senses, "designed to meet USAF requirements for survivability ..." vs. "a USAF requirement for an interim bomber". I'll substitute "request" for the second sense; feel free to substitute a better word. - Dank (push to talk) 15:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "to study techniques for the calibration under predicted loads to measured flight results": This doesn't sound quite right to me; what were they trying to do? - Dank (push to talk) 04:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "a long-range bomber with a much greater range": That may be necessary, but since any bomber with a much greater range would be a long-range bomber, at least consider: "a bomber with a much greater range".
- Now supporting, but have a look at these last two points anyway. Great work, and I'm learning a lot, which may come in handy since I see you guys are working on a lot more articles. - Dank (push to talk) 04:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for unwittingly creating so much work! You're right, I am working on many articles. Hint: watchlist Mikoyan Project 1.44. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 05:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Status report: I had to look at a lot of the sources just to get the copyediting done (groan), and in the process, I found no close paraphrasing or infidelities. I can do more spotchecking if anyone likes, and Nikki hasn't specifically revisited her concerns from Aug 20; otherwise, this one appears ready for takeoff. I dealt with Sandy's concerns, and I see no unresolved comments on this page. - Dank (push to talk) 02:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Media Review - Everything checks out. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with nitick - overall I think this is a well written and comprehensive article that meets the FA criteria. One minor bone I have to pick however is the frequent use of very technical language with no explanation of what it means for a simple layman such as myself. For example, the exhaust is described as having "heat ablating tiles" which help the plane leave a lower heat signature. What this actually means however is not especially clear, and is reliant on the linked article on ablation being of a high enough quality for me to be able to work it out for myself. I would much prefer it if the article had a very brief sentence explaining what this was to complement the link. Anyway, that aside, based upon the FA policies I would support the promotion of this article. Coolug (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is an "interim bomber requirement" and how can a design fulfill it? After that, I can't sort out at all what the paragraph is saying. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]In late 2004, Northrop Grumman proposed a YF-23-based design for the USAF's interim bomber requirement, a role for which the FB-22 and B-1R were also competing.[1] Northrop modified aircraft PAV-2 to serve as a display model for its proposed interim bomber.[2] The interim bomber requirement has since been canceled in favor of a more long-term bomber replacement requirement, although the same YF-23-derived design could have been adapted to fulfill this role as well.[3] However, the possibility of a YF-23-based interim bomber ended with the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, which favored a long-range bomber with a much greater range.[4][5]
- In early 2004, the USAF requested proposals from industry for an interim bomber with the capability to strike at the most demanding targets, intended to enter service in 2015, to fill the gap between its existing bomber fleet and a next-generation bomber planned for service entry in 2037.[3] As one of its responses to this request, Northrop Grumman proposed a derivative of the YF-23 to meet this requirement.[4] - Is that any clearer?Nigel Ish (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC) The prose here needs attention for jargon and elegance-- sample in the lead:[reply]Some specifications are estimated.
There is surely a more elegant way to say "and are now exhibits" (which engages MOSDATE#Precise language btw).The two YF-23s were donated to museums and are now exhibits.
Another random sentence:
Began forming a requirement? A copyedit by fresh eyes is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]In 1981, the U.S. Air Force began forming a requirement for an Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) as a new air superiority fighter to replace the F-15 Eagle.
- These problems and more have now been fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 05:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support—My concerns were sufficiently, if not always completely satisfactorily addressed. I suspect that many more details could be added, if it weren't for security restrictions. Hence, this is probably as close as the article can come to satisfying 1b. With that in mind, I give it my support. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I have just a few concerns:
"Afterward, Lockheed, Boeing, and General Dynamics formed a team that would develop any one of their proposals, if selected." It's a minor point, but the word "Afterward" seems somewhat misleading here. Clearly this must have happened between July and October, 1986. Can a more specific date be given? I don't thing this should imply the team would select which one of their designs they would build. Instead, it should indicate they would work together to build the selected design from among their proposals."Both companies were given 50 months to build and flight-test their prototypes, and they succeeded, producing the Lockheed YF-22 and the Northrop YF-23." This doesn't come across as the best-written sentence, so perhaps it could be improved? Does this statement mean that the teams did not work together to produce the prototypes, or should it say "teams" instead of "companies"?- Sorry, that was my wording, good catch. I've changed "companies" to "teams". - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"American reconnaissance satellites first spotted the advanced Soviet Su-27 and MiG-29 fighter prototypes in 1978, which caused concern in the U.S." Why? A few more details about the threat posed would help here, so that the reader can understand why a new fighter was perceived as necessary."...meet USAF requirements for survivability..." This requirement is vague so it could use a little clarification. Since it is listed separately from stealth, I assume this means the ability to avoid enemy fire or survive a hit? Or does it mean the ability of the pilot to escape the destruction of the aircraft? It seems essential to make this clear since these are the basis of the final selection."It featured a tricycle landing gear configuration with a nose landing gear and two main landing gear." Please clarify that "It" means the aircraft, rather than the cockpit as is implied."The Air Force selected the YF119 engine to power the F-22 production version; the Lockheed and Pratt & Whitney designs had higher technical ratings, were considered lower risks, and were considered to have more effective program management." Wait, is this sentence mixing a discussion of the engine and the aircraft? If so, why was the YF-22 considered to have a higher technical rating if it had poorer stealth and velocity? What were the risk factors for the selection?
Regards, RJH (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2011 (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 Ucucha 14:29, 10 September 2011 [5].
SMS Grosser Kurfürst (1913)
Another one of my battleships, this article has passed a GA review and a joint MILHIST/SHIPS A-class review. It is also part of what is currently going to be the largest Good Topic on Wikipedia (and what will hopefully be upgraded to a Featured Topic). I feel the article is close to FA standards, and I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring this article demonstrates our best work. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Campbell shortened citations need to be disambiguated
- This gives publisher for Staff as "Osprey Publishing", while you use "Osprey Books" - which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Media Review - Everything checks out. I'm not sure if I like the 'click for larger view' things or not, although that might just be because I've never seen them before. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how, but I completely botched this media review the first time around.
- The source for File:Jutland1916.jpg is a dead link. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Source has been fixed. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Internment at Scapa Flow.svg needs to be pulled from commons and moved to local Wikipedia until 1 January 2014, because the image that the SVG is based off of has those terms. The original file's copyright information also needs to be mentioned at the SVG's page. Derivatives/conversions don't erase copyright.
- I've restored the original en image. There's a reason Jappalang uploaded it on en in the first place... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "recognition drawing" (in the header image's caption and its description page) is a discourse specific term (i.e. it is common within the community of ship enthusiasts but not known outside that community). Please find a replacement for "recognition drawing" at at least one of those two locations.
- I disagree. A literal reading of "Recognition drawing" leads to "a drawing to aid in recognizing the ship", at least to me, and there's no other way to call it. Unless you want him to explain that in-text? (cf [6], although it has since been removed) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The source for File:Jutland1916.jpg is a dead link. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to double back like this. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries Sven, image copyright is a tricky thing. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but these (to me, who has done this for about a year now, in various places) were easy catches. I do media reviews the same way every time, there's no way I should have missed any of these, let alone all of them, the first time around. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries Sven, image copyright is a tricky thing. Parsecboy (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how, but I completely botched this media review the first time around.
commentopposethe click thru for a larger image the scarpa flow one doesnt work, but both fail to comply with image licensing as they dont attribute the source or provide the licensing information. Gnangarra 10:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- No, they don't. That clicker just bypassed the image description page and goes straight to the full size page. The image description page is still accessable through the normal way, (see this for example). Sven Manguard Wha? 22:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bypassing the image credits violates WP:CREDITS. Gnangarra 00:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be right, but it's fine for this image, as it's in the public domain. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- change to oppose, its not ok to ignore licensing and to bypass attribution and source information under such circumstances I cannot recommend this as being our best work, such practice is the worse case example of dealing with licensing. Gnangarra 07:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not bypassing the licensing, you can get to it via the typical method (i.e., clicking on the image). There is simply an additional link to the full size image. Parsecboy (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The link carries no licensing information, no source information and that fails our licensing policies. Gnangarra 12:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what interpretation of WP:CREDITS you have, but I can see no prohibition on secondary direct links to the full size image. As far as I can tell, there is no basis for your objection. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CREDITS provides for the use of the image without credit and licensing information with the image as required by GFDL and CC licenses because for a viewer to see the image the attribution and source information is provided on the image description page. With these links they bypassing the image description page as such they no longer comply with the requirements of GFDL and CC which For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. Gnangarra 03:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can see the image in the article without attribution. You can still see the image description page by clicking the image. I don't see how adding a second link to the full size image causes a problem. If in some way I prevented readers from being able to click on the image, then yes, there would be a circumvention of the attribution policy. But I haven't done that. Parsecboy (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CREDITS provides for the use of the image without credit and licensing information with the image as required by GFDL and CC licenses because for a viewer to see the image the attribution and source information is provided on the image description page. With these links they bypassing the image description page as such they no longer comply with the requirements of GFDL and CC which For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. Gnangarra 03:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what interpretation of WP:CREDITS you have, but I can see no prohibition on secondary direct links to the full size image. As far as I can tell, there is no basis for your objection. Parsecboy (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The link carries no licensing information, no source information and that fails our licensing policies. Gnangarra 12:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not bypassing the licensing, you can get to it via the typical method (i.e., clicking on the image). There is simply an additional link to the full size image. Parsecboy (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- change to oppose, its not ok to ignore licensing and to bypass attribution and source information under such circumstances I cannot recommend this as being our best work, such practice is the worse case example of dealing with licensing. Gnangarra 07:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be right, but it's fine for this image, as it's in the public domain. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bypassing the image credits violates WP:CREDITS. Gnangarra 00:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they don't. That clicker just bypassed the image description page and goes straight to the full size page. The image description page is still accessable through the normal way, (see this for example). Sven Manguard Wha? 22:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To the closing delegate The oppose (above) by Gnangarra should be disregarded. It is based a misunderstanding of our licensing requirements and/or a misunderstanding of our image retrial system. While the direct link to the larger view isn't standard, it's not outside of any Wikipedia policies, period. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Its not a misunderstanding the direct link fails to provide licensing information, that is a clear breach of our licensing requirements and Commons reuse requirements. Gnangarra 00:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Gnangarra on this, though for a slightly different reason. Having a direct link to the full resolution of the image to avoid the Commons version (which in turn is clearly marked with a link for 'full resolution') is awkward and not suitable for a FA. Highlighting this link also implies that none of the other images in the article are available at a higher resolution, which isn't correct. It's also unclear to me why it's even worth highlighting the availability of the full resolution version of this map given that Grosser Kurfürst isn't specifically shown anywhere on it (she's part of the red lines, which are clearly visible at the resolution in the article). Nick-D (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Its not a misunderstanding the direct link fails to provide licensing information, that is a clear breach of our licensing requirements and Commons reuse requirements. Gnangarra 00:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Gnangarra
- In the opening sentence of the Battle of Jutland section the linking of Jutland in the prose ...resulted in the Battle of Jutland which took place is disconcerting, I recognise what your trying to achieve but think that the link in the title of the battle is poor. suggest that maybe you could give an indication of where the battle took place ie northwest of Jutland and then link that usage which is the place. Gnangarra
- I've delinked per WP:Linking; Battle of Jutland is close by. - Dank (push to talk) 01:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the start of the service history section you refer to the ship and its sisters ships of the same class as dreadnaughts yet in the subsection you refer to her as a Battleship without explanation, be consistant. noting that the lead says she's a battleship, see WP:JARGON Gnangarra
- I linked it. Sometimes we include explanation of the origin of the term. IMO it gets a little tedious to include it every time, but I wouldn't mind. I don't know Parsec's position. - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Being tedious to include something in every article is a poor response surely, each article stands on its own merits of being comprehensive when one compares to other articles of a similar(near identical) subjects then these types of ommissions and inconsistancies are glaringly obvious we cant assume that reader will find the articles in a set order Gnangarra 07:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean it's tedious for the writer, I meant that any reader will find it tedious if we spell out a lot of things they already understand, so we're required to make some guesses about what they're likely to know if they're interested in an article about a WWI German battleship ... and then we build in safeguards in case we make the wrong guesses. We missed the fact that dreadnought wasn't linked; thanks for pointing it out. - Dank (push to talk) 11:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Being tedious to include something in every article is a poor response surely, each article stands on its own merits of being comprehensive when one compares to other articles of a similar(near identical) subjects then these types of ommissions and inconsistancies are glaringly obvious we cant assume that reader will find the articles in a set order Gnangarra 07:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I linked it. Sometimes we include explanation of the origin of the term. IMO it gets a little tedious to include it every time, but I wouldn't mind. I don't know Parsec's position. - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- fourth para of Battle of Jutland The remaining four hits came from the 15-inch guns of Barham or Valiant.[32] One of the 15-inch shells destroyed the No. 2 port-side 15 cm gun,... all previous gun description have both in and mm measurements this sentence doesnt. The following paragraphs have the same issue Gnangarra
- When the measurement serves as the name for something, Milhist FAC articles don't keep repeating the conversions. - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- hmm but the prose looks inconsistant and incomplete thats why I raised it, especially where UOM swap from inch to mm in the same Gnangarra 07:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My policy is to use the units of the owning nation. So 15-inch shells for British ship and 28-cm shells for German ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- hmm but the prose looks inconsistant and incomplete thats why I raised it, especially where UOM swap from inch to mm in the same Gnangarra 07:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When the measurement serves as the name for something, Milhist FAC articles don't keep repeating the conversions. - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from MOSNUM, specifically WP:MOSCONVERSIONS:
- Generally, conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should be provided, except:
- When inserting a conversion would make a common or linked expression awkward (The four-minute mile).
- When units are part of the subject of a topic—nautical miles in articles about the history of nautical law, SI units in scientific articles, yards in articles about American football—it can be excessive to provide conversions every time a unit occurs. It could be best to note that this topic will use the units (possibly giving the conversion factor to another familiar unit in a parenthetical note or a footnote), and link the first occurrence of each unit but not give a conversion every time it occurs. - Dank (push to talk) 11:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the fate section a main link to Scuttling of the German fleet in Scapa Flow might be appropriate, Gnangarra
- comparing the fate section of this to SMS Kronprinz (1914) this one doesnt read a well, but it also asks a question of the Kronprinz article in that it refers to her two sister ships not being raised but which two or the fact that there is a third Gnangarra 11:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk)
- One change since the A-class review: wasn't "Großer Kurfürst" also one of the Kaiser's honorifics or nicknames? Understood that the original "Großer Kurfürst" lived in the 17th century. - Dank (push to talk) 12:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, another change: a second footnote was added in the first two sentences. IMO, footnotes that are really noticeable ("[Note 2]" as opposed to, for instance "(II)") have their uses, but you don't want too many of them in the lead, clicking on them can interrupt the flow. - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments [by Sturmvogel 66]
- There's no supporting info for shafts, range, and armor data in the infobox. Either add cites or expand, my preference, your descriptive paragraphs.
- Missing links: what kind of length, beam, draft, torpedo tubes, shp, Lowestoft, Yarmouth, founder, scrapping
- Suggest that beam referring to the torpedo tubes be replaced by broadside and linked.
- Coal or oil-fired? What kind and how many boilers? Be sure to link boiler as well.
- Is range in nautical or statue miles? If the former provide a link and allow the triple conversion by not specifying output. Forex {{convert|25|nmi}}
- On a related note remove the kmh parameter from knots in the infobox to allow that template to triple convert.
- Where is the Jade Estuary?
- Move the link for 1 Scouting Group to the first occurrence.
- I'd suggest adding HMS to Moorsom and Moresby
- What kind of ships are Warrior, Malaya, and Defence?
- How was the ship damaged in April 1918? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs)
CommentsSupport now Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- No damage from ramming her sister ship? Staff probably doesn't elaborate, but if he does, I'd like to know why there was no damage at all.
- "The ship supported a minelaying operation on 11–12 September off Texel." Would "escorted" be a better and more easily-understood word here?
- I generally use covered rather than escorted as the latter implies close escort to my mind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I generally use covered rather than escorted as the latter implies close escort to my mind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "On 4 November, the ship's crew joined the general mutiny and hoisted the red flag of the Socialists" Were socialists leading the mutiny? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Escorted" is better. Staff doesn't go into any other details on the ramming. As for the Socialists, it would be an overstatement, I think, to state that they led the mutinies, but they were certainly involved and were the obvious group in opposition to the conservatives who wanted to continue the war. Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The relationship here could be explained a bit better for the reader, I think, but it's not enough for me to not support. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Escorted" is better. Staff doesn't go into any other details on the ramming. As for the Socialists, it would be an overstatement, I think, to state that they led the mutinies, but they were certainly involved and were the obvious group in opposition to the conservatives who wanted to continue the war. Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by MisterBee1966 (talk · contribs)
- Kurfürst was christened by Prince Oskar of Prussia; HR&S volume 4 page 41
- CO KzS Ernst Goette (July 1914 to November 1917) was later promoted to admiral, noteworthy? p. 41
- CO KzS Werner Siemens (November 1917 to November 1918) was later promoted to admiral, noteworthy? p. 41
- The infobox states 10 x 8.8 cm (3.5 in) guns. The sections "Construction and design" only mentions six. According to HR&S she had six SK-8.8 cm and four Flak 8.8 cm
- I think the nomenclature for British and German units is not consistent. I thought only the German units used roman numerals. Sentences like this confused me "Simultaneously, the British III and IV Light Cruiser Squadrons..." Please check
- 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 Ucucha 14:29, 10 September 2011 [7].
Caroline of Ansbach
Queen Caroline was the wife of George II of Great Britain. She put up with his mistresses, and became involved in generational family rows among the Hanoverians. She and Robert Walpole (the first British prime minister) were credited with jointly governing the King. DrKiernan (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The circumstances of Caroline's death led Alexander Pope, an opponent of the court and Walpole, to write the epigram: "Here lies, wrapt up in forty thousand towels; the only proof that Caroline had bowels."" - when and where was this epigram published?
- Specify state for Richmond? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prose is generally good. A few things stand out:
"By and large, George Augustus and Caroline had a successful marriage" - I find by and large somewhat un-encyclopaedic.
I wonder if compound dates such as "22 August/2 September 1705" could do with a note of explanation as those unfamiliar with the calendar change might find them confusing.
- I'm not sure what to do here. I think that paragraph and the table are the only places with both dates? I've changed the example to "22 August (Old Style)/2 September (New Style) 1705"; I think that infers that the other date in that paragraph follows the same format. I've left the table as it is, because the footnote explaining the change in calendars is immediately below it. DrKiernan (talk) 09:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In mid-1735, Frederick, Prince of Wales, was further dismayed by his parents when Caroline again acted as regent while the King was absent in Hanover" could do with a little explanation. Why was he dismayed?
"She and her husband moved into Leicester House, while their children remained in the care of the King" Had Prince Frederick come over from Germany? Later on it seems that he was still in Germany. Or were there other children? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jezhotwells (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with regards to the issues that I raised. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images mostly check out. The information could do with a cleanup on File:George II, Queen Caroline, and children.jpg and File:Frederick Prince of Wales.jpg, but there's something up with File:Coat of Arms of Caroline of Brandenburg-Ansbach.svg. The image is unsourced, and a claim of it being CC/GFDL (no matter how common the mistake is) is probably bogus- a faithful reproduction of a PD 2d image will itself be PD. J Milburn (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the coat of arms, Sodacan recreated it from the blazon given in Willement and Boutell (the sources given in the article). We had a discussion about it here. The license is following the practice described on commons here and in this wikipedia essay. DrKiernan (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with comments:
In the first paragraph of the lead, I think "well educated" should be hyphenated.
"Education": I'm not sure why this is two paragraphs.
- The OS/NS thing: I ran into the same problem when I re-wrote William III of England. It's always cumbersome, why not use exclusively OS, like your footnote says?
"her friend the Countess of Buckenburgh": who is this? I couldn't find the city or the title here or on de-wiki.
It might be useful to link excise.
Support Comments
- How did it come to be that Frederick and Sophia Charlotte were designated the new guardians of the children?
- "who were able to talk uncensored and uninhibited" - adverbs here would sound better
- heavy use of commas and complex sentence structure makes for choppy reading in places
- no hyphens between adverbs and verbs
- many of the sentences begin with time periods/dates: "In January...", "When he became king..." This becomes a bit repetitive. Try rephrasing a bit for greater variety.
- Inconsistent use of old/new calendar dates
- "past reconciliation between the two Georges" - does not strike me as encyclopedic phrasing
- "Captain John Porteous, who had been convicted of murder in Edinburgh, when a mob" - confusingly worded
- "which made a supposititious child unlikely since the baby was so pitiful." - cumbersome
- "her moral example, but even the Jacobites" - and even...?
- No reference for the titles and styles section
-- Lemurbaby (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the reasoning for the text in the "Legacy" section being italicized? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, the italics are purely for aesthetic reasons. I removed them. Ruby2010 comment! 20:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]The memoirs of the eighteenth-century, particularly those of John, Lord Hervey, fed perceptions ...
- If you're referring to the hyphen in eighteenth century, I removed it. Ruby2010 comment! 20:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why the italics in the "Arms" section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't quite sure what to do there as the terms employed are like a foreign language to the uninitiated, but as it isn't covered by WP:ITALIC, I've formatted as plain text.[11] DrKiernan (talk) 08:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a very few comments:
"Eleanore Erdmuthe was widowed two years later, after her unfaithful husband contracted smallpox from his mistress.[5] " > "widowed again" to be clear that her second husband died after two years.
- Do we know when Caroline went to live with Sophia Charlotte?
- From the two sources I have immediate access to, Oxford says "In 1696, however, Caroline's mother died. She returned briefly to Ansbach, but then went to Lützenburg, outside Berlin, to live with her guardians, the elector and electress of Brandenburg" while Lives says simply that after her mother died in 1696, her guardians became Sophia Charlotte and her husband. I'll wait to see if DrKiernan has something more specific. Ruby comment! 21:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find anything more specific unfortunately. DrKiernan (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine. I've read about her in the context of her education as a young woman and was curious. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Caroline was well-aware of his infidelities, as they were open knowledge" > "open knowledge" is a little clunky - well-known, maybe?
"Women of the Bedchamber" probably shouldn't be capitalized if there was more than one
- Woman of the Bedchamber is a title, hence the capitalization; I don't think using it in the plural form would change that. Ruby comment! 21:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't sure in this context. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arms - This section is a bit hard to get through. Can it broken up somehow, perhaps? Also, not sure, but maybe check WP:MOSNUM to avoid 1st, 2nd, etc. I haven't a clue what you do with 15th. For consistency, you've probably done it correctly - but it seems a bit off. Also suggest maybe adding a bit to the caption of the coat of arms to describe a little where the 1st, 2nd, etc. is on the picture - not all 15, but a few so give a clearer understanding.
- I've added some links and tried to expand the caption. Quarters are numbered from left to right in sequential rows.[12] DrKiernan (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even that small bit makes it clearer to the layperson. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've always found Caroline to be very interesting, but have had difficulty understanding the various family relationships - congratulations on presenting a clear account of a difficult web of relationships. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2011 (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 Ucucha 21:55, 2 September 2011 [13].
1991 Atlantic hurricane season
- Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I like collecting stars and rewards... no, that doesn't work.
I am nominating this for featured article because I want to make WP:100K happen! Eh... that's kinda dead.
I am nominating this for featured article because I worked on it a lot last month and it's part of a featured topic I'm working on and I really like it and I found some neat info on the season and I got some favorable responses to it and I hope you like it too! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a Wikicup nomination. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrative note - Since Hurricanehink has indicated that he is going to be busy over the next few days preparing for Hurricane Irene myself and other project members will keep an eye on this FAC.Jason Rees (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Jason, I should be good now since the storm damage wasn't bad here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Source for ACE section? The table is linked to this page, which lists no sources
- Ref 9: publisher? Also, check dash use in this and similar titles
- Ref 25: do we know full names?
- Be consistent in whether or not you include publishers for newspapers
- What is WFO?
- Ref 74: formatting
- Ref 76: publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I got ref 9, 25, 74 (I believe, I changed the author to publisher), and 76. As for the newspapers, they should be consistent. That one, I just made a mistake with the cite web/news. I believe I always do author and newspaper, with the agency when possible (usually AP). I also clarified the WFO. As for the ACE... yea, it isn't really sourced by a good source. I personally hate the section and believe it violates Wiki policy by having it in there (due to lack of sourcing anywhere that proves those storms had those individual amounts), and I would be happy to remove it. However, others claim it falls under the routine calculation portion of WP:OR. If you (and anyone else) wouldn't mind not opposing over that single section, I will bring up a discussion on this to find clarity on the issue. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I removed the ACE section and added the overall ACE to the season summary section (with a source!). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I got ref 9, 25, 74 (I believe, I changed the author to publisher), and 76. As for the newspapers, they should be consistent. That one, I just made a mistake with the cite web/news. I believe I always do author and newspaper, with the agency when possible (usually AP). I also clarified the WFO. As for the ACE... yea, it isn't really sourced by a good source. I personally hate the section and believe it violates Wiki policy by having it in there (due to lack of sourcing anywhere that proves those storms had those individual amounts), and I would be happy to remove it. However, others claim it falls under the routine calculation portion of WP:OR. If you (and anyone else) wouldn't mind not opposing over that single section, I will bring up a discussion on this to find clarity on the issue. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose on the grounds of lousy humor... aside from that, some comments:
- As of late I've been more critical of wikilinking practices, so I've been pushing for more judicious use of links. In the first two sentences, which should IMO be self-sufficient (we don't want users wandering away two seconds after they reach the page), you link tropical cyclone, North Atlantic tropical cyclone, and hurricane season, which all seem to overlap to an extent, and I think if I were a newcomer to the topic I'd be overwhelmed.
- I can understand that. I left the link for hurricane season, since that is the most prudent given it is a hurricane season. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it slightly disconcerting that the lead bounces from Danny and Erika and back to Bob. I guess it doesn't have to be chronologically ordered, but I'm wondering why the very first paragraph deals with storms that didn't affect anyone, but the second paragraph covers the damaging storms... I think it should be the other way around, myself.
- Actually, that was deliberate. I thought the most notable storms should get their own paragraph. Danny and Erick were lame storms, so they're more of an afterthought after the introduction. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, there were four non-developing tropical depressions, of which one, the second, struck land and dropped heavy rainfall. - first, "of which one, the second" is hard to parse, and second, where did it strike? I'd like a general region.
- I split it up. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After brushing the Outer Banks of North Carolina and Long Island in New York - I don't see why those shouldn't be consistent.
- Well, per Google, it's more common to say "Outer Banks of North Carolina", but "Long Island in New York". I didn't plan it that way, though. I just thought it sounded more natural, since Outer is describing something not quite "in" North Carolina. I didn't care either way about Long Island. Seeing as you're a New Yorker (stater), would you prefer "in" or "of' for NY? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- was most notable for providing the energy - I think this is kind of shaky wording; explicitly forcing that X "was most notable" for N usually disrupts prose flow in my experience.
- I like it without it - good call! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It later transitioned into an unnamed hurricane - meteorologically, it transitioned into a regular hurricane, and it was our (the NHC's) decision not to name it... I think you should remove "unnamed" here.
- Mokay. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Juliancolton (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:'
- "ACE is only calculated for full advisories on tropical systems at or exceeding 34 knots (39 mph, 63 km/h) or tropical storm strength." - I though knots is against project standards.
- A majority of the ACE section is unsourced.
- There is still no reference for the ACE values. Someone on here once told me that without a source for the ACE values, it could be considered WP:OR.
--12george1 (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, there is currently an ongoing discussion about ACE at the WPTC talk page. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review - Everything checks out, standard NOAA fare. Special thanks to Noommos' tool for making it easier to work through. Also, File:Hurricane Bob 19 aug 1991 1226Z.jpg is just such a pretty picture. I'm wondering if it might make FP. All of that, however, is off topic for this page. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the image review! Yea, I really like that Bob pic. We do have a ton of hurricane FP's, but this one is differnet since it's not every day that an epic hurricane hits New England. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Hurricane Bob 19 aug 1991 1226Z.jpg is now an FP, FYI. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the image review! Yea, I really like that Bob pic. We do have a ton of hurricane FP's, but this one is differnet since it's not every day that an epic hurricane hits New England. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - supplies all the information I'd want to know. The ACE issue doesn't bother me, since I believe we're close to reaching an agreement on it. I do have one concern with the Perfect Storm section: The origins of the unnamed hurricane also known as the Perfect Storm. The unnamed hurricane developed as the Perfect Storm nor'easter was fizzling, so "also known as" doesn't really work. Other than that, excellent work! Juliancolton (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, I removed the "the unnamed hurricane also known as", since the PS name was not applied to the unnamed hurricane. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with the FAC arena, and I do not have much time to work, so I will focus on prose nitpicks. If any of my comments run against the spirit of what a featured article should be, feel free to call me out on it.
- In the Lead: Can you wikilink "tropical wave"? It is a term that isn't clear to outsiders (like me), and it would be helpful.
- In the Lead: "developed from a tropical wave, which are the source" - which is the source?
- In the Lead: "Erika passed through the Azores" - better phrased as "Erika passed over the Azores"? After all, it is in the sky (well, mostly). You phrased it like this later, when Hurricane Ana formed over the Bahamas.
- Well, literally, the Bahamas and Azores refer to the land itself, but a tropical cyclone is a system that extends from the ground into the atmosphere, so technically it does go over the areas, as well as "through". I changed a few so there is some varied wording, but I kept some at "over". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to the comment involving the lesser storms and then the greater storms in the lead...I do find the fact that it is not chronological rather strange, granted the article is laid out in a chronological manner. However, I do find it easier to understand in the way it is currently done, and I like that that the stuff that really matters is agglomerated into one.
- In the Storm summary section: " calling for eight tropical storms" - I don't think "calling for" is the write phrasing. This isn't quite a recipe. :P
- In the Storm summary section: "However, a further revision" - better phrased as "a later revision"? It sounds awkward to me.
- In the Perfect storm section: Both Andrea Gail and The Perfect Storm (the movie wikilink) should be italicized.
Probably the most significant comment I have is that I'd prefer to see jargon (like Cape Verde-type hurricane, for example) defined in the article. I like situations like the Metallicity section of the featured article on the star Tau Ceti, which actually defines metallicity and its relevance to astronomy before even delving into how it relates to Tau Ceti itself. To go into such detail really helps dumb things down for the layperson (again, an outsider like me), and helps people to fully understand the topic.
I apologize that this is not much; I will examine the article more if time permits, but I cannot give guarantees. Hope this helps. :) --Starstriker7 - public(talk) 07:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review—I tried to address your points. As for having separate sections for meteorological terms: in some cases this is possible (e.g. explaining what a major hurricane is), but in some cases, we have very long and detailed articles already (e.g. tropical cyclogenesis) that adequately cover the main topic, IMO. That said, I'll give a technical jargon review to the article shortly. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentYou don't mention the Perfect Storm in the naming section at all; I would add a brief mention as to why it was left unnamed instead of it being called Henri. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Can do. I didn't mention Henri specifically, but I mentioned the unnamed-ness. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Earlier, I changed the hurricane season wikilink to Atlantic hurricane season, as the hurricane season wikilink is just a disambiguation page. I've been adding wikilinks for geographical locations on their first instance, which has primarily been in the lead. While wikipedia indicates we don't even need wikilinks for geographical locations, our project has usually erred on the side of caution and wikilinked locations first occurrence. Either way, the article should be consistent with its practices. I've also been refining a couple other wikilinks to go directly to the section in the article that they need to go to. Keep an eye out for this, and let me know if there are reasons NOT to do this. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking through that. Yea, my bad about the AHS link. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More comments:
- The most significant storm of the season was Hurricane Bob which, at the time, was among the ten costliest United States hurricanes. — weird comma placement
- It sounded better in my head until I read it aloud. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that happens to me too. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounded better in my head until I read it aloud. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we get a table in the Season summary section for the pre-season forecasts? We do that for current hurricane seasons and it seems that there is enough data for a table to be useful here.
- Yea, I never thought about that. Good call. They do that as well in the previous season (which isn't even featured). Just one little snag I found was that I didn't have the exact dates, which shouldn't be a huge issue. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The origins of Ana, the first tropical storm of the season, were from a cold-core low that existed in the western Atlantic Ocean, east of Jacksonville, Florida, by June 25. — the sentence is rather choppy; can you rephrase it?
- Ack, yea. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With an anticyclone located over Florida, the system moved in a clockwise motion, gradually developing to the surface. — explicitly say that it was clockwise with respect to the anticyclone
- Better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Developing organized convection, the depression intensified into Tropical Storm Bob roughly 18 hours after developing.[19] — too much development in the sentence
- Ack, right. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It gradually organized over the Gulf Stream,[20] and based on reports from the Hurricane Hunters, Bob attained hurricane status on August 17.[19] — link to Hurricane Hunters
- K. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After further intensification off the Carolinas, Bob reached peak winds of 115 mph (185 km/h) to the east of Virginia on August 19, making it a major hurricane or a Category 3 on the Saffir-Simpson scale. — you are using notes in the article already (see [nb 1] in the lede); just say "major hurricane" and make a new note as to what MH means. The sentence is very convoluted right now.
- Ooh! Great idea. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Significantly cooler sea surface temperatures resulted in weakening, and after brushing Long Island the center of Bob struck Newport, Rhode Island with winds of 100 mph (155 km/h), making it a Category 2 hurricane. — again, too many things in one center
- Split! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The hurricane first affected the Carolinas, spawning four confirmed and nine unconfirmed tornadoes in North Carolina.[22] — link to tornado here?
- Ehh, I think tornado is common enough of a word. Do you think it's actually needed? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not necessarily, but then we can't do this... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ehh, I think tornado is common enough of a word. Do you think it's actually needed? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As it moved up the coast, it dropped rainfall in the storm's western portion.[25] — too many "it"s, and the antecedent for them is a couple of sentences away. Write "Bob" or "the hurricane" or something here.
- But it's fun to do it :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The hurricane produced extensive beach erosion which destroyed coastal roads in the state.[28] — link beach erosion
- Link! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Great… now I have the song for Hyrule field stuck in my head! Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Link! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This made made it among the ten costliest U.S. hurricanes at the time. — This = total damage? Damage in MA alone? Besides, spelling out the cause here would make the sentence sound better, IMO.
- Fixed... and I realized that I did "made made" :( ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the few vigorous tropical waves of the season spawned the fourth tropical depression of the season." — "of the season" said twice within the same sentence
- Ack, better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ack, better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite a well-organized appearance,[7] the depression was not expected to intensify due to marginal water temperatures.[32] — while correct, it assumes that the reader knows that warm SSTs are required for tropical cyclogenesis. I'd rephrase the sentence to remove the need for that assumption.
- Hmm, I see. Is that any better? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I see. Is that any better? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With a ridge to the north, the depression maintained a general westward track.[34] — link to ridge (meteorology)
- SIR YES SIR! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The origins of Claudette were non-tropical, originating from an eastward moving area of convection over the western Atlantic in early September. — do you need a hyphen after eastward?
- Yea, let's add it in. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It underwent rapid intensification, and early on September 7 attained winds of 115 mph (185 km/h), based on a reconnaissance flight. — weird comma use after the MSW measurement. I'd rephrase the sentence to avoid that comma completely.
- Weirdness avoided. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Around that time, a hurricane watch, and later warning, was issued for the island of Bermuda.[45] — since having the "and later warning" part can make people wonder at first glance whether a plural is needed in this sentence, I'd say that a watch was issued, then it was later upgraded to a warning. Link to tropical cyclone watches and warnings here as well.
- Mk. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Three days later it exited the coast at Dakar,[7] — something sounds wrong here. How do you exit a coast? I'd use a different phrase here.
- Oh, it's like, totally like a turnstyle that the waves, umm..... how does emerged sound? :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I like it. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, it's like, totally like a turnstyle that the waves, umm..... how does emerged sound? :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After remaining a tropical depression for about 36 hours, the system became better organized and developed well-defined banding features. — so much jargon here… rephrase or use links liberally
- I didn't think it was that jargony, aside from the banding features (which I linked now). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WORKSFORME. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't think it was that jargony, aside from the banding features (which I linked now). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The system had most of the convection along the southern portion of the wave axis, maintaining a very large low-level circulation. — again, jargon
- Is that any better? "The system had most of the thunderstorms along the southern portion of the wave as it maintained a very large low-level circulation." --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that any better? "The system had most of the thunderstorms along the southern portion of the wave as it maintained a very large low-level circulation." --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There was initial uncertainty whether Erika or nearby Claudette would becoming the dominant system through their interaction.[53] — grammar ("becoming")
- Oops. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It accelerated east-northeastward toward the Azores along the northern periphery of a ridge, briefly interacting with Claudette.[51] — interacted how?
- None of the sources I read said. That was the wording used in the TCR. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All right then. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources I read said. That was the wording used in the TCR. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nearby Santa Maria Island reported tropical storm force winds with gusts to 67 mph (107 km/h), prompting the closure of the airfield for several hours.[51] — do we know what the airfield is called?
- Probably the airport on the island, but I couldn't get confirmation. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Initially it was disorganized,[57] with its strongest winds located primarily east of the center.[58] — unclear antecedent, since the reader might assume that Fabian was a TS at the time, or might think you're talking about the depression, cold front, or the tropical wave
- Clarified. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Moving westward, it developed a weak circulation on October 23, and organized enough to prompt Dvorak classifications on the system on October 24.[64] — jargon; what does "prompt Dvorak classifications" mean? I thought SAB / TAFB / whatever it was at the time started running Dvorak analyses when the systems reached Invest status. If you mean that, why don't you just say that the area of disturbed weather began being monitored using Dvorak-based satellite analysis?
- Actually, I moved it around, since the Dvorak technique was what prompted the advisories. Lemme know if that works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It works. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I moved it around, since the Dvorak technique was what prompted the advisories. Lemme know if that works. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By October 25, the circulation had become dissociated from the convection,[66] — considering that the next sentence starts with a capital letter, either something is missing or you meant to use a period there.
- Yea :/ ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By two days later it became a surface low, and on October 26 it developed into a subtropical storm. — it had become?
- Good catch. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It received the designation due to the initial lack of deep convection over the center, — I would say "the system was catalogued as subtropical" instead of "received the designation"
- I think catalogued is a bit weird, but I changed it to- "The system was labeled as such due to the initial lack of deep convection over the center" ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just didn't want to use classified since you use it later in that paragraph. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think catalogued is a bit weird, but I changed it to- "The system was labeled as such due to the initial lack of deep convection over the center" ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- including then-President of the United States George H.W. Bush's vacation home.[70] — to avoid the weird hyphen structure, I would say, "including the vacation home of George H.W. Bush, the president of the United States at the time."
- I like it! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Offshore New York, a Coast Guard helicopter lost fuel and crashed, and although four member of its crew were rescued, one was killed.[79][81][82] — I don't like "offshore New York", but more importantly, four members of the crew were rescued
- Changed both. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- High waves swept swept a person to their death in each Rhode Island and Puerto Rico, and another person was blown off a bridge.[76] — the "each Rhode Island and Puerto Rico thing sounds weird", and in what state was the person blown off the bridge?
- Changed to "both" and added NY. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The World Meteorological Organization retired one name in the spring of 1992: Bob.[85] — do you need the colon there?
- Tweaked. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- >A hurricane is a tropical cyclone with maximum sustained winds of at least 74 mph (119 km/h).[1] — remove the ">"
- Well played sir. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The most significant storm of the season was Hurricane Bob which, at the time, was among the ten costliest United States hurricanes. — weird comma placement
- Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for the review! I believe I addressed everything (hopefully). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, yep, you did. Good job. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
CommentsJimfbleak - talk to me? 14:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
offshore the southeast United States — off the southeast United States?- Done.Jason Rees (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
existed without significantly affecting land — did not significantly affect land?- Done.Jason Rees (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
dropped heavy rainfall. — rained heavily?- Im not happy with either sentence, but i cant quite figure out how to rework it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed it to "with significant accompanying rains." --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Im not happy with either sentence, but i cant quite figure out how to rework it.Jason Rees (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
$200 million in damage and causing coastal damage from Puerto Rico to Florida and northward through Canada. — Is that USD figure just for the US, or does it include Canada?- Its just the US and PR.Jason Rees (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
released his annual forecast for the season, which he began doing in 1984. — I know what you mean, but it looks as if it took him seven years to do the forecast- Jason Rees changed the latter clause to " which he had issued since 1984". I believe that is much clearer that it is referring to his annual forecasts beginning in 1984. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The eight tropical storms was the lowest in four years — not grammatical, lowest number perhaps?- Amount works. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
dropped rainfall (Bob) — rained?- I changed the entire sentence in question to "As the storm moved up the coast, it produced rains in its western portion." --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Hunters — no link or explanation, I've no idea what these are. Also, should there be an apostrophe?- Added. Thanks for the review so far! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No further concerns, I've indicated my support above, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. Thanks for the review so far! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Bodnotbod's review with reference to FA criteria: SUPPORT
*Judgement: Weak oppose due to reasons given below, with view to every intention of supporting at some later date.
- Judgement: Support (issues listed below resolved to my satisfaction).
- Quote: "Before the start of the season, hurricane expert William M. Gray released his annual forecast for the season, which he had issued since 1984." An amusing interpretation of this sentence is that he issues the same report every year like some very lazy expert ;O) Can it be reworded? Perhaps "...forecast for the season, he had been issuing forecasts since 1984."
- I've had some trouble with that sentence. Basically, I'm trying to avoid saying "forecast" twice in the same sentence, since that is highly redundant. I changed it to:
- "Before the start of the season, hurricane expert William M. Gray released his forecast for the year's activity, a yearly practice that he began doing in 1984."
- Is that any better? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would "a yearly practice that he began in 1984" be better? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope. That sentence has been changed like five times since I started this process :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would "a yearly practice that he began in 1984" be better? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had some trouble with that sentence. Basically, I'm trying to avoid saying "forecast" twice in the same sentence, since that is highly redundant. I changed it to:
- Quote: "Virginia recorded more than 5 in (130 mm)." If this is how such statements are always worded, that's fine. But I had to read it twice, because I read the abbrev. for inches as the word "in", leaving me momentarily thinking "five what?".
- Actually, I'm sorry, I should have written out that one. For such units, the first one should be written out, but yea, the rest of the article should be "X in (Y mm)". ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote: "no significant developed occurred until it became Tropical Depression Two". Presumably "development" should replace "developed" here?
- ...crap, yea. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote: "One person died in both North and South Carolina". Again, this could be misinterpreted as if it's one guy who happened to be standing astride the border, it feels a little clumsy. Maybe "There were two fatalities; one in North Carolina, one in South Carolina."
- As with earlier, I wanted to avoid saying "Carolina" twice. I switched it to "One person each died in North and South Carolina." - is that better? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote: "In addition, there were 15 fatalities in the country." Probably doesn't need "in the country". We can appreciate that the fatalities are where the hurricane is, so I think "In addition, there were 15 fatalities." is sufficient.
- Actually, I disagree since not having that would imply overall. The subsequent sentence deals with the Canadian deaths, so I feel the distinction is needed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quote: " In portions of New England, damage was worse than what occurred from Hurricane Bob two months prior." I think "than had occurred" would be better than "what occurred".
- I don't mind either way, so I'll change it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In my browser the article causes a horizontal scroll-bar to appear. I think one of the templates at the bottom of the article is causing it. It's not a deal breaker but it would be good if it can be fixed. When I do actually scroll horizontally it doesn't appear that anything extra is revealed to me, so I can't see that scrolling should be necessary.
- I'm not sure, it didn't show up on mine :/ ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Criteria 1 (a) which reads: "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;"
- Quote: "Before the start of the season, hurricane expert William M. Gray released his annual forecast for the season, which he had issued since 1984." An amusing interpretation of this sentence is that he issues the same report every year like some very lazy expert ;O) Can it be reworded? Perhaps "...forecast for the season, he had been issuing forecasts since 1984."
- Professional but dull at times. I struggled to remain engaged with the article. I'm only human so I naturally found the storms that caused damage to be more interesting than the weather events that drifted about a bit but caused no human drama. So I was engaged when learning that GWB's house had suffered damage, but for those tropical storms that were uneventful I did find it hard to keep my attention on what I was reading. However, does this mean I'm calling for change? I'm not sure I am. The cost of just telling us the exciting bits would be that the article would be less complete and we are aiming for comprehensive coverage of the topic. So I guess I accept that were I more of a 'hurricane person' then I would want to know about the less eventful storms too.
- Honestly, and I hope this doesn't sound like too much of a cop-out, but that's because the storms were that boring. Only two of them (Bob and the Perfect Storm) were remotely interesting in terms of human impact. Fabian was a joke, and if Danny and Erika had never formed, no one would have ever known. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Criteria 1 (b) which reads "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
- Good, I trust. I'm not qualified to say, so I have to place my trust in the editors(s). I'm happy to do that on this occasion.
- Criteria 1 (c) which reads "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;"
- Great. No complaints here.
- Criteria 1 (d) which reads "neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;"
- No issues. Not the sort of article that would suffer from issues on this score, perhaps.
- Criteria 1 (e) which reads "stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process."
- Excellent. No sign of issues here, having checked the history of the article over the last year.
- Criteria 2(a) which reads "a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;"
- Excellent
- Criteria 2(b) which reads "appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents;"
- Excellent: takes a chronological approach which makes perfect sense. Easy to find individual storms/hurricanes if one wishes.
- 2(c) consistent citations
- Defer to others - I believe other reviewers have looked the citations over, so I'll not address those.
- Criteria 3 which reads "Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly."
- Pass - Images seem to be from some institute, and I assume they are allowed to be used on Wikipedia.
- Criteria 4 which reads "Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)."
- Pass - Article is concise and has links to other main articles for the more eventful storms.
- Closing comment: Definitely a good article. Still feel it's held back by a) rather uninspiring descriptions of some non-events and b) lack of inspiration not helped by some hurricane jargon. Let's look at the Claudette section as an example. It contains the following quotes: "area of convection", "system became organized", "low wind shear and a large anticyclone allowing for the development of outflow", "weakening trend", "tropical depression status", "became extratropical". These are all rather opaque to me. However, as previously said, I'm not sure if it would be right to try and change things for the sake of the general reader as it risks making the article less useful for those with hurricane knowledge. It's a dilemma.
- Yea, that's usually a dilemma, and we try to make it useful for non-hurricane readers. Claudette was one of the sections I didn't write from scratch when I did the rest of the article, so I did a bit of a rewrite. I'm not sure if that's better now, but I changed some of the wording and terminology. However, for some of the terms, they are explained and/or linked previously in the article on their first instance. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Signing off: --bodnotbod (talk) 08:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC) (PS, HurricaneHink, maybe now you can see why it takes me more than 10 minutes to do a review ;O)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for the review! And yea, after I did an actual review when I said that, I quickly realized it takes longer than 10 minutes :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing comment: Definitely a good article. Still feel it's held back by a) rather uninspiring descriptions of some non-events and b) lack of inspiration not helped by some hurricane jargon. Let's look at the Claudette section as an example. It contains the following quotes: "area of convection", "system became organized", "low wind shear and a large anticyclone allowing for the development of outflow", "weakening trend", "tropical depression status", "became extratropical". These are all rather opaque to me. However, as previously said, I'm not sure if it would be right to try and change things for the sake of the general reader as it risks making the article less useful for those with hurricane knowledge. It's a dilemma.
Oppose- I have not reviewed the prose, but the references need some work. Several are missing key points such as works or publishers; #s 69, 72 and 73 are examples.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]- All three references you mention are newspaper references, and {{cite news}} indicates that in most cases, newspaper citations do not require the |reference= parameter. In particular, the USA Today reference is to a major publication, so a publisher should not be included in that case, per the guidance given in the template's documentation. The |work= parameter is also inapplicable for all three citations you note. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- USA Today has a publisher, Gannett Company. The others do as well.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying it isn't; I'm just saying that Template:Cite news#Optional parameters says to not add it… Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, this is not how traditional references are done whether or not the page says that. Secondly, the claim not to provide publisher for individual name publishers, example Rap-Up, its saying its not necessary to provide Devine Lazarine. I understand that, but for regular large scale companies I do not see that made clear. No reason to not add Time Warner for Entertainment Weekly.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the two under the Grace section so they would be consistent with the other citations. However, the USAToday one is more of a website than a news article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But what about publishers? I don't understand why you don't want to add those vital parameters. It is a publishing company. And yes, I believe it should be Cite news.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I just don't think it's that needed to add them. The important information is who produced the material, who is USAToday in this case. The publisher of USAToday isn't that relevant, IMO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you don't want good refs. 2-5 need cite news templates.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Hink et al, and find this oppose to be unfounded. Never have I heard of adding a publisher on top of a newspaper (who cares who the publisher of USAToday is?), and just find it to be adding things for the sake of it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well. I still find it to be the proper way of formatting references, but as you are in agreement, I have struck out my Oppose.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Hink et al, and find this oppose to be unfounded. Never have I heard of adding a publisher on top of a newspaper (who cares who the publisher of USAToday is?), and just find it to be adding things for the sake of it. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you don't want good refs. 2-5 need cite news templates.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I just don't think it's that needed to add them. The important information is who produced the material, who is USAToday in this case. The publisher of USAToday isn't that relevant, IMO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But what about publishers? I don't understand why you don't want to add those vital parameters. It is a publishing company. And yes, I believe it should be Cite news.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the two under the Grace section so they would be consistent with the other citations. However, the USAToday one is more of a website than a news article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, this is not how traditional references are done whether or not the page says that. Secondly, the claim not to provide publisher for individual name publishers, example Rap-Up, its saying its not necessary to provide Devine Lazarine. I understand that, but for regular large scale companies I do not see that made clear. No reason to not add Time Warner for Entertainment Weekly.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying it isn't; I'm just saying that Template:Cite news#Optional parameters says to not add it… Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- USA Today has a publisher, Gannett Company. The others do as well.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All three references you mention are newspaper references, and {{cite news}} indicates that in most cases, newspaper citations do not require the |reference= parameter. In particular, the USA Today reference is to a major publication, so a publisher should not be included in that case, per the guidance given in the template's documentation. The |work= parameter is also inapplicable for all three citations you note. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 09:10, 1 September 2011 (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 Ucucha 21:55, 2 September 2011 [14].
USS Constellation vs La Vengeance
- Nominator(s): XavierGreen (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because i believe that it meets that standards of a Featured Article. This article covers the engagement between the American frigate USS Constellation and the French frigate la Vengeance. It was one of the of the bloodiest battles of the Quasi War between France and the USA, and was the engagment that saw the most American casualties out of any in the conflict. The article has passed both a Good Article nomination as well as a WikiProject Military history A-class review. Any advice or comments are greatly appreciated.XavierGreen (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No issues were revealed by copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Was just passing by.
Have to mention you should check your Hill source carefully against other sources. When using Hill on other articles I've noticed he's often mistaken.- I have added a supporting ciatation from James Fenimore Cooper's The history of the Navy of the United States of America, the only hill ciatation was there in regards to the number of crew the Constellation had at the time of the battle.XavierGreen (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Truxton's opening double-shotted broadside slammed into the port side of La Vengeance's hull. "Slammed" is a bit sensational but there are other areas in the article similar.- Does "slammed" convey any subtext that either isn't accurate or isn't supported by the sources? Is it colloquial or informal or inaccessible to some of our readership? Those are the questions I ask myself when I'm copyediting; I'm not sure what the answer is in this case. - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A successful broadside literally does slam into the side of a vessel, think of the amount of force the 38 cannon balls of the double-shotted broadside had when they struck the la Vengeance.XavierGreen (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does "slammed" convey any subtext that either isn't accurate or isn't supported by the sources? Is it colloquial or informal or inaccessible to some of our readership? Those are the questions I ask myself when I'm copyediting; I'm not sure what the answer is in this case. - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:ConstellationVengeance.jpg needs shoring up. "Bailey Collection of watercolor views of U.S. Naval actions".. What or where is this source? Date of painting needed; not the upload date. When was the photo or scan of this painting taken and by whom? Likely this should be a PD-art license.
- The bailey collection of watercolor views of U.S. Naval actions" is a collection of water colours that was purchased by the Mariners Museum (http://www.marinersmuseum.org/). When purchased the museum thought that the collection was from the 19th century but eventually discovered that the paintings were created by Irwin Bevan as part of a book that apparently never was finished. The dates of the paintings are unknown, though they likely were created before 1923.XavierGreen (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "likely created before 1923" isn't very reassuring. Again, when was the photo or scan of this painting taken and by whom? The licensing for a photo in an FA needs to be top notch and leave no questions open. Brad (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As ive stated before, the owner of the painting of the painting (the mariners museaum) has no idea when it was created. Images from the bailey collection are frequently used by the military and other published works. It is literally impossible for someone to claim copywrite over them because they would not be able to prove that the images are copywritable in the first place. Given that Bevan was 71 in 1923, it is increadibly likely that they are in the public domain.XavierGreen (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I dislike how you're evading the questions I've asked about the origins of the photo. Either the licensing has to be fixed or the photo has to be removed from the article. Brad (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Responding to a request at WT:MILHIST for someone to look at this) I'm afraid I concur with Brad. We need more information on the source, and we need some kind of proof of the license—at the minute, it seems to be based largely on guesswork. Unless you can prove the author died more than 70 years ago, it will have to go, I'm afraid. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this book, Bevan died in 1940. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The 70-year rule only applies if this painting went unpublished until after 1978. For works published between 1923 and 1978, copyright lasts for up to 95 years, so this painting could still plausibly be under copyright for decades. We really do need to know when he painted the work to firmly establish its copyright status. Parsecboy (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this [[15]] the Bailey collection paintings were supposed to be included in a book that was never published. It appears this painting has never been published aside from recent inclusion on the mariners museaum website. I am not trying to be evasive, the information on creation simply isnt exactly known. The image can be seen on various websites for instance [[16]]. To avoid all this murkey copywrite stuff, why dont i simply list it under fair use? XavierGreen (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You would not be able to justify fair use of that photo because File:VengeanceConstellation.gif is already free use and essentially depicts the same subject of the ships at battle. Brad (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The image just survived a Files for deletion nomination here Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_August_24#File:ConstellationVengeance.jpg and was found to be public domain.XavierGreen (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok but as I've been trying to do since day one is fix the licensing currently displayed on the file. I'm willing to do this but you still have not revealed where you got the photograph from. Certain basic facts are needed for this. Brad (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I posted the webpage where i got the image on the Files for Deletion review. I first found it here, [[17]] but i also have seen it on one or two other websites as well.XavierGreen (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the license based on discussion surrounding its copyright status. The most important thing is to present the copyright status upfront and to the best of our ability which I believe has now been done. Brad (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your patience, Brad. - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for fixing the licensingXavierGreen (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the license based on discussion surrounding its copyright status. The most important thing is to present the copyright status upfront and to the best of our ability which I believe has now been done. Brad (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I posted the webpage where i got the image on the Files for Deletion review. I first found it here, [[17]] but i also have seen it on one or two other websites as well.XavierGreen (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok but as I've been trying to do since day one is fix the licensing currently displayed on the file. I'm willing to do this but you still have not revealed where you got the photograph from. Certain basic facts are needed for this. Brad (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The image just survived a Files for deletion nomination here Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_August_24#File:ConstellationVengeance.jpg and was found to be public domain.XavierGreen (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You would not be able to justify fair use of that photo because File:VengeanceConstellation.gif is already free use and essentially depicts the same subject of the ships at battle. Brad (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this [[15]] the Bailey collection paintings were supposed to be included in a book that was never published. It appears this painting has never been published aside from recent inclusion on the mariners museaum website. I am not trying to be evasive, the information on creation simply isnt exactly known. The image can be seen on various websites for instance [[16]]. To avoid all this murkey copywrite stuff, why dont i simply list it under fair use? XavierGreen (talk) 20:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this book, Bevan died in 1940. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. The 70-year rule only applies if this painting went unpublished until after 1978. For works published between 1923 and 1978, copyright lasts for up to 95 years, so this painting could still plausibly be under copyright for decades. We really do need to know when he painted the work to firmly establish its copyright status. Parsecboy (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Responding to a request at WT:MILHIST for someone to look at this) I'm afraid I concur with Brad. We need more information on the source, and we need some kind of proof of the license—at the minute, it seems to be based largely on guesswork. Unless you can prove the author died more than 70 years ago, it will have to go, I'm afraid. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I dislike how you're evading the questions I've asked about the origins of the photo. Either the licensing has to be fixed or the photo has to be removed from the article. Brad (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As ive stated before, the owner of the painting of the painting (the mariners museaum) has no idea when it was created. Images from the bailey collection are frequently used by the military and other published works. It is literally impossible for someone to claim copywrite over them because they would not be able to prove that the images are copywritable in the first place. Given that Bevan was 71 in 1923, it is increadibly likely that they are in the public domain.XavierGreen (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "likely created before 1923" isn't very reassuring. Again, when was the photo or scan of this painting taken and by whom? The licensing for a photo in an FA needs to be top notch and leave no questions open. Brad (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The bailey collection of watercolor views of U.S. Naval actions" is a collection of water colours that was purchased by the Mariners Museum (http://www.marinersmuseum.org/). When purchased the museum thought that the collection was from the 19th century but eventually discovered that the paintings were created by Irwin Bevan as part of a book that apparently never was finished. The dates of the paintings are unknown, though they likely were created before 1923.XavierGreen (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for not ramming 25 pics into the article. Brad (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes i to believe that pictures should only be added when they provide a useful effect of complementing the text of the article visually. Thanks for the review!XavierGreen (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Consistency review of sources
- Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations for book sources.
- FixedXavierGreen (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether you hyphenate ISBNs.
- Fixed, thanks for the review!XavierGreen (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether you abbreviate middle names. Eisfbnore • talk 16:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't heard this one before, but I admit I don't keep up. Why wouldn't it be up to an author to decide how they want to be known? - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
Battle: In a couple places in this section, an "in order to" can be found. This is usually just unneeded wordiness and can safely be turned into "to" without affecting the meaning. The less wordy, the better.- See if you like what I did. I'll be back home in a couple of hours to look at the rest. I stetted the first "in order to". - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comma would be helpful after "Midshipman David Porter".- Not getting a hit on that. - Dank (push to talk)
Aftermath: "French casualties included 29 killed and 41 wounded". In ship battles like this, do injured people really count as casualties? Not that knowledgeable about the topic, but it doesn't sound right to me.- A casualty is a person who's effectively removed from further action. - Dank (push to talk)
- Yup, even captured soldiers can be refered to as casualties. In many historical works you'll see killed, captured, missing, and wounded all lumped together as casualties.
- A casualty is a person who's effectively removed from further action. - Dank (push to talk)
In ref 27, an en dash is needed in the page range.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I only see 15 refs. - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is embarrasing on my part: the article I reviewed was USS Constellation vs L'Insurgente, not this one. Oops. No wonder a few of the things up there don't add up. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for this article, in the lead I see "Despite the fact that the French frigate...", which could be made less wordy in the form "Although the French frigate...".- Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath: The use of "Unfortunately" could be seen as POV; perhaps something less strong would suffice? More importantly, that actually is in this article. :-)Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I got rid of the "unfortunately", and quite a bit more ... see if you like it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – The article, while a touch on the short side, is well-written and well-cited, and meets all of the FA criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I got rid of the "unfortunately", and quite a bit more ... see if you like it. - Dank (push to talk) 02:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is embarrasing on my part: the article I reviewed was USS Constellation vs L'Insurgente, not this one. Oops. No wonder a few of the things up there don't add up. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I only see 15 refs. - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Media Review - Remove or replace File:ConstellationVengeance.jpg, which has been listed for deletion per the above discussion. Everything else is fine. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion nomination was pulled. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hchc2009 (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Spot check on Cooper and Shaffner marry up with the cited material in the article, no sign of close paraphrasing etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ Hebert, Adam J. "Long-Range Strike in a Hurry." Air Force magazine, November 2004. Retrieved: 24 June 2011.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Miller_p38-9
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "New Long-Range Bomber On Horizon For 2018." Physorg.com, 26 July 2006. Retrieved: 26 June 2011.
- ^ "Quadrennial Defense Review Report." U.S. Department of Defense, 6 February 2006. Retrieved: 25 June 2011.
- ^ Hebert, Adam J. "The 2018 Bomber and Its Friends." Air Force magazine, October 2006. Retrieved: 24 June 2011.