Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose and Laser brain—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. The use of graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages is discouraged, including graphics such as {{done}}, {{not done}} and {{xt}}: they slow down the page load time and lead to errors in the FAC archives. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the Table of Contents – This page: , Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks |
Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools:
|
||
Nomination procedure
Supporting and opposing
|
Contents
- 1 Nominations
- 1.1 Thomas Bailey Marquis
- 1.2 Dark Angel (TV series)
- 1.3 Nike-X
- 1.4 Nelson Mandela
- 1.5 After the Deluge (painting)
- 1.6 Love, Inc. (TV series)
- 1.7 Analog Science Fiction and Fact
- 1.8 Acne vulgaris
- 1.9 Sarawak
- 1.10 Battle of Prokhorovka
- 1.11 Bee-eater
- 1.12 House of Music
- 1.13 CMLL World Welterweight Championship
- 1.14 Chhinnamasta
- 1.15 Dick Cresswell
- 1.16 Viking metal
- 1.17 Alabama Centennial half dollar
- 2 Older nominations
- 2.1 Jochen Rindt
- 2.2 H. H. Asquith
- 2.3 Pop Warner
- 2.4 2012 Tour de France
- 2.5 Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid
- 2.6 SMS Mecklenburg
- 2.7 Mikhail Petrovich Petrov (general)
- 2.8 Nominative determinism
- 2.9 Fast inverse square root
- 2.10 Turbinellus floccosus
- 2.11 Northampton War Memorial
- 2.12 Charles Kanaʻina
- 2.13 Cliff Clinkscales
- 2.14 Bradley Cooper
- 2.15 Seri Rambai
- 2.16 Crucifix (Cimabue, Santa Croce)
- 2.17 Forensic chemistry
- 2.18 Giganotosaurus
- 2.19 Ike Altgens
- 2.20 Belgium national football team
- 2.21 Courtney Love
- 2.22 True Detective (season 1)
- 2.23 Aries (album)
- 2.24 Montreal Laboratory
- 2.25 The Pale Emperor
- 2.26 Night of January 16th
- 2.27 California State Route 76
- 2.28 First Tennessee Park
- 2.29 Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)
- 2.30 2015 Formula One season
- 2.31 Super Mario Galaxy
- 2.32 Operation Infinite Reach
- 2.33 Gottlob Berger
- 2.34 Leo Frank
- 3 Featured article reviews
- 4 Featured article removal candidates
Nominations
Thomas Bailey Marquis
This article is about an ethnographer and historian of the American Plains Indians who provided valuable and unrepeatable first-hand account material of the period. Largely ignored in his own time, and for half a century afterwards, the value of Marquis' writings were eventually recognised by historians. He did what no one else at the time was doing, recording events as told by the Native Americans themselves. SpinningSpark 11:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Dark Angel (TV series)
This article is about the short-lived cyberpunk TV series that launched Jessica Alba's career. Article is GA, has received a peer review and two copy edits from the Guild of Copyeditors. Freikorp (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I did a read through and it seems pretty good. I enjoyed many of the interesting details it presented, and it looks comprehensive. There are just a few minor nits I noticed. Otherwise it looks close to FA worthy.
- "The creators of the comic series Cybersix filed a lawsuit accusing Cameron and Fox of plagiarizing their story which was later dropped": I know what you mean here, but the final clause still seems ambiguous.
- "...secret government institution...": a secret U.S. government institution?
- I think its relevant to mention in the Plot section that Logan Cale is physically handicapped. That was a key element in some episodes.
- Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for your comments. I've reworded the intro to give indication of why the lawsuit was dropped, and i've added that it was 'US' government institution. I've given some explanation in the plot to how Logan becomes a quadriplegic; it's a bit complicated. Let me know if you have any further concerns, or if you think it could be worded better. Freikorp (talk) 03:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Nike-X
- Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Nike-X was the first ABM system intended to deal with full-scale attacks; it envisioned thousands of missiles flying every which way in a war that would last only a few minutes in total. Even with this protection, tens of millions would die, and it was this fact that ultimately led to it being abandoned - if the goal was to save lives, fallout shelters were both cheaper and more effective. Although Nike-X is certainly one of the most technically advanced ABM systems, it is also perhaps the least well known - I was something of a kid-expert on ABM back in the 80s, and I never even heard of Nike-X until recently. The article went through A-class on MILHIST with relative ease, and I've only done minor tweaks since, so It's time to go! Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Mike Christie
I'll add comments here as I go through the article. Not sure how much I can get done tonight. I'm copyediting as I go; please revert anything I screw up.
"1,700 TJ": I assume TJ is terajoules? Suggest glossing or linking or both.
-
- This is something the convert template does, and frankly, if people don't know what a kT is then they definitely won't know what a PT is. Just remove it and list kt perhaps?
- I'll strike, since I don't think it's a big deal. Yes, maybe remove the conversion in this case as not being useful. That would also let you make it "...a large (400 kilotons of TNT) warhead..." which avoids "large 400 kilotons", which isn't quite right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- I did the conversion anyway, it was bugging me too.
- I'll strike, since I don't think it's a big deal. Yes, maybe remove the conversion in this case as not being useful. That would also let you make it "...a large (400 kilotons of TNT) warhead..." which avoids "large 400 kilotons", which isn't quite right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- This is something the convert template does, and frankly, if people don't know what a kT is then they definitely won't know what a PT is. Just remove it and list kt perhaps?
Why is "cost-exchange ratio" italicized?
-
- Good question. Fixed.
"Additionally, the non-moving phased-array antennas were mounted directly in concrete and could be hardened to much greater strengths, which, given the accuracy of Soviet missiles of the era, would require several warheads to guarantee its destruction": suggest "Additionally, the non-moving phased-array antennas were mounted directly in concrete and could be hardened to much greater strengths. Given the accuracy of Soviet missiles of the era, this meant several Soviet warheads would be needed to guarantee destroying the antennnas."
-
- Yes, that is much better.
- "As warhead weights began to decrease in the late 1950s, existing missiles had leftover throw weight that could be filled with enough decoys to create significant clutter" is unsourced.
-
- In a note, does it need to be? I added Teller's book which explains what happened during Naboska and lowering weights in general.
- I think it wouldn't hurt to add the source, since you have one. I see you have some unsourced notes later. If there's something that is hard to source because it's a fairly obvious deduction from sourced information, that might be a case for not citing anything. That happens in maths articles occasionally. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- In a note, does it need to be? I added Teller's book which explains what happened during Naboska and lowering weights in general.
- "The system optionally retained Zeus, which could be used as a longer range system in areas away from cities": given the problems with Zeus, how did this argument go? What could make Zeus useful in any area?
-
- Explained, hopefully.
- Looks like you accidentally chopped part of your intended edit? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed!
- Looks like you accidentally chopped part of your intended edit? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Explained, hopefully.
Some of the image captions simply repeat information from the article, but for example the "typical Nike-X deployment" caption should probably be cited, presumably to the source given with the image.
-
- Done.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:09, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Continuing:
- "This did not come to be": suggest "Colgate's suggestion was never adopted".
-
- Much better.
- Can we put a date on Colgate's letter to Science?
-
- We can!
- "Colgate's New Mexico Tech": it took me a few seconds to realize that the possessive indicated the institution where Colgate worked. Perhaps "New Mexico Tech, where Colgate was a professor" or whatever position he held at the time.
-
- Rewrote the whole section, should be improved.
- A couple more italicized terms that I think don't need to be: clutter fence and pulse chain.
-
- Done!
- The sources may not give this explicitly, but the top speed and top acceleration of the Sprint would be interesting to note. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation (actually done on the back of an envelope, for the first time in all the times I've used that phrase) tells me it was over 40g acceleration and probably about 2.5 km/s. Not an issue if this isn't in the sources.
-
- I definitely can find this - IIRC it was over 100g and that does seem like something the reader would like to see.
- "The W66's explosive yield is reported as being in the "low kiloton" range, with various references claiming it is anywhere from 1 to 20 kilotons of TNT (4.2 to 83.7 TJ)." Since it's not currently in service, I'd suggest either "is reported as having been" or "was reported as". For the second part of the sentence I think "was" is better than "is".
-
- Done
-- I've completed a read-through; the prose is in pretty good shape. I need to read it through again for structure -- tomorrow, if I get time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
More comments on a second read-through:
- "it was calculated that a salvo of only four ICBMs would have a 90% chance of hitting the Zeus base": "a Zeus base", not "the", surely?
-
- It reads ok with "a", but I am curious about this... the "the" was "the base that was being attacked". Does this need to be re-worded?
- Judging from the missile gap article, and the dates given in this article, at the time Nike-X was authorized it may still have been the case that the USSR did not actually have enough missiles to overwhelm Zeus. Is that the case? The lead says it was "expected that the Soviets would have hundreds" so I'm guessing that it is, but I think it would be worth mentioning the uncertainty, and giving whatever information is known now about how many missiles the Soviets really had.
-
- Yes, they did not actually have enough until the late 1960s. I changed expected to believed, which I think helps, but maybe there's a good point in the body where I could insert more?
-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Nelson Mandela
- Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is about one of the most significant political figures of the second half of the 20th century, a man who needs no introduction. This is classed as one of our Vital Articles, and is a page that I have been working on for several years now. User:Khazar2 (since retired, sadly) and I brought this up to GA quality shortly before Mandela's death in 2013; since then I have consulted more sources, kept the article up-to-date, and obtained a peer review for it in June 2016. I now feel that it is ready for FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Quick comment: I've just skimmed the lead and the first section and this looks impressive from a quick glance. One thing I wasn't sure about: we mainly use "Mandela" but occasionally use "Nelson" for no reason that I can see. Unless there is a good case for "Nelson", perhaps switch them all to "Mandela"? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look, Sarastro1. At present, the article uses "Nelson" in place of "Mandela" in two locations: four times in "Childhood: 1918–34" and once in "Presidency of South Africa: 1994–99". In both of these instances, the text discussed Nelson Mandela alongside other family members, and thus the use of the family name "Mandela" could cause some confusion. Using "Nelson" in these circumstances circumvents this problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
After the Deluge (painting)
- Nominator(s): ‑ Iridescent 10:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
"Bright rising sun illuminating the clouds over a featureless horizon" has become such a staple image since the advent of modern photography, it's easy to forget that it had to begin somewhere. Likewise, if George Frederic Watts is remembered at all nowadays it's as the painter of formal portraits of dignitaries and of earnestly portentious paintings with titles like Love and Death and The Slumber of the Ages, not as the painter of dramatic landscapes. After the Deluge is an explicitly religious painting, yet contains no religious imagery of any kind, and is an interesting snapshot of the transition between 19th-century symbolism and 20th-century abstraction. Because this has spent the last century in the backwater of Compton rather than in a high-profile institution like the Tate Gallery or the Yale Center for British Art, there hasn't been all that much written about this particular piece so the article is shorter than usual, but I believe this collates together everything significant that there is to say about it. And yes, I know it looks like I've accidentally cut-and-pasted a chunk of body text into the wikilink but Light and Colour (Goethe's Theory)—The Morning after the Deluge—Moses Writing the Book of Genesis genuinely is the name of Turner's painting of the same subject. ‑ Iridescent 10:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Lingzhi
- I'm wondering whether the "A transcendent power of light..." quote would be more appropriate for the "Subject" section... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- I put it in its current location (about its 1891 exhibition) because Watts didn't include it with either the 1886 exhibition or with its later permanent exhibition in Compton; plus, the "Subject" and "Composition" sections each already include a quotation and I was trying to avoid the appearance of a quotefarm as much as possible. I've no particular attachment to keeping it in any given place, although I feel it makes more sense in the section on exhibition, as it illustrates that Watts was anticipating that his audience wouldn't necessarily get the point if he didn't explain it. ‑ Iridescent 11:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt
I've got a flight in the morning so forgive me if this is a bit piecemeal:
-
- Why is "flood" lower case when appended to "Noah's" but capped otherwise?
-
- Because I'm sloppy, now standardized on the capitalized form when talking about the specific Biblical event. ‑ Iridescent 17:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- "he explicitly aimed at evoking" this seems too wordy. What's wrong with "he intended to evoke"
-
- I've amended it in the lead, but I think the "explicitly" ought to remain in the body. Basically, Watts (along with virtually everyone else at this time) was part of the fad for painting classical subjects and often dabbled with Greek and Roman gods (and with more abstract Christian concepts like the personifications of Faith, Hope and Charity), but with this particular painting he wanted viewers to get the impression of a single all-powerful God showing off what he could do, even though a viewer could equally reasonably interpret it as a trial of strength between a sun-god and a water-god. ‑ Iridescent 17:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- "Watts worked on the painting for a further five years, and the completed version was eventually exhibited at the New Gallery in 1891." "eventually" seems surplasage.
-
- I've reworded it to "the completed version was exhibited for the first time [in 1891]"; I agree that "eventually" isn't appropriate, but I want to communicate that after its first exhibition he withdrew it and didn't show it again until it had reached its final state. (I'm assuming a lot of the traffic to this will be coming from the much better known Hope, where Watts painted multiple versions and sold off or gave away the preliminary versions, so some readers will reasonably assume that was his usual way of working.) ‑ Iridescent 17:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- "around the country" I'd let this pass if there had been any geographical hint in text beyond that of Whitechapel, so I'd be more specific.
-
- Amended to "around the United Kingdom" in the lead—in the body text "Cork, Edinburgh, Manchester, Dublin and London" is spelled out so I think the "around the country" can stay. ‑ Iridescent 17:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- "fellow artists, and has been cited as an influence on numerous other artists" artists/artists
-
- Changed one of the instances to "painters". ‑ Iridescent 17:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- "His portraits were extremely highly regarded,[8] and in 1867 he was elected a Royal Academician, at the time the highest honour available to an artist,[6][A] although he rapidly became disillusioned with the culture of the Royal Academy." This seems needlessly complex. Why not say he was elected to the Royal Academy? Then you can say he became disillusioned with "its culture"?
-
- Yes, that works, done. ‑ Iridescent 08:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- "Although his father's strict evangelical Christianity had instilled in Watts a strong dislike of organised religion since his childhood," I would strike the last three words If it comes from the father, it's most likely a childhood influence.
-
-
- Yes, fair enough ‑ Iridescent 08:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- "showed Noah sacrificing to the sun in thanks for his family's salvation from the floodwaters" I would strike the last three words. Even if perchance someone is unfamiliar with the story of Noah coming in, by this time they have the general idea.
-
- I was thinking that there was potential for readers misunderstanding "salvation" as being the point at which Noah decided he was going to follow God's will, rather than the moment at which God physically rescued him, given the common use of the term in both Judaism and Christianity as a synonym for "redemption". I agree that it's not really necessary, since anyone reading this is presumably going to know that the Sacrifice of Noah refers to the specific event after the flood was over. ‑ Iridescent 08:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding "Mr. Watts" and "St. Jude", are the periods as intended? I understand the British practice is often to omit them. Regarding Mr. Watts, I note that the first usage of this in the article is rendered without the dot on the Tate website, here.
-
- The MOS says to always use the period in US and Canadian English, and that either form is acceptable in British English. Since this is unquestionably a BrEng topic, I've removed the periods, which shaves off a few extra characters. ‑ Iridescent 08:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- "for his exhibitions.[23][E] Following this exhibition" I would be less of an exhibitionist.
-
- Changed one of them to "regularly borrowed his works to display them to local residents" to avoid the repetition. ‑ Iridescent 08:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- "in the two decades following its exhibition" that is, following 1886 or 1891?
-
- The 1891 exhibition—prior to that, nobody really knew it existed. I've changed "exhibition" to "completion". (It will technically be the 23 years following its completion—the outbreak of WW1 functioned as a huge reset button for Western art and culture—but this article's so short that I don't want to get into a long aside about the emergence of surrealism.) ‑ Iridescent 08:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well done. I expect to support once these are addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Support Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Support and comments from Jim
Not my area of expertise, but all the more reason for me to appreciate such a clear piece of writing. A couple of comments that you may want to consider
- …at the age of 10, and at the age of 16… At the age of 18…— perhaps something like …at the age of 10, and at 16… Aged 18… to break the repetition.
-
- Yeah, that's my trying to make the text slightly different to the biography on Hope (which was painted a couple of years earlier so by definition is almost identical). I've amended "at 16" to "by his mid-teens", which is accurate enough and breaks the repetition—presumably anyone who really cares about the exact timings is going to be reading his own article. ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- depression probably needs a link
-
- I'm a little reluctant, as that's to the modern concept of depression which didn't exist at this time. The wording of the source is actually "moodiness and melancholia", which was the language of the day. I've amended it to "melancholia" (and linked it), even though I'm a little reluctant to say in Wikipedia's voice that he suffered an illness which is no longer generally recognised. ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Royal Academician, at the time the highest honour available to an artist,[6][A] although he rapidly became disillusioned with the culture of the Royal Academy— perhaps make the second occurrence just "the Academy" to reduce repetition?
-
- I can't, really; there were lots of Academies at this time, but only one Royal Academy. (Usually the way we avoid repetition is to use "RA" in subsequent appearances, but this is the first appearance of both "Royal Academician" and "Royal Academy".) ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Between 1902 and 1906 it was— we are some lines away from the subject of this sentence, replace the pronoun with "the painting" or similar
-
- Done ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm deeply shocked that you've missed the opportunity to use the word "antediluvian" (:
-
- It would be a bit hypocritical of me, given that only a few days ago I was chiding the horsey folks for using "covered" rather than "mated" and expecting readers to understand it. ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks—think I've fixed all of them ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I must admit the point about depression hadn't occurred to me, thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Sagaciousphil
- Note [B] - probably showing my ignorance here but ... what is the "190" at the end?
-
- Me typing the page number into the wrong part of the template—now fixed ‑ Iridescent 16:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- After completion, 2nd paragraph: " ... shortly before Watts's death later that year. Shortly before his death ..." Could this be re-worded slightly to remove repetition in such close proximity?
-
- Reworded ‑ Iridescent 16:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Very, very minor so I'm happy to support. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Love, Inc. (TV series)
This article is about ... a short-lived UPN sitcom that revolves around five matchmakers working at a New York City dating agency. The series primarily received media attention for its casting of Shannen Doherty in one of the starring roles, and her later removal at the request of the network prior to filming. It also received attention for its prominent use of a multi-ethnic cast. I believe that the article covers all the criteria for a featured article, as it provides comprehensive information on the topic (I was pleasantly surprised to find this amount of information on this relatively obscure show). Thank you in advance for your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Numerounovedant: Pinging this user as he helped to promote it to GA through the GA review. Aoba47 (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Notifications given: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comedy
Comment on reference style The point of having "retrieved on" dates is that if the link goes dead, the reader can go find an archived copy from that date. But since you include the archive links here, there's no need to include "retrieved on" dates; they just bloat up the references which have two other dates too.
(Also, the article has undergone remarkable improvement since July, well done OP!)—indopug (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Analog Science Fiction and Fact
- Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is about the most important magazine in the history of science fiction. For a few years, from the late 1930s, the editor, John W. Campbell, completely changed the field, and launched the careers of numerous famous sf writers, most notably Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein. This also happens to be the last science fiction pulp magazine I intend to nominate here; all the others are now GAs (and probably too short for FA) or are already FAs. I'll probably bring one or two more articles on later (non-pulp) magazines here, and an article on the history of sf magazine, but with this article the end is in sight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- File:ASTJAN1930.jpg: source link is dead. Same with File:ASF_0034.jpg
- File:Changes_in_Astounding_SF_and_Analog_SF_title_layour_in_1960.jpg: the "n.a." parameters should be filled in. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review; both are now fixed -- the first by uploading a better quality image and changing the source link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments, leaning Support -- recusing from coord duties...
- Copyedited as I usually do so pls let me know any concerns; outstanding points:
- "The interior artwork, particularly by Elliot Dold, was also very impressive." -- "very impressive" is a bit opinionated, is it possible to employ a more descriptive term that's faithful to the source, or else attribute the opinion?
- I think that several quotes should probably be attributed in-line or else paraphrased:
- "one of the best-loved novels in sf" (Mission of Gravity)
- "one of the most famous of all sf novels" (Dune)
- I've attributed or tweaked all the above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Schmidt "continued the long-standing tradition of writing provocative editorials, though he rarely discussed science fiction" -- I'm intrigued to know the sort of things he did discuss in an sf mag editorial if not sf... :-)
- Done with a footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- No dablinks but there are quite a few duplinks you could review with Ucucha's script.
- I can't get this to work. Does it conflict with any other scripts such as pagesize, or the one that colours links green if they are redirects? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Heh, I don't know about the green-linking redirect one but it seems to work fine with pagesize for me. I wonder if it's anything to do with the skin -- definitely works for me with monobook, not sure of others. Worst case, I could go through the article and make the calls... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- I figured it out; duplinks removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Heh, I don't know about the green-linking redirect one but it seems to work fine with pagesize for me. I wonder if it's anything to do with the skin -- definitely works for me with monobook, not sure of others. Worst case, I could go through the article and make the calls... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- I can't get this to work. Does it conflict with any other scripts such as pagesize, or the one that colours links green if they are redirects? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Coverage-wise, I'm reasonably familiar with the history of the magazine and this seemed to hit all the right points without over-detailing.
- Source-wise, all look reliable, dominated as they are by Mike Ashley's name -- I haven't checked formatting but may be able to get to that in due course.
- Image-wise I'll of course defer to Nikki's review.
A great read as always. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. Your copyedits look good to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Tks, changes looks good, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Tks, changes looks good, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Acne vulgaris
- Nominator(s): TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
This article is about the very common chronic skin condition acne vulgaris. I believe the article should be featured as a significant amount of effort has been poured into this article (by multiple editors) to ensure that its discussion of acne vulgaris is comprehensive, accurate, and accessible to a general readership. This is a very important topic since the condition is nearly ubiquitous (one of the most common skin conditions worldwide). This article aims to provide all readers (general and professional) with an informative summary of the underpinnings of this condition and to address any questions those affected by the condition might have (e.g., safety and efficacy of various treatment modalities). I believe this article to be an example of Wikipedia's highest quality work but am certainly open to constructive feedback to further refine it to reach FA, if applicable. Thank you to those reviewing the article for your consideration. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Seppi333
Criterion 3
I'm going to start with an image review (criterion 3).
- All of the images except one have an acceptable reported copyright status; however, one image – COMMONS:File:Akne-jugend.jpg – is tagged as public domain but doesn't indicate the original source. This concerns me. I'm inclined to believe that it is PD, but I can't determine this for sure using a google image search or tineye search of the original image to find its original source. It's probably okay to use the current image, but I don't think it would too difficult to find a higher quality image for the infobox which has both an acceptable copyright status and clear attribution to its original source.
- Per MOS:IM, all images should include alt text; hence, featured articles need to include WP:ALT text in order to satisfy criterion 2. I've added empty alt parameters to 4 images (1 in the infobox, 3 to existing image syntax). These images need to have appropriate alt text added to them. I added alt parameters with appropriate alt text to the 2 images in the gallery to serve as an example of what to write in the 4 other image alt parameters.
- I made minor tweaks to the existing captions (removed periods in captions containing a sentence fragment; fixed grammar in 1 caption) to make them conform to MOS:CAPTION. No further changes to the captions are necessary IMO – the current captions seem fine.
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Seppi, thanks for getting the FA review started. For my edification, what's the concern about the image being public domain? I'm not well-versed in copyright policy so I'm not sure why that would be a potential issue. With that said, I'll look through Wikimedia to see if I can find a different high-quality image that has a more suitable copyright status so it's not an issue. I saw you added those alt parameters already so thank you for doing that. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps this [1] would work better since its copyright status is CC by SA 4.0. Yes? Also, I noticed the hair follicle anatomy picture is also labeled as public domain. Is that in need of replacement as well? If so, this looks like it might be an improvement anyway [2]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- @TylerDurden8823: Public domain is an acceptable copyright status. The issue is that the image which I've pointed out is not attributed to any source, so it's difficult to verify that it is indeed in the public domain. The picture you proposed as an alternative seems fine to me. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps this [1] would work better since its copyright status is CC by SA 4.0. Yes? Also, I noticed the hair follicle anatomy picture is also labeled as public domain. Is that in need of replacement as well? If so, this looks like it might be an improvement anyway [2]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd be content with passing this image review if only issue #2 is addressed, but it'd be an improvement if you could also find a better alternative image as described above in issue #1. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- @Seppi333:, I have filled in the alt text parameters and added the CC by SA pictures. I also noticed the featured article Alzheimer's disease has some pictures without alt text captions (perhaps this is something that needs to be addressed in the future). Please let me know if you see anything else that needs revision or if any additional changes are needed. Thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
Criterion 2
I intend to take on a review of the article's compliance with the WP:Manual of Style (criterion 2) sometime this week.
More to come. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Initial comment from Jim
We don't normally have references in the lead since it's just summarising the presumably fully referenced text in the body. Can you clarify why you have deviated from this practice? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've seen featured articles with references in the lead that are well-accepted (e.g., Parkinson's disease, rhabdomyolysis, and Alzheimer's disease to name a few) and didn't see that it excludes it from being an FAC here [3]. I don't see mention of that as a criterion in the featured article criteria discussing the lead or citations. I hope that explains but I'm not married to the idea if that's a widely held view that's going to prevent it from progressing to FA). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Sarawak
This article is about Sarawak, the largest state in Malaysia in terms of land area, one of the largest timber exporter in the world, famous for its natural wonders such as Mulu caves and rainforest biodiversity. Sarawak is located on the island of Borneo. This article has been checked against the Good Article criteria and all the references are uniform. The lead has a concise summary. The article has also been checked against grammatical errors during the good article nomination. Any suggestions to improve this article to FA status is welcomed.Cerevisae (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Quick comment: A quick skim of the lead shows that the word "state" crops up an awful lot, and we really need to use some different words! Also, quite a few sentences begin with "The", which is best avoided, and "Earliest human settlements in Sarawak date back to 40,000 years ago at the Niah Caves" feels like it should begin with "the" as well. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Coat_of_arms_of_Sarawak.svg: what is the copyright status of the original work? - Done Cerevisae (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- File:Sarawak_1888-97_Sc13.jpg: what author death date are we using to get that tag? - Author is unknown. According to PD Malaysia, it can be counted from the publication date of the stamp. Cerevisae (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- File:Batu_Lintang_POW_camp,_Sarawak,_Borneo_taken_on_or_after_29_August_1945.jpg: per the tag, when/where was this first published? same with File:The_unconditional_surrender_ceremony_of_the_Japanese_to_the_Autralian_forces_in_Kuching,_Sarawak.jpg - First publication dates of both images not stated at Australian war memorial. But according to PD Australia, both images can be counted from the date they were first taken. Cerevisae (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- File:Sarawak_anti-cession_demonstration.JPG: source link is dead, and which of the given rationales applies? - "For anonymous or pseudonymous works copyright subsists for 50 years after publication unless the author is made known." Cerevisae (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- File:Sarawak_during_the_formation_of_Malaysia_(16_September_1963).jpg: given the date, what is the status of this work in the US? Same with File:Malaysian_Rangers,_Malay-Thai_border_(AWM_MAL-65-0046-01).JPG - Done Cerevisae (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- File:Timeline_of_evolution_of_political_parties_in_Sarawak.svg should include a data source. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
-Done Cerevisae (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment on reference style The point of having "retrieved on" dates is that if the link goes dead, the reader can go find an archived copy from that date. But since you include the archive links here, there's no need to include "retrieved on" dates; they just bloat up the references which have two other dates too.—indopug (talk) 07:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Battle of Prokhorovka
This article is about one of the largest tank battles in history, which occurred in July 1943 during the Second World War in the Eastern Front, between Nazi German and Soviet forces. It was the climax of the wider Battle of Kursk, which was a turning point of the strategic balance in the Eastern Front: The Soviet Union permanently gained the strategic control, and the Germans permanently lost the capacity to launch any more major offensives in the Eastern front. EyeTruth (talk) 22:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- is there a reference for this: "Thus the artillery fire which the tankers depended upon to sweep their path of advance and suppress German anti-tank gunners was not adequately present."?
- same as above for: "Nonetheless, the battle is still regarded as one of the largest tank battles in military history"?
- same as above for: "...with another 212 tanks and self-propelled guns under repair, and 7,607 casualties."?
- For citations 1 to 8 where you have the excerpt, is this really necessary, as none of the other citations use this style? If it is necessary, potentially putting them into the Notes section rather than the Citations section might be a more consistent approach.
- in the Further reading, is it necessary to use Russian language here: "Замулин, Валерий" and "Москва: Xранитель" (I think it might be best just to translate this)?
-
- fixed, except for the publisher "Xранитель".
- "...and other historians corroborate his narrative" (probably best to name these historians in the text here)
- "...tanks in the Eastern Front, July 1943" --> "..tanks on the Eastern Front, July 1943"
- there are a few duplicate links per the duplicate link checker: Tiger I, Panzer IV, Operation Kutuzov, assault gun,
- is there an ISSN or OCLC that could be added for the The Journal of Slavic Military Studies?
- "reposture" --> "re-posture"?
Initial comments -- I'm a bit concerned about the use of Healy:
- Healy, Mark (2010) [2008]. Zitadelle: The German Offensive Against the Kursk Salient 4–17 July 1943. Stroud, UK: History Press. ISBN 978-0-7524-5716-1.
I'm not personally familiar with the work, but I had followed this link from the main Battle of Kursk article (Licari, Michael J. A Review Essay: Books on the Battle of Kursk. Archived from the original) and the review was rather negative: "Healy's book is like most others in the Osprey series: it is a bland, somewhat uneven overview of the battle, and contains several important errors." From my experience editing the main article, I recall removing some rather POV statements cited to Healey, such as "burden" & "forced", so I was not surprised by a critical review. History Press seems like a minor publisher too; I'm not confident about their reputation for fact checking and accuracy. With many excellent sources cited in the article (Glantz & House; Clark; Showalter, etc), perhaps Healey is not needed?
Separately, I have some concerns about the POV of George Nipe, especially the article that is linked from bibliography link, which states: "Thus, the battle for Prochorovka ended, not because of German tank losses (Hausser had over 200 operational tanks on July 17) but because Hitler lacked the will to continue the offensive." This seems to echo Manstein's self-justification after war, with the article appropriately named "Battle of Kursk: Germany’s Lost Victory in World War II" (see Lost Victories). I had previously encountered Nipe's Platz der Leibstandarte: A Photo Study of the SS-Panzer-Grenadier-Division "Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler" used as a source in POV-challenged articles relating to Waffen-SS.
It looks like Nipe wrote a solid operational study (e.g. this review: link). But some of his conclusions are questionable, and are not in line with what I've read in other sources, such as Robert Citino & Showalter.
K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Healy wrote two books. One back in the 1990s, and the other (the one cited above) more recently. The former draws heavily on the inflated version of the battle from Soviet/German postwar accounts (not archives). The latter replies heavily on German archival material. Nipe's POV may be overreaching at times, but he's been credited by several other historians as a pioneer in piecing together a more accurate picture of the battle using German archives. He certainly has a weaker knowledge of the Soviet perspective and archives (seen him giving very inflated figures for Soviet losses, due to quite sloppy inferences from weak sources). EyeTruth (talk) 07:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- The POV statements cited to Healey that you removed are the works of one of the primary contributors to the article, who had a very high regard for the German view and pushed it into the article a little too hard. We clashed over that sometimes. EyeTruth (talk) 07:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Image review Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- File:Kursk-1943-Plan-GE.svg: particularly as the legend is non-English, suggest providing more explanation in the caption
-
- What kind of information do you think might be useful? I'm thinking of restating relevant names in familiar terms (e.g. "5. GPzA" is the 5th Guards Tank Army, and "Pokrowka" is Prokhorovka); would that be helpful? EyeTruth (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- That's a good start. More broadly, think about what information someone unfamiliar with the subject would need to understand the map - what do the colours and symbols mean, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Similarly, File:Prokhorovka,_Battle_of_Kursk,_night_11_July.png needs more explanation, and suggest scaling it up
-
- Do you mean scaling the image in the article, or scaling it in its own image page? If the latter, then I have not done that before, and I may need some cue to the right direction. EyeTruth (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- I mean scaling within the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- File:Rotmistrov_portrait_WWII.jpg: you're going to need a much stronger rationale to use a non-free image here, and suggest not using the "unique historic image" tag, and last source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- I assumed fair-use claim (which you had suggested that I consider) was sufficient, going by our last discussion over that image. I would like to retain the image because it brings a much needed balance between German and Soviet pictures in the article (an issue that I've seen become a point of contention in other WWII articles), so if there is anything else more acceptable than the fair-use claim that I can try out, please let me know. Alternatively, do you think the only acceptable outcome possible is to remove it? EyeTruth (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- No, I think there is a potential fair-use claim to be made, but the one currently in use just isn't strong enough to explain why we need a non-free image. Basically any claim you make should explain how the use meets each of the non-free content criteria, particularly point 8 - how does having this image enhance reader understanding and/or why would leaving it out be detrimental to the article? You should also use a different tag - {{non-free biog-pic}} might be possible depending on your rationale, or {{non-free fair use}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Bee-eater
- Nominators: Sabine's Sunbird talk Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
This is a family of colourful, conspicuous birds that feed mainly on venomous flying insects such as bees and wasps. I usually try to say something witty in my nominations, but here the beauty of these birds can do the talking. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh Jim, Jim, Jim. What a missed opportunity. Look people, we hope you'll bee impressed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ha ha, yes, I'm slipping.... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Aa77zz
Lead
- need to mention that Meropidae contains 3 genera and 27 species
-
- Done, it originally had the number of species, but I took that out because of the potential split of green bee-eater (accepted by HBW) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- perhaps mention that the plumage of the two sexes is generally quite similar
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- "the number depending on the species." Why not around 5 eggs? (Fry HBW Breeding has "generally about five eggs in a clutch")
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Taxonomy
- I'm uncomfortable with the 2016 year for Fry's HBW alive family article. The text is identical to the 2001 print edition (see differences) - and thus the text doesn't mention studies published in the last 15 years. I suggest just omitting the year - but keeping the access date.
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm surprised that there hasn't been a phylogenetic study on the relationship between the bee-eaters, rollers, hoopoe and kingfishers. (I've looked but can't find one)
-
- No, there's plenty of discussion but little substance Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- The 2007 molecular phylogenetic study by Marks et al should be mentioned in the text, however unsatisfactory - see below
Figure showing the phylogenetic tree
-
Deferred until major point below addressedJimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Typo - M. orieentalis -> M. orientalis
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- M. australis is M. gularis australis and therefore the two gularis taxa should be combined.
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- This whole tree is unsatisfactory - and it may be better to omit it from the article. It is based on Figure 3 in Marks et al. The difficulty is that at the bottom of the figure Meropogon forsteni is shown as a sister to Merops breweri. Also Merops bulocki and Merops bullockoides are shown as basal to Meropogon forsteri. Marks et al include two other figures that have different arrangements. The authors discuss the difficulty of placing the above species. They lack nuclear sequence data for Meropogon forsteri and Merops leschenaulti as they could only determined the mtDNA sequences (from museum specimens). In Figure 1 they omit these sequences altogether. (I don't understand the statistical methods used in phylogenetic studies).
-
- The table was added by Shyamal. I'm not wedded to keeping it, but since it's a GF edit by an experienced editor, I'd like his input. Sabine's Sunbird may also have a view on this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- I am not wedded to the tree either but some indication of relatedness is more useful than an alphabetic list of species even if the sampling is slightly incomplete at this point in time - having the tree will ensure that a future editor will update it to more recent studies. The third tree is a maximum parsimony tree with bootstrap measures of confidence - so the only changes I can think of are to include more explicit caveats (although molecular phylogeny is always a hypothesis and the methods do have their consequences) in the caption. After all Wikipedia and science itself are about verifiability and continuing refinement - not about absolute truth. Shyamal (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Description
- Specify number of primaries (10)(outer often very small), secondaries (13) and rectrices (12) (p.29 in Bee-eaters)(HBW has 12 tail)
-
- I wouldn't normally specify in this detail, but added anyway. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Behaviour
- "Helpers" are first mentioned in this section. Perhaps better to insert here the sentence now at the end of the Breeding section where you explain that they are normally the male offspring from a previous year.
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Diet and feeding
- The first paragraph needs a reference
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Mention that bee-eaters and kingfishers regurgitate pellets of indigestible material (p.207 in Bee-eaters)(Fry HBW General Habits "2cm long black oblongs")
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Breeding
- Mention that no nesting material is used (p.19 in Bee-eaters)
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Specify colour of eggs (already mentioned in lead) - white as is usual for cavity nesters (p.19 in Bee-eaters)
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Mention pellets trodden underfoot (p.19 in Bee-eaters)
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Mention that parents and nestlings defaecate in nest (p.19 in Bee-eaters)
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- perhaps mention smell (p.19 in Bee-eaters)
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- mention that incubation starts soon after the first egg is laid (p.19 in Bee-eaters)(Fry HBW has "with the first eggs laid")
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- eggs laid at daily intervals. (Fry HBW Breeding)
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- incubation is around 20 days (p.19 in Bee-eaters)(Fry HBW Breeding)
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- both birds incubate during the day, just the female at night (Fry HBW Breeding)
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- eggs hatch asynchronously (Fry HBW Breeding)
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- if food is short only the older chicks survive (Fry HBW Breeding)
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- nestling period is about 30 days (Fry HBW Breeding)
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
References
- Ref 9 - The reference to the HBW alive article on the Asian green bee-eater lists the wrong authors.
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be better to rely entirely on HBW alive - rather than having some cites to the print edition and others to the online version (currently identical)?
-
- Because Sabine's Sunbird and I edited this largely sequentially, we used different versions. I wondered about this myself. I'll change them all to the on-line version Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- The cite for the quote "the most complex of any bird species anywhere in the world".[11]:298 look odd as it is the only use of this syntax in the article. The text is in Fry HBW online General Habits.
-
- Dealt with by above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll have another look at the article next week. Aa77zz (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Aa77zz thanks very much for your detailed review and the tweaks you made to the text. I think I've dealt with all the issues except those relating to the phylogeny table. As I said, I don't mind whether it stays or goes, but I'd like input from the editor who added it and my co-nom if they wish to comment Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Aa77zz, I've now made the changes regarding the cladogram, and Shyamal has responded above. I can't access the Marks paper anyway, but I think their is some merit in having at least an outline of possible relationships. Your call, I guess Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I'll add more comments when I can:
- The lead has "All have long down-turned bills and pointed wings,..." The wings of some species are rounded - as is stated in the body of the article. HBW alive has "The wing shape of bee-eaters varies from round-ended to pointed," - Aa77zz (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Good point, I've rewritten that sentence since I don't find the comparison with swallows convincing either, I've seen a dozen species of bee-eaters and never thought they resembled hirundines. Now All have long down-turned bills and medium to long wings, which may be pointed or round. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- The section on Breeding has "The eggs do not all hatch at the same time,..". This agrees with the source but the eggs of the Australian rainbow bee-eater can all hatch within a 24h period (Fry et al 1992 p.277) or HBW alive "most eggs hatch on same day") see here. I suggest inserting "For most species" or "generally" etc. Aa77zz (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Changed to "For most species" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Support - All looks good
With improvements to DNA sequencing, publication of phylogenetic trees based on insufficient data will hopefully disappear but there will still be differences of opinion on species/sub-species and the extent of genera. Aa77zz (talk) 16:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for support. I agree with your comment on phylogeny, but we can but hope that future developments will clarify Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Support Nicely written, reasonably approachable for a non birder. Query I struggle with "in which the wings of both sexes are held out the birds are calling" Is this some ornithological jargon? ϢereSpielChequers 22:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Ϣere, no, it's self-generated gibberish. I'd tried too hard to make it concise, now expanded and hopefully more intelligible Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
"Most of the Merops bee-eaters have a line through the eye" gave me a very different mental image than the black bar on this bird's face. Would it be possible to put an image such as this beside that text with a caption ending "with a black line through the eye"?ϢereSpielChequers 22:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)- Thanks for your support. Just looking at the existing images, it's clear that even the narrowest aren't really lines, so changed to " black bar through the eye" in text and in caption to your suggested image, always nice to have a Featured Picture Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comments looking ok at a quick glance - will give more of a look later, but just for the moment noting that given we are talking about the bee-eaters as a group, we really need some material on their higher-order relationships as it is fascinating. It looks like there are three papers discussing this. I'll chase Mayr 2009 and continue to discuss on talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks Cas, I'll try to put together something from the new paper Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments from FunkMonk
- At first glance, the images seem a bit crammed, and one photo (white-fronted bee-eater) is used twice. Perhaps some could be pruned? FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Agree, now one per section Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Synonyms?
-
- I'm not sure what you are after here. For family articles, we don't normally list synonyms of genera or species (see tern, nuthatch), which are detailed in the relevant lower level articles. if I've misunderstood, please clarify Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I mean family level synonyms. For example, Raphidae is tehnically a synonym of Columbidae (not of Raphinae, as one might think), since the former was found to not be a distinct family... But it's not so important. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've never come across a synonym, and a quick search yesterday failed to turn up anything Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- I mean family level synonyms. For example, Raphidae is tehnically a synonym of Columbidae (not of Raphinae, as one might think), since the former was found to not be a distinct family... But it's not so important. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- FunkMonk, thanks for having a look Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Is the classification text ready to read, or is it still being worked out? FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- There have been no further comments on the talk page since I rewrote the second paragraph to include the newer papers, so I'm assuming it's acceptable on content. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- "who created the bird subfamily, Meropia, in 1815." What is the status of this name today?
-
- The current Meropidae is just that name adjusted to modern rules, ending -idae. Raffinesque's family Cortamphia is clearly a taxonomic nonsense, so the bee-eaters were a family rather than a subfamily Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- "although the position of the purple-bearded bee-eater appears anomalous." Why?
-
- clarified Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- "from the Pleistocene have been found in Austria, and there are Holocene specimens" Perhaps state how many years ago this was.
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- "sister to all other Coraciiformes." Perhaps state in parenthesis what other grops are included therein.
-
- Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- "but suggested new genera" Such as?
-
- That was more of a challenge than I anticipated, so ubiquitous has Fry's treatment been for many years. I found one example dealt with in his PhD thesis. I tweaked out "new", I don't think any are still current Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- "pairs sitting or roosting together are often so close together" The last togetehr seems redundant/repetitive?
- "attempt to lay eggs in their neighbour's nests" Easter egg links are discouraged, so I'd spell out and link nest parasitism in parenthesis, or similar.
- How many individuals are in clans and colonies?
- Dust bathing and purple-bearded bee-eater is duplinked.
House of Music
This article is about a 1996 studio album by the R&B band Tony! Toni! Toné!. It was their fourth and last album, a platinum seller, and widespread critical success, deemed by some critics as their best work, an influence on 1990s neo soul, and a masterpiece of '90s R&B. Dan56 (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
CMLL World Welterweight Championship
This was recently failed as a FAC due to no input, not actual content issues, so I'm hoping that the second time is the charm for this article. This article is about a Mexican professional wrestling championship, not just a list of champions but an article on the history of the championship, rules etc. This follows the format of the CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship and CMLL World Middleweight Championship articles which were recently promoted to FA. I have taken all input from those FACs, plus various GANs, FLCs and FACs I've done on Mexican wrestling championships to hopefully produce a high-quality article worthy of the Feature Article status. I am open to any and all suggestions and always willing to work on any issues there may be. MPJ-DK 21:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Chhinnamasta
- Nominator(s): Redtigerxyz Talk 17:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Chhinnamasta is a Hindu self-decapitated goddess, who holds her severed head in her hand and drinks blood from her wound. While she enjoyed a long peer review, she went unnoticed on her first trip to FAC a month ago, expect a detailed image review by the lone FAC reviewer. She returns to claim her position in the FA pantheon. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- I would be a little concerned about some of the prose in this article. For instance, looking at the lede we have statements such as "Chhinnamasta (Sanskrit: छिन्नमस्ता, Chinnamastā, "She whose head is severed"), often spelled Chinnamasta, and also called Chhinnamastika and Prachanda Chandika, is one of the Mahavidyas, ten Tantric goddesses and a ferocious aspect of Devi, the Hindu Divine Mother. Chhinnamasta can be easily identified by her unusual iconography." I'm concerned that it comes across as a little literalist in the way that said beliefs are presented, and is not particularly clear for readers not already familiar with Asian religion. Moreover, wording like "can be easily identified" doesn't (for me) feel particularly encyclopaedic. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Dick Cresswell
Been a couple of months since my last nom, let's hope I remember how it goes... Unusually among the subjects of my air force bios, Dick Cresswell was not an ace, nor did he achieve high rank, but he did manage to be in the right place at the right time to achieve several 'firsts' in RAAF history. His main claim to fame was commanding No. 77 Squadron three times, most notably during the Korean War, when he oversaw its conversion from Mustangs to Meteors, and so became the first man to command an RAAF jet squadron in combat. He also seems to have had a reputation as a bit of a cowboy, so perhaps it's no surprise that he once got himself into hot water for practising with his revolver in the vicinity of a fellow officer who was ticking him off... Tks to everyone who participated in the article's recent GA and MilHist A-Class reviews, and to all who comment here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments: Looks great. Very nice piece of work. Just a few quibbles.
- Perhaps link Air Member for Personnel? I'm not sure average reader would be familiar with the term. There is a specific article on the Australian post, but it's one sentence and a list of holders.
- Yes, the Australian AMP page isn't much, but if I had to link anything I think it'd have to be that one -- shall I do that? If I ever get round to writing an article on the Australian Air Board I'd probably merge AMP with it and leave a redirect...
- If you asked me, I'd add something about Australia/Commonwealth air forces to the article on the RAF AMP, then move the Australian article to "List of Air Members for Personnel (Australia)"; but that's out of scope for this FAC. --HJM
- Yes, the Australian AMP page isn't much, but if I had to link anything I think it'd have to be that one -- shall I do that? If I ever get round to writing an article on the Australian Air Board I'd probably merge AMP with it and leave a redirect...
- The business with his court-martial is very intriguing.
- Was the informal nature typical of the time? (Obviously there was a war on and the RAAF was in its infancy so perhaps it was).
- I wasn't aware that the court martial process sounded informal here -- is there any particular wording that suggests that?
- It sounds like he turned up one day expecting to fly and suddenly found himself in front of a court-martial. --HJM
- I wasn't aware that the court martial process sounded informal here -- is there any particular wording that suggests that?
- Do we know why the sentence was relatively mild? Or why an officer as senior as the AMP would get involved? Or why the sanction was effectively reversed?
- Although the court martial is mentioned in several sources, only biographer Odgers goes into detail, and he doesn't comment on the severity or otherwise of the sentence. Lukis got involved because Cresswell went to him to resign. Re. the reversal, Odgers comments "Clearly, the RAAF was softening its attitude toward Dick", but this appears simply observation/opinion.
- Was the informal nature typical of the time? (Obviously there was a war on and the RAAF was in its infancy so perhaps it was).
- Cresswell questioned the decision through official channels, with the result that he retained the position of wing leader What was that all about? A spitting contest between two officers?
- I figure Cresswell preferred the position of wing leader to squadron commander, given he'd already been squadron commander, but that's not stated outright. In any case, he asked the Dept of Air for clarification and the dept said he was to stay as wing leader, and Steege kept him as squadron CO, so Cresswell had two jobs for a while -- I felt this could be summarised as we have it in the article.
- Okay, another question: what's the difference between a wing leader and a wing commander? --HJM
- Wing commander is a rank, equivalent to lieutenant colonel, and wing leader is a position, like commanding officer or executive officer. It's actually quite difficult to find a definition of the position, even though it's frequently mentioned in sources -- Darwin Spitfires is the only one I know that spells it out, hence my using it here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I know it's a rank, but you have just above No. 81 Wing's new commanderemphasis mine (who is a group captain) giving instructions to a squadron leader, who is to be come the wing's leader. What does the leader do that the commander doesn't? --HJM
- The terminology the air force uses for positions vs. ranks can be maddening, I grant you... ;-) To clarify first off, Steege wanted Cresswell to be a squadron commander (position) not squadron leader (rank) -- Cresswell had been a wing commander (rank) since Jan 44. As to the difference between the wing leader and the wing's commander, the wing leader has tactical control of the formation in the air, but the wing's commander is in charge of the formation over all (operationally and administratively). The implication is that Steege wanted to have tactical control of the wing in the air as well as overall command, but the source doesn't state that explicitly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- I know it's a rank, but you have just above No. 81 Wing's new commanderemphasis mine (who is a group captain) giving instructions to a squadron leader, who is to be come the wing's leader. What does the leader do that the commander doesn't? --HJM
- Wing commander is a rank, equivalent to lieutenant colonel, and wing leader is a position, like commanding officer or executive officer. It's actually quite difficult to find a definition of the position, even though it's frequently mentioned in sources -- Darwin Spitfires is the only one I know that spells it out, hence my using it here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
That's as far as the top of the Korean War section and I'm out of time; I'll revisit tomorrow hopefully. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Tks very much for stopping by, Harry -- look fwd to further comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'll be back to do the second half of the article but it might take me a couple of days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Resuming:
- What were his duties as Director of Air Staff Policy?
- Source doesn't elaborate, I'm afraid.
- Do we know why he wasn't interested in climbing the ranks further?
- His quote about his resignation in 1957 suggests he expected to be desk-bound if he stayed.
- the RAAF Antarctic Flight impressed his Beaver it took me a moment to parse the intended meaning of "impressed" here ('pressed into service' vs 'made an impression') and I'm not sure it would be clear to everyone; I'd suggest linking to Wiktionary or rephrasing
- Heh, fair enough -- tweaked.
And that's it. I struggled to find anything to criticise! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Tks again Harry! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I'm happy with your replies, so support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Viking metal
- Nominator(s): 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
This article is about Viking metal, a style of heavy metal music based primarily on lyrical themes of the Vikings, the Viking age, and Norse paganism. I first started working on this article back in 2011, and, over time, became fascinated with the subject, came to enjoy the style of music, and delved into the scholarly research about Viking metal. My own interest and research seems to have paralleled with that of academia: Prior to 2010, far fewer sources discussion Viking metal existed, so the past six years have seen a sizeable increase in academic interest in the subject. Over the course of the past five years, myself and other editors have vastly improved this article. There was an conflict two years ago over the definitions and origins of Viking metal between myself and an anonymous editor, but we were able to arrive at a compromise that best summarized the existing literature. The article has subsequently become a good article and has undergone peer review. It adheres to basic policy regarding BLPs and copy-righted material. It adequately summarizes the topic, and covers all key aspects with the needed detail. It follows a consistent layout and reference style. I believe that this article is ready to be a featured article candidate. This is the second FA nomination for this article. The first one was rejected only due to inactivity. It did get one editor's review, and I addressed the problems that they highlighted.3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support as the one who helped at PR. If there wasn't really much of anything wrong with it then, there definitely can't be now. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 13:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, one problem. The Stylus Magazine reference for Amon Amarth has been dead since June (after my PR).
-
-
- Fixed. Apparently, apart from the homepage, the entire site for Stylus has been taken down.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- According to a Google search they've been defunct since October 2007. They seem to have just kept archives there until last June. My full support has been restored. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 19:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed. Apparently, apart from the homepage, the entire site for Stylus has been taken down.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Comment as author: I had solicited for a review from User:Lewismaster, who unfortunately is unable to give a full review. However, they did say that they found the article somewhat arcane. If any editors notice this, I would welcome criticism and advice.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Alabama Centennial half dollar
This article is about... you never know where an article is going to go once you begin the research and this one to my surprise led to a sidelight on the career of President Harding of which I was not aware. Commemorative coins are indeed a part of history if not a large part. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Source review / Singora
My article, Seri Rambai, is further down the list. It's got supports from DanK, BrianBoulton and Casliber, but will need a source review. Wanna help?
If yes, I'll do your source review as I did before with that Captain Cook coin. I guess you could email me the gear like last time. Singora (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- What is the copyright status of the photo of the coin? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- This has come up before with Bobby131313 images and I believe I asked at a noticeboard at one time and the feeling was that uploading your own images to Wikipedia is indicative of an intent to license them under the Four Freedoms.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Iridescent
In case of subsequent variation, this is the version on which I'm commenting. I've conducted no image or source checks and going on faith that every citation says what it says it does.
Lead
- The "in 1921 to mark the 100th anniversary of Alabama's admission to the Union in 1819" is jarring, and "the Act of May 10, 1920" doesn't help. I imagine the reaction of every reader to the fact that the act deciding to mark the centenary wasn't passed until a year after the centenary will be "Huh? Why didn't they make arrangements for the centenary before the centenary year had passed?". I appreciate that the causes are touched on in the "inception" section, but there should probably be at least some acknowledgement in the lead that it took place after the event since my first instinct was that a vandal had been goofing with the dates.
- This is not something about which I know anything, but are the images in the infobox really meant to be that brown? They look to me like either they've been in the bottom of a river, or that they're actually electroplated copper and the coating is wearing off, and presumably neither of these are the case.
-
- Silver coins often exhibit toning, or really tarnish. It is, generally speaking, not considered a good idea to "clean" them, although in the past, this was often done. Still is, by some. It's the images we have.
- The infobox has the mass and diameter of the coin in metric-only measurement, the thickness of the coin in both metric and imperial measurements, and the silver content in imperial-only measurement.
-
- There was a formatting error I've corrected, and now the diameter shows in inches as well. I felt these were the most useful to the reader. The silver content is in troy ounces only because that's how silver is generally sold in the US. If I added the total weight in Imperial, then there would be the question of whether to use troy or avoirdupois. I chose not to go there (this is true of about forty or so coin articles.
Inception
- "the members heard of other states which had gotten or which sought a commemorative coin"—what sort of numbers are we talking about? Was this a really commonplace practice which led to Alabama feeling justly left out, or was it a new fad which they wanted to be in on from the start? I know I can tell from the end navbox how many other commemorative coins there were, but the readers can't be expected to know that. (I'm also not a fan of "gotten", which seems a little inappropriately folksy to me.)
-
- It's all traceable to the 1918 Illinois Centennial. From the sources, it looks like Maine saw the Illinois one, and then Alabama and Pilgrim (i.e. Massachusetts) saw the Maine one. However, Rainey, the Alabama congressman, was a bit vague about it, which I imagine is why Swiatek and Breen didn't say things as a definite fact. There's some discussion in the Alabama/Maine hearings of other anniversaries, but it's not fully accurate (for example, they say there was a coin for the Jamestown anniversary of 1907, but there wasn't.) I like to give as much of a play by play as I can, since this area hasn't been studied in depth, but it's all based on the very limited primary sources and I think it's best kept more or less as is. Gotten changed to "received".
Preparation
- "Alabama Governor Thomas Kilby had a three-member commission headed by Owen"—who is Owen? She isn't mentioned prior to this point, and at no point before or after is it explained who she was. (I'm assuming she's a woman owing to the "her committee".)
- Was this the first US coin designed by a woman? (Skimming through the other coins linked in the navbox it appears that it was, although a couple of other coins don't have their designers named.) If so, this should certainly be mentioned, since it will be one of the most interesting facts about this coin to non-enthusiasts, especially given that it's probably fair to say that 1920s Alabama was not renowned for its social progressiveness.
-
- Yes, it was! Nice catch. I had to do some digging on this. I missed this because a couple of times previously women's designs were considered at some stage but weren't actually used. In fact, according to my source, it's the first coin of any country designed by a woman. I've put that in there.
Production, distribution & collecting
- The long first paragraph here is very confusing to me. I think I've parsed it correctly as "They made 6006 of them in October and made the rest of them later; the official record says that the first batch were marked 2X2 and the later ones weren't, but this might not actually be the case", but it's taken me at least three read-throughs to grasp it.
-
- Pretty much. I've divided the paragraph and played with it.
- "the Pilgrim half lists for between $85 and $650 without 2X2…"—is this an error, as (if I'm understanding it) the Pilgrim half-dollar was an unrelated coin released at the same time.
-
- Oopsie. I had cut and pasted that sentence to get the links and wasn't very careful, obviously.
These are all relatively minor points, and I assume I'll be supporting this unless anything problematic subsequently comes to light. ‑ Iridescent 09:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, Iridescent. I think I've dealt with those.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support (with the usual proviso that I haven't verified sources, but I've no reason to doubt they say what this says). It might be worth a final sentence noting how many other commemorative coins were issued subsequent to this, to put it in some kind of context. ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Older nominations
Jochen Rindt
- Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
This article is about Jochen Rindt, Formula One's only posthumous World Champion, winning the Championship in 1970 by accumulating enough points before being killed in an accident during practice for the 1970 Italian Grand Prix. As a World Champion, his article ranks as high importance in its respective WikiProject.
This is the first article I nominate for FA, so even though I made sure to follow all the regulations, I might have missed this or that, so feel free to point anything out to me. Also, this is the first time I added alt-texts to images, so they might not be completely appropriate. Any critique is welcome! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Sarastro: Overall, this looks quite good from a first glance. I don't think we're quite there yet. I think the prose needs a little polish to reach FA standard. From the lead to begin with: Sarastro1 (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- "he became the only driver to posthumously win the Formula One World Drivers' Championship, after being killed in practice for the Italian Grand Prix": I think this might be better in terms of emphasis as "he was killed during practice for the Italian Grand Prix and became the only driver to be posthumously awarded the Formula One World Drivers' Championship."
- "Rindt started motor racing in 1961, switching to single-seaters in 1963, earning success in both Formula Junior and Formula Two.": Maybe better as "Rindt started motor racing in 1961 and switched to single-seaters in 1963. He was successful in both Formula Junior and Formula Two."
- "After mixed success with the team": Maybe "mixed results" as success can't really be mixed.
- "It was at Lotus where Rindt found a competitive car, although he was often concerned about the security of the notoriously unreliable Lotus vehicles": A bit too much going on here. Also, the meaning of "security" in this sense does not really work. What about: "The Lotus car was more competitive but suffered from reliability problems"
-
- Hmm, I feel like there should be some mention of the security aspect, since "reliability" could just mean that his engine failed here and there. But we are talking crashing and potentially, and in the end actually, dying. I'll try to come up with something fitting.
- I think we need at least another sentence in the lead about the accident, for example saying what happened. Otherwise, we just have that he was posthumous World Champion in the first paragraph, and a passing mention of the fatal accident in 1970.
- "In the years leading up to his fatal accident": A bit vague. What about simply "In the late 1960s"? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@Sarastro1: Thanks for your helpful comments! I'll tackle the changes tomorrow. Just left one reply above for now. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Have we made any progress on this? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Sarastro1: Sorry for the delay, I've been terribly busy this past week. I have now made several changes to the lead along the lines of your comments. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
More: I've done some copy-editing and shuffling of the information. As ever, feel free to revert my copyediting if I've messed up, or if you don't like it. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- "The young Rindt has been described by his brother and friends as a "laddish child", often performing tricks for his friends": I'm not sure this adds a lot about him that wouldn't apply to anyone. The phrasing is also a little uncomfortable, but there is no easy way to rephrase, so I wonder if this part is best cut?
-
- I included it to give the entire paragraph, which covers his tendency for reckless behavior, a little more insight. Without this sentence to start out the paragraph, the rest of the information would stand a little isolated.
- "he broke his femoral neck": Can we link something here? On first reading, I thought it was a weird typo and that he had broken his neck; I suspect several non-medical people may make the same mistake without a link.
-
- Done.
- "he had collected eight recorded misdoings with the police": Maybe I'm being a little slow, but misdoings does not sound right. Misdemeanours sounds more like it, but maybe its an Austrian expression?
-
- That was my attempt to translate the German word Vergehen. But yes, misdemeanour is better.
- "he received his first car, a Volkswagen Beetle, through his parents' spice mill company in Mainz": A spice mill and a Beetle don't obviously suggest a link; how did he get the car through the mill? Sponsorship? A gift?
-
- Well, in the source, that's how it was phrased: "He got the car through the mill". I am suspecting that, since he was the technical owner, the mill provided him with a company car, even though he was not really involved in the mill itself. Writing "company car" in the article might be a stretch though, since it is not phrased as clear as that in the source I used.
- "In the same year, Rindt's idol, the German Wolfgang von Trips, died in an accident": This is the first we hear of von Trips as his idol. I would expect to see this in the part where his interest in motor racing grew; there is a possibility that it is a throwaway comment in that Guardian article. Is it mentioned anywhere else? Sarastro1 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Couldn't find another source that says it, so I removed that sentences.
@Sarastro1: Thanks for your c/eing and the additional comments. I'll try to work them in as soon as possible. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Sarastro1: I added comments above and made some changes. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- I just realized that it was Eagleash who added the source to the car from the spice mill statement, replacing one of mine from the documentary movie. @Eagleash: Could you look into the Henry book and check if it specifies this statement? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Zwerg Nase The book refers to him inheriting an elderly VW. It doesn't definitely specify that it came via his inheritance from his parents business or elsewhere. I don't clearly recall adding the ref. but my intention would be to verify that he started with the VW. There is a diff here with a ref that you added but I cannot find what happened to that ref afterwards. It does not seem to be in the current version. It's possible that I may have removed it by mistake when adding the Henry reference... my apologies if that's the case. Eagleash (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Eagleash: This is the diff when you added the Henry ref back in January. I have now tweaked the sentence a little bit so that it fits into what you wrote above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Zwerg Nase: Thanks. Oh dear! Looks like I did delete the earlier ref. Sorry about that. I don't know what that (earlier) ref of yours contained, but should it be restored? Your edit added the spice mill info...does your ref bear that out also? Eagleash (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Eagleash: No worries, I have now added the older ref to the sentence before to have that covered. The Henry ref should be enough for the car sentence as it stands now, right? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- My only worry now is that if we remove the reference to the mill, the sentence loses its purpose somewhat, as I don't think it's particularly interesting or notable what his first was. If we restore "inherited", it begs the question of from whom it was inherited. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Eagleash: No worries, I have now added the older ref to the sentence before to have that covered. The Henry ref should be enough for the car sentence as it stands now, right? Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Zwerg Nase: Thanks. Oh dear! Looks like I did delete the earlier ref. Sorry about that. I don't know what that (earlier) ref of yours contained, but should it be restored? Your edit added the spice mill info...does your ref bear that out also? Eagleash (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Eagleash: This is the diff when you added the Henry ref back in January. I have now tweaked the sentence a little bit so that it fits into what you wrote above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Zwerg Nase The book refers to him inheriting an elderly VW. It doesn't definitely specify that it came via his inheritance from his parents business or elsewhere. I don't clearly recall adding the ref. but my intention would be to verify that he started with the VW. There is a diff here with a ref that you added but I cannot find what happened to that ref afterwards. It does not seem to be in the current version. It's possible that I may have removed it by mistake when adding the Henry reference... my apologies if that's the case. Eagleash (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
-
More:
- "Rindt drove his first race at the Flugplatzrennen in 1961, in an Abarth Simca 2000. After missing the official application period, he only entered after prominent intervention from a friend from Graz.": This ambushes the reader a bit. How did he get into the race? Was he with a team, or on his own? Did he just turn up? How did he get the car to drive? The rest of the section suggests it was his, but where did it come from? What do we mean by "prominent intervention"? Why was his friend so influential?I think this bit needs a little work.
-
- Did my best to make this clearer with what the source gave me.
- "almost all the races he entered": I think it would be good to give a number of races he entered here, rather than just "almost all".
-
- Here, I do not really know any numbers. "Almost all" is the term used in the movie by Giesser. Should I just take out the last half-sentence?
- How did he actually get into Formula Two? We are a little vague, just saying that he entered with Barry.
-
- Well, once more, that is pretty much all I have there. Barry was a relatively successful driver, having raced F2 before, so he took Rindt along. There is not really more I can say about this unfortunately. Everything there is to say I pointed out in the paragraph above: Barry was wealthy and had cars that he could provide to Rindt.
-
- Done.
@Sarastro1: Again, thanks for your comments! These are gonna be a little tough. Mostly, they are vague because the sources are vague... I'll try to make clearer what I can tomorrow. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Sarastro1: I made some changes and commented above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
And even more: Up to the end of the Cooper/Brabham section now. I did more copyediting, but feel free to revert. Looking good, hope to finish in the next day or two. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- "Sharing the drive of a Ferrari 250LM with American Masten Gregory for the North American Racing Team, Rindt won the event": I appreciate that "sharing the drive" is accurate at Le Mans, but I wonder would the simpler "driving with" work better?
-
- "Sharing a drive" is what is usually used in this context. "Driving with" makes it sounds as if both would be in the car at the same time.
- I wonder would a more chronological approach work better for Le Mans? It is a little disconcerting to read of his 1965 win and then read about his 1964 debut.
-
- Done.
- "with the new 3-litre engine formula": To the casual reader, it may not be obvious of the meaning of formula in this sense. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done.
@Sarastro1: Once again, thank you for your comments! I hope we can get through the rest of the article quickly :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
H. H. Asquith
This article is about... H.H. Asquith, the last British prime minister to lead majority Liberal government, and on that account and the later decline of the Liberal Party alone a significant figure in British history. TO say nothing of his policies. And the War. Nommed on behalf of self, Tim riley, and KJP1.Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Why is Tim Riley listed as a nominator? As far as I can see Tim has never edited this article. Aa77zz (talk) 08:19, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- Tim wrote the first third - birth to the Premiership; Wehwalt wrote the second third - Premiership to the War; and I wrote the last third - the War to death. All building on the pre-existing article. Moving the article from my sandbox into mainspace meant that it wasn't possible to show this in the Revision history statistics. KJP1 (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is problematic for attribution purposes; perhaps a history merge would be in order? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I suppose, but the utility is limited. Perhaps linking to this discussion on talk would be enough?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Beyond me technically, I'm afraid. But very happy to work on it with someone more competent if the view is that a history merge would be the best approach. The "originals" are readily available in the Sandboxes. My personal preference would be for a merge, if this can be done. KJP1 (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- I suppose, but the utility is limited. Perhaps linking to this discussion on talk would be enough?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is problematic for attribution purposes; perhaps a history merge would be in order? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Tim wrote the first third - birth to the Premiership; Wehwalt wrote the second third - Premiership to the War; and I wrote the last third - the War to death. All building on the pre-existing article. Moving the article from my sandbox into mainspace meant that it wasn't possible to show this in the Revision history statistics. KJP1 (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles (which applies to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, sections called ==The Biography== should be changed to ==Biography==.[?] DrKay (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Content-wise it's a step in the right direction but still needs a fair bit of work. Hopefully I should be working on the post-1916 bit - the long sad coda when he hung on for a decade after he ought to have retired - this weekend.
-
-
-
- The bits on his premiership are the strongest part of the article, but even there there a few things which need some kind of brief mention - OTOH the Marconi Scandal, the wave of strikes, the CID meeting during Agadir where Asquith (personally, afaik) backed Brigadier (as he then was) Henry Wilson's plan to deploy a BEF to France in the event of war. There's probably a bit more to be said about Ireland. The section on the intrigues of December 1916 needs a going-over as well, not because it's wrong but because it's material of byzantine complexity which must be almost unintelligible to the general reader - more a case of another pair of eyes. It needs a bit more explanation and some of it could be made less confusing (hell, it confuses me) by footnoting controversy over dates where Beaverbrook was almost certainly in error, or perhaps even the stuff about Northcliffe, who was no friend of Lloyd George and the evidence for whose involvement is largely circumstantial.
-
-
-
- The pre-premiership sections are good on his early life but less so on the politics, and again there are a lot of things that need a mention and/or fuller treatment - the events of his Home Secretaryship (Featherstone, Welsh Disestablishment) and Asquith's role in the politics of 1895-1905 (the Boer War split, the free trade campaign of 1903, Relugas where it was Asquith who ratted on his co-conspirators).
-
-
-
- That's not criticism of anybody. To be honest there is probably a case for hiving off his long and complex premiership into a separate sub-article, perhaps even two with the split at 1914. Happy to continue this on the article talk page. Maybe we can do Lloyd George in some future year.Paulturtle (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- I suppose the question is length and emphasis, and people can differ on this. For example, I considered including the Marconi matter, especially since you suggested some months ago that the article took too positive a view of Asquith. But I decided the explanation, including introducing various people, wasn't worth the edification to the reader. It's the same with the other prewar matters you mention. We're happy to add anything useful, but I think the issues are at worst cosmetic. As for L-G, happy to discuss it.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- It's a bit more than cosmetic - Marconi was, apart from being one of the all-time great British political scandals, along with the aftermath of Agadir and the wave of strikes one of the reasons why Asquith let the Irish situation drift for a couple of years. On the other hand it's a classic example of something which doesn't need more than a few sentences stating what Asquith did and referring people to the relevant article. At the moment the article is falling between a few stools - it's already pretty much long enough to justify splitting and goes into full detail on a couple of topics (the Budget/House of Lords crisis which both Wehwalt and I have worked on and the fall in December 1916 which I think is KJP1's work) whilst omitting quite a few things and not going into enough detail on a few others, e.g. the formation of the coalition in May 1915 (a truly murky episode, that one), and just how close that government came to falling apart, several times in fact, over conscription and Ireland. On the other hand, I had to "do" Asquith for History A-Level a number of decades ago and I'm perfectly well aware that an article like this needs to be kept accessible to the general reader, through clear writing, dumping as much as possible into related articles and adding summaries where appropriate. I'm typing up the last of my notes on the WW1 period at the moment and should be working on that section of text over the next fortnight.Paulturtle (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Composing properly-cited text is hugely time-consuming but at this rate of work, hopefully before the end of the year. I am prioritising this and pushing on as fast as I realistically can (I had, fwiw, planned to work on Aneurin Bevan this autumn, having done a lot of work on Gaitskell and Rab Butler). There may be further tweaks after that, e.g after I've dug out my notes on Cameron Hazelhurst and May 1915, but they needn't get in the way of article reviewing.Paulturtle (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
-
Image review
- Per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-signature_tag#United_Kingdom UK signatures generally receive copyright protection
- File:Herbert_Henry_Asquith_Vanity_Fair_1_August_1891-cropped.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:H_H_Asquith_1908.jpg, File:Raymond_Asquith02.jpg, File:Cluysenaar_Asquith.jpg, File:James_Guthrie_-_Herbert_Henry_Asquith_1924.jpg
- File:Venetia_Stanley.jpg: source link is dead. What was the first known publication of this image?
- File:Votes_for_Women_lapel_pin_(Nancy).jpg: what is the copyright status of the original work? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley
- According to this 1834 source John Asquith was executed for his part in the 1663 Farnley Wood Plot, but I cannot find any more recent reference to him, and he is not mentioned in Andrew Hopper's 2002 article THE FARNLEY WOOD PLOT AND THE MEMORY OF THE CIVIL WARS IN YORKSHIRE at [4]. Is anything more known about John Asquith's role? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- I found the account of his childhood unclear. His mother is said to have been in poor health but a strong character and a formative influence, but she is not mentioned thereafter and the impression is that he was separated from her after his grandfather's death. ODNB gives a bit more detail, stating that he was educated in his early years by his mother (a point worth mentioning), and that she had a heart condition and frequent bronchitis. After her father's death, she moved to St Leonards, presumably for her health, and her sons remained in London while attending a day school. This sounds like the usual pattern of boys living away from their parents during term time. According to ODNB, Asquith's wife was the daughter of St Leonards friends (the article says Manchester), which suggests that he stayed with his mother there in school holidays, and the comment that he was treated as an orphan appears misleading. The statement in the lead that he spent the rest of his childhood at boarding school and lodging with families not his own is incorrect. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- "manager of The Times, C. J. Macdonald" ODNB has D. J. Macdonald.
- I would suggest cutting down the text in the lead on his early life and adding something about his important reforms as Chancellor of the Exchequer.
- "the whiggish element favoured McKenna's appointment" This is the first mention of McKenna.
- "Tell me, Mr Asquith, do you take an interest in the war?" This needs some context - who said it and when and why?
- " Asquith was not himself a 'new Liberal'" What was a new Liberal?
- More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Pop Warner
This article is about the life and coaching career of legendary American college football coach Pop Warner. He is one of the key innovators of modern football strategy. Rybkovich (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments - seems like a shame that no one has gotten to this sooner.
- The article seems like it's a bit short on details about Pop Warner himself, rather than his football accomplishments. Is there nothing more in the sources?
- The opening sentence also seems a bit lacking. Warner was obviously a football player and coach, but his legacy has clearly been far more than that. You can't explain all the nuances, but I think it would be good to at least hint at his impact right up front.
- For the tournament, Warner and the other team members earned $23; although the expected share was $300 per player, $618 and $8,000 today; it was a financial failure. – so they earned $23 instead of the expected $300? This isn't clear, nor is the dollar conversion (23 -> 618 and 300 -> 8000?).
- Be careful with the blockquotes. I'd be sure to distinguish who Jenkins or Powers are ("historian" or something similar is enough).
- What did he do in retirement? There's a pretty big gap there. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Got it, thank you very much. Will get back re the issues ASAP. Question: is there anyway to mirror this discussion on to the Pop Warner talk page? Rybkovich (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Is this what you meant? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Exectamundo :) Rybkovich (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- All of those seem in rybkovich's capacity to fix, but I felt I would chime in due to also doing some work on the article. For details about himself, do you mean in say the early years or personal section? Or neither or both. RE: opening sentence, what add "pioneering" or something? Wouldn't count on myself fixing that one. RE: retirement, woodworking is one. Cake (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hey MisterCake, I don't really have specifics in mind, but I'd like to know something/anything more about him as a person. Right now I only know his parents, his wife, two vices, and painting, and there's a pretty large gap in his retired years (did he really do nothing in that time?). If there's no sources for his personal life, so be it, but I'd like to make sure that we've done our due diligence. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Pope relays that apple pie with butter was another vice, but I figured it unnecessary with the childhood nickname. As I recall, he painted and had a woodworking garage in his retirement. Pope also mentioned "songwriting". One might add his cursing pre-Carlisle. Cake (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hey MisterCake, I don't really have specifics in mind, but I'd like to know something/anything more about him as a person. Right now I only know his parents, his wife, two vices, and painting, and there's a pretty large gap in his retired years (did he really do nothing in that time?). If there's no sources for his personal life, so be it, but I'd like to make sure that we've done our due diligence. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- All of those seem in rybkovich's capacity to fix, but I felt I would chime in due to also doing some work on the article. For details about himself, do you mean in say the early years or personal section? Or neither or both. RE: opening sentence, what add "pioneering" or something? Wouldn't count on myself fixing that one. RE: retirement, woodworking is one. Cake (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Exectamundo :) Rybkovich (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Is this what you meant? :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Got it, thank you very much. Will get back re the issues ASAP. Question: is there anyway to mirror this discussion on to the Pop Warner talk page? Rybkovich (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments – Welcome to FAC, Rybkovich and MisterCake! I'm sorry the article hasn't gotten much attention to this point, as this is a major figure in American football. These are my initial thoughts after reading part of the article and making some copy-edits:
- While I understand that details of Warner's personal life are likely to be somewhat sparse (coaches in the early 1900s probably didn't get major press attention like a Bill Belichick), I do agree with Ed that we should say more about his impact on football in the first few sentences of the lead. If nothing else, you should move the next-to-last sentence of the lead up, as that would help a great deal. Also, it seems to me that Warner introducing the three-point stance is important enough to be mentioned in the lead, as that marked a major change in playing style.
- Cornell: Since language like "today" is discouraged because it can become outdated easily, I recommend changing all conversions to "in XXXX dollars" or similar language.
- In the extensive list of books cited, make sure that all of the books have publishers listed. Something like the Howie Long book, for example, should have a publisher available. You'll receive a source review if the FAC goes well, and you might as well take care of such issues now.
- Reference 161 is a dead link. Try checking the Internet Archive to see if an archived version is available.
- References with all caps in the titles and publishers – numbers 146, 148–150, and 158 – should have the all caps taken out.
- I believe the Manual of Style recommends against having multiple sub-sections with the same heading, which occurs with two Cornells: one in the early years part of the article and one for his coaching career. Try changing the first one, since it makes sense to leave the one in the coaching career section the way it is.
- Cornell: Let me get this straight: Warner coached two teams at the same time for several years? That's fascinating, and I recommend we add some more details on this if available. How did this work, in terms of his time commitments? Did the teams' games always take place at different times of the year, or did he have to choose which game to attend in person?
- Back to Carlisle: Non-experts probably won't know what Pitt is at the end. It might also be confusing because the next section is titled Pittsburgh. I'd recommend stretching it out to Pittsburgh here.
- Pittsburgh: Since the reader isn't going to hear about the Naval Reserves loss/controversy for another few paragraphs, perhaps that part should be omitted from the first paragraph here to avoid possible confusion.
That's all for now. I'll try to come back and read the rest in the near-future, although I'm usually busy in real life and can't offer any promises. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
2012 Tour de France
The 2012 edition of the Tour de France cycling race, which was won by Bradley Wiggins, the first from the United Kingdom. I brought it up to GA around a year ago. Other GA Tours I helped promoted are 2013, 2015 and 2016. It is part of the 2012 Tour good topic, that includes the List of teams and cyclists in the 2012 Tour de France, which I brought up to FL. The structure is the same as other FA Grand Tour races (1987 Giro d'Italia, 1988 Giro d'Italia, 2009 Giro d'Italia, 2015 Vuelta a España). BaldBoris 21:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Mike Christie
I've copyedited the article; please revert as needed.
- I was going to suggest linking "Palmares" in the infobox to Glossary_of_cycling#P, but I see the meaning given there doesn't quite correspond. (And it's spelled with an "è" there; should it be here?) Is the glossary missing the definition intended here? If so, it would be nice to add it there and put in a link. Not a requirement for FA, though.
-
- I've changed the template (
{{Infobox cycling race report}}
) to "Results" instead per a recent discussion at WT:CYC about the use of it. BaldBoris 00:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've changed the template (
- "each team's roster are introduced": "roster" is singular, so this needs to be either "is introduced" or make it "the members of..."
- "It was the first time a Grand Départ outside France had been hosted in the same location twice, with other occasion in 2004": suggest: "Liège, which had also hosted the 2004 Grand Départ, became the first city outside France to host the Grand Départ twice."
- The alt text for the picture of Voeckler and Kessiakoff makes it clear which is which; I think the caption should too.
- When Wiggins slows down the peloton so that Evans can rejoin it, I think it's worth pointing out that this was an act of sportsmanship. I found a mention of this in John Deering's "Bradley Wiggins: Tour de Force", but you might have a better source.
-
- I added "As an act of sportsmanship" Wiggin then... In the given source it says "a gesture of fairness"?
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I've done all suggestions. Thanks for the copyedit; can't believe all those missing words. I'm not sure about the tense changes in the first paragraph of Classification leadership though. I think it should use past tense (see 2015 Vuelta a España#Classification leadership for example). BaldBoris 00:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- I admit I hesitated over that section, and I realize now that I didn't carry it through properly on the next paragraphs. The problem with the past tense is that it makes it sound as though the general classification is no longer calculated that way; that it was a one-time calculation for that year.
- Perhaps the right approach would be to start by describing these classifications in the context of the Tour de France generally, not just of this edition? E.g. something like "The 2012 Tour de France included a team competition, and four main individual classifications, which have been standardized on the tour since 19xx. The general classification is calculated by..." This makes the present tense seem more natural. If you don't think that would work, please go ahead and change it back; I'll think about it some more but I agree the way I left it isn't satisfactory.
- I'll try to reread the article tomorrow and see if there's anything else to comment on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Although the current classifications haven't disappeared since their introduction, others have come and gone. So, as it is now, it seems like a guide to classifications of the Tour. I think the only way is to say what the situation was in 2012. Also, the other info is in the past tense, so bit muddled. BaldBoris 17:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've done all suggestions. Thanks for the copyedit; can't believe all those missing words. I'm not sure about the tense changes in the first paragraph of Classification leadership though. I think it should use past tense (see 2015 Vuelta a España#Classification leadership for example). BaldBoris 00:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
-
The points above are now fine, except of course the issue with the tenses. Reading through again:
- The pre-race favourites section links every racing team mentioned, even though they've all been linked in the list just above. I see a few other duplinks; Wiggins is linked in the caption for that section and also in the first sentence; the same is true for general classification. Just yesterday I finally figured out how to correctly use Ucucha's duplinks script; you might try that if you don't already have it installed.
-
- Yes, I use it all the time, great tool. As the intro of it says and my interpretation of WP:REPEATLINK is, a repeated link is fine outside of the prose. I intentionally linked the classifications as the section is pretty much link-free (compared with the pre-race favourites) and of the three paragraphs only only one has another link. So in my opinion they're helping the reader, rather than doing harm. The pre-race favourites section is a bit too blue for my liking, so I suppose unlinking the teams after the list is a fair point? BaldBoris 17:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I do think those should be unlinked. Your justification for the other links seems OK to me; I wouldn't do it that way myself, but I think that's within editorial discretion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I use it all the time, great tool. As the intro of it says and my interpretation of WP:REPEATLINK is, a repeated link is fine outside of the prose. I intentionally linked the classifications as the section is pretty much link-free (compared with the pre-race favourites) and of the three paragraphs only only one has another link. So in my opinion they're helping the reader, rather than doing harm. The pre-race favourites section is a bit too blue for my liking, so I suppose unlinking the teams after the list is a fair point? BaldBoris 17:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
"Nibali had shown his form in the lead-up to the Tour by winning Tirreno–Adriatico stage race": presumably missing "a" or "the"?More about tenses: I see you're using "would not have" for discussing the race in the context of the pre-race situation -- e.g. "Cavendish ... would not have the full support of Team Sky". I can see why, but is this usual? I glanced at a couple of the Giro d'Italia FAs, one of which I remember reviewing at FAC, and it looks like the "would have" language is used when reporting opinion at the time, and simple past is used when directly reporting the state of affairs, rather than attributing an opinion. So I think you could make this "but he did not have". I also noticed that for the next rider discussed, Greipel, you have "who had the full backing of his team".
-
- The "would have" is just my bad. Cavendish was at that moment the top sprinter and he was used to having almost an entire team dedicated the him winning stages via bunch sprints (as is the same with a couple of the top sprinters) at previous Tours. He was unlucky that when he joined Team Sky in 2012 they had a potential Tour winner in Wiggins; Cavendish only lasted one season at Sky. I have changed it to "did not have the full support of Team Sky as he did in the 2011 Tour with the HTC–Highroad team;". BaldBoris 17:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- That does it -- it was just the tense. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:50, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- The "would have" is just my bad. Cavendish was at that moment the top sprinter and he was used to having almost an entire team dedicated the him winning stages via bunch sprints (as is the same with a couple of the top sprinters) at previous Tours. He was unlucky that when he joined Team Sky in 2012 they had a potential Tour winner in Wiggins; Cavendish only lasted one season at Sky. I have changed it to "did not have the full support of Team Sky as he did in the 2011 Tour with the HTC–Highroad team;". BaldBoris 17:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
"As the peloton (the main group) passed the Mur de Péguère, the race was sabotaged as a large number of riders had suffered tyre punctures from carpet tacks": might be better to rephrase it to reflect that it the punctures occurred before it was realized the race had been sabotaged. (And why "had suffered" rather than "suffered"?) Perhaps "As the peloton (the main group) passed the Mur de Péguère, a large number of riders suffered tyre punctures; it was later [or soon] discovered that the race had been sabotaged by placing carpet tacks on the course"."Schleck quit the race after traces of xipamide, a banned sulfonamide diuretic drug, were found in the A-sample of his urine, and was later confirmed by the B-sample": I assume he quit before the B-sample was tested, so I'd make this "...f his urine; the presence of xipamide was later confirmed..."
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- All done, with replies. BaldBoris 17:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- I changed the refs in the doping section for more reliable ones, changed that Schleck quit to his team withdrew him and also added his ban. Nothing major but worth a look. BaldBoris 22:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've reverted the problematic tense changes, but I think more tweaking is needed. For example: "If a crash happened within the final 3 km (1.9 mi) of a stage, not including time trials and summit finishes, the riders involved received the same time as the group they were in when the crash occurred". The second half ought to be subjunctive, because of the "if", but it would have to be something like "If a crash had happened within the final 3 km (1.9 mi) of a stage, not including time trials and summit finishes, the riders involved would have received the same time as the group they were in when the crash occurred". Then does the "time bonuses" sentence refer to this process?
-
- I adjusted the previous sentence using the Vuelta and used your suggestion. The sentence about there being no time bonuses is not to with it and is really just a note, as it changes year to year (time bonuses were included this year). I switched them around to avoid confusion. BaldBoris 00:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- The "coefficient" ranking scale: does "coefficient" need to be in quotes? Is it that way in the source? Also, can we say how many points were associated with each stage classification?
-
- I used the quote initially in 2015 Tour de France because as this did. The table in the race regulations has the title "Coefficients for each stage". To me it reads oddly, so I wasn't really sure. Shall I drop the quotes of change it to coefficiency? It may be a like the combativity award, in that it's an awkward translation. BaldBoris 00:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Things are getting a bit fragmented above (my fault), so after looking at your responses above, here's what's left.
- Yes, I would eliminate those team links after the list.
- Having read the link you provided I think the quotes around "coefficient" are a form of scare quote -- perhaps the writer thought it was a word many readers wouldn't know. I'd drop the quotes. I see the details of exactly how many points are awarded to each rider are pretty complicated, but this is the article about the race, so I'd go ahead and put those details in -- perhaps in a table directly below, or even attached to, the stage classification table? I must admit I'd assumed the mountain stages would award the most points, so I was surprised.
-
- I've changed the coefficient table for one that shows how many points for the points classification. Yes, it's very complicated, as can be seen on page 37 in the race regulations. The points classification is for sprinters that can't climb mountains, so awards the most in the flat stages. I've added more to the mountains classification, which ideally should have it's own table. BaldBoris 21:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
-- I really think that's everything now. I'll read through one last time after you make those fixes, and I expect to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid
This article is about a medical food ingredient and dietary supplement that is a natural product in humans and has medical and athletic performance-enhancing applications for preventing/reversing muscle wasting and improving body composition.
This is the second pharmacology article that I've worked on for FA status. My first pharmacology FA was amphetamine, so this article's layout and formatting mirror that article. Like amphetamine, this article includes citations in the lead. I will not remove these because many of these statements are medical claims; however, I'm amenable to moving the citations into a note at the end of each paragraph as was done in the lead of amphetamine if reviewers of this nomination prefer this approach.
The labels in the section headers and their organization in the article follows MOS:PHARM and MOS:MED#Drugs, treatments, and devices. The sources used to cite medical claims in this article are required to satisfy WP:MEDRS; most, if not all, of the WP:PAYWALLED medical reviews that are currently cited in the article are and will be temprorarily available in this link for viewing/downloading to allow reviewers to conduct WP:V checks for the duration of this nomination and any subsequent FAC nominations. The file names (without the .pdf extension) of the papers listed in this link reflect the reference names (i.e., <ref name="...">
) defined in the .
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Boghog, John, Nergaal, and Axl: I'm pinging you to notify you that this article has been renominated. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:32, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Mirokado
I probably won't be able to do a full review of this, but I would like to comment that I think the ref callouts in the lead are fine as you have them: collecting them at the end of each paragraph would mean a lot of effort for each reader to decide which ref supported which statement. --Mirokado (talk) 18:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Doc James
Not yet The lead is simply too complicated. This article is not written for a general audience, not even the lead. Additionally we see very large quotes remaining in the reference section. These need to be shortened significantly. Happy to see references remain in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Doc James: I don't really have a clue as to what you think is too complicated, so can you make some edits or propose some changes so that I can follow up and address this? I'll work on pruning some of the quotes sometime this coming week. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Here is a suggestion for the first sentence of the lead that is drop dead simple:
- β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid (HMB), also known as β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate (hydroxymethylbutyrate, HMB), is a substance naturally produced in humans that is also used as nutritional supplement.
- Some of the remaining details in the lead (e.g., mechanism) could also be shortened and simplified. I will work on this once I have a spare moment. Boghog (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- I've made edits to the lead sentence per your suggestion (special:diff/745972720/746194240). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Boghog: Do you think the following highlighted clause should be deleted?
HMB produces these effects in part by stimulating myofibrillar muscle protein synthesis and inhibiting muscle protein breakdown through various mechanisms, including activation of mechanistic target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1) and inhibition of proteasome-mediated proteolysis in skeletal muscles.
-
- Here is a suggestion for the first sentence of the lead that is drop dead simple:
- @Doc James: I'm going to prune any lengthy reference quotes that make statements that are unrelated to the compound's pharmacology a little later today. Would it be alright with you if I left in the reference quotes that cover some of the more involved pharmacological information until after someone does a review of the pharmacology section? I think it would make it a lot easier on a pharmacology/molecular biology reviewer if those quotes are left in until after they've finished doing their review. I've made a request at WT:PHARM and WT:MCB for someone to take on a review of this section to try to attract a reviewer for this section since that's the only part of the article that hasn't been thoroughly reviewed by someone with a relevant background. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- Sure sounds good. Ping me when you are done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Doc James: I've censored and/or deleted parts of several reference quotes: Special:diff/746211222/746327967.
Based upon the text in Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#Medical which is cited by the current reference #16, what sentences do you think should be pruned from its quote? I can't really decide. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)- We want the quote to be enough to guide those looking at it to were in the source the content is supported. We do not want the quotes to be a replacement for the source and that is what might cause us problems. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- [5] How's that? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Doc James: Are you ok with the current reference quotes that don't include any pharmacology information? I'm going to censor most of the pharmacology-related paragraph-long quotes after that section is reviewed. I intend to censor most of the pharmacology-related statements in the reference quotes that currently contain both medical claims and pharmacology-related statements after the pharmacology section is reviewed. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- [5] How's that? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- We want the quote to be enough to guide those looking at it to were in the source the content is supported. We do not want the quotes to be a replacement for the source and that is what might cause us problems. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Doc James: I've censored and/or deleted parts of several reference quotes: Special:diff/746211222/746327967.
- Sure sounds good. Ping me when you are done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
-
Comments by John
I still oppose on prose; there are three instances of "United States and/or internationally", which is very clumsy and does not belong in a FA. There will be other infelicities as well. I will take a proper look later today, but I am not pleased that this sort of thing has not yet been addressed. --John (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- In relation to athletic organization bans, the reason that those two sentences were written in that manner is that the phrase "in the United States and internationally" is the absolute most that could be attributed directly to the refs; the United States was the only country which the refs mentioned when discussing national athletic organizations that have not banned HMB use in competitive sports. However, since you feel that the sentences are really poorly worded, I've revised it to a statement that could be potentially be inferred from the refs: As of 2015, HMB has not been banned by the NCAA, WADA, or any other prominent national or international athletic organization. It should be noted that none of the refs state that no national organization outside the US has banned HMB; however, given that no national organization with an HMB ban has been reported in any of the refs and given the blanket statements about the lack of a ban internationally, I figure it's not really a stretch to make this inference.
- As for the third clause, "HMB is available in the United States and internationally...", I've deleted it and made it consistent with the wording used in the lead ("HMB is sold worldwide...").
- These edits are the changes that I made. If you'd prefer that these sentences be phrased differently, please let me know or feel free to change them yourself. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- @John: I'm working with Doc James to simplify the lead at the moment, so if you've got time to go through the prose this week, it'd probably be best to start on the body first and then go through the lead once you've finished reviewing that part. On a related note, did my edits in this diff address the concerns that you noted above? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
- @John: I think the lead has been simplified to Doc James' satisfaction, based upon our dialogue on the article talk page. Feel free to review the lead at your leisure. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Graeme Bartlett
I am going to go through this with a fine tooth comb looking for misspelling, funny characters, nonstandard use, and referencing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Firstly there are three uses of "∼" instead of "~". The first fails to render on my terminal, showing as a hollow rectangle, So this should be changed to "~".- † is explained in note 8, but perhaps the explanation could be placed directly under the "Abnormal HMB concentrations measured in disease states" table.
- adding the explanation in the bottom cell as you suggest is a good idea. I like that.
- There do seem to be a lot of unneeded quotes in the references. Some of this such as ref1 also include footnote numbers. But are they foot notes from this article, or the ereferece? If the latter I think we should remove them as adding to confusion.
- Replacing quoted footnotes with ... is certainly better than having them there. Though I think they can be safely omitted too.
- Should "a-KIC" read "α-KIC"?
We should be using full journal titles rather than abbreviations- I feel strongly about this, as although specialists will know what those journal titles mean, other academics or average readers will not know. Putting the full title will make that clear, and easier to look up in a library catalog. First use of journal names can also be linked to the article about the journal.
Despite the title being "beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid", this is never used in the body of the text at all, instead it switches to using β. This is a bit inconsistent.Some sources use "β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyric acid" with an extra "-" before the second "β".- calcium β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate monohydrate is mentioned as abbreviating to "HMB-Ca", but references call this "CaHMB" or "Ca-HMB", so those two could be listed in parenthesis too.
Do people really use units like "μmol/mmol" for ratios?In the Wilkinson DJ, Hossain T, quote there is non-formatted ml−1 which is weird without superscript. However I think the quoting is not needed.
-
- @Graeme Bartlett: Thanks for taking on a review of this nomination! I really appreciate it.
I changed your bulleted list to a numbered list so that I could respond to each item in a more straightforward manner. I hope that this is okay with you. If not, feel free to convert the list back to a bulleted one.
- I've replaced all the instances of the former tilde ("∼") with the latter ("~"), per your justification. Diff of changes.
- Do you mean that it should be placed in a table cell that acts like a footer, analogous to the bottom table cell in Fluoxetine#Pharmacology where the explanation of the meaning of the tan-colored cells is placed? I could do that pretty easily if that's what you had in mind; just let me know.
- As I noted above in Doc James' section, most of the references are going to be pruned down once someone reviews the pharmacology-related article content; the pharmacology content is very technical and involved, so I figure that even someone who is knowledgeable in pharmacology and/or molecular and cell biology will benefit a lot if all of the relevant statements and contextual information from the cited references that supports the pharmacology-related article content are clearly indicated within the quote parameter. Once this content has been reviewed, the lengthy citation quotes that contain pharmacology-related information will be censored – this includes all but 1 citation that currently includes a quote of more than 3 sentences.
In regard to the citation footnotes within quotations (e.g., the superscripted numbers in the quote of the article's 1st reference), those refer to the citations that are cited by the quoted reference, not the references cited in this article. I could omit those footnotes from the quote; however, in order to keep the quotations correctly formatted and ensure that they conform to MOS:QUOTE and MOS:ELLIPSIS, I'd have to replace almost every quoted footnote with a nonbreaking space followed by an ellipsis (i.e., ...
- this renders as " ..."). If one of the quotes ends at a footnote, then I wouldn't have to follow this convention; but, whenever a quote continues past the footnote, I'd need to make this replacement since I'd be omitting material from the quoted text (MOS:QUOTE states "Use ellipses to indicate omissions from quoted text). Would you prefer that I replace the footnotes with ellipses?-
- Alright, I'll go through and replace footnotes within quotations with ellipses where appropriate sometime tonight or tomorrow and follow up here when I'm done. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- I've removed the superscripted references in all reference quotes. Diff of changes. Did you want me to do the same with bracketed (e.g., a quote like "Random statement.[4]") and unbracketed, non-superscripted references (e.g., a quote like "Random statement.4")?
- As an alternative to removing all of the superscripted (and possibly all other) references cited within the quoted references, would you be alright with me including references within quotes if all of them are hyperlinked to the article which the reference cited? That should remove any confusion for the reader about what source a quoted reference refers to (important to you) and indicate to the reader that a particular statement is supported by evidence (important to me). I prefer this solution; however, if you don't think this is a suitable compromise, I'm still willing to remove all other quoted references. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Alright, I'll go through and replace footnotes within quotations with ellipses where appropriate sometime tonight or tomorrow and follow up here when I'm done. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- In the article text, all abbreviated terms that refer to alpha-ketoisocaproate should be written as "α-KIC" instead of "a-KIC" for consistency and compliance with MOS:ABBR. In the citation quotes and elsewhere, this need not be the case since the use of "α-KIC" vs "a-KIC" is merely a matter of the author's personal preference.
-
- I've replaced "a-KIC" with "[α-KIC]" in the quotes since this is an appropriate substitution and conforms to MOS:BRACKET. Diff of changes. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- I don't mind converting the journal titles to the full title format, although the current references are all consistent with Pubmed's abbreviated journal title format at the moment. The only reason that I chose to use the abbreviated format is that it's currently pubmed's standardized format for journal titles (e.g., this pubmed abstract lists "Pharmacol Res." instead of "Pharmacological research" as the journal title and this pubmed abstract lists "J Anim Physiol Anim Nutr" instead of "Journal of animal physiology and animal nutrition" as the journal title). If you feel strongly about using the full title instead of the abbreviated format, I am willing to change this though. Just let me know if so.
- The main reason why I'm inclined to use the expanded term "beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid" in the title is that most keyboards containing the English alphabet don't include a key for β and I imagine that most people don't know how to produce that character using keyboard shortcuts. Consequently, most readers on the English Wikipedia would probably find it difficult to write out and search for an article titled "β-Hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid". Since the lowercase Greek beta is a very common symbol, I imagine that almost everyone who arrives at the article knows what it means; consequently, I don't think that "β" ≝ "lowercase beta" needs to be stated in the article either. Nonetheless, if you feel strongly about changing the title or article text so that they're consistent, I'm open to changing the article to address this issue though.
- I'm aware of this. Most sources that mention HMB discuss the conjugate base and some of those include a hyphen (this is written as "β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate"); some sources also omit the hyphen when referring to the acid and/or base. There isn't a "correct" format for hyphenating the term and the use of a hyphen there really only depends upon the author's personal preference.
- HMB-Ca, CaHMB, and Ca-HMB aren't really that notable as alternative names of "calcium β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate monohydrate"; all three are just unofficial/nonstandardized abbreviations which various authors used as shorter synonyms to refer to the compound in their publications. The only reason any of those is included in our article is that "calcium β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate monohydrate" is an excessively long term and, like the authors who used those abbreviations, I needed a shorter way to refer to that compound, especially in the drugbox. I'm not opposed to using CaHMB or Ca-HMB in the article, but I'd prefer to only list 1 of the 3 terms because they're just abbreviations. Since "calcium β-hydroxy β-methylbutyrate monohydrate" has other more notable alternate names besides those abbreviations, I think that listing only the abbreviations without mentioning any of the other alt names would be problematic.
- "μmol/mmol creatinine" is a standardized unit for urinary concentrations in the Human Metabolome Database; this entry in that database cited those units and the rest of the associated row entries in that table. Based upon a quick search of that term in quotes on google scholar [6] (970 results) and google search [7] (5600 results), "μmol/mmol creatinine" appears to be a fairly common unit of measurement in other publications for referring to the concentration of a substance in urine as well.
- Thanks for catching this. I've superscripted the −1 in both places where it was used in the quote: diff of changes. As mentioned above, I intend to censor that quote once the pharmacology section is reviewed by an editor from WP:PHARM or WP:MCB.
- @Graeme Bartlett: Thanks for taking on a review of this nomination! I really appreciate it.
-
-
- I have indented some of my responses above, as well as introducing a couple of other things below. I have struck off my points that are addressed satisfactorily. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
-
11. The history section fails to say who discovered or first made the acid. From references I can see it was made in 1958, but the article does not tell us.
12. If any of the authors of references are notable then author-link can be used to give them a blue link. (I have not check that yet to see if there are any) (I will check references carefully for fullness and correctness later) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for suggestion for expanding the history section. I cannot find any secondary sources that specifically state who first discovered or made this substance, but the earliest HMB synthetic citation in Reaxys which is based on the Beilstein database is to a paper in 1877 by Alexander Zaytsev. I have added that citation to the article as well as later citations to what appears the first isolation from a natural source in 1941 and the first isolation as a human metabolite in 1968 (also from Reaxys searches). (When it comes to early organic chemistry, if it is not listed in Beilstein, it probably never happened.) I hope this is sufficient.
- I have added author-links to Alexander Zaytsev and Leopold Ružička in two citations. Boghog (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks Boghog. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- My bad for not following up sooner; I've been busier than expected off-wiki during the past few days. I should have some time tomorrow to make the changes that I indicated above though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Graeme Bartlett: Sorry for my long-delayed action on my proposed changes. My responses above from today on issues #2–4 are further indented and bulleted. I've removed the superscripted quoted references that you pointed out from the article; I'm willing to remove all non-superscripted quoted references as well if you'd prefer this. I also proposed an alternative solution which I think should be mutually satisfying.
- With respect to your concerns in #6–8, can you give me some guidance as to what you'd like me to change in the article? I'm not really sure what the particular issue or desired solution is in those cases. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Graeme Bartlett: I'd be happy to address these and any other issues you find with the article; I still need a little more feedback to act on the remaining issues though. If any of my responses/revisions weren't to your liking, please let me know and I'll attempt to resolve the issue. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- For β versus beta, it probably just needs a note in the lead. 99% of readers will know it, but the few will be informed. For HMB-Ca, CaHMB, and Ca-HMB, listing the two most distinct ones in parenthesis should do (HMB-Ca, CaHMB). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- I also did check references, but found no information missing, so I suppose that deserves a "well done". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Graeme Bartlett: How's this? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Good solution, 6 and 7 considered sorted. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Graeme Bartlett: How's this? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- My bad for not following up sooner; I've been busier than expected off-wiki during the past few days. I should have some time tomorrow to make the changes that I indicated above though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
-
Comments by CFCF
Comments before looking into sources:
- Infobox includes US & UN status, is there any EU, AU, JP or other status that could go here as well?
- From lede: "Supplemental HMB is also used by athletes to increase exercise-induced gains in muscle size, muscle strength, and lean body mass, reduce exercise-induced skeletal muscle damage, and speed recovery from high-intensity exercise."
How well does it work? What type of study examined this, how strong is the evidence? - Same as above, but for the body, I want more information on the quality of the studies and whether the effect is great or barely significant.
- Did they compare to placebo, BCAA or Leucine?
- Who funded these studies? HMB-supplementation is controversial, and it is known that a number of studies are funded by the manufacturers.
- Are there meta-analyses? If no, why not? Did anyone suggest there is need for further analysis to say whether the effect is significant.
- From lede: "Small amounts of HMB are present in certain foods, such as alfalfa, asparagus, avocados, cauliflower, grapefruit, catfish, and milk." — but it also says " substance that is naturally produced in humans and used as nutritional supplement." Does that mean it's supplemented to alfalfa, asparagus etc. or is it naturally produced outside of humans as well?
- From lede:"As of 2015, HMB has not been banned by the [...]", this would sound better as "is allowed".
- The NCAA college students study, was it American?
- From lede: "Since only a small fraction of l-leucine is metabolized into HMB, pharmacologically active concentrations of the compound in blood and muscle can only be achieved by supplementing HMB directly. A healthy adult produces approximately 0.3 grams per day, while supplemental HMB is usually taken in doses of 3–6 grams per day." — Seems to imply there is a correlation between supplemented dose and blood concentrations — but not at what level. Supplemental doses could be at 3-6 grams with 0% absorbed and do nothing.
More comments later. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- I haven't come across any references that make a statement about HMB's regulatory status in those countries.
- There's 5 medical claims in that sentence; the effects on size and strength aren't covered in any more detail in the article. Lean mass changes in athletes aren't covered in the article, but the effect size from a meta-analysis on changes in lean mass in elderly subjects is covered in a note in the medical section. The inhibitory effects on exercise-induced muscle damage, as measured by changes in muscle damage biomarkers, is mentioned in a note in the sentence in the body; the capacity for it to speed recovery from high intensity exercise is essentially just a consequence of its inhibitory effect on muscle damage; it tends to decrease soreness when used at an appropriate time prior to high-intensity exercise.
I'm waiting for this systematic review to be published before adding more detail about the HMB treatment effect sizes for muscle strength, muscle size, and lean mass in athletes - effect sizes for some of these vary by the training status and presumably also vary by the age of the individual.
All of this information comes from reviews of blinded RCTs. - Re-above. I intend to update the body and lead when that systematic review is published.
- Metabolic Technologies, which holds HMB patents and licenses the right to manufacture it, has funded only around 10 HMB studies, based upon [8]. Around 60 clinical trials have been conducted with HMB in humans. "HMB-supplementation is controversial" - I haven't come across a reliable source that makes an assertion like this; I don't know what you're basing that statement on.
- There are meta-analyses. There are two current meta-analyses which examine its clinical effects in sarcopenia/muscle wasting. All the other meta-analyses, some of which examined the effect sizes in athletes, are outside WP:MEDDATE. IIRC the most recent of those is 7 years old. None of the sources that are cited in the article, which includes almost every MEDRS-quality review on the subject, assert that any of those 5 effects is equivocal. Certain sources, such as [9], mentioned other performance-enhancing effects (e.g., aerobic performance) that were found in a small number of clinical trials, but which do require more research to verify. I didn't mention those effects in the article.
- It's naturally produced in plants and animals.
- I agree that it would improve the language; however, the NCAA and WADA don't white-list or endorse substances, so it technically wouldn't be accurate.
- IIRC, yes.
- I haven't come across a source that explicitly mentions the absolute bioavailability for oral administration. One can easily find the relevant information on blood concentrations in the detection in body fluids section though; based upon the data there, oral administration of 3 grams of HMB-FA increases the plasma concentration of HMB by ~100-fold above basal levels at Tmax.
- Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- @CFCF: is there anything in particular that you'd like me to add to or change in the article? For the most part, I'm not really sure what you'd like to see revised in the article (excluding the coverage of effect sizes - I'm still waiting on that systematic review to be published). FWIW, the sentence on the NCAA study (you mentioned this in #8) was revised to indicate that the sampled population was American student athletes; I'm not sure if that was an issue for you though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
SMS Mecklenburg
Another of my articles on German battleships, this one had a fairly uneventful career, including during the first year and a half of the First World War. The article was substantially re-written after it passed a GA review all the way back in 2010, passed a Milhist A-class review in 2014 (and I don't think any dust has gathered in the mean time), and has been waiting around for me to have the time for FAC. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- File:S.M._Linienschiff_Mecklenburg.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. The name Mecklenburg is probably repeated too often for FAC standards, but I wasn't sure where to trim it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Support -- recusing from coord duties...
- Copyedited, so let me know any concerns there, but happy with prose as it stands.
- Structure and coverage seem reasonable.
- I'll take Nikki's image review as read.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Source review
- Not an expert on the references but none look suspect, and couldn't spot any formatting errors, except perhaps...
- I don't think you need OCLCs when you have ISBNs, but not a huge deal.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Commissioning
- The date of commissioning (25 May 1903) is definitely wrong. It is my understanding from Gardiner, p.248 that Mecklenburg was completed on 25 June 1903 and handed over to the navy that day, The date given in my copies of both Hildebrand et. al. and Gröner is also 25 June. While Hildebrand mentions sea trials, Gröner points out that ships built by a private yard, were only commissioned after sea trials. Maybe there is another source for the date of commissioning. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Huh - you have the German version of Gröner, right? My English version gives the May date - I wonder if something happened during the translation process. Changed to June per Gardiner and Hildebrand. Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that's right. Should be fine now. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Huh - you have the German version of Gröner, right? My English version gives the May date - I wonder if something happened during the translation process. Changed to June per Gardiner and Hildebrand. Parsecboy (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment: G'day, looks pretty good to me. The only suggestion I have is that potentially the titles of the German language sources could be translated using the "trans_title=" parameter of the cite template. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- This article is in fine shape, I just have a few quibbles:
- There is mention of the belt being 100 mm at its narrowest in the infobox, but no mention of that detail in the body
- Added a bit on that
- I'm not sure about the initial caps used for Squadron when used alone? In the WWI section.
- Good catch, I think you're right.
- suggest re-wording Furthermore, the loss of the armored cruiser Friedrich Carl to Russian mines[10] and the increasing threat from British submarines and Russian mines by 1916 in the Baltic convinced the German navy to withdraw the elderly Wittelsbach-class ships from active service., "by 1916" seems out of place. Perhaps break up the sentence?
- See if how I restructured it works. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Looks good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- See if how I restructured it works. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- There is mention of the belt being 100 mm at its narrowest in the infobox, but no mention of that detail in the body
CommentsMecklenburg's keel was laid down on 15 May 1900,[4] at AG Vulcan in Stettin, under construction number 248. – don't really like the first comma there, but I don't want to mess up your referencing.- It's fine to move it to after the bit on AG Vulcan.
- Following her commissioning, Mecklenburg began sea trials, which lasted until mid-December 1903. – when did they start? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Will have to look at HRS later to see if they give an exact date. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds great. That's not integral to my support, though. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Will have to look at HRS later to see if they give an exact date. Parsecboy (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Mikhail Petrovich Petrov (general)
This article is about a Soviet general and Hero of the Soviet Union who commanded the 50th Army who died in the early stages of the Battle of Moscow. I believe this article meets the Featured Article criteria and want to improve it so it does if it does not in the opinion of other editors. Kges1901 (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Coord note |
---|
Procedural note -- Per FAC instructions, you're only allowed one solo nomination at a time unless given leave to open another by the coordinators. Now I can see that Divisional Cavalry Regiment (New Zealand) is reasonably close to being promoted, so you can continue with both noms as we'd normally grant leave in such a case anyway, but in future please make a request on WT:FAC or to the coordinators directly. Feel free to hat this note after acknowledging. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC) |
Support per my GA review and A-class review. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Support Comments: nice work so far, thanks for your efforts. I have a couple of suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- in the References lists, some of the authors probably could be wikilinked, for instance Ericson and Glantz, and any others if they have articles
- suggest adding alt text for the images
- do the sources give his parents' names?
- do the sources state if he married and had a family?
- "became an armor officer" --> "became an armored corps officer"?
- I'm not sure that the decoration icons in the infobox meet the requirements of MOS:ICON: happy to discuss further if necessary
- FA-class Ivan Bagramyan and A-class Roza Shanina used the icons. Kges1901 (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- My concern is that the icons are purely decorative, serving no navigational purpose. I'd argue that that also applies to he articles cited above. It's not a major issue, and one I'm sure that there are competing opinions on, so I won't die in a ditch over it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- FA-class Ivan Bagramyan and A-class Roza Shanina used the icons. Kges1901 (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- the infobox mentions an Order of the Red Star, but this doesn't appear in the body of the article. Can something be added about this?
- the lead says "mechanic at the Putilov Plant", but the body of the article says "worked as a metalworker at the Putilov Plant" --> this seems a little inconsistent
- suggest providing a link for "cadre"
A few comments
- "For his leadership, Petrov received the title Hero of the Soviet Union on 21 June 1937. He returned to the Soviet Union and became a tank corps commander, which he led in the Soviet invasion of Poland. He led a mechanized corps in the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa and became commander of the 50th Army in August 1941. He became ...". I'd re-coordinate the personal references: "For his leadership, he received the title Hero of the Soviet Union on 21 June 1937. Petrove returned to the Soviet Union and became a tank corps commander, which he led in the Soviet invasion of Poland. He led a mechanized corps in the initial stages of Operation Barbarossa and became commander of the 50th Army in August 1941. He became ..."
- "Petrov was born on 15 January 1898 in Zalustezhye, part of the Saint Petersburg Governorate, to a peasant family." Less bumpy: "Petrov was born to a peasant family on 15 January 1898 in Zalustezhye, part of the Saint Petersburg Governorate."
- Does "also" add anything?
- "In Petrograd, he came into contact ..." – avoid repetition: "There he came into contact ..."
- "and fought in the suppression of the Basmachi." We shouldn't need to click to another article to know what on earth it is. "and fought in the suppression of the Basmachi Revolt, an uprising against Russian Imperial and Soviet rule by the Muslim peoples of Central Asia." ... or something like that.
- later ... later. Tony (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Portrait_-_Petrov,_Michail_Petrovich.jpg: which of the Russian rationales applies here? When/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- Third bullet, publication date unknown, as I previously state in the GA review. Kges1901 (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- If we can't demonstrate a pre-1943 publication, we can't use that rationale. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- Yes, assuming no free image can be found. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments, leaning oppose for now -- recusing from my coord duties to review...
- I have to admit the article seems a bit thin to me for a general's career, even one who died relatively young. For example it seems he did very little between the dates of 1923 and 1932.
- The lack of detail also makes for awkward prose in places, e.g. "He graduated from the Transcaucasian Political School." -- this sentence just sits there, do we really have no idea when this took place?
- I'm also confused about all he did in 1937: "...serving as a battalion commander in Dmitry Pavlov's tank brigade from October 1936 to June 1937. [...] Returning to the Soviet Union, he held appointments as a battalion commander and then as a tank brigade commander. In 1937, he became commander of a tank division. In June of that year, he became commander of the 5th Mechanized Corps." This seems to be telling me that in the one year (1937) he commanded two different battalions, a tank brigade, a tank division, and a mechanised corps -- is that really possible?
- I stopped there as far as the main body went. On a more prosaic matter, I share Rupert's concerns with the decorative icons in the infobox: regardless of what might be done in other articles, the Hero of the Soviet Union and Order of Lenin decorations should just be spelt out and linked, like the Order of the Red Star -- apart from anything else, using icons for some awards and words for another is inconsistent.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- I found his graduation date and removed the icons in the infobox. As for what he did in 1937, the sources differ.
- Parrish: command of tank battalion in Spain, division, 5th Mechanized Corps
- Vozhakin: command of tank battalion in Spain, battalion (after return to Soviet Union), brigade, division
- Drig: command of tank battalion in Spain, battalion (after return to Soviet Union), brigade, 5th Mechanized Corps
- Tank/Motorized divisions did not exist in the Red Army until 1940 (per Drig), so if he commanded a division it would be from another branch.Kges1901 (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- I found his graduation date and removed the icons in the infobox. As for what he did in 1937, the sources differ.
Nominative determinism
- Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
A lawyer named Sue Yoo? Authors of the book The Imperial Animal called Lionel Tiger and Robin Fox? Coincidence? This is the story of nominative determinism, the hypothesis that people tend to gravitate towards areas of work that fit their name. After the success with the Jacob van Ruisdael article, this is my second article I nominate here. I look forward to your comments.Edwininlondon (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- Don't think it's necessary to use a non-free magazine cover in this case
-
- Thx for checking Nikkimaria. Is it not sufficient to have the magazine's explicit permission?
- Wikipedia-only permissions still require that the image meet the non-free content criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Image removed. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia-only permissions still require that the image meet the non-free content criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thx for checking Nikkimaria. Is it not sufficient to have the magazine's explicit permission?
- File:WilhelmStekel.jpg: source link is dead, missing US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- I have removed it. Would https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karl_Abraham.jpg be ok? Published in 1926. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- That one would also need a US PD tag, as well as the author's date of death. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have removed it. Would https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Karl_Abraham.jpg be ok? Published in 1926. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Support Comments from Jim
A fascinating article, interesting to see that this oft-mentioned phenomenon has actually been studied. Just a few nitpicks before I support Jimfbleak (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- popular science magazine New Scientist in 1994—is the "science" redundant given the title? Your call
- New Scientist is not italicised on at least two occasions
- It's a big ask to assume all your readers know "onomastic" without a link or gloss. I'd also be tempted to link some of the medical specialities
- "Lord Chief Justice in England"—he's the head man for England and Wales, as the link makes clear, no reason to omit part of the jurisdiction
- Sue Yoo—nationality would help. if she's Hongkong Chinese, presumably less relevant than if she's American
- et al. I think should be italicised
- Maryl, Mass (x2), Calif—it's convention here to not abbreviate US states because not all your readers are American. I'm not convinced that those abbreviations are standard even in the US
- Oxford University Press (Fowler ref) needs a location
-
- Thanks very much for your comments Jim. Much appreciated. I've made all the changes.Edwininlondon (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Mike Christie
A couple of minor points:
"The term aptronym is thought to have been coined in the early 20th century by the American newspaper columnist Franklin P. Adams. Linguist Frank Nuessel coined aptonym in 1992." I don't think you can have both these sentences without comment, even if the comment is only to point out that the sources contradict each other.
-
- Thanks Mike for taking the time to comment. Would something like this work better for you: "Linguist Frank Nuessel coined aptonym, without an 'r', in 1992"? Edwininlondon (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oops. Didn't realize they were the same spelling! Yes, that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Mike for taking the time to comment. Would something like this work better for you: "Linguist Frank Nuessel coined aptonym, without an 'r', in 1992"? Edwininlondon (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- I love Car Talk and can see why you include it (personal favourite: costume designer Natalie Drest), but since there's no secondary source citing it I'm afraid I think it should go. Otherwise what's to stop some other editor from adding every humorous show that ever makes a similar pun?
-
- I think I did come across a secondary source. Let me see if I can find it again.Edwininlondon (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, I can only find blogs that mention nominative determinism and Car Talk at the same time. I, regretfully, have removed all Car Talk reference, including the photo. I shall continue my search for a reputable source in the hope to be able to restore it. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think I did come across a secondary source. Let me see if I can find it again.Edwininlondon (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley
- This is an interesting article, and I have only so far looked at the lead and background section, but I have some doubts about it.
- The first comment I checked is not in the source cited. "In England it was not until after the Norman conquest that surnames were added. Surnames became useful when one name no longer uniquely identified a person, for example if there were too many Williams or Robins in one area.". This explanation looks wrong as people are often difficult to identify in Anglo-Saxon England because so many have the same name, so names did not uniquely identify one person even before the introduction of surnames. I therefore checked the source cited, Weekley, 1914, p. 2. There is nothing there to support the text.
-
- Thanks Dudley for commenting. Good spot for the reference mismatch. All the sources were there, but I have added a reference now for each sentence. The Weekley p.2 source is for the four types of surname. The Weekley p.68 is for no surnames before Norman conquest. The Fowler p.11 for surnames as a way to disambiguate people. As for your view that the explanation is wrong, sorry, I'm not quite sure I follow you. Before the Norman conquest, people had one name only. In urban areas this probably did not uniquely identify people, thus leading to the need for surnames. I've removed the example with "too many Williams and Robins" as maybe you interpret them as surnames.
- Much of the background section discusses people being named after their occupation, a very different case from people adopting an occupation which reflects their name, but this is not spelled out in the discussion. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Yes, this section is just the lead up to how names come about in the first place. The next section deals with the main topic of the article, people gravitating. I think that generally the Background section is meant to set the scene. Would you like an opening sentence of the Background section spelling this out? Edwininlondon (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Fast inverse square root
- Nominator(s): — Esquivalience (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
This article focuses on the fast inverse square root, an algorithm that estimates the reciprocal of the square root of a rational number, used to scale vectors to unit length. Although on the short side at 1,800 words, this article nonetheless gives complete coverage of the algorithm and gives useful context, while maintaining excellent prose and with good images. Note that this is a drive-by nomination, although I'm willing to resolve all concerns raised. — Esquivalience (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - Personally, I'm concerned by the fact that this nomination was a "drive-by nom", as you put it. Also with you only editing the article five times. Had to let the original editor who brought the article to GA status back in 2009 know about this nomination at least. Anyway, this article has two dead links in it. Not at all acquainted with root-finding algorithms so I'll it at that. GamerPro64 15:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- "Excellent prose" ... well, I see a few little errors. Wasn't it worth combing through it? Tony (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've glanced at parts of the article and I'm spotting issues as early as the second sentence. Here's a couple of problems:
- The algorithm was probably developed at Silicon Graphics in the early 1990s — I don't think it's a good idea to open the article with a statement that shows clear uncertainty and only provide one citation.
- Silicon Graphics is mentioned twice in the lead, however nowhere else in the article. 3dfx Interactive is also mentioned in the lead and nowhere else. The lead should introduce and summarise the article's contents, but here it contains information that is not found elsewhere.
- The article mentions Quake III on multiple occasions, but never explains what Quake III even is. At the very least the reader should be told that Quake III is a computer game that makes use of 3D graphics so they better understand why fast inverse square root was implemented in it.
- Who are John Carmack, Terje Mathisen, Gary Tarolli and the other people name dropped in the article? The article assumes that the reader knows them all, their professions and significance to the article topic. It's never even made clear that Carmack worked on Quake III which I assume is the link between him and fast inverse square root.
- The explanation of a normalized vector in the Motivation section is bad. Why isn't defined as being the vector before stating the Euclidean norm of it?
- -- The1337gamer (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nice article. I have corrected the problems with the references and links. I note that the other points raised above have been addressed. Newton-Raphson is a tool we often reach for when we need a function approximated, as we learn about it in high school. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Intro needs to explain how does the algorithm work, perhaps with a simple example. Nergaal (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- It says that it is an implementation of Newton's method. A worked example is in the article, but too long for the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've looked at this a few times both before and after the nom and see a number of issues. I won't be able to go in depth, but hopefully can shine some light. First, we need an in-depth check of the math, especially since it occupies most of the article. Second, there are many paragraphs without any sourcing at all... Third, perhaps the biggest issue, is the lack of a "legacy" section or something that deals with the cultural impact. My understanding, particularly with the FPS genre, was that this calculation led to graphics breakthroughs—but if it did, or if I wanted to know its impact on the genre, there's nothing on it. Fourth, and perhaps most pertinent for FA, is that the article is filled with jargon. This is somewhat to be expected due to the niche material, but we are still a generalist encyclopedia and this article still shows its roots (and the roots of early Wikipedia) in that it focuses more on the calculation's math than its surrounding history. If written for a general audience as an encyclopedia article (with "brilliant prose"), I would expect a more generous tone tailored for an audience with a New York Times reading level, and much more weight on the analysis and cultural impact of the calculation than included as present. czar 21:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- The math is really basic, and should be comprehensible to anyone with a high school education. Since Newton-Raphson is on the high school syllabus! Which is why people tend to reach for it when they have a problem, and this is a good example of how that is done. As far as I can tell, the article is fully referenced by the standards of a mathematical article, my understanding being that calculations do not require referencing; so can we be more specific about what additional referencing we want, so that it can be added? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Calculus is not required as part of a high school math education. Source work in FAC has always been on the nom, unless someone is reporting that there is no analysis of the cultural impact of the calculation czar 16:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Your point about the cultural impact (if any) is taken. But I am not willing to accept that mathematical articles are barred from FAC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
-
I am not willing to accept that mathematical articles are barred from FAC.
-
- Your point about the cultural impact (if any) is taken. But I am not willing to accept that mathematical articles are barred from FAC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Calculus is not required as part of a high school math education. Source work in FAC has always been on the nom, unless someone is reporting that there is no analysis of the cultural impact of the calculation czar 16:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
-
Turbinellus floccosus
Another day another mushroom - this is another work for which I've gone through just about every available source so I suspect it's comprehensive, and I feel it's on par with other fungus FAs. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Driveby comment: I'm very happy to see this here and I hope to offer a fuller review later, but: Gomphus bonarii currently redirects to this article, despite the fact it's described in the article as a separate species. Something needs to be done about that, I think. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Oops, forgot to remove that from the description section. That source mentioning it as a separate species is from 1987. With the overhaul and reexamination of Gomphus/Turbinellus the consensus is it is just part of this species. See here as index fungorum has updated but mycobank hasn't Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
-
Comments from Redtigerxyz
- Ref 11: Lexicon: page no is missing
- Ref 7: Earle - 373–451 [407]. Is 407 the only page cited?
- Ref 25: Petersen: 118 pages are cited. Can we narrow down the page range to relevant pages?
- Ref 30: Corner: 255 pages. Same as above
- Ref 32: Masui: 84 pages. Same as above
- Ref 35: Ammirati et al. Should the complete details be used? or combined with ref 23.--Redtigerxyz Talk 05:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Singora Let me leave one of your "virtual placeholders". I'll go over this in detail throughout the coming week. Singora (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments from JM
- "Franklin Sumner Earle made C. floccosus the type species of the new genus Turbinellus in 1909, remarking that "They constitute a striking and well-marked genus which seems to have more in common with the club-shaped species of Craterellus than with the following genus where they have always been placed."" The They is ambiguous, here.
- There's some inconsistency on the capitalisation of article names in the references, unless you are following some norm that has eluded me.
That's all that leapt out at me, but I had my say at GAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Support; should have added this earlier. Sorry! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Support Comments from Jim
Hi Cas, just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- shaggy-, scaly-, or woolly—I'm not convinced by the hyphens, since none of the names are actually hyphenated
- floccus, meaning "flock of wool"—I think that meaning of flock is close to obsolete now, perhaps "tuft" would be better for the youngsters?
- However—please check that each use is actually necessary
- by the indigenous words Tlapitzal, tlapitzananácatl or oyamelnanácatl in Tlaxcala.—this is only appropriate if you explain the relevance of these names to the mushroom, as you have done with the Nepalese and as is self-evident in the Spanish.
- their growth slower in the cold climate. This form is slower growing,—repetitive
- who eat it, but has been eaten—as above
- it increased tone of guinea pig smooth muscle of the small bowel—I've no idea if that is good or bad, what are the consequences for the (unlinked) guinea pig?
- over double—more than double seems more natural
- What is not known is whether the populations of T. floccosus —probably needs something like "local" or "indigenous" to qualify your populations
Good luck Jimfbleak (talk) 14:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm happy to leave the first point with you, since I might be wrong anyway, changed too support above Jimfbleak (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
From FunkMonk
- "described a specimen from Canada as Cantharellus canadensis from a manuscript by Johann Friedrich Klotzsch" What is meant by this? He named it from an earlier description? If so, the first "described" could maybe be changed to "named"... And then "based on a manuscript."
- "These ridges are up to 4 mm high." No conversion?
- "ectomycorrhizal relationships" Explain?
- "showed it increased tone" What is meant by tone?
-
- It means Muscle tone - linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- The intro seems a bit short.
-
- I added a snentence - anything else you think should go in from body of text?
- Support - I think it looks fine now, not much to add to the intro anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
From Singora
Note to CasLiber and Coordinators. The King of Thailand has died. Things have changed a lot here over the last 24 hours. I'll do my review next week. Singora (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Dank
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Nikkimaria
Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Review by Singora
Singora (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Summary
- RE: "and may be found in coniferous woodlands". Could you not just say "grows" or "occurs"?
- RE: "Though mild-tasting, they generally cause gastrointestinal symptoms of nausea, vomiting and diarrhea when consumed". This seems to assume a correlation between taste and toxicity. Does such a relationship exist?
-
-
- not as such - I guess to me it was a natural contrastive that it tastes ok yet makes people feel sick (rather than tasting foul..as many inedible mushrooms do) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. Your sentence looks normal and natural; I was just wondering if it's correct.Singora (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Taxonomy
- Would para 2 work better as a footnote? Kuntze's "revisionary program" wasn't accepted and his contributions seem irrelevant. Note: I thought para 3 was also unnecessary until I noticed the Turbinellus genus was recently resurrected.
-
-
I can see your point as it is somewhat circumstantial, yet I am not sure what I would make it a footnote of (i.e. after which sentence I'd put the link..) .nevermind, figured it out, how's that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)- Yes, I see you've appended the note to the first sentence in the paragraph. Singora (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Description
- RE: "The stipe itself can be up to 15 cm". Is "itself" redundant?
- RE: "The white flesh is fibrous and thick, though thins out in old specimens" -> "the white flesh is fibrous and thick in young specimens, but thins with age"
- R. H. Petersen isn't linked
- Distribution and habitat
- Here you adopt a Euro-centric view: distribution in Asia starts in India and progresses east to Japan. In the summary you start with North Korea and head west to Pakistan.
- Toxicity
- This is an interesting section. I read and confirmed ref #20, ETHNOMYCOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AND NUTRITIONAL ANALYSIS OF SOME WILD EDIBLE MUSHROOMS OF SAGARMATHA NATIONAL PARK (SNP), NEPAL, a PDF file.
Support Everything is good and all points I raised have been answered / addressed. Singora (talk) 13:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Support from Edwininlondon
With the caveat that I virtually know nothing of biology, I found this article clear and meeting all criteria. My only few niggles are with the references:
- Berkeley MJ, Curtis MA. needs a year
- Montoya, A. seems the only one with period after initial
- Khaund P, Joshi SR needs a location?
I did a reference spot check: Giachini AJ, Castellano MA: ok. Khaund P, Joshi SR (2014): ok. Berkeley MJ (1839): ok. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Northampton War Memorial
- Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
This article is about a war memorial. And surprisingly enough it's in Northampton. I've been working my way through Lutyens' war memorials for the best part of the last year and this is one of the articles I'm most proud of, and hopefully the first of several I'll be bringing here. It's just had a very helpful GA review and I think it well covers its subject. I of course hope you agree but I'm grateful for all constructive feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Singora I've just skimmed this article and like it a lot. Let me leave one of Mr CasLiber's "virtual placeholders". I'll go over things in detail throughout the coming week. Singora (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments from the Bounder
- I'll be back soon with more comments, but the line "Today it is a Grade I listed building" jumped out at me. Would "As of 2016..." or similar be better than "Today", which has a rather transient feel to it. – The Bounder (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- I always thought "as of" was a rather ugly, unproseworthy construction. I can change it if you really want but I think the sentence is much better the way it is.
A few more:
- Is it worth adding the year when it received its grade I listing?
- Done.
- The caption for the main image says "For servicemen from Northamptonshire killed in the First World War", but the body says it also covers the Second World War (albeit added at a later date – as most British memorials were). It seems awkward to have such a contradiction in such a prominent position.
- I'm not sure it's a contradiction, but I've added it nonetheless; it doesn't do any harm.
Commissioning
- "Lutyens' memorial". The previous section deals with several of Lutyens' memorials. Would "The Northampton Memorial" serve as a better indicator that we have moved on to focus on this particular memorial?
- Fair point; I've tweaked it.
- Abingdton Street: A spelling mistake? (not sure whether this is as it should be, or Abingdon, or Abington)
- A typo; should be Abington; fixed
- Shouldn't the two references that follow "including Rochdale Cenotaph" be after the bracket and semi colon?
- I put them before because they're there to verify the text inside inside the brackets rather than the whole sentence or the whole paragraph.
- The final paragraph looks (to my untutored eye, at least) as if it should be in the following section. This is reinforced by the repetition of some of the information in the first line of the Design section. (If you choose not to move the whole paragraph to the Design section, you should make sure there isn't such repetition)
- I've followed your suggestion and moved the paragraph into the design section and reworked it to fit better.
Design
- As you link First World War in an earlier section, it may be worth linking the Second World War in this section (or having them both unlinked)
- Done.
- Do we have a date for the upgrading from Grade II to Grade I listing (cf. my earlier comment on this for the lead too)
- Not an exact date; the date on Historic England's press release is 7 November 2015, but the NHLE only gives the date of the most recent amendment (which could be anything from a change in grade to fixing a typo).
I hope you don't mind, but I made a couple of very small edits – spelling, largely – I hope these are OK, and that you find the comments useful. – The Bounder (talk) 10:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- I never mind having my typos fixed, and it's always nice when someone takes the time to read something you've written and offer feedback. Do see what you think of the improvements, @The Bounder:. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support That looks great. A note for those who take action on these matters: I am a relatively new editor, so please weigh my comments and support accordingly. Thanks. - The Bounder (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
From Singora
Note to Mr Mitchell and Coordinators. The King of Thailand has died. Things have changed a lot here over the last 24 hours. I'll do my review next week. Singora (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Singora Singora (talk) 07:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Overall, very good!
- See my comment above re: the year of lisitng
- I've dropped the today; I still think it read nicer the other way though
- Here's what you've got "It is a Grade I listed building, having been upgraded in 2015 when Lutyens' war memorials were declared a "national collection" and all were granted listed building status or had their listing renewed"
- 1. The word upgrade is a bit "iffy".
- 2. How about "It is a Grade I listed building, having been accorded the status in 2015 when Lutyens' war memorials were declared a "national collection" and either ....." Hmmm. That's not gonna work.
- 3. How about "In 2015 the memorial was designated a Grade I listed building; in the same year Lutyens' war memorials were declared a "national collection" and accorded either a similar status or had their listing renewed" This isn't too bad! What do you think? Singora (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- The trouble is that's not quite accurate; it was designated in the 70s, and upgraded (increased in grade from Grade I to Grade I) last year. I'm biased because I wrote it, of course, but I still think the original was the most prosaic way of phrasing it. --HJM
- I've tweaked this again slightly so now we have Today it is a Grade I listed building; it was upgraded from Grade II in 2015 when.... How does that sound for you? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- The trouble is that's not quite accurate; it was designated in the 70s, and upgraded (increased in grade from Grade I to Grade I) last year. I'm biased because I wrote it, of course, but I still think the original was the most prosaic way of phrasing it. --HJM
- I've dropped the today; I still think it read nicer the other way though
- Try dropping one of the instances of "by" -- "The monument's design was completed and approved by 1920, but its installation was delayed by six years".
Background
- Isn't among better than amongst (similar to while vs. whilst)? "Amongst the most prominent designers of war memorials". I also think Lutyens should be the subject of this sentence.
- RE: "Prior to the First World War, Lutyens established his reputation designing country houses for wealthy patrons; following it, he devoted much of his time to ...". Following what? Try something like "he later devoted ..."
Commissioning
- RE: "Northampton's first war memorial was a temporary cenotaph in wood and plaster". Shouldn't this be "made of" or "made from"?
- RE: "the temporary cenotaph was the focal point for remembrance services until the unveiling of the permanent memorial". Isn't this self-evident? If you disagree, at least change "unveiling" to "construction".
- RE: "Suggestions included renovation of civic building". Plural?
- This sentence is way too long: "The application was submitted in 1922 by the vicar of All Saints' Church, the Reverend Geoffrey Warden, and sponsored by two church wardens and two parishioners,[9] but construction work did not commence until 1926, six years after the completion of the designs".
- RE: "the obelisks had been carved and were awaiting the colouring of the flags". Why not say painting?
Design
- The first paragraph doesn't read well. You introduce the three design elements and say they're characteristic of Lutyens' work; you state that the Northamptom memorial is one of Lutyen's more elaborate designs because it uses these three elements. That makes no sense. Re-write the paragraph and strip out the repetition. As things stand you also have a stray semi-colon after the word obelisk.
- RE: "The obelisks are ornately decorated; a narrow cross is set into the obelisks themselves while the town's coat of arms is moulded onto the columns supporting the obelisks". Use a colon rather a semi-colon. How many times does this sentence use the word "obelisk"?
- The overall structure of this section is confusing: you introduce the obelisks and describe the columns supporting them; you then flip back to the obelisks to talk about their flags; the first sentence of paragraph four brings us back to the obelisks to offer details about their inscriptions. Why not just describe each design element step by step:
- 1. Obelisks + flags + inscriptions
- 2. The columns supporting the obelisks (including their "deep decorative niches that form an arch shape beneath the obelisks").
- 3. The plinths supporting the columns
- 4. The Stone of Remembrance
- Leave this with me for a few days if you could, and I'll look when I've had more sleep. --HJM
- 1. RE: "A narrow cross is set into the obelisks themselves". The word themselves isn't needed.Singora (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough. --HJM
- 2. RE: "Northampton's is one of". You've just used this possessive in the previous paragraph. Singora (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've reworded this. --HJM
- 3. RE: "several". This is one of those words that have very little meaning. Singora (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've only used it here where there isn't a precise figure to hand. For example, I believe seven of Lutyens' memorials feature an obelisk, but I don't have a source for that other than my own original research. --HJM
- 4. RE: "Lutyens first proposed stone flags for use on the Cenotaph on Whitehall, but the proposal was rejected in favour of fabric flags (though they were used on several other memorials, including Rochdale Cenotaph and the Arch of Remembrance in Leicester)". This is off-topic and should be a footnote. Singora (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- The origin of the flags is on-topic; its use on other memorials is straying a little, but I'm loathe to create a whole new section for half a sentence. --HJM
- 5. RE: "deliberately devoid of any elaborate decoration". The opposite, accidentally devoid, would make no sense. The word "deliberately" isn't needed. Singora (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- I suppose we can get rid of this. --HJM
- 6. Typo (two, if fact!): "The whole memorial raised on stone platform which forms a narrow path between the stone and the obelisks" Singora (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- And fixed. Thank you very much. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:26, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- 1. RE: "A narrow cross is set into the obelisks themselves". The word themselves isn't needed.Singora (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Leave this with me for a few days if you could, and I'll look when I've had more sleep. --HJM
History
- RE: "At the conclusion of the service, the crowd processed to the new memorial with the parade led by veterans from the Battle of Mons and including nurses from Northampton General Hospital, other military representatives, and the town's civic leaders". Try: "At the conclusion of the service, the crowd proceeded to the new memorial: the parade was led by veterans from the Battle of Mons and included nurses from Northampton General Hospital, other military representatives, and the town's civic leaders"
- RE: "he observed that communities across Northamptonshire would be erecting their own memorials, but he felt that .." The second "he" is redundant.
- RE: "the names of the fallen inscribed on the garden walls". You need a "were".
- I don't see that the last sentence of the last paragraph is needed.
Thanks very much for the detailed review. I'll get back to you on the structure of the design section, probably at weekend. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Singora: I've re-written the design section, largely following your suggestion. Could you have another look when you have a minute? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Support I think it's comprehensive given the subject and seems to meet FA criteria!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Singora / More comments
- 1. You have "Each obelisk sits on a tall, four-tiered rectangular column which itself stands on a wider, undercut square plinth". I'm sure this should be "Each obelisk sits on a tall, four-tiered rectangular column that stands stands on a wider, undercut square plinth". Singora (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Okay. --HJM
- 2. RE: "both are particularly fine designs in which Lutyens uses the obelisks with "dignity and simple dramatic effect", according to historian Richard Barnes". Not convinced the historian's name is needed. He's not linked, and so is presumably not noteworthy. Singora (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Attribution of quotes is required by MOS:QUOTE#Attribution. --HJM
- 3. RE: "Unusually, the Stone of Remembrance is inscribed on both faces". Why is this unusual? Would a footnote clarify things? Singora (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Because it's inscribed on both faces; there are several hundred of them and I'm not aware of another with two inscriptions (Skelton makes a point of noting this). --HJM
- 4. RE: "The whole memorial is raised on a stone platform which forms a narrow path between the stone and the obelisks". The word "that" is better that "which". This is pedantic, but nonetheless correct. Singora (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Done. --HJM
- 5. RE: "The crowd was large enough that the service could not be accommodated in the church itself". The word "itself" is redundant.Singora (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Done. --HJM
- 6. RE: "At the conclusion of the service, the crowd proceeded to the new memorial with the parade led by veterans from the Battle of Mons and including nurses from Northampton General Hospital, other military representatives, and the town's civic leaders" -> "At the conclusion of the service, the crowd proceeded to the new memorial: the parade was led by veterans from the Battle of Mons and included nurses from Northampton General Hospital, other military representatives, and the town's civic leaders"
- Done (but with a semi-colon; I'm loathe to use a colon in prose). --HJM
- 7. RE: "In November 2015, as part of commemorations for the centenary of the First World War, Lutyens' war memorials were recognised as a national collection and all of his free-standing memorials in England were listed or had their listing status reviewed and their National Heritage List for England list entries were updated and expanded". This just seems a bit wrong or a bit awkward or a bit hard to follow. Singora (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have a suggestion or is there something in particular you find hard to follow? I've made a small copy edit for readability but it seems perfectly clear to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Singora: I believe that's everything for now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have a suggestion or is there something in particular you find hard to follow? I've made a small copy edit for readability but it seems perfectly clear to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Final comments / Singora
For those last two sentences I've referred to above, could you not try "All of his free-standing memorials in England were listed or had their listing status reviewed and their National Heritage List for England list entries updated and expanded. As part of this process, Northampton War Memorial was upgraded to a Grade I listed building"? In other words, they "had" their listing status reviewed and "had" their entries updated and expanded. I don't see why you need the "were". My re-wording of the second sentence obviates the need to repeat "status". Singora (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- That works for me. :) Is everything resolved to your satisfaction, @Singora:? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Support Singora (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Charles Kanaʻina
- Nominator(s): Mark Miller (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
This article is about a central figure of the old Kingdom of Hawaii, father of King William Charles Lunalilo and husband of Kaahumanu III. Charles Kanaʻina was a part of the Kamehameha Dynasty and the nobility of Hawaii, once owning much of the Iolani Palace grounds, where his son was born. He left a legacy as one of the largest landowners in Hawaii. His probate documents have added greatly to Hawaiian genealogy with the personal genealogies of much of the surviving royal family, submitted by the families themselves.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- Suggest scaling up the petition
-
- I have the larger digital image. It requires stitching together but can be reproduced in a larger scale.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Done--Mark Miller (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Working on this. Had to find the original file.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- File:Kanaina_(PP-97-12-002).jpg: if the photographer is unknown, how do you know they died over 100 years ago?
-
- We know it was not James J. Williamson as the image predates his buying of the Dickson's Photography studio that was responsible for portraits of the royal family. Menzies Dickson died in 1891 and is attributed to this and the following image photographed when Lunalilo became king in 1873; File:Lunalilo (PP-98-15-018).jpg.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- To demonstrate that it was the Dickson's studio, here are the full images from this photography session;File:Kanaina (PP-97-12-001).jpg and an image known to be photographed by Menzies Dickson of Princes Lydia Domimis;File:Liliuokalani, photograph by Menzies Dickson (PP-98-10-013).jpg. They are seated in the same chair. Historically we know these images were taken in his studio. That much is well documented. Here is an image of that entire chair in front of Queen Emma; File:Queen Emma of Hawaii, photograph by Menzies Dickson (PPWD-15-2-036).jpg.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Just double checked US copyright and I believe (could be wrong) that the copyright for the image is the life of the author plus 70 years. If it is 100 years this image is still in public domain as this author died 125 years ago. The other photographer of the royal family died 90 years ago.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Done Attribution made to Menzies Dickson and a US PD tag added.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- File:Kaahumanu_with_servant.jpg: what is the lithographer's date of death?
-
- Louis Choris died in 1828. This was printed in Voyage Pittoresque Autour du Monde, Paris in 1822.
- Done Added publishing date and source (no convenience link at the moment) and double checked to make sure author birth and death date was present as artist.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- File:Prince_Lunalilo_(PP-98-15-015).jpg: source link is broken, needs US PD tag
-
- Done Someone else had done both on October 6, 2016.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- File:Hartwell_petition_letter.jpg: source link is dead, when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- The Hartwell petition is part of The Kingdom of Hawaii government documents because the case was heard before the Kingdom Supreme Court and this is actually the
court decision to agree to the petititonform from the Court used to make the petition request. While it is a probate case, it was a public case at the time and all documentation was available and reprinted in newspapers and in "Reports of Decisions made by the Kingdom of Hawaii Supreme Court". The actual image of theCourts decision on the petitionrequest was first published, to my knowledge, when the digital collection first went online but is in the public domain as part of US State and Federal government documents. The text of the image (probably badly titled) was first published the same year the document was made: 1877, in both English and Hawaiian language newspapers. I will take a look at the Commons page to update the lack of a convenience link but the true source is the Hawaii State Archives (ironically once the Kana'ina Building now moved to the Kekāuluohi building, on land the couple owned).--Mark Miller (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC) - Done I have checked about every route to cover bases and it seems that Hartwell died over the 70 years required for non-published works for his handwriting, if such copyright was accurate, but he was working for the Crown which is apart of the government so that point might be moot anyway. The documents age, ownership by the US government today by recognized copyright law as well as other factors makes this public domain today.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- These are excellent concerns that do require attention. Thank you User:Nikkimaria. While I have replied to some of these concerns, it is 10:30pm my time (California) and late. I will take action on the images by tomorrow evening,if not sooner.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- The Hartwell petition is part of The Kingdom of Hawaii government documents because the case was heard before the Kingdom Supreme Court and this is actually the
Break
Notes from image review appear to be accomplished.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Citations
I have User:Ucucha/HarvErrors script on my .js It shows me errors that editors without that script don't see. The first thing that jumped out at me were
- Ref 20 (Judd 1975) says "Harv error: link from #CITEREFJudd1975 doesn't point to any citation."
- Ref 30 (Sheldon 1877) says "Harv error: link from #CITEREFSheldon1877 doesn't point to any citation."
- Freycinet, Kelly, Louis Claude Desaulses de, Marion (1978) says "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFFreycinet.2C_Kelly1978"
- Sheldon, H.L. (1897) says "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFSheldon1897."
Thought you might like to know. If you don't see those error messages, you can if you put the HarvErrors script on your .js Haven't look at the entire article, or any other sourcing at the moment. — Maile (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- Added. See them now. I will look at this.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Done fixed.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Mike Christie
Oppose. I think there are too many issues with the prose for promotion at the moment. Below is a list of some issues; in addition I thiink the prose is a little wooden throughout. I'll finish the review and revisit once these points are addressed -- I stopped reviewing at the "Lunalilo Trust" section.
- "She was also Married to Kamehameha II": any reason for the capital M?
- "in a sacred neighborhood in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii": given that the geographical context is clearly Hawaii, I'd say you certainly don't need "Hawaii" here, and I'd suggest cutting Oahu too, and linking Honolulu instead.
- "The compound would eventually become the official Royal Residence of the Hawaiian Royal Family when Kekūanāoa would build Hale Aliʻi in the center of the families estates as a gift to his daughter Victoria Kamāmalu. The site would become the Iolani Palace and Palace Walk." Tenses are a bit tortured here, and I think technically inaccurate; to my ear it should be "when Kekūanāoa built Hale Aliʻi". I'm not clear what the second sentence means; the compound is the site? So the Iolani Palace and Palace Walk are the Royal Residence? If so, how about "The compound would eventually become the the Iolani Palace (the official Royal Residence of the Hawaiian Royal Family) and Palace Walk when Kekūanāoa built Hale Aliʻi in the center of the families estates as a gift to his daughter Victoria Kamāmalu"?
- "living there from Kamehameha II up to Kalakaua": why give this in reigns rather than dates? To someone unfamiliar with the history this isn't very informative.
- "Having died intestate, probate hearings proceeded for 5 years": needs rephrasing; the probate hearings didn't die intestate.
- "Final adjudication went to several of Kanaʻina's cousins": suggest "On final adjudication his property went to several of Kanaʻina's cousins" assuming that's what is meant.
- "The third of five children to [Eia] Ka-makakaualii (father)": not sure what the bracketed "[Eia]" is telling us.
- The first sentence is a bit awkward because of the need to put "father" and "mother" in parentheses as the names are not familiar enough to most eyes for the gender to be obvious. How about recasting as: "Charles Kanaʻina Eia was born about May 4, 1798 at Napoʻopoʻo, Hawaiʻi. Kanaʻina was the third of five children: his father, [Eia] Ka-makakaualii, was the son of Makakaualii II and Kapalaoa, and his mother, Kauwā Palila, was a daughter of Moana Wahine and Palila Nohomualani. Eia and Kauwā's other four children were named Naʻea, Iʻahuʻula, Kahele and Kaikumoku."?
- The second paragraph of the lineage section takes us quite a long way back. Do we really need this in a biographical article about him? Perhaps just mention any particularly famous ancestors, and the line through which the descent comes.
- Suggesting glossing heiau inline.
- "In July 1844 Kekūanāoa began building a large home here as a gift to his daughter Victoria Kamāmalu. Instead, Kamehameha III would buy the estate and use as his Royal Residence after moving the capitol of the kingdom to Honolulu. It would become the Iolani Palace." Suggest "large home there" rather than "here". Also, why "Instead"? Did "Kekūanāoa" fail to complete building the home? If so, I'd make that clearer.
- 'he was granted the style (manner of address) of "His Highness"': I'd make this "the title of" and link title to style (manner of address).
- "He was considered the grandnephew of Kamehameha I, and second cousin to King Kamehameha V, King Kamehameha IV, and Princess Victoria Kamāmalu, through his mother, Kekāuluohi, who was the cousin of Elizabeth Kīnaʻu (later called Kaʻahumanu II)." Why do we need all this genealogical information? Can we just say "He was Kamehameha' I's grandnephew, and was declared eligible to succeed ..."?
- "sent to the Chief's Children's School (later called the Royal School) when it was founded": can we include the year?
- "When Kanaʻina died, the court appointed nine trustees, six of which would take part in the militia that overthrew the monarchy and also take part in the new provisional government." There's no mention before this in the article of a military overthrow of the monarchy; more context is needed.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Cliff Clinkscales
This article is about a veteran professional basketball player who has experience in the NBA Development League and the National Basketball League of Canada. He competed at the collegiate level with DePaul and played high school hoops at Shores Christian Academy in Ocala, Florida. He achieved fame from a young age after having his dribbling skills featured on national television, but struggles in high school brought him down. Clinkscales' entire career has been a comeback, so it is quite an interesting read. I have spent weeks on expanding this article, and it was promoted to GA a few days ago. I recently added most of the college section, so that might need some more review. However, it is very detailed in its coverage of the player and uses just about every reliable source available on the subject. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. TempleM (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- This article is pretty comprehensive, but it may need some copyediting to meet FA standards. I have performed some copyediting on the article and it probably needs more. That said, it may be a good idea to trim his college sections a bit, since he didn't really do much at DePaul and scoring 5 points in a game isn't that impressive. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Editorofthewiki: I have removed information about some of his less notable performances at DePaul. Let me know if any more work needs to be done (other than copyediting). TempleM (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Editorofthewiki: By the way, another user Nairspecht has agreed to copy edit the article. TempleM (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hello people! JFYI, I am trying to copyedit the whole article, and by the looks of it, it might take few days. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi. Just for the record, I made some copy edits too, although I'm glad Nairspect is looking at the article in detail. Scribolt (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- One thing I noticed is that the dates in the article are in Month Day Year format, while the references show Day Month Year format. This ought to be reconciled. Also, I think you can remove the copyediting tag, since the last edit was several hours ago. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 22:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Editorofthewiki: I will make sure all of the dates are in a constant format. However, the copy editing is still in progress (only a few sections have been thoroughly edited so far). TempleM (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, as TempleM has suggested, we should go ahead with the MDY format. Either way, consistency is key. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nairspecht - You made a few comments during your copy edit of the college section. I have addressed the superfluous statement about "blind passes." Were there any other issues that you need someone else to fix? TempleM (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have noted some minor things on my end. I will furnish them here or on the Talk page in a separate section after I have fully gone through the article. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 06:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Folks, I have gone through the whole article and provided my thoughts on certain sections. It has been copyedited and checked for sentence errors. Please proceed further. Thanks for your patience, everyone. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 07:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nairspecht Thank you very much for your work on the article. However, there is one comment that I am confused about in the professional career section. You said, "But, what was he doing before this?" in the 2015-16 season section. Also, once everything is cleared up, is there any chance that you could "support" or "oppose" this featured article nomination? TempleM (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi TempleM! My concern was what was Cliff doing after the Rainmen filed for bankruptcy? Since no one knew that they would resurrect as the Hurricanes, what was Cliff going to do? Did he consider joining another team? What did he do between the time when the Rainmen were fined and the time when he rejoined the Hurricanes? I know this looks trivial, but an FA article-nominee that it is, readers should have this information. What do you think? "Supporting" the article now. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nairspecht I don't think I could find any information about his whereabouts between the seasons. I hope that is fine. TempleM (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi TempleM! My concern was what was Cliff doing after the Rainmen filed for bankruptcy? Since no one knew that they would resurrect as the Hurricanes, what was Cliff going to do? Did he consider joining another team? What did he do between the time when the Rainmen were fined and the time when he rejoined the Hurricanes? I know this looks trivial, but an FA article-nominee that it is, readers should have this information. What do you think? "Supporting" the article now. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- One more thing that Editorofthewiki brought up before. If you have time, could you please edit the dates on the references? I am currently busy and don't have the time. TempleM (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I tried doing this, but the wiki threw up some error. I'm not sure what's or why's that. If anyone here has some clarity about this, just holler. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nairspecht - The errors are coming up because you forgot to add a comma to some of the dates. The correct format is "MONTH DAY, YEAR". Is it possible to go back and just add those? TempleM (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- If that's the case, let me take a gander again. Best, Nairspecht (talk)
- Nairspecht I've just fixed the dates myself. TempleM (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- If that's the case, let me take a gander again. Best, Nairspecht (talk)
- Nairspecht - The errors are coming up because you forgot to add a comma to some of the dates. The correct format is "MONTH DAY, YEAR". Is it possible to go back and just add those? TempleM (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I tried doing this, but the wiki threw up some error. I'm not sure what's or why's that. If anyone here has some clarity about this, just holler. Best, Nairspecht (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nairspecht Thank you very much for your work on the article. However, there is one comment that I am confused about in the professional career section. You said, "But, what was he doing before this?" in the 2015-16 season section. Also, once everything is cleared up, is there any chance that you could "support" or "oppose" this featured article nomination? TempleM (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nairspecht - You made a few comments during your copy edit of the college section. I have addressed the superfluous statement about "blind passes." Were there any other issues that you need someone else to fix? TempleM (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comments from TonyTheTiger
"core team member" sounds like a made up term. Is it reffed somewhere.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)Keep in mind that the WP:LEAD is suppose to summarize the main body. I don't see core in the main body. What is this summarizing?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)- I have changed the phrase to just "member." Not sure why "core team member" was added. TempleM (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think a better title is needed here. Something better than a "member". Core team member sounds made up, yes, and I'm sorry for that. Nairspecht (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have changed the phrase to just "member." Not sure why "core team member" was added. TempleM (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Was "the top team in Florida" led by any notable player(s)?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)"Despite his success at Ocala, he was unable to make the national stage because of the low competition level." seems awkward.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)"Basketball news website, The Hoop Scoop, named Clinkscales the 47th-best high school player in his class as he entered college." HoopScoop? What about ESPN, RIvals, Scout and 247?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)- I added information about his star ratings by 247 and Rivals. TempleM (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think only Hoop Scoop does high school player rankings. I may be wrong, though. Nairspecht (talk)
- I am not sure what is out there for that time period.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Something is amiss about the tone of this article. Post a message at WP:CBBALL or WP:BBALL. I think it is being reviewed by non-basketball folks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger - I will get to your other comments later, but could you please elaborate on the issue with the tone of this article? TempleM (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger - I have addressed all of your comments other than the one concerning tone. I will see what I (and other editors) can do about that once you elaborate. TempleM (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have never seen an enumeration of interested schools, but not a list of scholarship offers. Typically, the RS list the leading schools who have offered.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger I will take a look at that. Is there anything else that I can fix? TempleM (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I remain unable to tell what schools made him offers.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger I will take a look at that. Is there anything else that I can fix? TempleM (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
You need to swap in {{cbb link}} for every team so that if the team-season article is created a bot will swap it in.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Also, "first career triumph" should be "first career start".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)I would also change "one of five" to "the fifth".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Use team season articles where appropriate such as 2006–07 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball team or 2007–08 Villanova Wildcats men's basketball team.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Change "Valley Vipers" to "Vipers".--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)Remove WP:NPOV terms like measly.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)- TonyTheTiger I have addressed all of our concerns. Please let me know if anything else needs to be done, or if I missed something while addressing your concerns. TempleM (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I have never heard the phrase "assuming fairness". No need to pipe that link. Just say poor sportsmanship.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)"which found new ownership" --> "under new ownership"--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)link captain.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)Nix " The Hurricanes were unable to rally from a 15-point deficit to start the fourth quarter."--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)- TonyTheTiger - Everything you brought up has been fixed. Anything else? TempleM (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger - Just pinging in case you didn't see my previous reply. Is there anything else wrong with the article? Otherwise, please "Support" or "Oppose" the nomination. Thank you. TempleM (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- At this point, I Oppose because the article has too many phrases that don't use lingo that I am familiar with ("enter the Vipers' roster", "cut off from the roster", and ""he reunited with the Erie BayHawks"). I don't really want to spend the time going through each paragraph pointing out odd phrasing. I think there remain some unnecessary details as well.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Just a comment here. I've got no skin in this game, but the above comment puzzles me. What you've said is that is uses phrases that you haven't encountered before. I'm assuming that you mean that you feel that the prose is inconsistent with other basketball articles? Because the simplest interpretation of your criticism (the first) does not seem like a legitimate or actionable issue. I'm sure everyone including the eventual reviewer would appreciate a little more clarity. Thanks. Scribolt (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- The article uses lingo that is puzzling to anyone who follows the sport of basketball. I have been reading sports pages in the United States for about 45 years. I have tried to offer corrections to a few phrases above, but I don't feel I should have to revise every other sentence. The authors need to get a WP:PR from someone who knows basketball lingo or encyclopedic tone.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger I agree with some of what you are saying. There are many places where the wording seems strange for a reader who is interested in basketball. However, I think that isn't a fair basis to "oppose" this candidate on. I have also spent a lot of time working with basketball player biographies, and some (but not all) of the phrases you pointed out seem fine to me. What I am saying is that on Wikipedia, people's writing styles tend to vary. I respect your opinion and the help you provided so far, but not following a certain method should not warrant a flat-out "oppose." I will definitely go through the article again and find any weird phrases, but I strongly encourage you to reconsider your "oppose" or leave more comments until you are comfortable with doing so. TempleM (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger Scribolt Editorofthewiki Nairspecht: Is anyone willing to comment on this, because it's been a while since I left my last reply? TempleM (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, for what it's worth I agree with you, but I'm the first to admit I am not an expert on FA criteria. Is it readable? Yes. Is it clear? Yes. Is it comprehensive? Well, others here have asked the obvious questions and tracked down additional details. I'm not sure whether you can have 'encyclopedic tone' and use 'basketball lingo' from the sports pages simultaneously. I don't know what the next steps are in absence of more input from Tony. Scribolt (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- I would advise a WP:PR with someone who knows the proper encyclopedic tone for sports content. There are many WP:FA articles that use common basketball lingo and encyclopedic tone. This article is does not do both.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger I am not exactly sure what you mean by 'basketball lingo.' On a different note, do you know any users who regularly edit basketball-related articles who might be interested in taking a look? TempleM (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Most of the regs at WP:NBA, WP:BBALL and WP:CBBALL are disinterested in WP:FAC and guiding articles in that direction.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- TonyTheTiger I am not exactly sure what you mean by 'basketball lingo.' On a different note, do you know any users who regularly edit basketball-related articles who might be interested in taking a look? TempleM (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- I would advise a WP:PR with someone who knows the proper encyclopedic tone for sports content. There are many WP:FA articles that use common basketball lingo and encyclopedic tone. This article is does not do both.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- The article uses lingo that is puzzling to anyone who follows the sport of basketball. I have been reading sports pages in the United States for about 45 years. I have tried to offer corrections to a few phrases above, but I don't feel I should have to revise every other sentence. The authors need to get a WP:PR from someone who knows basketball lingo or encyclopedic tone.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Just a comment here. I've got no skin in this game, but the above comment puzzles me. What you've said is that is uses phrases that you haven't encountered before. I'm assuming that you mean that you feel that the prose is inconsistent with other basketball articles? Because the simplest interpretation of your criticism (the first) does not seem like a legitimate or actionable issue. I'm sure everyone including the eventual reviewer would appreciate a little more clarity. Thanks. Scribolt (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Support after reading through this again and seeing the GAN pass swiftly, I'm happy that this meets the FA criteria. JAGUAR 12:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Support - Looks like an article which would attract universal readership. And it's covered most of the personality's life. Can we have something more about the guy's personal life, though? Best, Nairspecht (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- Nairspecht Thank you for supporting. The only real information about his personal life was about his childhood. TempleM (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- Define "real information", please? Best, Nairspecht (talk)
-
- He played at The Basketball Tournament (TBT) last summer, but I'm not sure if that's worth mentioning. TempleM (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- Nah, better leave that out. I was talking about more info about his "relationships", if any. Maybe a sentence or two, if there is anything, that is. Otherwise, this looks sufficient for an FA to me. Best, Nairspecht (talk)
-
- Nairspecht No, I can't find any information about that, so this should be it. TempleM (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- I would mention that he played in the Basketball Tournament. Not sure where you would put it on the article though. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 21:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- Editorofthewiki - I added a rather brief section about his time with the Sean Bell All-Stars in the TBT and elsewhere. There's not much to write about it, though. TempleM (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Editorofthewiki, Nairspecht, Scribolt - Could anyone please copy edit (and make sure all info is accurate with sources) the personal life section? TempleM (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Support - As I said, I only made some minor copy edits at the beginning, Nairspecht did a thorough and comprehensive job. But I'm quite happy to support, the article is well structured, reads well and contains relevant and interesting information. Well done everyone. Scribolt (talk) 06:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Bradley Cooper
Although I have decided not to create content on here anymore, this is an article I worked on in August. The article is about Mr Cooper, who is the recipient of People's "Sexiest Man Alive" in 2011, though it's more of "Sexiest White Man Alive". Aside from the so-called accolade, he is a talented actor, having found his breakthrough in his mid 30s in late 2000s. The article was promoted on 1st of September by Jaguar who passed it straight away and found it to be FAC material. I currently have another open nomination as a co-nominator. I hope that it does not turn out that I end up seeing both of them archived (haha) so have at it. – FrB.TG (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Since I brought his awards page to FL status, I should help here. I'm a bit busy today, but one thing that I noticed while reading through is that a lot of his lesser known roles are not included in the article. For example, My Little Eye, Bending All the Rules, The Comebacks, Older than America, etc. The latter most was a film that Cooper had a major role in. Check Bradley Cooper on screen and stage for information about some of the lesser known rules. Famous Hobo (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Famous Hobo:, I have included those films you have mentioned and look forward to any comments you have to make in the near future. - FrB.TG (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC) |
---|
Comments from Pavanjandhyala
Somewhat sick at the moment, which may limit my speed to post and respond to your comments. Also, please not that i am not completely aware of the subject.
I found the remaining sections well written, to the behest of my knowledge. I have nothing to say about the sources, citing, images etc. as they shall be handled properly by source and image reviewers. I find this article worthy enough. Please let me know once you are done working on them. Regards, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC) |
- Thanks, Pavan! I have acted upon your suggestions. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support Good job. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
-
He aspired to an acting career from a young age, and enrolled in the MFA program at the Actors Studio, New York City in 2000. - comes across as puffy. Also doesn't make sense as he enrolled in the course when he was 25...which isn't young. I'd just remove the sentence
-
There are too many bits of quoted material in para 2 of the Early life section. I'd try and rewrite at least some segments in the following... which "floored" him and he "became obsessed with it".....Cooper believes that the "acting gene" might have come from his father, whom he thinks was "such a goofball".Cooper shares a close relationship with his family. - shares it with who? Not sure the sentence actually adds anything...
-
- I don't understand why there is a Works and awards section. This should be combined with career
- It is just a brief summary of awards he has received and the most notable films he has appeared in because some users often find it difficult to find the filmography link, thus a separate section.
- Many thanks for the comments - much appreciated. – FrB.TG (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand why there is a Works and awards section. This should be combined with career
- tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose - I can't see any other prose-clangers or omissions outstanding Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Well illustrated with images with proper license. Well sourced. Well written.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support This is one of those rare articles that seem to be near perfection, as I couldn't find anything to raise in the GA review nor can I here. Well done! JAGUAR 18:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Image review - all images appropriately licensed (usermade, Flickr, OTRS, etc.), though this one could use a standard description template on Commons:[10] FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done
- It appears that GD is a self-publisher; what makes FN30 a high-quality reliable source?
- Generally we wouldn't use Rotten Tomatoes in cases other than those outlined at WP:ROTTEN
- FNs 53 and 54 should be supplemented with another source for development details
- Hellomagazine.com should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments sorry for the delay in getting to this. A quick glance at the lede. While everyone has their own style, I often find it advantageous to spell out the importance of the subject of the article in the first paragraph, your best chance to get the attention of the uncommitted reader. As it is, if you have not heard of Mr. Cooper, the lede paragraph does nothing to draw you in as after telling us he's an actor, you just plunge into his early career. Just my opinion. More comments to follow. I'd ask that coordinators not hold up promotion if I'm delayed.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, I know that reads interesting,
but for Cooper, I don't seem to come up with something of that sort. He does not have a particular acting style that I could incorporate in the lead and he is not known for something particular either.Thanks for stopping by - I would be happy to address any other concerns you might have. If you are not able to find time to comment further, that is fine - no obligation. – FrB.TG (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC) - Done - shifted some parts of the third para to the opening para which discusses his success in the film industry. – FrB.TG (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've done some editing, feel free to revert what you don't like.
- I think the dates for the various versions of The Elephant Man might confuse the reader. He was not acting at age 2. I would omit the years. After all, if it was Hamlet that inspired him, you likely would not put (c. 1602).
- Georgetown should be given the fuller name and linked on the first mention, not the second. You use the name four times in consecutive sentences, which seems unnecessary
- I read the article to say that he pursued actor's training in order to become a diplomat. Is this what you meant?
- "He filmed all of his scenes on the last day of the series' production in February 2015" this seems trivial and a distraction from the chronological account of Bradley's career.
- "However, Cooper stated in a 2011 interview with Shave" consider "Nevertheless"
- "and played the part of the fictional character" why is not cutting these words and inserting "as" not sufficient?
- Greater commercial success followed with the comedy sequel to The Hangover, The Hangover Part II (2011), which earned over $580 million worldwide." I would rearrange the sentence to avoid having the two titles together.
- "a role Cianfrance specifically wrote for him. He drove five hours to Montreal, Canada to meet with Cooper" Two things. I would strike "Canada" as unneeded, and the word "him" referring to Bradley is succeeded by "he" referring to Cianfrance. I would rearrange.
- "To create Kyle's large physique," it would be re-create, wouldn't it? And I am not sure I like "physique". Maybe "To appear to be as large as Kyle, ..."
- You are not consistent with US vs. U.S.
- The ages of Bradley and Esposito seem unremarkable. Why is that included?
- "Stand Up to Cancer's 'Fifth Biennial Telecast" there seems to be a stray mark before "Fifth". There's a clash of future vs. past tenses in that sentence as well.
- "but he later became one of Hollywood's most accomplished actors after the success of The Hangover (2009), Limitless (2011), Silver Linings Playbook (2012), The Place Beyond The Pines (2012), American Hustle (2013), and Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)." Why do we need his resume here? We've just gone through it in detail.
Seri Rambai
This article is about the Seri Rambai, a historic cannon displayed at Fort Cornwallis, George Town, Penang. In 2013 the Sunday Times began a feature about Penang with the comment "Cannons don’t often have names, but the Seri Rambai, on the walls of Fort Cornwallis, is something rather special". Singora (talk) 12:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I was confused by the suggestion that the gun was made of brass. A little digging suggests that "brass" is a naval term for bronze, a different alloy. (Brass is copper and zinc, bronze is copper and tin. Neither has a fixed recipe.). Could this be clarified one way or the other for us simple folk unfamiliar with seventeenth century ordnance? Mr Stephen (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Reply Ha! I understand your confusion.The deal here is that bronze cannon (and I believe bronze ordnance in general) were always referred to as brass cannon or brass guns. A couple of years back I wrote a Featured Article about an obscure sultanate in the deep south of Thailand. The sultan's cannon made a long journey from Singora to Ayuthaya to Mandalay, and is now displayed next to the flagpole in the grounds of London's Royal Chelsea Hospital. In an article published in the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, the cannon is described as "brass". In an another article published in the same journal the author somewhat pedantically points out that the gun is in fact made of bronze.
- I've just dug out the Official Catalogue of the Museum of Artillery in the Rotunda, Woolwich. Page 5 lists "BRONZE, commonly called BRASS ORDNANCE". (See: https://books.google.co.th/books?id=X8o_AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA5). Perhaps the best thing is for me to add a brief note. Do you have a preference as to how it ought to be worded? Singora (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- One more quick reply: see this photo of the Singora cannon at the Royal Chelsea Hospital, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Singora_cannon.jpg. The sign describes it as a "BRASS GUN". Singora (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- No particular preference on my part, just a clarifying footnote saying pretty much what you have written above. Thanks for the info & pic. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Noted added: The seri Rambai is actually made of bronze, an alloy of copper and tin, but like most bronze artillery pieces is commonly referred to as a brass cannon or brass gun. A cannon displayed next to the flagpole at the Royal Hospital Chelsea shows how this differing terminology can lead to confusion: while the gun is labelled "Brass Cannon (Siamese)", an article published in the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society points out that it is in fact made of bronze. Singora (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- No particular preference on my part, just a clarifying footnote saying pretty much what you have written above. Thanks for the info & pic. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Lion-on-seri-rambai.jpg: what is the copyright status of the original work? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Both images should have the same license. I took the photos back in March. I've given them a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Singora (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's fine, but what is the status of the thing you took a picture of? We need a tag for that work as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean when you say "status of the thing". Please explain. Singora (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- You took a picture of an artwork. What is the copyright status of that artwork? There should be a tag on the image description page for the artwork itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean when you say "status of the thing". Please explain. Singora (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's fine, but what is the status of the thing you took a picture of? We need a tag for that work as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Both images should have the same license. I took the photos back in March. I've given them a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Singora (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment taking a look soon (placeholder so I don't forget really) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- The last sentence of para 1 in lead could be classed as a tad informal, but I do think it livens up the text and makes it more engaging (and made me chuckle) so I think it is a significant net positive.
-
....and left for several years before being coaxed ashore by a Selangor nobleman.- what they had to ask the cannon nicely to come in from the sea...?- I'll go over what the sources say.
- 1. Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (JMBRAS), 1948: "Here we must follow the Selangor tale. The gun was thrown overboard opposite the esplanade, and lay in the water until about 1880, when it was hauled up and mounted on a carriage. The account is embroidered by a report that it refused to come out of the water until Tunku Kudin, who had retired from his appointment as Viceroy of Selangor, came to their assistance. He tied a piece of thread to the cannon, which at once floated in obedience to the orders of the Selangor chief."
- 2. JMBRAS, 1952: "According to a Selangor legend recounted by Douglas, the gun was thrown overboard on the Pluto's arrival in Penang, and left in the water for about ten years. Then it was hauled up and mounted on a carriage, as it stands to this day. The first attempts to raise it from the water are said to have been unsuccessful, and help was sought from Tengku Kudin, who had by then retired from Selangor and taken up residence in Penang. He tied a length of cotton thread to the gun, which thereupon floated in obedience to the orders of the Selangor chief." Singora (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Reads well overall and strikes me as having the right amount of background for context. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support on comprehensiveness and prose (
pending one very minor formatting issue above). An engaging read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Dank
- I'm changing "brass" to "bronze" throughout, since a large majority of readers (including whoever edited the infobox to say "brass") don't know that we actually mean bronze when we say brass. - Dank (push to talk) 21:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not taking a position on the amount of space devoted to legends or on their placement in the text. That's mostly a matter of taste.
- Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Standard disclaimer: As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 14:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Dank. Do you know the term for this point of grammar:
- "his contributions to British archaeology have been widely acclaimed, with some referring to him as ....."
- "His arrival at the OS generated some resentment, with co-workers often seeing his post as superfluous"
- "Previously Crawford had assisted Keiller in campaigning to prevent a radio mast being erected on Windmill Hill, with Keiller later purchasing the hill"
- "Although designed to have an international scope, Antiquity exhibited a clear bias towards the archaeology of Britain, with its release coinciding with the blossoming of British archaeology"
- "He refused to publish an advert for Watkins, with Watkins becoming very bitter towards him"
- These and more examples are taken from the FAC nomination: O.G.S. Crawford. I'm sure the grammar here is wrong. Is it? Singora (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's actually a sensitive topic among some copyeditors and linguists. Let me sleep on it. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- For American English, dictionaries (especially AHD and M-W) are best for grammar if they cover the point in a usage note, but I don't know any that do, for this point. The point is covered in Pinker's The Sense of Style (search for "fused participle") and in Garner's Modern American Usage (at ABSOLUTE CONSTRUCTIONS). For British English, opinions diverge on which dictionaries are the most helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 12:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- This matter ought to be raised and discussed on the relevant FAC nomination; it is not an issue affecting this article. Brianboulton (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
-
Comments (Brianboulton)
There are several issues:
- Links: MoS guidelines disapprove linking major geographical entities such as countries, e.g. Malaysia. Also some of the links here may confuse general readers. For example, the link on "Siamese capital" takes us to "Ayutthaya Kingdom", apparently a quite different entity.
- *@Brianboulton. Sorry it's taken a while to get back to you; I've just finished reviewing CasLIber's article and that piece about the Northampton war memorial. Yes, "Siamese capital" links to Ayutthaya Kingdom rather than Ayuthaya since the latter contains little historical perspective and describes the city simply as the former capital of Ayuthaya province. The situation here is far from ideal as neither article is especially good, but the Ayuthaya Kingdom article does include this (accurate) sentence in its lead "in the sixteenth century, it was described by foreign traders as one of the biggest and wealthiest cities in the East". Singora (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sunday Times comment: Rather trivial and hardly leadworthy. If you do keep it in the lead, the direct quotation needs a citation.
- This quote is repeated in the article's body and cited. Does it also need to be cited in the lead? Singora (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- My main issue here is whether this fairly inconsequential statement is worthy of mention in the lead as well as the text, but if you do want to keep it in the lead as a verbatim quotation, it will need to be cited there. Brianboulton (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- This quote is repeated in the article's body and cited. Does it also need to be cited in the lead? Singora (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- "Dr Gibson-Hill": Use his full name, not the academic title, per MOS:CREDENTIAL
- For clarity I'd use "inches" or "in.", rather than ""
- "28-pounder": A pipelink thus, 28-pounder might be informative
- What entity is being described as "Holland"? As far as I know the polity at the start of the 17thC was the Dutch Republic, and "Holland" has never been the country's name (other than during Napoleon's short-lived puppet kingdom).
- principle" → "principal" I imagine.
- There's a rather large gap in the narrative, between 1613 and 1795. Maybe nothing noteworthy happened in this time, but a linking sentence of some sort, covering the hiatus, should connect the eras.
- The main sources for this, two articles published in the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, offer nothing between 1613 and 1795. What sort of linking sentence might work? Singora (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest few added introductory words at the start of the Selangor incident section, e.g. "There is no recorded history of the cannon between 1613 and 1795, when the Acehnese sent..." etc, Brianboulton (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- The main sources for this, two articles published in the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, offer nothing between 1613 and 1795. What sort of linking sentence might work? Singora (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- "Almost thirty years later [i.e. about 1825] a British East India Company official visited Selangor and recounted a bizarre tale about a white snake said to be living inside the gun's barrel". This information seems devoid of context and I'm not sure what to make of it.
Brianboulton (talk) 11:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's a concern that I missed several of these things. I'll go back through the other articles I copyedited on the same day to see if I was having a bad day. - Dank (push to talk) 17:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Fine, but these are mainly not copyediting issues. Brianboulton (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Brianboulton. Hey Brian -- thanks for the feedback / suggestions. I'll reply in full later this week. Singora (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Support subject to sources review. Handle my few outstanding points as you see fit. The article is very nicely presented and illustrated. Brianboulton (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for helping out. I've deleted the Sunday Times quote from the lead and added a linking sentence as per your suggestion. I've asked user WEHWALT to do a source review. I did one for him a while back and will happily do another for his current FAC nomination if/when required. Singora (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
PS. I still need to finish my review for the Northampton War Memorial article. I'll try to do that tomorrow. Singora (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
PPS. Actually I probably won't finish the review tomorrow as I'll be watching Trump thrash Clinton. Singora (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Source review All sources appear to be of encyclopedic quality and are consistently cited. I make the following comments:
Thanks. I've edited that Isranews source and added OCLC refs to the three books without ISBNs. Singora (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Drive by comment
- Under the "Citations" section, the ref for "Replica Cannon Bombed Nine Days after its Installation" is throwing up a cite ref error; it also shows an error beside the listing under "Newspapers / News Agencies". SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Crucifix (Cimabue, Santa Croce)
A complex, physical and lifelike thirteenth century crucifixion scene by Cimabue. It is badly damaged now, after flooding in 1966. But its raw impact remains, and it marks an important break from the Byzantine style. Francis Bacon, who didn't give praise lightly, held this as one of his favourite old master works. Ceoil (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Johnbod
- Nice to see a really early, foundational painting at FAC!
- Note it is Harold Osborne, not the usual Osbourne - I get caught by that too.
- I'm a bit worried by "His body slumps in rigor mortis, contorted by prolonged agony and pain." both in medical and art historical terms. As yr Wikipedian chum could not doubt tell you, rigor mortis only sets in from 4 hours or more after death. Before that the body would relax, losing any "contortions", I would think. In the Gospel accounts Christ seems to have been taken down long before that, the sort of point the Middle Ages took note of. Also you say later this is an early example of the suffering Christ. Some Christs were shown as dead on the cross, but I think only later. This was touchy theological ground, where painters had to take care they were in tune with current Church thinking. I'll look around.
-
- I think what should have been said was close to rigor mortis, but have removed this. I think the point about the suffering Christ should stand, if only for the leap forward in realism this painting represents. I would be most interested if you find more on this. Ceoil (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not done Ceoil (talk) 10:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- "It has hung in the Basilica di Santa Croce, Florence since the late thirteenth century." Apparently not - it was in the Uffizi Gallery since I don't know when, until 1959. Pity it it didn't stay there. See here. My copy of White, John. Art and Architecture in Italy, 1250 to 1400, London, Penguin Books, 1966, 2nd edn 1987 (now Yale History of Art series). ISBN 0140561285 still calls it the "Uffizi Crucifix". Ok - in Uffizi 1948-59.
- Also, a travel site says it is currently in the Museo dell'Opera Santa Croce, not the church itself.
- I wonder if the attribution section is a bit too confident. White, who has 24 pages on Cimabue, and only 3 column inches on this, thinks there are "reasonable grounds for placing [it] in Cimabue's workshop", which is less than a ringing endorsement. Crowe & Cavalcaselle, back in the day, reject the attribution.
- a) "Each of Cimabue's three surviving crucifixes were commissioned by the Franciscan order." and b) Arezzo cross caption: "The earliest of the two surviving crucifixes attributed to Cimabue ..."
- I have found some good stuff in Gertrud Schiller's 75 pages on the Crucifixion image, some specific to this painting. Is it ok if I add? He is dead, though nothing about riggr mortis, which I think is best dropped.
- I got rid of the stuff about riggr mortis, and would be delighted if you added. Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note we have Joseph Archer Crowe and Giovanni Battista Cavalcaselle
- More later. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Currently the article says, in the same para: "Christ is presented as a limp, defeated corpse nailed to a cross" and "his head falls to the side from fatigue and the physical reality of approaching death.". Then in the next: "His eyes are open and his skin is unblemished" The first doesn't seem the case, and the second is questionable - there are the usual wounds for one thing.
- "Osbourne" still not corrected (my first point).
- "Contemporaries such as Dante believed that Giotto, Cimabue's pupil, developed and perfected the innovations of his master." Neither Dante nor Osborne actually say this. What Osborne says is pretty much as here, and all Dante says is "Cimabue thought to hold the field of painting; and now Giotto’s name is on everyone’s lips, to the point of obscuring Cimabue’s reputation’ (Purgatorio xi, 94–7)" - Grove translation.
- I think the attribution section still needs work. You could use the White quote above. At the moment you say " It is relatively primitive compared his 1290s works, and is thus believed to date from his early period. It is considered an important transitional piece, however "antiquated"." ref to Crowe and & Cavalcaselle, back in the day, but to repeat myself, they rejected the attribution.
- "antiquated" actually came from Henry Fuseli, much further back in the day, but got mangled in reorgs. Now removed, with earlier career cited to Grove. Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- The Grove bio has useful stuff, which I've sent you. Did you see Osborne on "Crucifixion" also?
Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note to Johnbod and coordinators - the feedback and sources provided here will take another weekend to properly incorporate. Its all very nuanced and frankly exciting, but I need time to digest. Ceoil (talk) 09:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- All now incorporated. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Museo_di_santa_croce,_crocifisso_di_cimabue_1.JPG needs a licensing tag for the original work, not just the photo
- File:Ivo_Bazzechi_Cimabue_Flood.jpg: source link is dead, when/where was this photo first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Gerda
Thank you for an article about a piece of art that impressed me. Minor concerns:
- "Crucifixion": I am a bit confused by the image of the flood-damaged face that early, and without explanation. I would expect it later, where the flooding is handled.
- "His eyes are wide open and his skin unblemished, but his body full of power". How "but"? I miss details about the Isaac source. Interesting ideas there!
- Link for Giotto?
- "less dependent on specific physical and facial types" - not sure what that means
- "Saints" - old-fashioned me would prefer the images on the right
- "Carpentry", image: I don't know if our average readers know "in situ", also it's not in the Basilica itself, but in a chapel in the museum.
- "Commission": I wonder if that paragraph - of background - should come sooner.
Excellent final statement, about the hybrid piece of art! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Support. Thank you for your improvements. I'd prefer to read about present location of the Crucifix in the image caption (in "Carpentry"), but that's a minor concern. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments from the Bounder
Lead
- "It is one of two large crucifixes thought to be by his hand,[1] and hung in the Basilica di Santa Croce, Florence since the late thirteenth century, but has been at the Museo dell'Opera Santa Croce since the 1960s" This one sentence is quite long and carries a lot of information: would splitting it aid the flow of the words?
Description
- The second sentence ("Cimabue achieves a masterful handling of colour.") doesn't seem to follow from its predecessor, ("Medieval churches tended to be extremely colourful ...") and the effect is slightly jarring. I think I know what you're trying to convey, but I'm not sure it works as it stands. (Partly because the section title suggests a description of the crucifix, and you start off with the interior decoration of medieval churches). Maybe switch the church information to the end and then tie it to the crucifix?
Crucifixion
- "His undress highlights his vulnerability, reinforces his humanity and humility. It seems influenced by a thirteenth-century Franciscan Meditation on Christ..." These two are written in Wikipedia's voice, and I think they (or at least the first sentence) should probably be attributed to someone.
- I toned down the wording, which to memory was perhaps more my voice than should have been. Ceoil (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- "His eyes are wide open and his skin unblemished, but his body full of power; symbolic of everlasting life." I think this should probably be attributed too.
- This sentence is confused and misses the point, will clarify,although note except for the everlasting bit, its descriptive. Ceoil (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Commission
- Should mid twenties be hyphenated?
A very interesting article; I hope you find these comments helpful. – The Bounder (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support. That looks great. A note for those who take action on these matters: I am a relatively new editor, so please weigh my comments and support accordingly. Thanks - The Bounder (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Your comments were well made. Thank you for helping and supporting the article. Ceoil (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Cas Liber
A nice read - queries below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
-
I'm not a fan of isolated sentences - I'd take that last sentence in the lead and tack it onto the first para.that'll do...
else looking good....support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- On it. Moved the sentence, but happy to edit further if it still seems awkward. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Coord note
Source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Sagaciousphil
I've watched this article being developed for a while now. Just a couple of very minor nitpicks:
- Description/Crucifixion, 2nd paragraph: "His nakedness highlight his vulnerability and suffering." Shouldn't it be highlights?
- 1966 damage and restoration, final paragraph: "The restoration was covered by international press" Could just be me but I'd say the international press?
These niggly little quibbles do not detract from my Support of promotion. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Forensic chemistry
The various forensic disciplines are tasked with providing valid scientific evidence during the legal process. Forensic chemistry is the discipline that helps investigators determine the identity of unknown materials found during the course of an investigation. Forensic chemists use a variety of instrumentation and methods in the course of their work and follow strict standards and guidelines in order to ensure that their results are valid and admissible in a courtroom.
Today, I bring forth forensic chemistry as a featured article candidate. I rewrote the entire article last year and brought it up to GA status. Since that time, there has been little needed maintenance showing its comprehensive nature. This is my first FAC and I hope that you all enjoy reading the article. I look forward to answering any questions regarding it. --Majora (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Jim
Welcome to the bearpit! I'm a chemistry graduate and a former expert witness in a different field, so this caught my attention. Before I go any further, two issues regarding comprehensiveness.
- I get little sense of a global perspective here. The only standards agency given is the US one, and I see no mention of any other jurisdiction. Should this be moved to Forensic chemistry in the US?
- I'm not really seeing what you are seeing I'm afraid. I tried to keep everything as general as possible and avoided getting too specific with any one country. All of the methods and standards are international. SWGDRUG is an international society comprised of scientists representing multiple different countries and the UN. They were created in the US but they work towards international standards acceptance not just US acceptance (see [12]). The history section takes into account the various international scientists that made forensic chemistry the way it is today. Moving it to Forensic chemistry in the US would really not be truthful as the information in the article is valid for any country. --Majora (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Although you link to expert witness in the lead, I don't think that's sufficient. The lead is meant to be a summary of the main text, but I see nothing in the body of the report regarding testifying in court. The whole point of any forensic work is that at some stage you may have to be cross-examined on what you have written, and you need to explain in your text more about the role of a forensic expert in court. As it stands, you don't mention anywhere the need for independence, FRE rule 702, how experts are paid, or anything else regarding the role of an expert witness in the US (assuming that's where we are staying).
- I can definitely go into more about testifying and what is expected of an expert witness. It would fit nicely into the standards section anyways. But I don't think we should be going too far into FRE/Daubert/Frye standards since those are definitely US specific and would requiring going down to state level differences that would probably be too much. --Majora (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
At first glance, the article otherwise looks pretty good, but I'm reluctant to go through in detail until we have discussed or resolved the comprehensiveness question. Jimfbleak (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- OK, fair enough, ping me when you're ready Jimfbleak (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Jimfbleak: I just want to apologize for the delay. Things got a little hectic during the last couple of days and I haven't had the time to finish off the requested text. It is still being worked on and I should have it done either today or tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. --Majora (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Jimfbleak: All set. Let me know what you think. --Majora (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
This looks to be a very good and comprehensive article, so the following are just minor nit-picks before I support Jimfbleak (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- can provide directions for investigators to look in—Call me old-fashioned, but I don't like the final proposition, rejig?
- In the Role in investigations section, there is some repetition, eg "For example","would tell"
- Just for info, there are repeated links to strychnine, arson and retention factor— not enough to matter, so you can ignore if you wish
- Stas' method—is there an article to link to?
- a unique spectrum when exposed to a specific wavelength of light—doesn't make sense as written, you can't get a spectrum from a single wavelength
- examine the plant proteins that make up chlorophyll—I'm not convinced that chlorophyll is a protein, it's a pigment like heme
- Sort of. Chlorophyll by itself is a pigment. But it doesn't exist that way in plants. It is attached to a protein. Just like heme is part of a hemeprotein. The section on this in the chlorophyll article explains it far better than I ever could. "The identity, function and spectral properties of the types of chlorophyll in each photosystem are distinct and determined by each other and the protein structure surrounding them." is the relevant part of that section. --Majora (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Certain aspects that forensic chemists must be aware of—here and elsewhere, the tone is a bit WP:How to, maybe Factors that forensic chemists might consider or similar. Please check for similar
- I see what you mean and I like your suggestion for the fix there. I have changed out the line (and made sure to give you credit for the idea ). I'll go through the rest of the article but I would appreciate it if you could point out where you see that just to make sure I get it all. --Majora (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- behalf of the prosecution or the defense—In the English legal system at least, experts can be jointly instructed by both sides
- Is it worth mentioning that experts' remuneration cannot be dependent on outcome?
- It would be hard to find a source that is all encompassing that would say that. Experts that work for the prosecution are going to be paid regardless since testifying is part of their job requirements. For the defense experts and judge appointed experts I can see what I can find. --Majora (talk) 02:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- attorney—would lawyer be better than the more specifically US term?
- You don't need to give retrieval dates for on-line versions of real publications like journals, just for web-only articles which might change
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Mike Christie
A few points, but generally this looks to be FA quality.
I wouldn't oppose over this, but you might consider moving the "Role in investigations" section down below the "History" section.- When I first added it, I thought about doing that. I put it above after thinking how someone who knows nothing about the topic may want to read it. After the intro reading about what forensic chemistry actually does in investigations seemed like the logical choice. If they want to continue, then the history section and the rest of it. I can certainly change it around if you think that would be received better. --Majora (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, that's fine; I can see your point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- When I first added it, I thought about doing that. I put it above after thinking how someone who knows nothing about the topic may want to read it. After the intro reading about what forensic chemistry actually does in investigations seemed like the logical choice. If they want to continue, then the history section and the rest of it. I can certainly change it around if you think that would be received better. --Majora (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
"there is a specific blood alcohol content cutoff where penalties begin or increase": shouldn't this be "there are specific blood alcohol content cutoffs where penalties begin or increase"?- "A bottle of strychnine extract was easily obtainable in apothecaries": as far as I can see you don't make this point in the article text, so I think you should cite it in the caption. I'd also suggest making this "was once easily obtainable".
- So, I've been thinking about this and the source would be the image itself and the catalog page [13]. Is that what you were looking for? The fact that it came from an apothecary is on the bottle. "Manufacturing Chemists" is an alternative term for them. I changed it to say was "once" easily obtainable. As for the source, did you just want me to use the link above? --Majora (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not going to let this hold up my support, but I think ideally we'd use an explicit written source. Google Books has Wildlife, Land, and People: A Century of Change in Prairie Canada by Donald G. Wetherell, which includes the phrase "Good-quality strychnine could now be had cheaply everywhere", which I think does it. That particular book is one of those weird Google Books transcriptions that has no page numbers, so it would be annoying to cite, but you could use that if nothing else can be found. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- So, I've been thinking about this and the source would be the image itself and the catalog page [13]. Is that what you were looking for? The fact that it came from an apothecary is on the bottle. "Manufacturing Chemists" is an alternative term for them. I changed it to say was "once" easily obtainable. As for the source, did you just want me to use the link above? --Majora (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
"The wide range of instrumentation for forensic chemical analysis also started during this time period": suggest "began to be developed" instead of "started"."GC-MS is also capable of quantifying substances which can be used by forensic chemists to determine the effect the substance would have on an individual": I initially misread this as saying that GC-MS is used to quantify some substances, and those substances are used by forensic chemsists to ...", so I'd suggest rephrasing. Perhaps "GC-MS is also capable of quantifying the substances it detects; forensic chemists can use this information to determine the effect the substance would have on an individual".There are some uncited sentences in the "Standards" section, at the end of each of the first two paragraphs.I'm not knowledgeable about this area, so I can't really tell if this is comprehensive or not, though it seems thorough. However, I was wondering if a short section about reference material or professional publications might be in order? Are there standard references that could be listed, or professional journals that are regarded as central to the field? This is only a suggestion -- don't feel obliged to follow it if there's nothing that fits this description.- They do have reference standards for comparison purposes and calibration. The phrase "NIST traceable" is common in all US forensics. I'm not sure what other countries use though. I would have to research some things to see. As for the publications, it looks like a forensic chemistry journal was just launched in March by Elsevier [14]. Whether or not that is going to be the go to journal for this field is to be seen. Currently most research in forensics is shared at conferences and published in a wide range of different journals and magazines. The Journal of Forensic Sciences being a big one (but not specific to this field). So central to "this" field? Not at this time that I am aware of (at least not until Forensic Chemistry gets a little bit more time to circulate). Central to forensics in general? Sure. But I am not sure that is what you are asking for. --Majora (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- It sounds like we're fine with what you have; I was just checking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- They do have reference standards for comparison purposes and calibration. The phrase "NIST traceable" is common in all US forensics. I'm not sure what other countries use though. I would have to research some things to see. As for the publications, it looks like a forensic chemistry journal was just launched in March by Elsevier [14]. Whether or not that is going to be the go to journal for this field is to be seen. Currently most research in forensics is shared at conferences and published in a wide range of different journals and magazines. The Journal of Forensic Sciences being a big one (but not specific to this field). So central to "this" field? Not at this time that I am aware of (at least not until Forensic Chemistry gets a little bit more time to circulate). Central to forensics in general? Sure. But I am not sure that is what you are asking for. --Majora (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: Responses made. --Majora (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Support. I think the referencing on the image caption for the strychnine bottle could be improved a little, but since, as Majora points out, the availability is reasonably evident from the label visible in the image I'm not concerned about it for FA status. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the support Mike Christie. In the interest of being complete I added a ref to the book you mentioned. The URL I put in is a direct link to the passage in question. The citation is just going to have to live without the page numbers at this point as it is hard to determine what it would be without actually counting. --Majora (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Giganotosaurus
This article is about one of the largest known meat-eating dinosaurs, and therefore one of the largest terrestrial carnivores to have ever existed. The dinosaur is thought to have equalled or even surpassed Tyrannosaurus in length, and the article is one of the most viewed dinosaur articles on Wikipedia. The article contains practically everything ever published about this animal, and covers the scientific debate/competition about the maximum size of theropod dinosaurs. The article is a GA and has been copy-edited. FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Jim
Very comprehensive and well written, but, of course, some quibbles
- I appreciate that there need to be some technical terms, but in places they appear unnecessary. How is "caudal (tail) vertebrae" better than "tail vertebrae" either in style or information content? Please check to see where the text can be made reader-friendlier
-
- I swapped the words so the scientific terms for vertebrae are in parenthesis. But for most of the other anatomical terms, the scientific terms are the most used, and using something like "groove" instead of sulcus would be too generic (and make the meaning less clear), I think. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
- Similarly, if you are going to use technical or mainly US terms, make sure they are linked. I noticed Vertebra, dune buggy and badlands, but there may be others
- genus of theropod dinosaur — is this a typo or a hunters' plural as in "I killed three lion, six tiger and two gigantosaur?
- honours the discoverer why do we have to read most of the article to find who he is?.
- fully devoted— how does this differ from "devoted"?
- WW2 expand and link
I might have another read through in due course. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments Support from Cas Liber
Great to see this one here - more soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Having read though, nothing else is jumping out at me...so looking okay really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC) i.e. support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Image review: All good. LittleJerry (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Source review
please note that I am not spot-checking refs and shall not be returning to strike out my queries
- ref 1 - since it is an encyclopedia, it needs to be in italics.
- do we know the publisher for ref 6?
- Is Skeletal Drawing a credible source?
-
- Scott Hartman is a published palaeontologist[16], Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think you need to wiki-link NPR and it's not need italics.
- ref 19 - ditto (McFarland & Co.)
- Any reason for writing the full date only in ref 27? Also, if I am not mistaken the date is 26 Sep not 11 Sep.
- Wiki-links needed for the following: PLoS ONE (31), Acta Palaeontologica Polonica (34), news.nationalgeographic.com (36; you can simply write it as National Geographic) and Cretaceous Research (37). – Liebe99 (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Spot check
I'll spot check some refs presently. using this version in case refs are movedCas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- FN 5 - used twice - material faithful to source
- FN 33 - used once - material faithful to source
- FN 37 - used twice - material faithful to source
ok I'm happy Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Mike Christie
Generally looks in good shape. A few comments:
"during the early Cenomanian age, of the Late Cretaceous period": I don't think you need that comma.
- Is the image showing comparisons of size sourced? I don't see anything indicating the sources when I click through to the file; the details in the history persuade that it is very likely based on sourced data, but I think it should either be sourced here in the article or else in the file.
-
- "Rescued" this data from another version of the image.[17] FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Two of the four links given are to Wikipedia users, and one is a broken link. The other is to a blog, which looks like it might pass RS, but I don't see the specific pages or data given that support the image used here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- The sizes shown are within the range of what's stated in the cited article text, so I could perhaps add those sources? As noted in the discussion linked below, WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE should secure the use of user-made images. FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Two of the four links given are to Wikipedia users, and one is a broken link. The other is to a blog, which looks like it might pass RS, but I don't see the specific pages or data given that support the image used here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- "Rescued" this data from another version of the image.[17] FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
"some writers have considered such sizes exaggerated": this is positioned to make it seem that the scepticism only applies to the second specimen, but since the estimated sizes are barely largely than those estimated for the holotype I'm curious to know if the scepticism applies to both sets of sizes? If so I'd make that clearer in the text.
"The maxilla of the upper jaw": aren't these the same? I'd think this should be "The maxilla (upper jaw)".
-
- There is also the premaxilla (which is very small in humans), in front of the maxilla. It makes up a considerable part of the upper jaws in long-snouted animals. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Is the restoration sourced? E.g. is this just a Wikipedian's imagination or can it be shown to represent a reliable source's description? And the same question for the other two restoration images later in the article.
-
- Such restorations are normally drawn after skeletal reconstructions of some kind, but the artists don't always state which exact skeletal image they have based their drawings on. There was some discussion about whether user-made illustrations of dinosaurs were appropriate for Wikipedia[18], but the conclusion was that these are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE, but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions. In any case, the images have been under review at the Dinosaur Wiki Project's image review:[19] or on the talk page, and other users, including myself, have made some anatomical tweaks on them. Two of the artists (Dmitry Bogdanov and Nobu Tamura) have illustrated published dinosaur books as well. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- I haven't run into this before; I'll post on WT:FAC and try to get more opinions. My feeling is that it's fine for a Wikipedian to make a picture, and it doesn't have to be considered original research, but it should be possible for a reader to understand where the picture came from and why it's reliable. I don't think that's the case here. Let's see what others say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- It was discussed at length at the "no original research" talk page[20], with the consensus mentioned above. So feel free to start a new discussion, but please make clear that it has already been discussed with a favourable outcome, with emphasis on WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE. There was also this lead-up discussion:[21] FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- I haven't run into this before; I'll post on WT:FAC and try to get more opinions. My feeling is that it's fine for a Wikipedian to make a picture, and it doesn't have to be considered original research, but it should be possible for a reader to understand where the picture came from and why it's reliable. I don't think that's the case here. Let's see what others say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Such restorations are normally drawn after skeletal reconstructions of some kind, but the artists don't always state which exact skeletal image they have based their drawings on. There was some discussion about whether user-made illustrations of dinosaurs were appropriate for Wikipedia[18], but the conclusion was that these are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE, but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions. In any case, the images have been under review at the Dinosaur Wiki Project's image review:[19] or on the talk page, and other users, including myself, have made some anatomical tweaks on them. Two of the artists (Dmitry Bogdanov and Nobu Tamura) have illustrated published dinosaur books as well. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
"Though not completely known, it is possible that each dentary had twelve alveoli": suggest cutting the first four words; I don't think they say anything that "It is possible" doesn't say.
- "along with elements used by palaeontologists during the excavation": what does "elements" mean here?
-
- It most likely means equipment, but the source simpy says "The elements used by paleontologists during the searches are also on display." So not sure how much room there is for interpretation here. FunkMonk (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- If we don't know exactly what it means, I think it should just be cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I know from for example this[22] blog post that these "elements" are a dune buggy and field tools, but not sure how reliable it is to use as source, though it is rather uncontroversial information. FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Can you use the pictures here to support the description? The dune buggy shows up there a couple of times, and in at least one shot I can see tools. I know these are user-contributed pictures, but tripadvisor exercises editorial control over what gets displayed, so I think this would count as a reliable source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- In that case, this[23] Tripadvisor review specifically states "El Buggy que utilizaba Ruben Carolini cuando encontró al Dinosaurio mas grande del mundo". So perhaps better than citing an image? FunkMonk (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, that's better; I think I'd cite the image too, just to make sure nobody complains about the user-generated nature of the quote. Can't use that for the tools, though, but the buggy is the main point, since it was clearly set up to look like the discovery scene. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- In that case, this[23] Tripadvisor review specifically states "El Buggy que utilizaba Ruben Carolini cuando encontró al Dinosaurio mas grande del mundo". So perhaps better than citing an image? FunkMonk (talk) 11:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Can you use the pictures here to support the description? The dune buggy shows up there a couple of times, and in at least one shot I can see tools. I know these are user-contributed pictures, but tripadvisor exercises editorial control over what gets displayed, so I think this would count as a reliable source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I know from for example this[22] blog post that these "elements" are a dune buggy and field tools, but not sure how reliable it is to use as source, though it is rather uncontroversial information. FunkMonk (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- If we don't know exactly what it means, I think it should just be cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- It most likely means equipment, but the source simpy says "The elements used by paleontologists during the searches are also on display." So not sure how much room there is for interpretation here. FunkMonk (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
"The discussion of what was the largest theropod": suggest "The discussion of which theropod was the largest".
"would help in understanding of the Late Cretaceous dinosaur faunas": suggest "would help in the understanding of Late Cretaceous dinosaur faunas".
"Lake Ezquiel Ramos Mexia": a Google search suggests this might be a typo for "Ezequiel".
"estimates in absolute values like newtons was impossible": either "estimating ... was impossible", or "estimates ... were impossible".
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the review, I'll respond later today. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've struck most of the points except the ones about the images; I'll ask at WT:FAC and see what others say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Per the conversation at WT:FAC, if you can add sources to the other images as well I think that addresses the image issue. That just leaves the "elements" point, which I think we're agreed on but the change is not yet in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I think the Tripadvisor links are maybe a bit iffy, how about using this more official-looking site[24] about that exhibition which says "it houses bone replicas, lifestyles and tools used by paleontologists", and replacing the word "elements" with "tools" in this article?
- Yes, that would definitely be an improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Support. Just had a look, and all four of the restoration pictures now have sources; that was my only remaining objection. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! Good to now have a standard for how to do this in the future. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Ike Altgens
I know, I know ... I said I would never put myself through this again—but this article deserves its place in the sun.
Promoted to FA status in 2006, it fell into disrepair and was demoted in 2010. After a good deal of work and a peer review that went nowhere, I brought it to FAC in 2014 only to watch it die on the vine. Instead, I went to GAN, where Location quite properly put it through the ringer, and MrBill3 lent a vital hand in bringing the article to GA status. It has been virtually untouched since—stable, thorough, correct, and ready. I am bound to see this one through. —ATS 🖖 Talk 07:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Reviewers please note: this article contains numerous invisible comments, some of which provide citations to otherwise non-controversial details that may not appear on their face to be cited.
Comments from Redtigerxyz
- Lead sentence: I googled Ike. He seems to be best known for his photographs with the JFK assassination. IMO, this should be noted in the lead sentence or at least the 1st para. Compare Richard Drew (photographer).
-
- Done.
- WP:OVERLINK: film, actor, model, television, dialogue etc. need not be linked.
-
- Disagree with "model"—too many meanings. Otherwise done.
- JFK needs to be linked. The article seems to assume an American reader; how Jackie is related to JFK is not told.
-
- Done.
- Jumping to Assassination of President Kennedy section: "This meant that what I took, ... " quote is sudden without context; When did Ike say this? Immediate reaction, in an interview decades after? Similarly for "To have a President shot ... "
-
- First: done; second: all part of "Altgens would later write".
- A non-American may not understand the JFK, John F. Kennedy is the same person; similarly Jacqueline Kennedy, Jackie Kennedy
-
- Done.
- I can't locate the details of "Hill & McCubbin 2013"
-
- Got lost in an old edit. Restored.
- Was there any concrete findings about Ike's death?
-
- Not that I ever found.
- "elsewhere to question whether accused assassinLee Harvey Oswald was visible in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository" again misses context. The lead needs to clarify that this was used to "prove" Oswald's innocence.
-
- Added as a note; unnecessary in main text, IMO. My thanks for your comments, Redtigerxyz.
Redtigerxyz Talk 15:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- I had never heard about Ike before this article, so I am a little unsure about comprehensiveness. I have a few queries purely based on Googling (forgive my ignorance if some of these queries are foolish):
-
- [27] covers importance of Ike's photo as evidence in Warren Commission.
Apart from these quibbles, my Googling suggests this article is near comprehensiveness.--Redtigerxyz Talk 15:38, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- Hi, Redtigerxyz, and thanks again.
- First, the phrasing of the number of photos is quite intentional; while Ike made seven total in Dealey Plaza (see note a.), there were two of the assassination—one during the shooting, one seconds later. "Altgens6" was in the article, but was removed after a search found no use of the term by anyone in an official capacity. (The term is specific to researchers.)
- Second, I don't see anything in your book reference that should be in the article and isn't there already. Can you be more specific?
- —ATS 🖖 Talk 19:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Redtigerxyz. Is there anything additional I need to do for this article to earn your support? Thanks for your help! —ATS 🖖 talk 21:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support on comprehensiveness and prose - my queries have already been asked by Redtigerxyz - only other minor thing would be any details on how he was orpahned but presume that those records are lost. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- As near as I've ever been able to tell, your presumption is correct.
Since you bring it up, though, I'll look around again.My thanks. (Edit: source [Trask 1994, p. 307] cites four sources for all data in the instant graf. I cannot find "Lone 'Pro' On Scene Where JFK Was Shot" for reference; it's not in WCH v.7, p. 516; and the other sources are two interviews of Altgens by Trask. Further detail may never be forthcoming, I'm afraid.) (Edit 2: I was able to get additional information, now in the article. There's actually quite a bit of stuff I didn't see two years ago.) —ATS 🖖 Talk 01:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
- As near as I've ever been able to tell, your presumption is correct.
Comments from Tintor2
- The article looks pretty good but I found some issues while checking it:
- The lead uses some references. If the information is too doubtful, keep the refs. If it's minor then delete them.
-
- Hi, Tintor2, and thanks. Refs are here per the GAN, since the lede includes statements (the controversy, in particular) that need immediate back-up. That said, I'll take another look.
- The body also uses to many quotes. I have often been criticized for this in the past so I would recommend you to paraphrase some or simply make some quotes boxes.
-
- The quotes also were reduced during the GAN, but I'll take another look. Certain statements really cannot go without direct quotation.
Other than that, I see no issues. Just solve them or explain me the issues and I'll support the article.Tintor2 (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'll pop back in after I'm done. Thanks again. —ATS 🖖 talk 22:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Update: that should do it, Tintor2; the remaining quotes should all be vital to the narrative per the GAN. Please let me know if you have additional concerns. My thanks for your input. —ATS 🖖 talk 23:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments Support from John
Formatting
Nice article. We are breaking MOS:ALLCAPS with the news bulletin, I think? --John (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll go with that, John, and thank you. Fixed. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I still don't like the fancy font. What does it add to the reader's understanding? Why are the images displayed at non-standard size? --John (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, John. The idea is to highlight that this is a news bulletin, as opposed to "just" a quote. This always struck me as a necessity. As for the images,
I'll look into that, thanks.I've kicked them down a notch. The idea is that each includes quite a bit of text, so some balance was desired.
- Hi, John. The idea is to highlight that this is a news bulletin, as opposed to "just" a quote. This always struck me as a necessity. As for the images,
- I still don't like the fancy font. What does it add to the reader's understanding? Why are the images displayed at non-standard size? --John (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Prose
- "In addition"?
-
-
- Gone. In fact, rewritten to rm unneeded quote, too.
-
- "Altgens began his career at age 19 " - what is the "age" adding? Just "at 19" or "aged 19" is better.
-
- Gone altogether; the years are enough.
- There are three "though"s in the first two paragraphs. None of them are needed.
-
- None of them remains.
- "He asked instead to go to the railroad overcrossing where Elm, Main and Commerce Streets converge to photograph the motorcade that would take President Kennedy from Love Field to the Dallas Trade Mart, where Kennedy was to deliver an address" is a tortured sentence. At least give it another comma after "converge".
-
- Fixed.
- Fifteen instances of "would" are far too many in a short article. It looks clumsy. American English is more in love with this construction than British English but even in a US context this is too many, and we write for an international audience.
-
- Seven removed; the remainder are direct quotes or necessary.
- We have 22 quotes, including one which is emphasised twice by having it in a quote box and in bold type. This is way too many; see WP:OVERQUOTE. Most of these can be summarised and, as mentioned, the formatting needs to be fixed. --John (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Overlinking
Hey, John? I don't remember where I read it, but it was my understanding that every instance of a WLed page within the sources was supposed to be linked. Did I get that wrong? —ATS 🖖 talk 20:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's at MOS:DUPLINK. --John (talk) 21:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks. Are your concerns addressed? —ATS 🖖 talk 00:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Without yet having done my detailed reading, I am still somewhat unhappy with image formatting WP:IMGSIZE, the fancy font, and make versus take, in spite of your reasons given for all three. I also note the wise words of Tony below. I am certainly not ready to support yet. --John (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, John.
- I've re-read IMGSIZE about five times now, and I feel like a complete idiot. I cannot imagine why this would be a sticking point. Nevertheless, the IB image is the default and the rest are upright=1.
- The "fancy font" is gone.
- "Make" was Ike's preference on top of its correct use. If it's your support-killer, I'll change it, but under severe protest . —ATS 🖖 talk 20:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Perhaps we could compromise on the verb choice. I see eight "made"s and two "make"s (one of which is in a quote). I think using this word at all is contentious, though I follow your reasoning for why you have done it. I think ten instances is too many. Perhaps there is a middle path possible here? --John (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Without yet having done my detailed reading, I am still somewhat unhappy with image formatting WP:IMGSIZE, the fancy font, and make versus take, in spite of your reasons given for all three. I also note the wise words of Tony below. I am certainly not ready to support yet. --John (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks. Are your concerns addressed? —ATS 🖖 talk 00:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, John. Is there anything additional I need to do for this article to earn your support? Thanks for your help! —ATS 🖖 talk 21:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- We're down to 16 quotations now which is better but it is still too many for such a short article. Which are the most important ones, do you think? Are things like "they had put him through the interrogation wringer" really essential to the article? (Oh, and we can't put wikilinks into quotes I don't think). --John (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, John. I agree with the interrogation quote; it's now rephrased. I've rephrased a second quote and moved it into the accompanying note. Location hasn't edited in four months but, were he here, I believe he would argue strongly for the remainder, specific to the UNDUE and/or OR issues raised in GAN. (In some cases, the quotes are mandatory in that unsupported inferences could be made from any paraphrasing thereof.) —ATS 🖖 talk 23:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, you said. What does "In some cases, the quotes are mandatory in that unsupported inferences could be made from any paraphrasing thereof" mean? --John (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, John. I meant were mandatory in respect to passing GAN, and should be here. Some of the quotes—from Ike, from news agencies, from witnesses, etc.—would be open to interpretation were they paraphrased. The assassination remains a highly contested subject among many people all these years later; anything that could lead to SYNTH issues cannot, by policy, not be quoted. Anything specific? —ATS 🖖 talk 23:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Down to 14 now. All but the most important one or two should be summarised. The full quote can be moved to the references if it is essential to keep them in the article. Incidentally, I feel like querying "anything that could lead to SYNTH issues cannot, by policy, not be quoted": what policy would that be? On my side of the argument we have the fact that our project is to build a free encyclopedia, and having about 10% of the article made up of other people's words will work against that. --John (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- The policy is OR. Meantime, I'll see what I can do. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, John, we're down to the seven quotes I believe cannot go. (This number does not include the news bulletin or Jackie Kennedy's quote therein.) —ATS 🖖 talk 20:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's definitely getting there. --John (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- <impassioned plea>John, your help is invaluable. I want this article to be the best it can be. Antiseptic and dehumanized is not the best it can be. We have here a man who, by all accounts, was thrust into a role in history unlike anyone else's. We cannot bleach the human from his own article any more than we can leave details open to interpretation. If we do, we've lost what Wikipedia is supposed to be. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)</impassioned plea>
- It's definitely getting there. --John (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Down to 14 now. All but the most important one or two should be summarised. The full quote can be moved to the references if it is essential to keep them in the article. Incidentally, I feel like querying "anything that could lead to SYNTH issues cannot, by policy, not be quoted": what policy would that be? On my side of the argument we have the fact that our project is to build a free encyclopedia, and having about 10% of the article made up of other people's words will work against that. --John (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, John. I meant were mandatory in respect to passing GAN, and should be here. Some of the quotes—from Ike, from news agencies, from witnesses, etc.—would be open to interpretation were they paraphrased. The assassination remains a highly contested subject among many people all these years later; anything that could lead to SYNTH issues cannot, by policy, not be quoted. Anything specific? —ATS 🖖 talk 23:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, you said. What does "In some cases, the quotes are mandatory in that unsupported inferences could be made from any paraphrasing thereof" mean? --John (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you, John. I agree with the interrogation quote; it's now rephrased. I've rephrased a second quote and moved it into the accompanying note. Location hasn't edited in four months but, were he here, I believe he would argue strongly for the remainder, specific to the UNDUE and/or OR issues raised in GAN. (In some cases, the quotes are mandatory in that unsupported inferences could be made from any paraphrasing thereof.) —ATS 🖖 talk 23:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- We're down to 16 quotations now which is better but it is still too many for such a short article. Which are the most important ones, do you think? Are things like "they had put him through the interrogation wringer" really essential to the article? (Oh, and we can't put wikilinks into quotes I don't think). --John (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
One by one:
- "but when JFK's head exploded ..." – Ike was the only man on the planet who could describe what he saw, what he did, and what he didn't do, during one of the most pivotal moments in world history.
- "Secret Service men, ..." – this one could go and is now in the note.
- "probably the most controversial photograph ..." — serves two purposes: it gives the reader the proper historical perspective that would otherwise be missing, and it shows that the controversy was not limited to "the fringe".
- "because it caused him to bolt ..." – only Ike could, in his own words, explain his perspective.
- "became very controversial" – this one could go and is now in the note.
- "no blood on the right-hand side ..." – only Ike could, in his own words, explain his perspective.
- "By being up there ..." – only Ike could, in his own words, explain his perspective.
So, we're down to five. I will argue with all possible strength that they remain. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- User:ATS, I appreciate your passion and energy. I intend to support but I want to take one more pass at the article before I do so. I'm a notoriously picky FA reviewer but I hope you will agree a thorough one. Thank you for indulging my suggestions as well as you have and engaging so intelligently in this review. I predict my part in this will be resolved in the next 48 hours or less. I hope that is ok with your timescales. --John (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- My thanks and appreciation, John—this article would not be the best it can be without your help and that of other reviewers. I would only reiterate that to bleach the man from his own article steps away from that goal, both for this article and the encyclopedia as a whole. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry that was such a long 48 hours, ATS. I had real life things to do. Here are my copyedits, and I hope you don't think I've altered the meaning of your article. I can now support. Thanks for all the hard work. --John (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks so much, John! There are some minor things that I will fix presently. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome, but I am disappointed you undid most of my copyedits. What does "atop" mean that "on" does not? What is an "overcrossing" other than a bridge? --John (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, John, and apologies for any disappointment.
- "Atop" is for clarity specific to Mrs. Kennedy's appearance in Altgens' photo; in the corresponding Zapruder and Nix film frames it is clear that she is partially on and partially in.
- I kept "overcrossing" since we've painted a somewhat limited picture of Dealey Plaza for the reader and "Bridge? What bridge?" occurred to me as a potential reaction. "Railroad bridge" would work, but seemed unnecessary.
- "Event" seemed to me to underplay the assassination.
- Without "thoroughly", simply being interrogated doesn't adequately express what Altgens saw ("put through the interrogation wringer".)
- "Discussed" minimizes the debate, so "debated" now supplants "argued".
- "from his position ..." adds clarity. Yours used fewer words, but something got lost.
I'll see if I can do better.Fixed. "newsmen and women ..." I'd intentionally used "members of the press" because there were editors and photographers in addition to journalists.Sort-of self-reverted [changed "featuring" to the more accurate "including"].
- If you have other preferences, please, go right ahead. —ATS 🖖 talk 21:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- "Atop" is the wrong word. It means "on top of". She isn't on top of the car, she is half-in, half scrambling onto the trunk. "Atop" isn't right. --John (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll come up with something. (Edit: this was always one of my biggest headaches—a frozen moment of time in a whirlwind of activity, and we can describe only what's in the photo. We know only by the films that her lower legs are holding her in place. We know only by the films that she was reaching for something and at this point is using her hand as an anchor. We know only by the films that she was facing rearward, but her head has turned forward. Not in, not out, not on, not "facing". Where's my bloody Advil?! ) Are my other changes agreeable? —ATS 🖖 talk 22:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- "Atop" is the wrong word. It means "on top of". She isn't on top of the car, she is half-in, half scrambling onto the trunk. "Atop" isn't right. --John (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, John, and apologies for any disappointment.
- You're welcome, but I am disappointed you undid most of my copyedits. What does "atop" mean that "on" does not? What is an "overcrossing" other than a bridge? --John (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks so much, John! There are some minor things that I will fix presently. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry that was such a long 48 hours, ATS. I had real life things to do. Here are my copyedits, and I hope you don't think I've altered the meaning of your article. I can now support. Thanks for all the hard work. --John (talk) 19:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- My thanks and appreciation, John—this article would not be the best it can be without your help and that of other reviewers. I would only reiterate that to bleach the man from his own article steps away from that goal, both for this article and the encyclopedia as a whole. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
-
Image review
- File:Altgens1970s.jpg: Image of the subject is good for top infobox, license in OTRS which I don't have access to.
- File:Altgens1.jpg: Non-free file in a pertinent section, it needs more explanation on how the article would be harmed by its absence, and most of the explanation of how WP:NFCC#3 is met seems irrelevant to #3 and more pertinent to #8. Everything else seems OK.
- File:Altgens2.jpg: Same as above.
- File:Altgens blowup.jpg: Same as above, if that is the image that was used to identify Lee Harvey Oswald then the NFCC#8 claim would have sound merit.
Images ought to have ALT text per WP:ALTTEXT to satisfy WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Everything should be addressed, Jo-Jo Eumerus. My thanks! —ATS 🖖 talk 19:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Um, actually, the file pages need to better address why these images are needed in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I fixed that, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Can you be more specific? (Edit: I've made additional changes.) —ATS 🖖 talk 20:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's a problem not with the article but with the images. Each image has a filepage and when the image is non-free the file page needs to contain text that explains "how does this image significantly improve the understanding of the article topic and why would it be a loss to readers if it wasn't there?" Illustrative of Ike Altgens fulfilling his duties as photojournalist assigned to Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963 is very basic and probably not enough. As for File:Altgens blowup.jpg, the explanation should probably be under the NFCC#8 header rather than the NFCC#3 one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, fixed the blowup. As for the rest, it's 04:17 hours here and I'm going to bed. Back sometime later. —ATS 🖖 talk 11:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Jo-Jo Eumerus: all fixed. I hope. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- All seems fine, but File:Altgens1.jpg seems to be unsupported by the rationale. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed. Again, my thanks. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Again with not being clear. Why can we not discuss "the man thought to resemble Lee Harvey Oswald" without [[:]]? I don't see it. If there is an explanation, it needs to be stated on the file page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed. Again, my thanks. —ATS 🖖 talk 01:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- All seems fine, but File:Altgens1.jpg seems to be unsupported by the rationale. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's a problem not with the article but with the images. Each image has a filepage and when the image is non-free the file page needs to contain text that explains "how does this image significantly improve the understanding of the article topic and why would it be a loss to readers if it wasn't there?" Illustrative of Ike Altgens fulfilling his duties as photojournalist assigned to Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963 is very basic and probably not enough. As for File:Altgens blowup.jpg, the explanation should probably be under the NFCC#8 header rather than the NFCC#3 one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I fixed that, Jo-Jo Eumerus. Can you be more specific? (Edit: I've made additional changes.) —ATS 🖖 talk 20:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Um, actually, the file pages need to better address why these images are needed in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I have to admit, Jo-Jo Eumerus, you have me completely flummoxed. The file page now reads, "(purpose of use:) Illustration of the controversy surrounding this image and discussed within the article. Specifically, proper discussion of "the man thought to resemble Lee Harvey Oswald" would be difficult if not impossible without visual depiction of the location of the subject relative to the motorcade." Please alleviate my headache and actually tell me what's missing. Please? —ATS 🖖 talk 19:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- The problem I see with that image is that it seems very generic. The other two images are pertinent to his role in the event; this one seems just like a generic image of the motorcad. I don't think it meets WP:NFCC#8 and its omission would be detrimental to that [the article topic's] understanding. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- This image, and only this image, was scrutinized for the visage and position of "the man in the doorway" respective to the motorcade as the first gunshot (per Altgens) is fired. (Edit: I've tried to word it better, based on my explanation here.) —ATS 🖖 talk 19:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- That makes it clearer. Only thing that might be worth doing would be to add the explanation to the fair use rationale on the file page, in the section on NFCC#8 so as to ward off pedants - the non-free use policy is not known for being softhanded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- This image, and only this image, was scrutinized for the visage and position of "the man in the doorway" respective to the motorcade as the first gunshot (per Altgens) is fired. (Edit: I've tried to word it better, based on my explanation here.) —ATS 🖖 talk 19:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Sarastro
Comments from Sarastro: This looks good, and I've just a few little nitpicks and queries here. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- "then did advertising work until he retired altogether": "Did" seems a little weak here; would "worked in advertising" be better?
-
- Hi, Sarastro1, and thank you!
I'll take a look.Done.
- Hi, Sarastro1, and thank you!
- "when they died in 1995, at about the same time": I can see why this has been written, based on what is in the main body, but it is a little confusing when read in the lead in isolation. Maybe reword it as "when they were found dead in their Dallas home on 12 December 1995". Although that makes it sound more mysterious than it was.
-
I'll see if I can improve it.Done.
- "Altgens began his career at age 19 by doing odd jobs": This may be an ENGVAR thing, but "at age 19" sounds odd to me, and I'd prefer "aged 19" but it's not a big deal if it is engvar. I think the sentence would be better with "by" removed.
-
- Honestly, "began his career aged 19" sounds like he worked with cheese or wine. Flows better as is, IMO.
- The section on his appearance in "Beyond the Time Barrier" seems to be cited simply to the film itself. This strikes me as possibly OR; how do we know that this is really him? (I don't doubt for a minute that it is, but there is a principle!) We really need to cite a source that lists his film work. It is possible this is done in Trask, in which case I think the references need re-ordering a little.
-
It is in Trask; that said, I'll have a look.Done.
- "Since that was not originally his assignment, Altgens took his personal camera, a 35mm Nikkorex-F single lens reflex camera with a 105mm telephoto lens, rather than the motor-driven camera usually used for news events": I don't quite see how these events connect. If this wasn't his original assignment, what was? And if it wasn't his original assignment, why did that affect his choice of camera? Maybe I'm missing something. It has been known!
-
It's all there; I'll check the phrasing.Done.
- I'm not quite sure about the use of bold type for the news bulletin. It probably breaks MoS somewhere, but I can't place it right now.
-
- Please let me know if you find anything. (Edit: all I've found is that italics rather than boldface are recommended for emphasis of words within quotes. Since this is specifically a news bulletin and not a quote, MHO is the boldface is appropriate.)
- I'd also feel a little happier if the captions for the photographs had a reference to go with them, as they state things that aren't referenced in the main article. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Sarastro. Is there anything additional I need to do for this article to earn your support? Thanks for your help! —ATS 🖖 talk 21:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Support: I'm happy to support now, especially as there have been a few more eyes on it. There are four further points below which do not affect my support in any way. A curious little story, and nicely told. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- It is a little disconcerting in the "Pictures of the Pain" section to have events of 1984 followed by events of 1979.
- The Later Life section seems slightly pointless, to be brutal. Do we need three sections, one for each of the books/events he played a minor part in? It feels like padding, but it is probably a matter of taste so feel free to ignore this one.
- Given that he died in 1995, have the police reached any conclusions about the carbon monoxide yet? If, as I suspect, there is nothing that tells us an official cause of death, maybe re-write this so it feels less like we are waiting for a police verdict. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- "One such theorist, Texas author Jim Marrs,[52] wrote that most researchers were ready to accept Lovelady as the man pictured; he added in 2013 that others were resisting any such concession": The part of the sentence after the semi-colon does not seem quite right. Do we need the date? Is it important? As written, it implies that he changed his mind. And "concession" is an odd word to use here; what are they conceding? I'm sure there is a good reason for the sentence being written this way, but as it is, I can't quite see it. Possibly the other readers also might not. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
One other point: I notice in the last few edits, we have changed the heading style and use ; to bold. I'm pretty sure this breaks some sort of accessibility guidelines and if I remember rightly, makes a horrible mess of the article for screen-readers. (I'm fuzzy on the details but remember it is a big no-no!) I would recommend returning these to ordinary headings. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Tony1
Hi, you asked me to come review.
- Why the massive overlinking? I've run Ohconfucius's scripts over it, but it may still need checking for common-term overlinking.
- "Altgens began his career with the AP as a teenager and, following a stint with the United States Coast Guard, worked his way into a senior position with the AP Dallas bureau." Commas can be a matter of taste, but don't you think this would be easier to read? "Altgens began his career with the AP as a teenager, and following a stint with the United States Coast Guard worked his way into a senior position with the AP Dallas bureau." Or even: "Altgens began his career with the AP as a teenager, and worked his way into a senior position with the AP Dallas bureau after a stint [an intervening stint?] with the United States Coast Guard.". Not sure, but over to you.
-
- I'll take a look.
- Is it commonly the Associated Press, and the AP? I'm used to no the.
-
- It is, and officially.
- Does one "make" photographs? Perhaps "take" or "produce" might be more usual.
-
- See my comment to John above and the comment following its use in the article. (TL;DR: pros make photographs. )
- "While on assignment for the AP, Altgens made two historic photographs on November 22, 1963,[a] including the image of First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy and Secret Service agent Clint Hill on the presidential limousine that would be reproduced on the front pages of newspapers around the world." Problem is with the postqualifier: "the presidential limousine that would be reproduced on the front pages of newspapers around the world". Perhaps: "While on assignment for AP, Altgens made two historic photographs on November 22, 1963,[a] including an image of first lady Jacqueline Kennedy and secret service agent Clint Hill on the presidential limousine, which was reproduced on the front pages of newspapers around the world." Or if this emphasis takes your fancy: "While on assignment for AP, Altgens made two historic photographs on November 22, 1963,[a] including an image of first lady Jacqueline Kennedy and secret service agent Clint Hill on the presidential limousine—an image that was reproduced on the front pages of newspapers around the world." I've downcased the vanity caps, added comma+which to create a bigger boundary, and changed the "would be" slightly journalistic future-in-past tense into simple past, since the sequence is clear in this context.
- I found the next sentence hard to understand—specifically the "doorway" bit, which hits readers without context: "Seconds earlier, Altgens made a photograph that became controversial, leading people in the United States and elsewhere to question whether accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was visible in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository as the gunshots were fired at JFK.[b]". Here, the tense is wrong, and why not mark it with a thematic equative? "However, it was the image he had captured just a few seconds earlier that ...". And I'm guessing you wanted to contrast its greater significance (of a different type) compared with the world-distributed one taken a few seconds later. Needs deft wording.
-
- This was one passage in particular that led to great consternation during the GAN; it was Location's assertion that the photo that came to be known as Altgens 7 had to be first in the lead due to its world renown, and because the controversy around Altgens 6 was contained mostly to researchers arguing whether there was a conspiracy. I did not fully agree with the fringe argument, given the massive market for publications on the subject, but the assertion of undue weight nevertheless struck me as valid. That said, I've made some changes that I hope will help the reader while maintaining due weight. (added at 01:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC))
- "Altgens and his wife were in their seventies when they were found dead in their Dallas home in 1995." We finish with a shock. First, why is the fact they were in their 70s (numerals preferred) the grammatical "news" here? The year is enough, isn't it? Second, such a shock statement in the summary lead isn't good unless there's a little more explanation. Leads of WP articles shouldn't be teasers like that.
I haven't looked further, but the lead isn't promising for the prospects of FA promotion. Tony (talk) 10:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Tony. Is there anything additional I need to do for this article to earn your support? Thanks for your help! —ATS 🖖 talk 20:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- For example, your fix at the end of the lead: "Both had suffered from long illnesses; police said a bad furnace also may have contributed." Contributed to their long illnesses? Or their deaths? Through fire, or gas leakage over time?
I've flicked through the rest, which doesn't look as though it needs the major surgery that was necessary on the lead. This nomination may well succeed, but it was premature in terms of the quality of writing. Tony (talk) 01:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- For example, your fix at the end of the lead: "Both had suffered from long illnesses; police said a bad furnace also may have contributed." Contributed to their long illnesses? Or their deaths? Through fire, or gas leakage over time?
Comments from Wehwalt
Just a placeholder at present as I am having Internet issues. I do however object to the use of any quote from Jim Marrs especially with something presented as a fact like it is in this article. I disagree with his opinions both on the assassination and on aliens and more to the point most scholars seem to as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- For clarification: any direct quote, or to his presence at all? —ATS 🖖 talk 23:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- What I object to is his being given the editorial voice and if he is to be quoted at all there should be in line attribution of who he is. his opinion regarding the photograph is presented basically as the truth. However he is a partisan on the issue and his opinion must be taken with a rather large quantity of salt which the reader is not given. I would delete the quotation. If you want to quote him elsewhere in the article in proper context I have no objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- “on the presidential limousine” I might say “atop” rather than “on”, for clarity. I might add “moments after President Kennedy was shot”
-
- Done.
- “(b. 1921)” this suggests that she still lives, which may not be so (and if so may not be changed when she dies, as she is not notable and editors may miss the death). Better to put in text.
-
- Fixed.
- Is the Coast Guard technically a military organization?
-
- The USCG is, yes. Still, I've rewritten to a more active voice.
- Can anything be said about Altgen’s life in 1947-1957?
-
- I've done new searches within the past few days; nothing yet, if ever.
- Was his appearance as a witness really part of his acting career or was it a cameo playing off the public attention?
-
- We can't say either way (SYNTH).
- You might mention that the Merc is in Dallas as you have taken a trip to Bonham.
-
- Done.
- You mention twice in the first paragraph of “Assassination”that Altgens was scheduled to work at the office. You might start the sentence with “As”.
-
- Fixed.
-
- ”His photographs of the motorcade began” I’m not sure the passive voice works well here. Consider “Altgens began to photograph the motorcade”. Obviously not “shoot”!
-
-
- Fixed.
- I might put the clause in which you mention the Zapruder film in parens.
-
- Meh. Okay.
- You haven’t actually said in the body who this “Oswald” is, and you appear to be linking both in lede and body so you should do that too.
-
- Done.
- I might merge the first two subsections of the Assassination section. It strikes me that is a very inopportune time to break as the second section picks up without a pause in the middle of a very dramatic event. And I’m not sure “Witness to history” is the best title. After all, the point was he was not simply a witness, he captured it for the rest of us.
-
- Done.
- ”his testimony before the Warren Commission was taken” the passive voice again seems to fuzz a bit here. Did he appear before the commissioners? Or was it taken by some other means?
-
- Done.
- The testimony of the depository employees doesn’t really involve Altgen himself, and the reader knows the Warren Commission concluded Oswald did it. I think this could be condensed and maybe appended to the previous paragraph. The blow-by-blow could be put in a footnote, if you like.
-
- Rewritten.
-
-
- I might add to the end of the Recollections section “”as they had not been served with the subpoenas in Louisiana”.
Comments from Sagaciousphil
This is an interesting article about someone I'd never heard of previously. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Lead
- I feel overall this could stand a little expansion, especially the final sentence: "Altgens and his wife died in their Dallas home in 1995 after long illnesses." That sentence had me immediately looking around the article to find further details to try and clarify what happened.
-
- Hi, SagaciousPhil, and thanks! I've expanded the graf.
Early life and career
- 3rd paragraph: the word portrayed is used twice in pretty close proximity; can at least one be changed?
-
- Done.
- 4th paragraph: This just seems to cover one day? Were there no other significant highlights in his early photographic career?
-
- That's pretty much it.
Photojournalist
- I'm sorry but I'm also going to join the other reviewers and question the use of "making" versus "taking" photographs. I have read the explanations given here and in the GAN etc but still find it very jarring although I do appreciate Altgens used it himself in the quote. Could the last sentence of the first paragraph be amended to something like: " ... using a manual, reflex camera required particular care to produce good images."? Likewise would it be possible for an alternative word to be used in the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph?
-
- Done.
- 2nd paragraph: the word across is repeated a couple of times in quick succession?
-
- Fixed.
Pictures of the Pain
- At the end of the paragraph is there a reason that note [o] is in front of the ref while all others are after the ref?
-
- Fixed.
Death
- Are there any further details about the deaths? The three refs used are reports in the days immediately after their deaths; are there any follow ups after inquests, for instance, that clarify the cause of death, perhaps in local newspapers?
-
- I looked recently for additional details; nothing. Meantime, the county issues copies of certificates only to next of kin.
References
- I haven't looked at the reference section in detail as everyone has different ways of referencing articles but I'm confused by what seems to me over linking, especially for MaryFerrell.org, which I see has been mentioned already. I would have expected this to be treated in the same way as the Trask books. It seems to be included under Further reading as well?
-
- Each links directly to a separate page and/or document. Were it the same link, I'd agree with you. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, SagaciousPhil. Is there anything additional I need to do for this article to earn your support? Thanks for your help! —ATS 🖖 talk 19:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- There is a cite ref error showing for the first entry under "Multimedia"
- As far as I'm aware semi-colons should not be used to create bold subheadings as it causes accessibility problems so please correct these. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Both fixed. Thank you, SagaciousPhil. —ATS 🖖 talk 19:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- The relevant MOS § is PSEUDOHEAD, by the way. Meantime, it's funny how GOODHEAD and BADHEAD lead to the same place. Having once been married, I can relate ... —ATS 🖖 talk 03:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Belgium national football team
- Nominator(s): Kareldorado (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
This article is about the joint 10th oldest national association football team worldwide, a team that achieved an Olympic gold medal and topped the FIFA World Rankings. The needed attention has been paid to the description of all of the team's aspects throughout its long history, and to illustration with suitable images. In a prior FAC, it received plenty of positive feedback, but ultimately several issues related to prose and referencing came up. In response, intense efforts further smoothened the text and lifted the references to a very high standard. I feel confident that this article is FA-worthy now, but of course, any suggestions to further fine-tune its text or lay-out will always be welcome. Thank you for your comments! Kareldorado (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Looks very good. Support. A few points:
- "longstanding"—I think that's hyphenated in both US and UK English.
- For a while it stood there hyphenated, but one moment I saw it in one word in another—featured—article and changed it. The online Oxford dictionary helped me out; you are right. Kareldorado (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- "its supporters' group is named 1895"—I paused on that, and didn't want to. Maybe italicise the name, or put it in quotes? And would you consider "its support group ..."?
- I received an objection against italicising it, as this might imply the name is to be italicised always. Then I would opt for quotes. I would not favour "support group"; either this might suggest that the members share a common burden (like support groups for diseases), either that they purely finance the team. Kareldorado (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- I dislike raggle-taggle flagicons in infoboxes (bad enough when they're vertically aligned); the countries are already named. And on that point, the country-name pipes that go to specific sections or offspring articles are OK, but I see "Brussels" and "Belgium" and "London" and "England" just plain-linked, which is not encouraged. Can you unlink or find specific links? Just to be tiddly, please consider lowercase F in two places: "First in 1930". Just slightly smoother for readers to connect them better with the preceding.
- True, overlinking is to be avoided; I will unlink these then. In order to apply lowercase, the template should be changed. Kareldorado (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's on the verge of being over-reftagged. They are all functionally different, I guess, and not consecutively repeated. Any opportunity to trim would be welcome; e.g. "In the three 1920s Summer Olympics, they achieved fair results (four wins in seven games), and played their first intercontinental match, against Argentina.[28][29][30]" ... does that need three separate refs? It's hardly contentious.
- Good remark—I must agree. I counted 16 reference clusters with at least three references. In a couple of them I can cut down the amount without losing the proof for the mentioned facts, so you can expect this soon. I agree that at least any contentious material should be sourced, but I find that I should also strive to providing a source for any fact—except for the very commonly accepted facts. Kareldorado (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I haven't gone further in because I got bored not being able to find glitches. :-) Must remember your username. Tony (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- (reacting to just 1 point) I certainly agree about the flagicons, although it seems to be the de facto standard on all national footbal team articles to display the biggest win / loss in that way (even on the Featured Articles). Their 'chaotic display' and small relevance in an infobox (in my opinion) led me to gain some consensus to remove the parameters from that template in the past, although that was later undone. Instead of removing it, perhaps we can try launching a tidier way by removing the flagicons on this and other Featured Articles, and then try getting consensus to do it on all NFT articles. –Sygmoral (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the feedback and your exercises on better writing. Very soon I will reply to the points you came up with. Even though you stopped scanning I do invite you to keep going, since you brought up a couple of new things and are likely to find more points no one else would retrieve. The prose should be vivid enough to keep you reading. :-) Regards, Kareldorado (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Having positively reviewed this on previous occasions, I still consider this an examplary article and a canon for other articles to follow. Excellent piece of work and an encyclopaedic standard. Good work. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
A few further and minor issues
- "Twenty days later, the football boards of both countries, and five other nations, founded FIFA." Slight impression that the second comma makes it football boards of both countries, and the governments of five other nations. Can it be removed? And why not remove the third comma as well, in such a short sentence? Also, two plus five is seven. Later: "The day before the tournament began, the Belgian, French and Italian football boards founded UEFA."
- Here and there, copy-editors added commas to make the text feel more balanced... however, unexpected word orders and ambiguity are the dangers that may pop up then. Once upon a time I had written "Belgium and France were among the seven founding fathers", which I changed because too narrative. I will rephrase this FIFA sentence and the UEFA sentence. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- "In 1912, UBSSA began governing football only and". Consider: "From 1912, UBSSA governed football only and".
- Ok. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- "In between," could be a little more natural with a back reference: "Between these,"
- Ok. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- "the 125th FIFA-ranked team of Armenia"—in English, where it feels natural, prefer the 's or adjective grammar over post-noun "of X": "the 125th FIFA-ranked Armenian team". Not available in Dutch, of course.
- This is available in Dutch as well, but we would rather use the first way to avoid a long concatenation of adjectives I think. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- "Belgium's second-ever place"
- Ok. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- "Belgium could not confirm their role as outsider at the European Championship with a quarter-final exit"—I don't get it (I'm not a football person, though).
- Very good point. Without more context it is quite normal for outsiders not to reach semi-finals. "Shadow favourites" would be more appropriate than "outsiders" (to me "shadow favourites" expresses somewhat higher expectations), and it will make even more sense when I emphasise that the opponents were to be considered as underdogs. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Apparently the concept of "shadow favourites" only exists in Dutch, oh well. Kareldorado (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- "christened"—very christian. If the equivalent word was used, and it's not WP's narrative choice, OK.
- This is a synonym another editor introduced. Since most countries with English as first language have a long Christian background, I thought this word might have gained a neutral meaning in English already and did not revert it. Anyway, I can imagine that many readers (especially those with another religious background) find this word looking a bit weird in this context. I will search a neutral alternative instead. Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Or those who think religions are manipulative lies. Tony (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- I did not forget ourselves. Kareldorado (talk) 06:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Or those who think religions are manipulative lies. Tony (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Remarkable for a second-language speaker. Tony (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, in fact even third-language speaker, after French. :D Well, your copyediting exercises and the input of native-English-speaking copyeditors surely helped me a lot! Kareldorado (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Nought else to add really. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comments: I've followed the evolution of this article with great enthusiasm. Karel has done an excellent job. Nonetheless, I still have a critical eye for a few points that I think can be addressed for this FA review prior to supporting the nomination.
-
- The "Nickname and Logo" section in Team Image seems a bit oddly placed. I'd recommend placing it into the "kit" section. I am also a bit confused by the "Logo". The nickname information was already mentioned in the "kit" section.
- I recommend separating the "supporters" section outside of the Team Image, as is done in the Scotland national football team and Peru national football team articles.
- Those are my two recommendations. Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 22:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Marshal, once more I thank you for your input. The points you bring up here are constructive ideas, but I cannot totally agree with both, and will explain why. Logically, the distinction should be made between (1) what the players wear, (2) what image is hung up from them (something what is basically done by the media, the RBFA and the players themselves) and (3) the supporters. The image we have from the supporters is not the image from the player group, so I agree to set the supporters apart as distinct chapter. The nickname and logo are loosely and partially related to what the players wear, but none of both are 'part' of the kit. I think there is nothing really confusing in the fact that they have a logo, but therefore it is important to realise that the logo is something different than the badge from the team kit. Also for this reason I want to keep (1) and (2) strictly apart. However, I must agree that there is some unneeded overlap; we do not have to tell 10 times that the nickname Red Devils refers to the traditional red jerseys. Therefore, I will omit this explanation from the Kit sect and preserve it for the Nickname and Logo subsect. I am keen on your feedback once I am finished with it. Kareldorado (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Best regards, Kareldorado (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- And, are you satisfied with the adaptations? Kareldorado (talk) 18:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Coord notes
- I didn't see an image licensing review above, not a source review for formatting and reliability -- you can request those at the top of WT:FAC.
- Housekeeping: we had a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing in the previous nom and there appeared to be no major concerns so I don't think we need repeat that here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Edwininlondon
Hi Kareldorado, sorry for being so late with my comments. Although the article looks better than at FAC1, I'm still not convinced it meets FA. My comments, starting with the lead:
- I've argued this before and have not seen any reason to change my mind: the lead image is not a good image to convey the concept visually. A football team article should show 11 players, not a badge for its association. The badge should be reserved for the association's article. I see that Peru national football team, of FA status, has the same problem. Not a reason to keep repeating the error, I'd say. The image you have down in the Kit section makes a great lead image, as this is the most successful team as well.
- This discussion is obsolete, and always ends in the association badge being regarded as acceptable. See Marshal's comments below. Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- the paragraphs in the lead lack focus: the results are mentioned in all 3 paragraphs. They should be combined, all in the first: gold medal at Olympics, 2nd place 1980, 3rd in 1972, 4th in 1986. And that they topped the FIFA ranking between Nov 2015 and March 2016.
- I found the lead pleasant to read, but have to admit Manchester City's lead (also FA) looks more straightforward than the current of Belgium's NFT or, for instance, that of the Peru national football team (no offense, Marshal). I have tried to rewrite it, please tell me how you like this:
The Belgian national football team has officially represented Belgium in association football since their maiden match in 1904. The Royal Belgian Football Association (RBFA) is its supervising body; at the global level Belgium's team is governed by FIFA, at the continental level by UEFA. Most of their home games are played at the King Baudouin Stadium in Brussels.
Periods of regular Belgian representation at highest international level, from 1920 to 1938, and 1970 to 2002, have alternated with mostly unsuccessful qualification rounds. From the quadrennial major football competitions, Belgium's national team has participated at the end stages of twelve FIFA World Cups, five UEFA European Football Championships, and three Olympic football tournaments. The most notorious results were their Olympic gold medal in 1920, ending as European vice-champions in 1980 and their fourth position at the 1986 World Cup. Other notable performances were topping the FIFA World Rankings (from November 2015 to March 2016), and the wins against four reigning world champions: West Germany, Brazil, Argentina and France. As of 2016, Belgium competes in the 2018 World Cup qualifiers.
The 1960s and early 1970s were the period of Paul Van Himst, the most-praised Belgian footballer of the 20th century. After his national player career, Belgium experienced two golden ages with many gifted players. Belgium has long-standing football rivalries with its Dutch and French counterparts, having played both teams nearly every year from 1905 to 1967. The squad has been known as the Red Devils since 1906; its fan club is named "1895".
Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- the first paragraph has info that I think belongs elsewhere: "The squad is under the global jurisdiction of FIFA and is governed in Europe by UEFA—both of which were co-founded by the Belgian team's supervising body, the Royal Belgian Football Association (RBFA)". This would be appropriate in the RBFA's first paragraph, but not the team's. I'd move it down. Same for the stadium they play in. Okay in lead, but not in first paragraph.
- I agree about that I over-emphasised the RBFA, but disagree about the stadium. Their stadium is their "playground", ever since 1930. Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- "Belgium's national team have .." --> The opening sentence uses the singular for team ("has officially represented") but here you use plural.
- I agree why you disagree. I'd opt for singular to be consequent. See my newer version above. Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- "supporters' group" --> fan club?
- Check! See my newer version above. Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- The current coach should be mentioned in the lead, methinks
- Ok, but would it fit better in paragraph 1 or 3? Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Something about world Cup 2018 qualification should be in the lead as well
- Ok, but would it fit better in paragraph 2 or 3? Kareldorado (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The rest of the article: the structure doesn't work for me. Rivalries is closely connected to the history, but are far apart. Management before home stadium is questionable. The Actions section (odd header) is misplaced and too long compared to other sections, given its relative weight.
- Changing the structure always has it advantages and disadvantages. Somehow, every section is related to the History section, but they cannot all come directly after it. At this moment, Management does not stand before Home stadium. Do you suggest that Management would come first? Kareldorado (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- The statement that the current Actions section is misplaced is unfortunate to me. However, you are right that we should grab every opportunity to downsize it. As alternative titles I suggest "Social actions", or, maybe even better "Side activities". Kareldorado (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- You can easily cut "In 2008, hope surged when Belgium's U-23 won fourth place at the Olympics in Beijing; several of these Olympians later appeared on the senior team." It's not really tightly connected to supporters."
- Not really, but it gives the background of why popularity rose again. However, you are right that the section is to be trimmed further, and the interested reader will have read higher in the article that a promising generation came up. Good remark, I will omit it. Kareldorado (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- ref spot check: ref#90 has slightly different years than you have + no reference to Umbro: "Sinds in 1974 kledingsponsors het truitje van de landenteams mochten sieren, speelden de Rode Duivels met Adidas (1974-80), Admiral (1980-1982), Adidas (1982-90), Diadora (1990-98), Nike (1998-2010) en Burrda (2010-14)."
- Good remark. I cannot be more specific than saying they played with Umbro in 1970, so it should be more vague. Part of the rationale of the slightly different years is already given in a footnote, I should still add a proof that they didn't play with Admiral in 1980. Kareldorado (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Kareldorado (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll do more later. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- A comment on the badge. Edwin, it seems that some clarification is needed so that your concern over the badge can finally be put to rest. First, placing the badge in the Infobox is a standard practice for association football team articles (see FC Barcelona) and sports teams in general (see Los Angeles Lakers). Second, it is important to keep in mind that the "national" football teams do not actually belong to the nation; these teams belong to the associations (or federations) that organize them. So, in the case of the Peru national football team, the team does not belong to the country of Peru, but rather to the Peruvian Football Federation. I hope that this clears up the matter. Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- If it is widely accepted, then I won't make a further issue out of it. I will always think it is a poor way to illustrate a team, but forever hold my breath. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am glad you are critical on this one, Edwin, but there is no easy solution. The problem is that national teams usually lack a perfectly appropriate illustration for the team as a whole, contrary to club teams. A team picture just deals with one moment in time. Kareldorado (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- If it is widely accepted, then I won't make a further issue out of it. I will always think it is a poor way to illustrate a team, but forever hold my breath. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments – I read through the article and must say that I am very impressed by it. Having made several copy-edits, I have only a few comments to make.
- This may just be me, but I prefer the current lead to the one proposed here. Some of the language in the lead here doesn't strike me as FA-level prose; for example, a "notorious" period of play sounds like those Belgium teams had a lot of unlikeable players, not that they were successful. Also, I wouldn't say a whole period belonged to one player, as this lead implies. Even Messi has a whole team of talented players with him.
- While reading the article body, I encountered a couple of wikilinks that repeated as I went along. You only need one wikilink per subject in the body (tables excepted). I removed a couple for you, but it may be worth checking to see if there are any more.
-
- I reduced them already considerably. I thought that for now it would be practical that some are repeated if certain concepts come back again, say, twenty times. However, if you strongly oppose against the rehearsal of wikilinks in the prose I am willing to remove the doubles. Kareldorado (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
All caps in the titles of references 8, 33, 35, 82, 83, 85, 97, 124, and 126 should be toned down per the Manual of Style. The source reviewer will mention this anyway, so you may as well take care of it now.- Refs 166 and 177 are tagged as dead links.
-
- They are tagged as dead links, but strangely enough they both still link to the desired information. When is it tagged as 'dead'? Kareldorado (talk) 12:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
If these issues are resolved, I'm inclined to support FA status for the article, as it was a great read throughout. Well, not the part about the 2014 World Cup round of 16 game, but then we shouldn't have kept it tied that long anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the constructive remarks. I agree the prosaic level of the current lead is higher than the proposed one, however, Edwin did bring up some relevant concerns. I'll start with slight modifications. This weekend, I will try to implement your proposed changes. As a small consolation about the particular sentence, I make you remember that the first ever US–Belgium encounter ended in a dry 3–0 win. :) Kareldorado (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Courtney Love
- Nominator(s): Drown Soda (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
This article is about musician/actress Courtney Love. Article previously received support but was unfortunately not promoted. It has been a project-in-work for years now, and has reached a level of comprehensiveness and attention to prose that I think warrants FA status. --Drown Soda (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I've skimmed a bit and I'll start a close review soon. I want to make sure it's polished in as many respects as possible and there are no minor issues. That said, on its face this is likely among the very best rock biographies on Wikipedia and I'm sure it should and will pass. One quick point now that I make on any FA: you should preemptively archive all the links in the references with the |archiveurl=, |archivedate= and |deadurl=no parameters, with links from archive.org (or archive.is if archive.org doesn't work, sometimes it backs up things that archive.org won't). This will save time and possibly information if any links die in the future; basically all sources should be archived unless it's impossible due to robots.txt or being a pdf. ——BLZ · talk 17:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't think editors should be wasting their limited time proactively adding archive links. That's an onerous and low value activity that should be performed by an automated script. It should not be tasked for FA candidates. Praemonitus (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Is there a script for it? I think you are right that it's tedious, but all the same I don't think it's low value at all, it's a quite valuable safety measure for references. Featured articles are subject just like any others to the erosion of years and years of bizarre, senseless edits that degrade the quality of the article and may not all get caught. Leaving archived links assures the continued stability and reliability of an article. You would be surprised how often archive.org doesn't have a page you need on record, and you don't want to wait to check until it's too late. Ideally, featured articles should be at a level that don't need a review (other than adding new info) or delisting in 5, 10, 20, 30 years, and to me archiving links is a solution to one of the most foreseeable and easily resolved potential problems. —BLZ · talk 15:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yes I have seen a bot that does that. No, I don't believe it has any business being part of the FAC review process. Doing this would make no difference in satisfying the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Is there a script for it? I think you are right that it's tedious, but all the same I don't think it's low value at all, it's a quite valuable safety measure for references. Featured articles are subject just like any others to the erosion of years and years of bizarre, senseless edits that degrade the quality of the article and may not all get caught. Leaving archived links assures the continued stability and reliability of an article. You would be surprised how often archive.org doesn't have a page you need on record, and you don't want to wait to check until it's too late. Ideally, featured articles should be at a level that don't need a review (other than adding new info) or delisting in 5, 10, 20, 30 years, and to me archiving links is a solution to one of the most foreseeable and easily resolved potential problems. —BLZ · talk 15:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- Support: I've reviewed this article a couple of times now, and it still seems to be in good condition. I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I am concerned about the use of "Hollywood, Interrupted: Insanity Chic in Babylon -- The Case Against Celebrity" by Andrew Breitbart and Mark C. Ebner. This seems like over citing to use a book from these authors to make a claim of fact and unnecessary as there are two additional reliable sources. Mostly I am concerned with the whole mention as written per WP:BLPCRIME. The subject in question is not well known and the article on him was deleted as not meeting Wikipedia standards for notability and this particular piece was center in that discussion as well I believe. If the content remains, I believe it needs a good edit to comply with our policies on Biographies of Living Persons. At the very least...there is no balance, no mention of her father's reaction to the claim made by Courtney's mother.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Which mention/citation are you referring to, as there are numerous citations from that book? Are you referring to the mention of her father's alleged providing of her with LSD? --Drown Soda (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- The claim made by Courtney's mother against her father when she took custody.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
-
Comments by Mike Christie
"which established her as a viable mainstream actress": suggest cutting "viable", which is redundant with "established"."Between 2014 and 2015, she debuted two solo singles": suggest "released"; "debuted" is a bit of an industry term.I wouldn't oppose for this, but I don't think you need to mention Fairbanks; it's a relationship by marriage two generations earlier that she was never aware of. This is a fairly long article, and it wouldn't hurt to cut a minor detail like this."According to sources, Love's mother, who was studying to be a psychologist, had her in therapy by the age of two": I don't think "According to sources" is good enough here. If it's considered definitely true by a reliable source, and not contradicted anywhere, just cut the phrase; if it's dubious in some way, give a little more explanation, at a minimum via a footnote."Love's mother then sent her back to the United States": can we give the year?"She supported herself by working illegally as a stripper, adopting the last name "Love" to conceal her identity, which she came to use thereafter": needs to be rephrased; she didn't come to use her identity thereafter."The group recorded material with Love as a vocalist, but was subsequently kicked out of the band": presumably "but she was"?"so Bjelland would transpose Love's musical ideas on guitar for her": shouldn't this be "transcribe...for guitar"? "Transpose" usually refers to just changing key, doesn't it?"and consequently adopted a more polished public image": I'm not sure what "adopted" means here; I'm guessing the intended meaning is that her image was seen by others as becoming more polished, but "adopted" implies this was a deliberate choice on her part, which seems implausible."she also had endeavors in fashion": a little clumsy; suggest just cutting this. Perhaps finish the paragraph with "...consequently acquired a more polished public image, including modeling work for Versace, and appearances in Vogue Italia"."but was forced by the label to re-record the entire album in the summer of 2003": can we say why?"started recording what was going to be her second solo album": suggest "what would become her second solo album".You don't need to identify Corgan as a member of Smashing Pumpkins the second time he's mentioned.Details of her rehab in 2006 aren't given in the music section; I understand why one might separate the two narratives, but it reads oddly, particularly since the music section comes first. We get "during her time in rehab in 2005" with no details till much later in the article.I'm not sure if "2012–present: Career expansion" is the best section title, per WP:DATED; perhaps "2016" instead of "present" would be wiser."Love's contribution to the album was critically acclaimed": this seems a bit strong, given that you only cite two reviews, one of which you subsequently quote. I'd just cut this."She also often played a guitar made by Mercury, an obscure company that manufactured custom guitars, which she purchased in 1992": I take it she didn't purchase the company, so this needs rewording.I haven't looked at source reliability, but I did notice that this source appears to be a blog. What makes it a reliable source for Wikipedia?"Love's Kinderwhore style of dress was inspire Chrissy Amphlett of the Divinyls": looks like this is missing a word, or a letter?"She has admittedly struggled with substance abuse problems throughout her life": I think you mean "admitted to struggling"; as written the admission is in Wikipedia's voice."She became addicted to heroin in the early 1990s, and her addiction was placed in the media spotlight in 1992 when Vanity Fair published an article by journalist Lynn Hirschberg which stated that Love was addicted to heroin during her pregnancy; this resulted in the custody of Love and Cobain's newborn daughter, Frances, being temporarily withdrawn in a Los Angeles County court and placed with Love's sister." A couple of things here. First, this is a long sentence; it would probably benefit from being split after "pregnancy". Second, the second half needs rewording -- it was the child, not the custody, that was placed with Love's sister.- Looks like you didn't fix this one, so I went ahead and did it myself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
"The ordeal resulted in custody of daughter Frances Bean being withdrawn from Love": this is awkward phrasing. How about "...of a controlled substance, and subsequently lost custody of her daughter."? I don't think you need to repeat Frances's name.Was she ever charged in connection with microphone stand incident?"Love had a significant impact on female-fronted alternative acts and performers, particularly the Riot grrrl movement, with Hole's first album, Pretty on the Inside": a bit of an awkward construction. I can't tell for sure, but it looks like you're singling out Pretty on the Inside as having particularly influenced the Riot grrrl movement. If so, how about "Love had a significant impact on female-fronted alternative acts and performers; in particular, Hole's first album, Pretty on the Inside, influenced the Riot grrrl movement."Time deemed Hole's Live Through This to be supplemented by "primal guitar riffs and high-IQ lyrics": I'm not keen on "deemed", and saying that it was "supplemented by" the riffs and lyrics seems odd, but more to the point, what's this sentence doing in the cultural impact section?Suggest explaining what "kinderwhore" is on first occurrence; no need to link it the second time.The sentence in the "Cultural impact" section about "kinderwhore" make it appear that the name "kinderwhore" was specifically applied to her image, but the article on kinderwhore is less definite. Did the name exist before she adopted the style?
I haven't reviewed the sources or images. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Drown Soda, are you there? Given this review has been open a long time, I will have to archive if the above points can't be addressed promptly. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- I looked these over and addressed most all of them, I believe. Some of the comments were about things that I hadn't written or inserted into the article (such as the repeat kinderwhore details, or the Time quote about Live Through This in the "Cultural impact" section), but I did remove the misplaced and repeated material. I did make edits for sentence flow and addressed the concerns that Mike Christie listed here. Apologies for having taken awhile to get back to this. Let me know if there is more, Ian Rose. Thank you! —Drown Soda (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Support. I made a few more copyedits; please review and make sure I didn't mess anything up. I have not reviewed the sources for reliability or done any spot checks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- I just looked over it again and didn't see anything that stood out as incorrect or anything of that nature; looks good to me. I can run the page through Checklinks to check for dead URLs and try to weed those out. —Drown Soda (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Midnightblueowl
This is looking good but I have a few points that may be worthy of consideration:
- There are a lot of links here, but they aren't archived. I know that that isn't a necessity at FAC but I think that it is something worth seriously considering lest those articles succumb to linkrot, at which the article will have to be stripped of any FA status that it has gained. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- If it would be preferable, I can begin to go through these and attempt to provide archives to avoid that for the future.Drown Soda (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- There are a couple of instances where an entire book is cited but the particular page number is not. This definitely needs sorting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- I contend this; the reason that is is that some of the book citations are lifted from digital copies of the books (such as Google books or the like), some of which do not (for some odd reason) include page numbers. For those instances, I've linked the book in the bibliography section to the specific page it's on in Google books, though I'm unsure if that is sufficient.--Drown Soda (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Could you maybe access these books from a local library? Google Books can be a useful place to start research but I am cautious about relying on the select pages it provides for Wikipedia referencing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- I contend this; the reason that is is that some of the book citations are lifted from digital copies of the books (such as Google books or the like), some of which do not (for some odd reason) include page numbers. For those instances, I've linked the book in the bibliography section to the specific page it's on in Google books, though I'm unsure if that is sufficient.--Drown Soda (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
"and as a disc jockey. During this time, she enrolled at Portland State University, studying English and philosophy.[36][37][38][39] " - is the information about her being a disk jockey found in those latter citations? If so, perhaps the appropriate citations could be duplicated after the words "disk jockey" to make this clearer. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)" particularly influential to young female instrumentalists" - maybe better as "a particular influence on"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)When mentioning Time Square it would be best to have a link to it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2016 (UTC)- I think that we could do something with the images. For instance, in the "1981–87: Early projects; music and film" section we have both the image and the prose box scrunched at the right hand side. I would strongly recommend aligning the quote box to the left. That would make the whole thing look a lot neater. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Do you know how to reorient an image so that it faces left rather than right? (I don't, but there must be Wikipedia editors who do). If so I would recommend reorienting some of the images so that the figure of Ms Love faces into the text rather than away from it. This is particularly the case with File:Courtney Love SXSW Stubb's Spin Party 2010.jpg and File:Courtney Love 1995 by Andrzej Liguz.jpg. Its a small thing but I would make a significant difference to the general aesthetics of the page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've thought about this as well, but the problem with that (at least for many of the images) is that Love is playing/holding a guitar in them, and flipping the image would make it appear as though she is left-handed (or at least plays guitar left-handed), which isn't the case.--Drown Soda (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- That seems fair enough. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've thought about this as well, but the problem with that (at least for many of the images) is that Love is playing/holding a guitar in them, and flipping the image would make it appear as though she is left-handed (or at least plays guitar left-handed), which isn't the case.--Drown Soda (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- When discussing Love's relationship with Cobain, I'd have imagined that there are a lot of good book-length studies of Cobain's life which discuss Love. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
"Cobain, was found dead of a self-inflicted shotgun wound " - I'd reword this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)""I strap on that motherfucking guitar and you cannot fuck with me. That's my feeling," she said." Do we have a citation for this? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)- I'm surprised that you haven't made much heavier use of Poppy Brite's biography. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have tried to integrate it throughout but have mostly found it especially useful for her earlier life; it doesn't apply as much to more recent events as it was written in 1997. It does provide substantial information about her early life and some of her life as a musician (to a point).--Drown Soda (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- This article does not cite any academic sources. Have you had a look in Google Scholar? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- My mistake, I can see that a few academic sources have been cited. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- A lot of good work has gone on here. I would lean toward soft oppose at present but I'd certainly be happy to change my opinion if the above changes are made. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Midnightblueowl, I've addressed some of these issues and provided some explanations/concerns on others that I'm unsure how to approach—thank you for your feedback. --Drown Soda (talk) 05:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
True Detective (season 1)
This article is about the first season of HBO's True Detective, the anthology crime drama created by Nic Pizzolatto and starring Matthew McConaughey, Woody Harrelson, Michelle Monaghan, Tory Kittles, and Michael Potts. Its story follows McConaughey (as detective Rustin Cohle) and Harrelson (as Martin Hart) and their seventeen year pursuit of a serial killer, during which they must recount the histories of several unsolved cases related to said perpetrator. In 2015 this article became a GA, but has unfortunately failed each FA candidacy (which numbers to four as we speak, woah), each due to the minimal attention it received. I've worked on this article on and off over the past year, and thanks to several copyedits and peer review feedback from the likes of @Aoba47:, I believe it satisfies all aspects of the FA criteria. Will the fifth time be the one? I hope so! Cheers. DAP 💅 5:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Notifications given: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States
Comments by Brandt Luke Zorn
- Comment I'm going to start looking over this shortly. Big fan of this show... Er, this season that is. (There was so much promise in the idea of True Detective-goes-Chinatown, how could it have gone so wrong?) —BLZ · talk 20:39, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- Between this source, this source, and this article linked in that second source, I'm not really clear on the development timeline. It seems as though Pizzolatto wrote about two episodes; then (from the first source) signed the "blind" development deal with HBO (where they, according to Pizzolatto in the first source, seemed to secure the exclusive rights to run the show or not); then worked with Anonymous Content to get Fukunaga, McConaughey, and Harrelson on-board while he finished the full season's script; then, according to the second and third source, entered a bidding period with cable networks competing to run the show, and HBO won. First, I don't think this whole process is summed up adequately in the article. But second, there seems to be tension between the "blind" development deal, with the apparent exclusivity HBO gained at that stage, and the open bidding process. Do you know more from other sources that might reconcile the contradiction? It's possible Pizzolatto mischaracterized the nature or timing of his agreement with HBO in the interview but it seems he knew what he was talking about. Also lost is the role of Anonymous Content, which in the current draft merely "supported" Pizzolatto as he wrote the script for the second episode, but which according to the second source actually managed Pizzolatto, developed the series in-house, and produced it for HBO.
-
- In regards to the contradiction, unfortunately nothing significant turns up. Perhaps the closest I've encounter being a Pizzolatto interview with Wellesley Cinema of New Zealand, in which the interview asks about his "unusual" deal with HBO, but Pizzolatto doesn't really clarify beyond what he has said to the media in prior interviews. The sources already cited in the article are the same and even a comprehensive spread in Vanity Fair from last season not cited here yields nothing. Perhaps he's only being vague and stating what is necessary of his agreement with HBO to the media rather than a mischaracterization, but ultimately it looks like there isn't much that can be done about the issue regardless.
- Somewhere, maybe once in the lead and once in the body, there should be a quick explanation of what an anthology show is. The format and term are becoming more common but it should be clear to someone who doesn't follow TV at all that this is a show where each season is its own self-contained, unrelated story.
-
- Done.
- Be sure to tether every statement to a source. I had to go fishing to find the source for the sentence about Petrochemical America as an inspiration for the opening sequence. Unless a paragraph is derived from a single source, every sentence should be individually sourced, and certainly anything with a quote (which also should be attributed in-text as much as possible — both writer and publication, or to whomever is being interviewed.)
-
- Noted.
- Kudos for archive-linking all the sources!
-
- It was a bitch archiving all of those links, but most definitely well paid off in the end!
- Might just be me but I feel like the grid arrangement used here is better than the one used in the article. We can see the final product and intermediate stages at an equal size with the first frame, rather than the first frame dominating the arrangement.
-
- I actually agree now that you've mentioned it. I've updated the file (twice in fact, because I thought I messed up the first attempt 😂), let me know what you think.
- I was surprised to not see any mention of the famous extended shot from the end of the fourth episode.
-
- This is something I've been going back and forth about and think a summation of that scene is better suited in its episode's article rather than the season article. But perhaps dedicating one or two sentences, or a minor paragraph wouldn't hurt as it is most obviously a significant event in the show's history.
- I think filming might be a good place to mention it. Reception to that scene or in-depth consideration that would require a paragraph is probably unnecessary and, I agree, better suited to the episode article. Within the season article, I think it would work within the filming section as a (maybe the) characteristic example that speaks to the stylistic ambition of the show as a whole. —BLZ · talk 20:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is something I've been going back and forth about and think a summation of that scene is better suited in its episode's article rather than the season article. But perhaps dedicating one or two sentences, or a minor paragraph wouldn't hurt as it is most obviously a significant event in the show's history.
- There's a whole book of essays on True Detective season one that goes uncited here. The back cover alone features praise for the series from philosophers Eugene Thacker, Nick Land (imo a total creep), and Simon Critchley. I'm not sure how much within the book is essential to improve the article to featured level. I haven't read it all. However, I can recommend the one essay I have read, "'True Dick'...The Accelerated Acceptance and Premature Canonisation of True Detective", which talks about the nature of the show's critical reception, the "spectacle of hyperbole" and hype, internal contradictions in the show's philosophical attitude, and yes, the McConaissance. I think the remaining essays may have some use unpacking the philosophical themes, but surely not all of them need inclusion. I'll leave it to you to determine which are worth synthesizing into the themes/critical perspectives already discussed: religion, pessimism, feminism.
-
- I believe I've seen Nick Laud's reading of the show and was at one point mentioned in the article, but was removed. I'll have to take a look at that book, as I'd like to balance the amount of pop culture sources with academic sources.
- Sorry to see the scant feedback in all the prior nominations, that's quite surprising considering the high profile of the show. I've also made minor edits to the article myself — let me know if you don't agree with any of my changes. —BLZ · talk 01:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Brandt Luke Zorn: You're edits are appreciated. The prose even looks more polished than it did prior! Many thanks for your time and input, let me know if there's anything else I can clarify or revise in the article. Cheers! DAP 💅 5:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Looking at this again, I think it's very very very close to FA quality. But, for the time being I have to withhold support until the following are met:
-
- 1) I think the development timeline needs slight expansion and clarification within the article. I think you're right that the nature of the initial HBO deal and the subsequent bidding process is probably irressolvable from the sources, but either way some things, e.g. the role of the production company, need better explanation.
- 2) There should be expansion of the themes/analysis section and incorporation of True Detection as a source. With a whole book of high-quality critical text absent, I don't think the article quite meets the standard for comprehensiveness. Each of the big-idea thematic topics likely merits a subsection of its own rather than merely a paragraph.
- 3) Another principle subject of discussion among critics that seems to be missing: the unusual, perhaps singular auteur-ness of True Detective, given its sole writer and sole director. This is a topic suited to more-complete explanation on the main article for True Detective, especially since some commentary on the topic is about how both the strengths of the first season and the pitfalls of the second both seem to spring from the reliance on Pizzolatto as the sole writer. However, I think some of this should be woven into this article to convey to the reader just how unusual and surprising the process was within the industry. There's a hint of that in here already, but I think there's a bit more presently left unsaid.
- I want to emphasize again how close the article is. I think overall it's clear you've invested considerable effort into crafting this, and the quality of that effort is plain to see. Note that my only reasons to not support right now are for what is not there but should be (and really #2 is bigger than #1 and #3 are); I have no bones to pick whatsoever with what is already there, which is thoughtful, polished work. I really want to support! And I won't oppose, in the sense of calling for the nomination to end, because I think the work needed to expand it to a level of satisfactory comprehensiveness is within reach in the time period of this nomination. If those three things are met I will feel confident in supporting. —BLZ · talk 20:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Brandt Luke Zorn: Shucks, I'm just ecstatic to know that this article nearly satisfies the criteria! My copy of True Detection should be delivered within the next two or three days. In the meantime, I've taken the liberty to tackle your other concerns expand the production section and hopefully adequately clarified the development timeline, divided the themes section in anticipation for the essays and added a new section regarding the show's auteurist sensibility. Let me know what you think. DAP 💅 7:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Wow quick work, well done! Message me when you've got True Detection and I'll give it a final look. ——BLZ · talk 20:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Brandt Luke Zorn:, sincerest apologies on not responding in a timely fashion first and foremost. I had a busy week at my work/university and this was only exacerbated by the book being shipped 3 days late. But no matter, I've finally received the book earlier today. I've added about four of the twelve essays in the book and plan on either adding additional essays or perhaps expand a tad bit upon the existing material I've sourced from True Detection. Let me know what you think! DAP 💅 1:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Brandt Luke Zorn: any further comments? DAP 💅 19:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Brandt Luke Zorn:, sincerest apologies on not responding in a timely fashion first and foremost. I had a busy week at my work/university and this was only exacerbated by the book being shipped 3 days late. But no matter, I've finally received the book earlier today. I've added about four of the twelve essays in the book and plan on either adding additional essays or perhaps expand a tad bit upon the existing material I've sourced from True Detection. Let me know what you think! DAP 💅 1:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support Hi! Apologies for going AWOL, real-life work caught up with me. Looking over changes made in response to my review, I believe this article now meets the featured standard for comprehensiveness or other criteria my review addressed. I'm satisfied looking at the subsequent reviews that any other issues I could think of have been or are being addressed now. This article is worthy of being featured. Great work. —BLZ · talk 18:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you very much! DAP 💅 15:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Tintor2
@DAP388: Hello, I'm not too familiar with the project of television series, but I'll try to provide you feedback since it looks well written and sourced:
- In the episodes section, Original air date remains unsourced. I'm pretty sure the "U.S. viewers (millions)" has the dates so could you source it?
- This is actually basic convention for tv articles of this variety. The templates I used for this page, Parks and Recreation (season 1) and Supernatural (season 1), are both featured articles and even they are structured in a similar way. I think that's with good reason, too. Sourcing everything in the table is trivial, would make for a sloppy presentation and distract readers from the article.
- Same with the directors and writers? Is there a way to source it?
- See above.
- What's with the lines in the episodes' summaries? Are the episodes too long or do they change between timelines like Lost? The last episode's summary looks quite longer in comparison.
- There are multiple timelines in the show's plot, primarily: 1995, 2002, and 2012. In the episodes the timelines cut back and forth between scenes. Each of the split sections in the episode summaries begins with the year, so I think it should be clear. The last two episodes are the only ones that take place within a single period; the last summary is not dramatically longer than the one for episode 5, it just looks bigger because it's a single paragraph. I think this part was handled quite well. —BLZ · talk 01:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- What Brandt said.
- The cast section is unsourced. Maybe the DVDs or sites like IGN have them?
- Again, basic convention.
- The second paragraph of conception is quite small. I would recommend to merge it with the first one or third one.
- Done
- Lastly, have there been news about sales of "Home media release"? This one is not necessary though. I'm just curious.
- There is, actually. Added!
- Other than that, the article looks well written and I'll support its nomination once the issues are solved. Also, if you have free time could you provide feedback to my first FAN, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allen Walker/archive1. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Aoba47
Support per my peer review. I could not find any issue that has not already been covered by the above comments. I'm glad to see that this is getting a lot of attention through comprehensive comments as I can tell a lot of work and time has been put into this article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Cirt: @P. S. Burton: @Jfhutson: Pinging all users that have participated in prior FA reviews. DAP 💅 19:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Mike Christie
I'll add comments here as I go through the article.
"He developed a fascination with fiction writing while attending graduate school at the University of Arkansas": I don't see this in the given source; am I missing it?
-
- This is mentioned in Pizzolatto's Daily Beast interview, although he does not specify which university he attended for his graduate studies. That was actually revealed in the article from The Times-Picayune.
- Do you mean the two answers after "How did you learn?" and "You mean writing fiction"? I don't think those support the sentence; or do you mean something else in the interview? And I know it's a minor point, but if you keep the sentence I do think you should cite the Times-Picayune article for the school; others may change the article in the future and it's best to have all the citations where they're needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Correct, specifically where he says "those shows were actually filling my hunger for fiction as an audience more than the contemporary fiction that I was reading" in response. I looked upon another examine and I somewhat agree that what's said in the article isn't supported by the source as I initially. If need be, i can just remove it altogether.
- I would, if I were you. I think the quote is about him consuming fiction on screen; the sentence in the article is about producing written fiction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Removed.
- I would, if I were you. I think the quote is about him consuming fiction on screen; the sentence in the article is about producing written fiction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Correct, specifically where he says "those shows were actually filling my hunger for fiction as an audience more than the contemporary fiction that I was reading" in response. I looked upon another examine and I somewhat agree that what's said in the article isn't supported by the source as I initially. If need be, i can just remove it altogether.
- Do you mean the two answers after "How did you learn?" and "You mean writing fiction"? I don't think those support the sentence; or do you mean something else in the interview? And I know it's a minor point, but if you keep the sentence I do think you should cite the Times-Picayune article for the school; others may change the article in the future and it's best to have all the citations where they're needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- This is mentioned in Pizzolatto's Daily Beast interview, although he does not specify which university he attended for his graduate studies. That was actually revealed in the article from The Times-Picayune.
"Pizzolatto narrowed his search for a suitable director to Alejandro González Iñárritu and Cary Joji Fukunaga, the latter of whom he knew from Anonymous Content": suggest "Pizzolatto narrowed his search for a suitable director to Cary Joji Fukunaga, whom he knew from Anonymous Content, and Alejandro González Iñárritu".
-
- Done.
"Fukunaga carried out research with": suggest "Fukunaga spent time with" as simpler; I was going to suggest "worked with" but you have "work" later in the sentence.
-
- Done.
'a "moody and atmospheric" backdrop for corresponding scenes': perhaps 'a "moody and atmospheric" backdrop for the corresponding interior scenes", assuming that's what is meant.
-
- Correct. Also done.
"The duo went with a tripod design": the duo? Sounds like Walsh is the one sculpting the nests; who else is being referred to here? From the rest of the paragraph it appears to be DiGerlando; if so, I'd be explicit: "DiGerlando and Walsh chose a tripod design..."
-
- Walsh did sculpt them, but he and DiGerlando worked closely together during the whole process, hence "the duo". Also done.
"As such, Walsh built devil's nests": suggest "To reflect this, Walsh built devil's nests".
-
- Done.
"southern Louisiana's remote landscape, which juxtaposes many of the characters' traits and personal, inner struggles": I don't follow this. Do you mean they wanted the title sequence to juxtapose these things? The landscape, by itself, does not.
-
- Nope. This is how it was described by Clair in the interview. I did make the change to "setting", if that helps, since that is much broader in scope than "landscape".
- Sorry, I'm still not getting this. I tried to follow the link to read/watch the interview, but all I found was the title sequence itself. Is there an associated interview on that website that I didn't spot? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- The associated interview is there below the video in the summary tab. Make sure you've clicked on that (although it should appear automatically) instead of the "credits" tab, otherwise, as the name suggests, only the credits will appear. This particular sentence is supported in the second paragraph where Clair says, "When we were initially briefed, Nic Pizzolatto, the showrunner, and Cary Fukunaga, the director, spoke a lot about how the landscape and setting of the show revealed the characters and reflected their internal struggles."
- Found it; not sure how I missed that. OK, I see the source, but I don't think you can say "juxtapose" based on that; the source talks about the relationship between the landscape and the characters, not about the juxtaposition of the them. Also, you say "remote", but the source talks about the petrochemical infrastructure and pollution, which don't have connotations of remoteness at all. (As it happens I used to work in the petrochemical industry, and I've driven from New Orleans through southern Louisiana down to the coast to get a helicopter to the rig; the landscape is an odd mix of industrial and backwoods, and I can see why they wanted to use the landscape in the title sequence.) And one more thing: you say Pizzolatto and Fukunaga wanted the title sequence team to emphasize the setting; I don't think you can really draw that from the source, which just says it came up in conversation a lot. That may be why the title team focused on it, but it's not clear they were told to do so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I revised it a bit for clarification.
- Found it; not sure how I missed that. OK, I see the source, but I don't think you can say "juxtapose" based on that; the source talks about the relationship between the landscape and the characters, not about the juxtaposition of the them. Also, you say "remote", but the source talks about the petrochemical infrastructure and pollution, which don't have connotations of remoteness at all. (As it happens I used to work in the petrochemical industry, and I've driven from New Orleans through southern Louisiana down to the coast to get a helicopter to the rig; the landscape is an odd mix of industrial and backwoods, and I can see why they wanted to use the landscape in the title sequence.) And one more thing: you say Pizzolatto and Fukunaga wanted the title sequence team to emphasize the setting; I don't think you can really draw that from the source, which just says it came up in conversation a lot. That may be why the title team focused on it, but it's not clear they were told to do so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- The associated interview is there below the video in the summary tab. Make sure you've clicked on that (although it should appear automatically) instead of the "credits" tab, otherwise, as the name suggests, only the credits will appear. This particular sentence is supported in the second paragraph where Clair says, "When we were initially briefed, Nic Pizzolatto, the showrunner, and Cary Fukunaga, the director, spoke a lot about how the landscape and setting of the show revealed the characters and reflected their internal struggles."
- Sorry, I'm still not getting this. I tried to follow the link to read/watch the interview, but all I found was the title sequence itself. Is there an associated interview on that website that I didn't spot? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. This is how it was described by Clair in the interview. I did make the change to "setting", if that helps, since that is much broader in scope than "landscape".
"the production team initially photographed the local scenery, which were woven together": "were" is the wrong number, but I think you meant to say something like "the resulting images were woven together".
-
- Done.
-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Mike Christie: awesome! Appreciate you taking the time to provide feedback, many thanks! Let me know what you think.
More comments:
Why is the Swarmatron worth mentioning?
-
- The show's score doesn't make much use of synthesizers apart of that particular piece.
"women are depicted as "things-to-be-saved and erotic obstacles" for said men": suggest cutting "for said men".
-
- Revised.
Erin K. Stapleton needs to be introduced when quoted.
-
- Revised.
"True Detective also explores Christianity...": suggesting cutting "also".
-
- Revised.
"Critics have offered many readings of the influence of weird and horror fiction on True Detective's narrative, specifically Robert W. Chambers' short story collection The King in Yellow (1895) and Thomas Ligotti, as well as nihilism and pessimism": I don't think this sentence quite works as you have it. Chambers' collection isn't a reading, nor is Ligotti, nor are nihilism and pessimism; they're relevant to various readings, of course.
-
- Revised.
- That's an improvement. How about: "Critics have offered many readings of the influence of weird and horror fiction on True Detective's narrative, often examining the influence of Robert W. Chambers' short story collection The King in Yellow (1895), and the work of Thomas Ligotti." I've cut "nihilism and pessimism" here because it doesn't really fit into a sentence about the influence of weird and horror fiction -- if it's an important point I think it could be added elsewhere. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Done.
- That's an improvement. How about: "Critics have offered many readings of the influence of weird and horror fiction on True Detective's narrative, often examining the influence of Robert W. Chambers' short story collection The King in Yellow (1895), and the work of Thomas Ligotti." I've cut "nihilism and pessimism" here because it doesn't really fit into a sentence about the influence of weird and horror fiction -- if it's an important point I think it could be added elsewhere. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Revised.
"Allusions to The King in Yellow can be observed through the show's dark underbelly": I think this is a little metaphorical, given that most readers won't have read Chambers or heard anything about it.
-
- That's understandable, but however obscure it may be, I think it's important even for a brief mention, especially since it was picked up by many of the critics who assessed the show.
- Well, I agree it's important; what I meant to say was that it wasn't easy to understand the sentence. The source is behind a paywall, unfortunately, so I can't see how it's phrased there. The problem is that "dark underbelly" is quite vague -- does this mean specific horrible things that happen? A general malaise or sense of evil pervading the scenes? A nihilistic or despairing worldview that it supports? There's no way for a reader who doesn't already know the show to know what is meant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- The Wall Street Journal article was referring to the show's philosophy. I made a few changes for more clarity if that helps.
- Well, I agree it's important; what I meant to say was that it wasn't easy to understand the sentence. The source is behind a paywall, unfortunately, so I can't see how it's phrased there. The problem is that "dark underbelly" is quite vague -- does this mean specific horrible things that happen? A general malaise or sense of evil pervading the scenes? A nihilistic or despairing worldview that it supports? There's no way for a reader who doesn't already know the show to know what is meant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- That's understandable, but however obscure it may be, I think it's important even for a brief mention, especially since it was picked up by many of the critics who assessed the show.
"the show's evolving philosophy, which increasingly examines a portrait where culture, religion, and society are direct by-products of biological weakness": what does "examines a portrait where" mean?
-
- Revised.
"Another principal topic of discussion among critics is True Detective's auteurist sensibility" suggest "has been" rather than "is", since the rest of the section has the critical discussion in past tense.
-
- Revised.
"a dynamic that provides the show a unique place": I don't think "dynamic" is the right word; the fact that two people controlled all the episodes is a fact, rather than an event.
-
- Revised.
Looking at the source cited for Colin Robertson's comment, I can see why you include it in the "Auteur theory" paragraph, but I think you could make the connection a little clearer for the reader.
-
- Admittedly, I'm not sure how to go about that since I more or less think the connection between the two shows is clear enough presently.
- After reading through again I think you're right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Admittedly, I'm not sure how to go about that since I more or less think the connection between the two shows is clear enough presently.
-- I think that's it for tonight; I'll try to complete the review tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
More comments:
- The second paragraph of the reviews section isn't as coherent as the other three paragraphs. The first paragraph is about the overall positive reception; the third is about the performances, and the four gives some opposing views. The second paragraph seems to be just an assemblage of high-profile quotes.
-
- I set it up that way so as to give the section a starting point. Perhaps I can merge the first and second paragraphs?
"Some reviews were not as enthusiastic as the consensus about the season": I don't think it's a consensus if there are dissenting voices; I'd rephrase this.
-
- Done.
That's it for a first pass. I'd like to go through the reviews section again and see if there's more copyediting that might be helpful; I'll try to get to that tomorrow or the next day. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: Apologies for the not-so-swift response, I believe I have addressed your concerns. Let me know what you think! DAP 💅 21:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've struck everything except for the comment about the reviews. I have a minor point and a more general concern about the reviews section. The minor point is the use of Metacritic's terminology "universal acclaim"; I think this is best avoided, since although most of the reviews were very positive, the series certainly didn't receive universal acclaim, and using Metacritic's terminology seems less useful than just giving the score; the term is even somewhat misleading.
- This is just more or less basic convention for media articles. I also tried to avoid the issue early on by including Metacritic's critics list for that year, which I think supports the notion given that, according to said article, True Detective was second only to Fargo on the critics lists that year. If these aren't valid enough reasons, however, then I will gladly remove the use of Metacritic's terminology.
- More seriously, though, the whole review section doesn't read like an encyclopedic summary of the reviews; it reads like a list of quotes, with some thematic organization. I think the section would be better with quotes used sparingly to illustrate the points made. I may be being unfair here, because I haven't gone through and read every one of the 41 reviews Metacritic links to (and no doubt there are more). If you think I'm being unfair (or just want some examples), say so, and I'll do some reading and see if I can produce a few sentences that give you a better idea of what I'm talking about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think you're being unfair per se, but I do strongly disagree with your latter concern. I think most of what is in there adds to the general flow of that section and better reflects the reviews and how very positive they tended to be. In any event, some examples would be great and hopefully from thereon, we can come to a compromise, and if it ends up improving the article even more, then all the more better.
- I've struck everything except for the comment about the reviews. I have a minor point and a more general concern about the reviews section. The minor point is the use of Metacritic's terminology "universal acclaim"; I think this is best avoided, since although most of the reviews were very positive, the series certainly didn't receive universal acclaim, and using Metacritic's terminology seems less useful than just giving the score; the term is even somewhat misleading.
OK. I should say up front that I am not going to oppose this FAC, because this point about the reviews is my only concern, and I am not sure that my opinion on how review sections should be written is something other FAC reviewers would agree with. I don't want to derail a candidacy on something that may be an issue for me but not others. Having said that, I'll make the case below, and you can see what you think.
It's difficult to assemble a coherent narrative for a section on reviews or reception when there are only a handful of reviews to draw from, but that's not the case here. When there is so much review text to go through, I think the article text should be written as declarative statements about the body of reviews, with quotes only to illustrate the points made. That's not the case here. Look at the structure of the second paragraph: it's
Critic A declared "B". C identified the acting, dialogue, and sleek production as its most satisfying attributes. D agreed and said "E". In his review F said the season successfully marries Fukunaga's G with Pizzolatto's script, producing H. J felt the first half of the season forms "K", and by the fourth episode, L called True Detective "M".
I've left in the declarative text that is not quoted; I hope you agree that reading this it's clear that the paragraph functions mostly as a showcase for quotes, only providing direct information in a couple of places. Here's a rewrite of that paragraph in a form that I think is more desirable for a Wikipedia article. I'm making up the details here, which are probably totally wrong, because I haven't read the reviews -- but someone who has read the reviews should be able to write a version of this.
Reviews of the series praised the acting and dialogue. Harrelson's performance was particularly remarked on, with A declaring "B", and C commenting that "D". McConaughey's acting in the final episode also drew many positive comments, such as "E"; with some reviewers commenting that outstanding performances could be found throughout the ensemble cast. Several reviewers pointed out that the anthology format, which made it easier to attract top actors, might become more popular as a result of True Detective's success, though some felt this was just a temporary fashion.
In addition to being (no doubt) wrong, I'm not claiming this paragraph is particularly well-written. But it reads quite differently from the paragraphs in the existing review section.
To put it another way, imagine that you've recently read all of these reviews and pondered them, and that you then meet me in a pub, or at a bus-stop, or wherever, and I ask you "What did reviewers say about season 1 of True Detective?" What would you say? You wouldn't reel off quotes. You'd tell me what they liked, what most of them said, what themes ran through the reviews, and you might well recall a few choice quotes to illustrate your point. That's how I think this section should read. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Aries (album)
Aries is the ninth studio album by Mexican singer Luis Miguel. While there were some reserves about the album by critics, I am particularly fond of the early-90's dance-pop music even if they are cheesy. This is my first article about an album by Luis Miguel that is not a Romance-themed album. Previously, I have contributed to make Romance (Luis Miguel album) and Romances (Luis Miguel album) FAs and now I am nominating this article to FA after getting a peer review done by Carbrera. I look forward to your feedback! Erick (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 17:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC) The article is in quite good but there are somethings that bothered me:
- Background and recording
- "The album, which was produced by Armando Manzanero and arranged by Bebu Silvetti,[1] was a success in Latin America and sold over seven million copies worldwide.[2][3]" The sentence seems quite long. I would recommend splitting it like "The album, which was produced by Armando Manzanero and arranged by Bebu Silvetti.[1] It was a success in Latin America and sold over seven million copies worldwide.[2][3]"
- "Recording began on 4 July 1992.[8]" Now this sentence feels a bit small. Maybe I am nitpicking it so don't feel like an issue.
- Singles and promotion
- "The album's third single, "Suave", was released in September 1993 and peaked at number nine on the Hot Latin Songs chart;[22][23] its music video was directed by Kiko Guerrero and features Miguel dancing with several women on a beach.[24][25]" Also feels like a long sentence.
- Critical reception
- The first paragraph looks like it lacks some wikilink like Billboard
- References
- Reference 4 "Burr, Ramiro (11 July 1993). "Luis Miguel meets his challenges". San Antonio Express-News. Hearst Corporation. (subscription required (help))." seems like it lacking something.
- Also, I would recommend archiving some citations in case they become dead links.
Other than that, I feel the article is well written and sourced. If the issues are solved, I'll give it my support. Additionally, I would appreciate if you could provide feedback to my own FAN (which is my first one), Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allen Walker/archive1, which has been quite inactive.
- @Tintor2:, I believed I have addressed everything you brought up. As the last point about the reference, it's a paywall source, so it's acceptable the way it is. I don't have the album, otherwise I would've added where it was recorded on the sentence you mentioned felt too short. I'll see if I can find it online. Erick (talk) 16:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Magiciandude: Good work. I'll give you my support.Tintor2 (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Richard3120:
Good work Erick, just a few things (mostly grammar) that I think need to be looked at:
- Second line – "Miguel decided to record an album of original recordings rather than a follow-up to Romance". Firstly, putting "record" and "recordings" almost next to each other sounds like repetition: perhaps it could be changed to "make an album of original recordings"? Secondly, surely the album WAS a follow-up to Romance, since it was his next record... I think what you mean is that he didn't want his next record to be in the same style as an album of cover versions of boleros. So this needs to be clarified.
- Second paragraph – you say "Ayer", "Hasta Que Me Olvides" and "Suave" were the three singles released from the album. So we need clarification on what "Hasta el Fin" and "Tu y Yo" were if they were not official singles, but they still managed to chart on the Hot Latin Songs chart.
- Background and recording, first line – sorry, and with apologies to Tintor2 above, splitting that into two sentences now is not grammatically correct... either it should go back to the way it was, or the first sentence should just be "The album was produced by Armando Manzanero and arranged by Bebu Silvetti", because otherwise you have a hanging clause.
- Again, in the first paragraph of this section, I think you have to clarify "In spite of Romance's success, Miguel did not want to release an immediate follow-up to the album IN THE SAME STYLE", or something like that.
- Background and recording, last line of the first paragraph – you might have to check the original quote, because it looks like it is missing the word "be" in two places... should it be "The creation of an album has to BE part of me or else I would not be able to interpret it, or BE in it"?
- Composition, first paragraph – should be "a saxophone solo BY American musician Kirk Whalum".
- Composition, second paragraph – you have to say "referred TO "Me Niego Estar Solo" and "Hasta El Fin"...".
- Singles and promotion – again, not clear what the release status of "Hasta el Fin" and "Tu y Yo" were if they were not official singles.
- Critical reception – we would call the writers "critics", not "editors", which usually signifies the person in charge of producing the magazine/website.
- Commercial reception – just a couple of minor grammatical changes... "it debuted and peaked at
thenumber two on the Billboard Top Latin Albums chart... "Aries remained IN this position until it was replaced by the Gipsy Kings's album..." "Aries HAD sold over two million copies worldwide as of 2000". Richard3120 (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Richard3120: Hey Richard! I believed I've addressed everything in regards to grammar (especially the quote error that I overlooked). Now as for "Ayer" and "Tu y Yo", I will need your input on this on. When I started working on this article, I searched online to ensure that all the songs that charted were indeed singles. I find the first three through MercadoLibre, Todocoleccion, Eil, and eBay. I just found out through Discogs that "Tu y Yo" was released as a promo single for the US (source). I can just source the CD ID given Discogs is not accepted due to it being a user-submitted website. That only leaves "Hasta el Fin" which I still can't find an online to show it was released as a single. Erick (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Magiciandude, I'll have a look, but it may well be that it was not released as a single. I am wondering, seeing as the Billboard charts include an airplay component as well as sales, whether either "Tu y Yo" or "Hasta el Fin" were ever properly released as singles, and maybe they just charted on airplay alone? I think a US editor might be of more help here: I'm British and the UK charts have always been based on sales (and more recently, sales + streaming) only, so US chart positions have always been a bit of a mystery to me. Richard3120 (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Richard3120: As far as the Hot Latin Songs chart goes, it was solely based on airplay at the time the album came out. It wasn't until late 2012 when they started factoring sales and streaming as well. Would it be alright with you if I just mention "Tu y Yo" being a promo single being released in the US for now? Erick (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, that probably answers the question then – if it was just an airplay-based chart then it's very likley those two songs were released to radio stations as promotional singles only, and they gained their chart positions on airplay on those stations. I guess all you can do is say they were promo singles for the time being. Richard3120 (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Richard3120: Alright, I went ahead and amended the sentence per your suggestion. I have one more question. In the same interview on why he wasn't making another Romance, he said would do it after making Aries. Should I mention that in this article or should it just remain in the article for Segundo Romance? Erick (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well, that probably answers the question then – if it was just an airplay-based chart then it's very likley those two songs were released to radio stations as promotional singles only, and they gained their chart positions on airplay on those stations. I guess all you can do is say they were promo singles for the time being. Richard3120 (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Richard3120: As far as the Hot Latin Songs chart goes, it was solely based on airplay at the time the album came out. It wasn't until late 2012 when they started factoring sales and streaming as well. Would it be alright with you if I just mention "Tu y Yo" being a promo single being released in the US for now? Erick (talk) 00:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- Magiciandude, I'll have a look, but it may well be that it was not released as a single. I am wondering, seeing as the Billboard charts include an airplay component as well as sales, whether either "Tu y Yo" or "Hasta el Fin" were ever properly released as singles, and maybe they just charted on airplay alone? I think a US editor might be of more help here: I'm British and the UK charts have always been based on sales (and more recently, sales + streaming) only, so US chart positions have always been a bit of a mystery to me. Richard3120 (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
@Richard3120: Hey Richard, it's been five days since my last comment. I need to know if everything has been resolved. Thanks, Erick (talk) 22:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Erick, my apologies, I've had a busy week and haven't logged on to Wikipedia at all. I think the only thing is in the second paragraph of the lead, where you might need to state, "Two further songs were released as promotional singles, "Hasta el Fin" and "Tú y Yo", and both peaked at number four on the Hot Latin Songs chart"... Otherwise, all good. Richard3120 (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Richard3120:, That's fine. As long as I can get this FAC going, I'm good. Anyways, I've addressed your remaining issue. Thanks! Erick (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 19:15, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- At first glance the article is polished and well-written, will submit a full review within 24 hours. Best – jona ✉ 19:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Lead
- What type of success did his 1991 album Romance attained? Commercial, critical, or a combination of both?
- Why say US Billboard Top Latin Albums but earlier only say Billboard Top Latin Songs?
- Too many instances with chart in the second paragraph
- So only "Pensar en Ti" received airplay in Mexico? I don't believe it is critical information needed in the lead if the track only received airplay in Mexico, what's the point of telling readers that a song was played on the radio?
- Why not link List of diamond-certified albums in Argentina in the lead; though this is just a suggestion.
- I feel that the sales/certifications could all be compressed into one sentence.
- Background and recording
- I believe saying that Romance was a commercial success rather than a success by itself way reads better.
- Singles and promotion
- I thought that after its second mention, the United States would be abbreviated? Or is that a stylistic choice?
- Critical reception
- A space is needed for FN#33. And that is all I found for my first full read of the article. – jona ✉ 22:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- @AJona1992:, thanks for the review. I will address these tomorrow. Erick (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
@AJona1992:, I believe I addressed everything you brought up except for the many instances of chart, because that's what they are and there aren't any similar words to it. Erick (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- @AJona1992:, it's been four days since my last comment. Please get to me as soon as you can. Erick (talk) 05:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Coord note -- I didn't notice an image-licensing review; you can request one at the top of WT:FAC]. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Media check - all OK
- Fair use cover image - OK.
- 1 file cropped from CC image with attribution - OK.
- 2 fair use sound samples - length and usage OK. GermanJoe (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Montreal Laboratory
Having written about the British and American components of the Manhattan Project, this article is about the Canadian part. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. There have been no changes since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Support I could not find various issues other than the lead's first paragraph being a bit small and three references used for "They were succeeded by George Weil in November 1945." Other than that, I hope this article becomes a FA. Also I've recently made my first FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allen Walker/archive1 and I would appreciate any feedback. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:10, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments
- Overall, a worthy candidate.
- Why are commonly known country-names ("Canada", "United Kingdom", "Switzerland", "Austria") linked? Why are three geographical names bunch-linked at the opening?
- Uncomfortable switch from "United Kingdom" to "Britain" in the opening sentence. Later, I see "England". Me, I'd be using "UK" and "US", but it's up to you.
- "The Maud Committee was uncertain as to whether this was relevant"—perhaps two words could be removed ... do you agree?
- "although there remained a possibility that a reactor could be used to breed plutonium, which might be used in one."—"could/might have been used"?
- "Due to American concerns about security (as many of the scientists were foreign nationals) and ..."—"as" is often a problem; I'd used "since", but here, why not just remove it altogether?
- "Director"—MOS, CMOS, and the Oxford NHR all say to minimise unnecessary caps.
- I guess two temporal vaguenesses are OK in the lead—"eventually" and "for a time"—presuming that they're clarified in the body of the article.
- "in order to"? Please.
I've read through just the lead and first section. Tony (talk) 03:19, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your review Tony.
- Someone keeps linking country names. Unlinked them, and I'll keep a watch to make sure they don't come back.
- I have to use the future in the past tense about the plutonium. Today we know that you can breed plutonium in a reactor, and that it is fissile, and can be used in an atomic bomb. But back then neither was certain; the element had been theorised, but not yet discovered.
- All my sources agree that NRX was the most powerful research reactor in the world when it was started in 1947. However, they don't say what replaced it. In Canada it was superseded by NRU, which started up in 1957. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Mike Christie
Not much to complain about here, but I have a couple of minor quibbles.
"For the purpose, he obtained 450 kilograms (990 lb) of uranium dioxide in paper bags obtained from": "obtained" twice."notably proximity to materials such as heavy water": is "proximity" the right word here? I would have thought access, not proximity, would have been key."Auger assumed the position instead": I assume this refers to the position offered Kowarski, but it's been several sentences so a more explicit reference would be helpful."He also tried to recruit Harry Thode": who is "He"? The referent appears to be Laurence and Mackenzie, in which case it should be "They"."It established the Combined Policy Committee to control the Manhattan Project, on which Canada was represented by Howe": suggest "It established the Combined Policy Committee, on which Canada was represented by Howe, to control the Manhattan Project", assuming that's the intended meaning.The appointment of Cockcroft as head of the AERE baffled me till I realized that it was a UK organization; most of the alphabet soup in the article refers to Canadian organizations. Can you make it clearer within the sentence that Cockcroft was being pulled from Canada? After the "Cockcroft did not depart" sentence I realized I must be missing something, and clicked through to the AERE article.- Changed to: "the British government suddenly announced that Cockcroft had been appointed the head of the new Atomic Energy Research Establishment in Britain" Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Support. Looks in good shape to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Coord note -- I think we still need image and source reviews if you could chase pls, Hawkeye. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The Pale Emperor
- Nominator(s): Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
This article is about The Pale Emperor, the ninth studio album from rock band Marilyn Manson. It's currently a Good article, and has gone through the Peer review process. I believe it meets all the criteria for FA status. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Support Comment I reviewed this at PR, and I think the article is in good shape; once these minor points are fixed I expect to support.
- One question left over from the PR: why do we care that Jimmy Chamberlin returned to the Smashing Pumpkins in an article about a Marilyn Manson album?
- If you're going to quote "pure", I'd quote it first time and then not quote it afterwards, rather than the reverse.
- I'd change "opined" to something like "said"; I know "opined" gets used a lot in this sort of section but I think it almost always sounds like the writer is straining for a verb other than "said". "Said" is almost invisible and very hard to overuse.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi again Mike. I've taken care of all your points. Sorry about the Jimmy Chamberlin one. It must have slipped through the net somehow. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- No problem. Looks good now; I've supported above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Hi Homeostasis07, I think you've seen my first tentative poke of an edit. I'm going to give this a harder look today, which I hope to finish as quickly as possible. —Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Alright, here we go:
-
- I see on Marilyn Manson/Brian Warner's Wikipedia page that he's said that "Marilyn Manson" is "not a stage name. It's not my legal name ... Marilyn Manson is owned by Brian Warner, my real name." This seems to be a preference for being called Warner, not "Manson". I happened to think of this because it seems somewhat odd to call him "Manson," the last name, alone, since this really is just part of a sort-of-stage name and not really a "last name" — sort of like calling David Bowie "Stardust" on second reference, only stickier since Warner is more closely identified by that name. I also know that there is a classic confusion/distinction between Marilyn Manson, the person, and Marilyn Manson, the band. This is a complicated issue that probably requires consensus across multiple pages related to him. It seems like it would be appropriate to refer to him as "Manson" if he's referred to on a page about, say, Industrial rock, or really anything outside of pages about him, since it would be potentially confusing. Maybe those issues also apply in pages about him. I'm not really sure, but I think it's worth pondering whether "Warner" is better, perhaps with some notice early on the page: more accurate, seems to be preferred by the man himself, possibly clearer writing.
-
- This is a tricky issue. If you take everything that Manson has ever said, a case could be made for Brian Warner. However, he is known as Marilyn Manson professionally. The only time you ever see his given name being used is during album reviews written by someone who doesn't like him - this one, for example. Band members refer to him as Manson: www
.mansonwiki .com /wiki /Interview:2000 _Kerrang! Even his dad calls him "Manson". Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is a tricky issue. If you take everything that Manson has ever said, a case could be made for Brian Warner. However, he is known as Marilyn Manson professionally. The only time you ever see his given name being used is during album reviews written by someone who doesn't like him - this one, for example. Band members refer to him as Manson: www
- I think you saw that I removed some of the Twiggy info from the lead. However, some of those facts would be interesting and better-suited for inclusion in the body, particularly the fact that this was his first time sitting out since his return to the band.
- "On June 25, bassist Fred Sablan..." The tethering of a specific date here, but not other places, is a little odd, especially because I don't have a clear sense of what year it is by the time this is mentioned. I'd recommend either including more dates, or at least years or month/year (for example, when is "three days before he was due to begin a tour"?)
- Template:Pull quote is supposed to be for pull quotes, aka magazine-like visual repetitions of quotes already in the text, not block quotes. I don't really think this is the best policy because people love to use that template for block quotes but people seem to adhere to it.
- The sample of "The Mephistopheles of Los Angeles" requires a caption with a description of the sample and an explanation of what musical elements are commented on, to justify its fair use. As a model you can refer to the sample boxes on OK Computer#Composition.
- This is neither here nor there, but I'm not totally convinced of the notability or need for a MarilynManson.com article.
-
- Shall I remove the link to MarilynManson.com in the Release and artwork section, or—? Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Editions of the album sold at Walmart stores..." This sentence screams out for a quote from Manson from the source, since Walmart-bashing sass is his bread and butter.
- Since you discuss Bates' departure from the touring band, it would be a good idea to include an earlier sentence listing the original touring line-up, since the complicated lineup changes and inclusion of new members would make it difficult for even a long-time fan to keep track, let alone a reader with no knowledge of the band.
- This is very recent but isn't Manson's tour with Slipknot getting bad press for his intoxicated appearance and sloppy performing? Worth mentioning here, or in that tour's article?
-
- I've been procrastinating about making an article for the tour, because I think it can be adequately summarized in The Hell Not Hallelujah Tour. A lot of the stuff online is just tabloid fodder, and grossly exaggerated: Rock N Roll Experience Magazine created this video disproving a lot of the nonsense. I think it'd be sort of pointless to point out that a bunch of sources claimed that X and Y happened, but then be able to clarify in the next sentence that neither actually occurred. What do you think? Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- This article relies a lot on a narrative that The Pale Emperor is Manson's best work in some time. I think this narrative is well-grounded in the sources. However, there is an issue that a reader with no knowledge of Manson's previous works has no footing in what this means. I think a brief introductory paragraph in the background would serve the article well, just to generally acquaint the reader with the idea that Manson has a generally agreed upon golden era of his late-90s/early 00s work, that he's had various hiatuses or troubles, and that at a certain point critical response to his new albums had chilled. This will prepare the reader to understand the arc of his career and how The Pale Emperor fits in.
- "with a Kerrang! review echoing a similar sentiment." I'd like to know a bit more here — Kerrang! is a big deal among hard rock publications, and especially consider the review is not linked, meaning the reader has to rely on whatever representation you offer.
- You should include an archive link for every single source. Most can be found at archive.org or are easy to back up there. Trust me, this will save more articles at FAR in the future than any single improvement. Links die all the time and archived urls on deck, just in case, should be mandatory for featuring imho. Just add archiveurl, archivedate, and deadurl=no.
- Let me know when you've responded and I'll take another look. —Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I've taken care of every point you've raised above, except for the 3 that I commented on. Let me know what you think. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- Support Thanks for taking care of all of those points. I think considering that this album was released not so long ago, you've done an amazing job aggregating all the sources into an FA-quality article, without the recentness resulting in any serious gaps in the story. The points you addressed above are fine as is — I think the convention of calling him Manson rather than Warner makes sense, but just wanted to double-check; as long as that article exists the links are fine; and whether accounts of Manson's behavior on tour are sensationalized or not (and as you pointed out it seems that they are), they're certainly not required for this article. Well done. —BLZ · talk 00:01, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: I've got a few problems with the sourcing of this one. The lead is OK, but a little confusing in places. However, in the first paragraph of "Background", I have found several problems with sourcing. I'm quite sure that what the article says is true, and that there are sources that back up the statements. Indeed, I found such evidence myself. But the sources cited for several statements do not do what is claimed of them. Mainly we seem to be stretching what they say and drawing our own conclusions, which is basically WP:SYNTHESIS. I think this is fixable, but I'm a little worried that there were so many issues in one paragraph. For that reason, I have to oppose, and I would recommend looking carefully at each statement and making sure that the information is in the source that has been cited for that statement. It may just be a case of moving things around a little, but it needs doing. Feel free to argue or discuss, but I'll take some convincing on this one at the moment. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for taking the time to review the article, @Sarastro1:. That entire first paragraph was a fairly recent addition, and was based the suggestions above. Although I think it's a good idea to have such information as background to the album, I'm not 100% convinced that such a paragraph is totally necessary here. I remember reading some decent articles at The Guardian and Los Angeles Times on the band recently, so I'll have a look and see what I can do. But I would be more than willing to remove that entire paragraph, if it would mean we could proceed with the nomination. I'll work on this and your comments below over the next couple of hours. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- I actually think the paragraph is a good idea, it's just the sourcing that needs to be sorted. There are a few ways to do it and it might be easier to cut the number of sources and just cite less often; a few of the sources would support a lot of the paragraph. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to review the article, @Sarastro1:. That entire first paragraph was a fairly recent addition, and was based the suggestions above. Although I think it's a good idea to have such information as background to the album, I'm not 100% convinced that such a paragraph is totally necessary here. I remember reading some decent articles at The Guardian and Los Angeles Times on the band recently, so I'll have a look and see what I can do. But I would be more than willing to remove that entire paragraph, if it would mean we could proceed with the nomination. I'll work on this and your comments below over the next couple of hours. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- "The album was released in standard and deluxe editions on CD and 2×LP vinyl, as well as a box set": Not a huge fan of "as well as" here. Why not just "The album was released in standard and deluxe editions on CD and 2×LP vinyl, and as a box set"? And why not expand on what the box set was? Just a word or two.
-
- Fixed, I think. There are details about the collectors box in the last paragraph of Release and artwork. Which point do you think would be best to include? Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- "The standard version of the album contains ten tracks, while the deluxe edition includes three acoustic versions as bonus tracks.": "While" seems an odd choice of word here. Again, why not just "and", or a semi-colon if we want some variety?
-
- Fixed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- "The album features drummer Gil Sharone, formerly of The Dillinger Escape Plan, but does not include songwriting or performance contributions from bassist Twiggy, who was busy with his own projects.": It's not clear to me why this sentence is here. The first part of the sentence talks about who the drummer is, then we talk about how the bassist did not write for the album. Are we discussing personnel or writing? I think it's worth having separate sentence if that is the case. Similarly, this is written as if it is unusual that Twiggy did not write; this suggests to me that either all the band members wrote for the album (in which case we should say so) or that Twiggy normally wrote (in which case we should say so). I think we need to help the reader here.
-
- I've separated the sentences about Gil and Twiggy. I've reworded Twiggy's sentence to: "It was the first album since his return to the band in 2008 to not include songwriting or performance contributions from bassist Twiggy, who was busy with his own projects." which is sourced in the Background section. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- "It spawned three official singles...": Spawned? Why not "Three official singles were released..."?
-
- Changed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's also a little confusing in the Background section that Marilyn Manson refers to both the individual and the band without distinguishing them.
-
- Both the band and its frontman go by the same name, so yeah, this can get confusing. I've used "Marilyn Manson" as sparingly as I could here, preferring instead to use "the band", "the group", etc. Maybe it might help for me to link the first instance of Marilyn Manson in the prose to Marilyn Manson (band), and the first case of "Manson" to Marilyn Manson. The man himself goes by Manson. You'd never come across a source referring to the band in the singular. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- "Marilyn Manson was one of the most controversial and commercially successful hard rock bands of the late 90s.": Whenever I see a list of 4 references after a statement like this, I worry a lot. Either the sourcing is weak, or there is synthesis, or we are hedging our bets. I think this is the latter; the current ref 2 does not really support the sentence, nor does ref 4 support it strongly, and the website does not seem the most reliable. I think the other two refs would suffice if something stronger, such as from a biography or profile can be used (such as the Rolling Stone profile used later).
-
- I've removed those two problematic sources. The ones left - Metal Hammer and The Huffington Post - do refer to them as "one of the most iconic and controversial" acts of "the last 20 years". Maybe late 90s isn't correct. Will I change that to "of the last two decades"? Also, removed the stuff about commercially successful. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- "This controversy peaked in 1999, when news media falsely scapegoated the band for influencing the perpetrators of the Columbine High School massacre, which Manson has said "totally shoved [my career] in the dirt".[5] Subsequent albums were released to mixed reviews from both critics and fans alike, and waning commercial success resulted in the band being dropped by its long-time record label Interscope in 2009": A bit of a problem here. The source used does not support everything in these sentences; for example, it does not say that the "media" blamed him, but it says the "Christian right" did and it says that he was "scapegoated". While it may be true that he was "falsely" scapegoated, this source does not verify that, so we would need a source that explicitly said so. To be pedantic,it does not say that the perpetrators were influenced, just that the event was, but I think that would be OK from this source. Nor does the source say that the controversy peaked in 1999. And the source does not say that reviews were mixed, but that the albums "were mostly panned by both critics and fans". And it does not say that he was dropped by Interscope for falling sales, just that he was dropped.
-
- I've re-worded a lot of this. I've added The Guardian as a reference for the first sentence, which does say "After the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, fingers pointed at Manson. It was falsely reported that the killers had been fans and were influenced by his music, making Manson a scapegoat and a bastion of toxic values." I've also changed the latter part to "Subsequent albums were criticized by both critics and fans alike, and the band was dropped by its long-time record label Interscope in 2009." The source says "panned", but that doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me. I've opted for "criticized" instead. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- "The first album released under this new deal was 2012's Born Villain, which was heralded as a return to form": The source only gives CNN's view that is was a return to form, and it does not support that it was the first album for his new label.
-
- Gave a better source. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- "Manson suffered from chronic depression during this period": The source does not support "chronic depression" ("In subsequent interviews, Von Teese pointed to Manson's alleged infidelities, substance abuse and demons (inner, not pets). He blamed depression and a basic reluctance to change his ways."). Additionally, as written it looks as if his depression was linked to his career; it does not say so outright, but there is a subtle suggestion The source does not make any such links.
- "which was exacerbated by heavy drug use": This is not in the source. The source has "For nearly two hours, Manson touched on nearly every aspect of his life, from his $200,000 on-tour drug habit to being blamed for school shootings to the depression he suffered after splitting from his girlfriend" which does not link depression and drugs. The only other relevant mention of drugs is "Do drugs and drink when you’re happy, not when you’re sad. It has a great effect. But I can’t say that I did that the whole time." but that does not support the statement either.
- "the breakdown of numerous personal relationships": The link with depression is not supported. The source has "And though he doesn't address it outright, that dark period coincides with Manson's protracted breakup with ex-fiancée Evan Rachel Wood." but that is not discussing depression being exacerbated.
- "as well as his mother's advanced-stage Alzheimer's disease and dementia": And again, I can find no link to depression, which is what we are making here. Although it does link his relationship problems with his depression.
-
- I've taken the liberty of re-arranging some of your comments here, for readability. Everything between this comment and my previous one has been wiped clean from the article, so should no longer be an issue. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm stopping here as there are just too many sourcing problems to make it worth continuing at the moment. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- I think I've dealt with everything you've commented on so far. Let me know what you think. Sorry your experience reviewing this article started out so atrociously. As I said before, that first paragraph was a recent addition - I should've taken better care of it beforehand. A lot more work went in to the rest of the article, and is sourced much better, I promise. ;) Thanks again for all your time. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment: OK, the sourcing issues above seem to be sorted and I've checked one or two other sources which seem fine. . I've struck the oppose and will have a look at the rest of the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Night of January 16th
This article is about the debut play of author Ayn Rand. It was her first big professional success, and the only one of her plays to be a hit. It was also the last hit for Al Woods, one the most successful Broadway producers of the early 20th century.
Since the previous nomination there is some additional material and sources, as well as a couple of additional images. The article also went to the Guild of Copy Editors for a thorough copy edit. Finally, I approached User:Curly Turkey about mentoring under the new FAC mentoring scheme. He provided additional copy editing and some feedback. So now it's here for round three. RL0919 (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I support on prose, as I did last round. The nom died last time from reviewer apathy rather than unresolved issues. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comments
- Not sure different premiere-dates and theatres for each title in the infobox is necessary. It seems just the title changed; it wasn't substantially a different play. Otoh I think Woman on Trial and Penthouse Legend need to be in the infobox.
- Jury element: the long list of celebrity of juror names is unnecessary and tedious to read. All you need is a couple of the most prominent names. If you don't want to lose the info, you can relegate it to a footnote.
- Themes: surprised to see no mention of Objectivism. What place does the philosophy of Night have in her overall thought?—indopug (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Replies:
- I reduced the info to just the first premier, as Woman on Trial, so you can see what that might look like. {{Infobox play}} does not have a parameter for alternative titles, and the 'name' parameter creates the infobox header, so I don't know of any other way the other titles would be mentioned there.
- I get your point on the juror list; will look at different ways of doing it
and probably update tomorrow. See update below. - The play is from early in Rand's career and is by her own description not philosophical. Basically it pre-dates Objectivism or any systematic philosophizing by her. To the extent that it was influenced by philosophy, the common view in sources is that it was the philosophy of Nietzsche, which Rand was interested in at the time but which she later rejected. --RL0919 (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- If you can find a source that says that, it would be good to say so for those who may be wondering. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I moved most of the juror details to a note. I did a draft of leaving it in the body with fewer names, but it seemed somewhat arbitrary as to who I might include. Regarding philosophy, most of what I said above is in the article, except the chronological point that this was written before she formulated Objectivism.
I'll see if there is a source that says that or some equivalent.I did remove the addition of "philosopher" as a description for her, because that is anachronistic. --RL0919 (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC) Turned out to be easier to source than I expected, thanks to a book published earlier this year. --RL0919 (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)- @Indopug:, it's been a while since your last comment, and I wanted to make sure you knew that I had responded to all of your previous input. Thanks for helping, and let me know if you have any other suggestions for the article. --RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am happy with the changes so far. My major remaining concern is with the structure of the article. History seems far too broad and unwieldy (stretching from 1933 to 1973 with many sudden narrative leaps in between), and Productions too dry (as a list of theatres, dates and actors) and somewhat repetitive of History (don't see why the month-long EE Clive production needs to be in two sections; ditto for the Ambassador run). I think having the entire History+Productions info recast completely chronologically and then split into new sections (Background, Writing, Creative conflicts, Productions, Aftermath maybe?) would solve these problems, but I'm not sure.—indopug (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- I was a little skeptical, but actually that turned out to be a relatively easy change, and generally an improvement. Give it a look and see what you think. Section titles and image placement may need some tweaking, as might wording of specific sentences that are in new places within the narrative. --RL0919 (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- I am happy with the changes so far. My major remaining concern is with the structure of the article. History seems far too broad and unwieldy (stretching from 1933 to 1973 with many sudden narrative leaps in between), and Productions too dry (as a list of theatres, dates and actors) and somewhat repetitive of History (don't see why the month-long EE Clive production needs to be in two sections; ditto for the Ambassador run). I think having the entire History+Productions info recast completely chronologically and then split into new sections (Background, Writing, Creative conflicts, Productions, Aftermath maybe?) would solve these problems, but I'm not sure.—indopug (talk) 09:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Indopug:, it's been a while since your last comment, and I wanted to make sure you knew that I had responded to all of your previous input. Thanks for helping, and let me know if you have any other suggestions for the article. --RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- I moved most of the juror details to a note. I did a draft of leaving it in the body with fewer names, but it seemed somewhat arbitrary as to who I might include. Regarding philosophy, most of what I said above is in the article, except the chronological point that this was written before she formulated Objectivism.
-
@Indopug: Just making sure you saw the changes made following your last suggestion. I did do some further tweaking after my previous comment. Not sure if you are following this FAC page and/or the article. --RL0919 (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@RL0919:
- First time reviewing a play but I'll try to address some issues I find:
- Avoid short paragraphs like "Despite the disputes between Rand and Woods, the play opened at Shubert's Ambassador Theatre on September 16, 1935, where it ran successfully for seven months. It closed on April 4, 1936, after 283 performances.[23]" If you can't expand them, merge it other paragraphs with others. Same is with "In 1989, Bollywood director Anant Balani's debut film Gawaahi, a Hindi-language adaptation of Night of January 16th starring Indian actress Zeenat Aman, was released.[99][100]"
- In the "Cast of the Broadway production of Night of January 16th (in speaking order)" there are some blank parts in Other notable performers. However, are they necessary for this article?
- Other than that I don't find other noticeable issues with this article (probably because I'm not new to them). However, I would recommend archiving some really old references in case they become deadlinks. Also, if you have time could you check my FAN, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allen Walker/archive1? Also, I would suggest you to review more FAN in order to get more feedback to this nomination. Good luck with this article.Tintor2 (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Tintor2:, thanks for the feedback. Added archive links for online-only sources per your suggestion. There are only a few of those. Many of the links are online archives of print sources, and as such are verifiable even if the linked sites cease to exist. I also merged one paragraph and expanded another. The paragraph about Gawaahi is still somewhat short, but the content doesn't really belong as part of another paragraph. Regarding the cast lists, the intention is that non-Broadway cast are listed only if the actor is notable, so there will typically be some unfilled slots. Hope that addresses all your concerns about the article. --RL0919 (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Support. I have a couple of minor comments which don't affect my support.
- "Rand wanted her play to have no fixed ending, which would depend on the result of the trial": perhaps "Rand wanted her play's ending to depend on the result of the trial, rather than having a fixed final scene".
- Why does the comment on the table say only to include blue-linked actors? Shouldn't it include any actor notable enough for an article, even if there's no article yet?
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support! Specific replies:
- I'm fine with that wording; updated accordingly.
- I'm pretty sure I mimicked the note about the table from another article. For this article at least, I think the most important part is not blue-linked vs. notable, it's only listing performers from the productions discussed in the article. Otherwise it can attract cruft about Famous Person who appeared in some high school production. So I tweaked the wording of the note. --RL0919 (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Coord notes
- Looks like we need the usual image licensing check, and source review for formatting/reliability.
- Also as this is your first FAC, RL0919, I'd also like a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, a hoop we ask all first-timers to jump through.
All these checks can be conducted by people who've commented above or you can post requests at the top of WT:FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Night of January 16th jury flyer front.jpg: Free file on Commons that illustrates a cover of the work. I am going to trust that there is no copyright notice.
-
- Other side of the flyer is one of images below, so confirmed that there is no notice on either side. I added a mention of this to the Commons description pages for both sides.
- File:Ayn Rand.jpg: Photo of author in the section on background and production seems relevant. License tag seems legit. Caption supported by article.
- File:E.E. Clive in The Little Princess.jpg: Photo of the stage-r in the section on that seems pertinent. Caption supported by article text. PD claim credible, dunno how to check.
-
- The public domain status of the movie is cited to a reliable source at The Little Princess (1939 film). To confirm that the image is from that movie, I suppose you would have to watch it. Clive appears around 38 minutes in; I added that detail to the description on Commons.
- File:Albert H. Woods 001.jpg: Photo of the producer in the section on the subsequent productions seems OK. Caption supported by article text. A link for verification would be nice, but the info provided is a legit claim of PD-US-1923.
-
- Added more source detail on Commons, including a Google Books link.
- File:Doris Nolan in Top of the Town still.JPG: Photo of an actor in the section of the synopsis seems germane, but is better supported in the subsequent section where the caption is supported. I cannot find the image at the source.
-
- There is usually this problem when uploaders get images from eBay and link a search page as the source, because the search results change. There are alternative links provided on the Commons description page that show the front and back of an uncropped print.
- File:AvalonTheater.JPG: Image is vaguely germane to the section, but the caption is not supported in that section at least. Image is freely licensed, EXIF matches that of other uploads and the file does not seem to come from elsewhere.
-
- The text in the section does say it opened at the Hollywood Playhouse as Woman on Trial,
although the year is not mentioned in that section. The year is supported in the History section above (and could be omitted from the caption if that seems too remote).Update: On reflection, the year is irrelevant detail for that caption, so I went ahead and removed it.
- The text in the section does say it opened at the Hollywood Playhouse as Woman on Trial,
- File:Edmund Breese.jpeg: Photo of castmember in the section on that seems relevant, caption is supported there. Source link is vague.
-
- Added specific link on Commons.
- File:Phoebe Foster in Vanity Fair March 1916.jpg: Photo of castmember in the section on that seems relevant, caption is supported there. A link for verification would be nice, but the info provided is a legit claim of PD-US-1923.
-
- Added link on Commons.
- File:Night of January 16th jury flyer back.jpg: Photo of an advertisement of the jury system in the section on that system is pertinent, is the caption supported somewhere? Assuming that the back of the advert doesn't have a copyright notice, the copyright tag is legit.
-
- Other side of the flyer is the image in the infobox, as discussed for the first bullet above. The image shown demonstrates what the caption says; caption could be altered if that isn't sufficient.
- File:Walter Pidgeon-publicity.JPG: Photo of a cast member in the reception section seems vaguely relevant. Caption supported in different parts of the text. Source link is vague.
-
- He was called out for praise by reviewers, so he seemed more relevant in that section than any other image. Unfortunately I can't do much about the link the original uploader provided, but a distributed print of the same photo can be seen here, with front and back shown to demonstrate absence of copyright notice. I've added that link to the description page on Commons.
- File:NightOfJanuary16thmovie.jpg: Non-free film poster. Concerned that it violates WP:NFCC#8 on this page as it does not significantly contribute to understanding the article topic.
-
- My take is that fair use to illustrate matters that are covered in a particular section of an article is not uncommon. (And, for what it's worth, there was no objection in two previous FAC image reviews.) But one image out of 11 isn't make or break, so I'm open to removing if it is perceived as a problem.
No comments on the ALT text, the infobox may benefit from it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing. Replies about specific items provided above. --RL0919 (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- I am inclined to let other people comment on the NFCC#8 issue. As for File:Edmund Breese.jpeg I presume it doesn't have a copyright notice? The source indicates the file might have been published after 1923 - creation date and publication date are frequently not the same thing much to my annoyance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding the Edmund Breese photo: The source print does not have a copyright notice -- both sides can be seen at the NYPL website. The back is stamped with the date 1938 (probably when it was taken into an archive), so the print at least existed then. But it is probably much older, because it is the product of Elmer Chickering, who died in 1915. As to the movie poster, others please weigh in. --RL0919 (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Since no one else has provided input, I've gone the "better safe than sorry" route and removed the movie poster image. @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, let me know if you have any other image concerns or if we can consider the review passed. --RL0919 (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding the Edmund Breese photo: The source print does not have a copyright notice -- both sides can be seen at the NYPL website. The back is stamped with the date 1938 (probably when it was taken into an archive), so the print at least existed then. But it is probably much older, because it is the product of Elmer Chickering, who died in 1915. As to the movie poster, others please weigh in. --RL0919 (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- I am inclined to let other people comment on the NFCC#8 issue. As for File:Edmund Breese.jpeg I presume it doesn't have a copyright notice? The source indicates the file might have been published after 1923 - creation date and publication date are frequently not the same thing much to my annoyance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Spot checks
My ability to do spot checks was rather limited as many of the sources such as Branden aren't accessible to me. However, I checked one or two of the reviews, and I found an online copy of Burns, and a couple of the available newspaper pieces. I only found one issue: some of the material cited to Ruth Gordon's 1969 article doesn't appear to be in that article. I may have missed it, but it looks like Gordon doesn't mention the bankruptcy, and the money he lost in 1929 was apparently not lost in the crash, but seems to have been taken by his wife. The article doesn't say he lost his fortune because of the crash, but that's such an obvious implication I think the reader needs to be warned it's not the case. Of course Gordon is telling a nostalgic story forty years later, so it might be better to elide it all into "his fortunes fell in the 1930s" or something similar. Finally, I don't see the "six more plays" in the Gordon piece; is that in Kaufman, which is also cited for that sentence? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Kauffman covers his final bankruptcy: "Woods died bankrupt." Doesn't get more direct than that. But the specific number of plays after Night isn't mentioned there. I'll see if I can trace the source for that detail. I take your point about his earlier financial decline. Gordon is oblique about exactly what happened; Kauffman doesn't describe those details either. This makes it hard to be both specific and brief, so your suggestion of keeping it vague is probably the best.
- FWIW, I have most (not quite all) of the sources in my possession, so if there is something you would like to check, I can provide quotes. Or even scans of print pages, where that's the format. --RL0919 (talk) 02:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, no need to send scans -- the checks I did make me confident enough. If you can just adjust the points discussed above I think that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
California State Route 76
State Route 76 is another highway in San Diego County. It has existed in some form since the 1930s and is still used widely today. Rschen7754 19:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Small Content Comment - In the "Major Intersections" subsection, it says
R reflects a realignment in the route since then, M indicates a second realignment, L refers an overlap due to a correction or change, and T indicates postmiles classified as temporary
- And then in the following table that this is supposedly a key for, there are only R's and no-letters. I question why this is necessary at all? Is information about realigned milemarkers not available for all the intersections? Why include M, L, and Ts in the key when you don't use them? Fieari (talk) 06:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is a template that is used across many California state highway articles. Only routes with those particular realignments will have postmiles with those particular letters. --Rschen7754 06:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, that's troublesome. The table's key is in prose above the table, making it part of the article in general, not seeming to be part of a template. That means I'm looking for "Brilliant prose", and... well, this isn't. I'd also want to know why some of the mile listings are 1964 based, and some are more accurate. This sort of information should be in a FA. Fieari (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- "The table's key is in prose above the table, making it part of the article in general, not seeming to be part of a template." -> it is part of a template, see Template:CAinttop. Also, all postmiles were measured in 1964, across the state. It is when a route was realigned after that a letter is added. --Rschen7754 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Fieari: In this case, after the FAC was submitted I discovered another source for the mileages, and have replaced all of them on this article. This should resolve your objections. With that being said, I am strongly concerned with the reviewing methodology of focusing on the legend for a table, rather than reviewing the other 98% of the article, the latter of which I would encourage you to focus on in future reviews. --Rschen7754 06:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you Rschen, that does look better. I know I only focused on this one place, but that's only because it stood out to me like a glaring thumb after only a cursory glance over the article-- that is, it didn't make any sense to me, and context did not seem apparent. Please consider this a compliment... the rest of the article did not have anything jump out at me.
- Allow me to be more formal about it:
- Prose Check, Pass - The article is comprehensible, with no outstanding sections that are difficult to read or confusing. The prose is flowing, and free of grammatical errors (that I could find). The article is informative, and covers the points I would expect to find in an excellent article of this sort.
- I have not conducted a sourcing check. Fieari (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Fieari: In this case, after the FAC was submitted I discovered another source for the mileages, and have replaced all of them on this article. This should resolve your objections. With that being said, I am strongly concerned with the reviewing methodology of focusing on the legend for a table, rather than reviewing the other 98% of the article, the latter of which I would encourage you to focus on in future reviews. --Rschen7754 06:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- "The table's key is in prose above the table, making it part of the article in general, not seeming to be part of a template." -> it is part of a template, see Template:CAinttop. Also, all postmiles were measured in 1964, across the state. It is when a route was realigned after that a letter is added. --Rschen7754 14:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, that's troublesome. The table's key is in prose above the table, making it part of the article in general, not seeming to be part of a template. That means I'm looking for "Brilliant prose", and... well, this isn't. I'd also want to know why some of the mile listings are 1964 based, and some are more accurate. This sort of information should be in a FA. Fieari (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is a template that is used across many California state highway articles. Only routes with those particular realignments will have postmiles with those particular letters. --Rschen7754 06:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 14:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I reviewed this article against the featured article criteria during an A-class review, as well as verifying sources in the same review. - Floydian τ ¢ 18:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments on just the lead
- "State Route 76 (SR 76) is a 52.63-mile-long (84.70 km) state highway in the U.S. state of California." The value–unit wording is very awkward—illogical, actually. -> "State Route 76 (SR 76) is a state highway 52.63 miles (84.70 km) long in the U.S. state of California."
- Why is "U.S. state" linked (bunched with "California")—the state name barely needs linking, let alone a ... list of all US states???
- I've been told that this is to provide the proper context for the reader - I think this was requested at FAC a while back for some U.S. roads article, and it is on many of those FAs. If the general practice at FAC has changed, I would be willing to adjust it. --Rschen7754 05:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- "It is a frequently used east–west route"—ambiguous: could refer to repeated use by the same people. "much used".
- "The highway serves as a major route through the region"—"is".
- "continuing east into the community of Bonsall while providing access to Fallbrook"—while? Simpler just to write "to provide" (if that is most or all of the purpose of the continuation); or ", providing".
- "and was officially designated as SR 76 in the 1964 state highway renumbering, though the route was known as SR 76 before then"—why "though"? Are you contraverting from the previous proposition? "was previously known" would be plainer.
- "Caltrans"—what is it? Better to spell out on first appearance rather than requiring me to visit the link target to see whether it's a company.
At least as far as the lead goes, the writing is not yet up to FA standard. Tony (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
First section: Route description" This is the first time I've taken a good look at the text of one of these elaborate US road articles. It's challenging to write this section in particular, because of repetition temptations, a certain sameness in the sequencing, and a risk that it's at times hard-going and much less useful to follow in text than to see it on a map (or using Google Earth). I think some tips about the grammar and lexicon of these sections would be useful as a resource at the Wikiproject.
- "The roadway carrying the SR 76 designation begins at County Route S21 (CR S21) in Oceanside, although Caltrans does not consider the road west of I-5 as part of the route,[3] and that part of the road is not in the legal definition." Would it be possible to avoid the repetition thus? "The roadway carrying the SR 76 designation begins at County Route S21 (CR S21) in Oceanside, although Caltrans does not consider the road west of I-5 to be part of the route,[3] and it is not within the legal definition."
- Road articles are tricky in that they involve extended accounts of the route; it's hard to avoid repetitive wording. Here, in what must be a sustained attempt at variety, you use a metaphor actually travelling along the route (which could be temporal or spatial—you've chose temporal here, but "quickly" isn't ideal); and "and" is probably necessary after the comma (or as a replacement for "then"): "It quickly has an interchange with I-5, then becomes a four-lane expressway known as the San Luis Rey Mission Expressway." There's more repetitive wording, too. What about: "There is soon an interchange with I-5, after which SR 76 becomes the four-lane San Luis Rey Mission Expressway." You could then use "this" instead of SR 76 again, given that SR 76 comes again soon after.
- "It then has two overpasses"—I'd minimise this metaphorical "ownership" grammar (also in "It quickly has an interchange"). Try to avoid sequence tags like "then" wherever it works without: "There are two overpasses: one ...". The readers are by now primed for a sequence in your description, so they'll expect that the sequence in which you describe the parts of the route is the sequence of the route, and usually won't need to pass roadsigns reminding them of this. "The highway then goes through Bonsall, ..." -> "The highway passes through Bonsall, ...". Maybe preserve one of these ubiquitious thens for "then meets the northern ...".
- "As it begins to enter rural Oceanside,"—laboured. Why not just "As it enters rural Oceanside,". I see quite a few "begins"; "starts" is also available where appropriate, for rotation.
- "It is at this point when SR 76 becomes known as Pala Road, which narrows to two lanes ..."—"that", not "when", and "becomes known"? Perhaps simply: "At this point SR 76 becomes Pala Road, narrowing to two lanes" (but if Pala Road narrows after it starts, better ", which narrows to two lanes", making Pala Road the actor and losing the simultaneity in your meaning).
- "It intersects Via Monserate and Gird Road south of Fallbrook before encountering the former routing of"—nice metaphorical grammar: the road is personified as the experiencer. But you wouldn't want "encountering" twice in one article.
- "SR 76 then goes through Pala and the Pala Indian Reservation, passing by Pala Casino and intersecting CR S16, the turnoff to the Pala Mission and Temecula. Continuing to parallel the San Luis Rey River, SR 76 passes by ...". Not in love with "goes", but I suppose you've used "passes" enough (in fact, twice in the space of a few seconds—is there a list at the Wikiproject of verbs that can be rotated for this purpose?).
- "the National Highway System,[7] a network of highways that are essential to the country's economy, defense, and mobility"—I hated this. It comes from a publisher that is almost certainly engaging in political spin—the Federal Highways Administration. So they're pushing for more resources generally by playing the defense card, naturally. I believe it does not belong in this article (so ... army trucks use the highways? Got it). That highways should be good for the economy and mobility is not worth including—or is this a stock proposition and reference for all articles in the class? You might just as well write that such highways are the sites of thousands of deaths and horrific injuries each year; and that they're part of a system that keeps the US enslaved to Saudi Arabia, through the part-funding of that state's support of terrorism.
- Not all state highways are part of the National Highway System. In my opinion, it provides a bit of an outside perspective as to which highways are considered more important than others. Outside, because the federal government and the state government (that is actually responsible for the state highways) are two different entities. If you are concerned about NPOV, I can add "considered" or similar language. --Rschen7754 05:26, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with mentioning the NHS, but the descriptor used by politicians and bureacrats brings unwanted angles. Tony (talk) 06:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC) Later: Why not just link the item: any reader older than 7 will know what a national highway system is; many countries have similar designations, by name and in funding protocols. A link alone would avoid undue detail of questionable relevance to this article, and out of context a set of misleading or unexplained epithets. Tony (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure about that - if I was thinking about India, it would mean something else entirely. This isn't part of the Interstate Highway System (in fact, all of the Interstate Highways are part of NHS, along with some other roads). --Rschen7754 06:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- This will puzzle anyone not familiar with the topic: "SR 76 is eligible for the State Scenic Highway System,[9] but it is not officially designated as a scenic highway by the California Department of Transportation.[10]" We shouldn't have to look up the references to understand it, particularly the first clause. Tony (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
History
- "Flooding in January 1916 resulted in the closing of the road that existed between Bonsall and Pala"—"of the pre-existing road between"?
- "did not reopen until two years later" --> "did not reopen for two years"?
- ", and" × 2 ... could one of these joiners be different to break the cascade? "The Bonsall Bridge over the San Luis Rey River was completed in 1925,[23] and opened in 1926 as the county's largest bridge at the time, and served as part of the road from San Diego to Elsinore."
- "was originally added to the state highway system in 1933.[27] However, it was not designated as legislative Route 195 until 1935." ... Could conflate these two sentences to simplify the join?: "was originally added to the state highway system in 1933,[27] but was not designated as legislative Route 195 until 1935."
- Like most of these points, I'm relying on your contextual knowledge to judge whether to implement or not, or to use a different solution than my suggestion: "Plans for constructing a replacement for Mission Avenue date from 1950.[35] By 1961, there were plans to ..."—avoid plans twice with "By 1961, there was a proposal to ..."? Again, sets of synonyms—a field-related mini-thesaurus—would be a great service to editors by the wikiproject.
- Tip to everyone: use the search function to identify repetitions, at a mature stage in preparation. You'll be shocked—I am, at my own repetiions when I write. "The next year," ... "next" appears later in the same para. Make the first one "following"?
- "the construction on"—consider losing the "the". And it's repeated two seconds later, so perhaps then "until work was underway on"?
- plans, plans.
- thereafter ... just "after" in the 21st century. Same for "afterward".
- "Over the period from 1974 to 1977, Oceanside police kept track of over 1,000 accidents that occurred along SR 76 from that time period." Your repetition audit with the search function would have picked that up. Finish on "76". And your radar beam for shorter-and-straighter might have picked up the opening gobbledy: "From 1974 to 1977, Oceanside police kept track of more than 1,000 accidents on SR 76".
- "In the meantime, the Oceanside Development Agency recommended extending the new highway west to Pacific Street". Bonus points for identifying "jingles" ... end/end. So ... "In the meantime, the Oceanside Development Agency recommended that the new highway be extended west to Pacific Street", maybe?
- "In 1983, a federal gasoline tax of five-cents-per-gallon (one-cent-per-liter) was approved, which added more funding to". Why the hyphens? A five-cents-per-gallon tax, yes, because it's a compound adjective. But it's not here. And maybe: "In 1983, the introduction of a federal gasoline tax of five-cents-per-gallon (one-cent-per-liter) added more funding to". Simpler grammar, shorter and nicer for readers.
Still only 2/3 of the way through. This is hard labour, but I've put in the effort in the hope that you might use the experience to lead others to systemically improve this class of articles. Tony (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Mike Christie
Just a few minor points.
- "begins in Oceanside near Interstate 5 (I-5) and continues east. The highway is a major route through the region, continuing east into the community of Bonsall": repetition of "continues east"/"continuing east". How about "through the region, passing through the community of Bonsall", since the first "continues east" gives us the direction?
- Suggest giving the year when Tony Zeppetella was killed; it's 2003, from a quick Google search, and should be easy to cite.
- "there were concerns that construction would be delayed due to the state financial crisis": I'd suggest a link for "state financial crisis" but I can't find anything suitable -- California state finances ought to be the right article, but it doesn't mention anything prior to 2004, so ignore this if you can't find a better target.
"After a few decades of litigation": the first mention of a lawsuit I see is February 1990, so I think "a few decades" is an overstatement unless I missed an earlier mention.- Removed "of litigation". --Rschen7754 20:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Struck; I tweaked the resulting sentence -- please revert if you prefer your version. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Removed "of litigation". --Rschen7754 20:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- "in the event that the expressway through Oceanside would have had to be converted to a freeway": not sure what this is telling me.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Adjusted. --Rschen7754 01:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Mike Christie: All done, and thanks for the review! --Rschen7754 01:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
- Adjusted. --Rschen7754 01:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Support. Fixes all look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Coord note
Was there an image-licensing review I missed? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- The image review from the A-Class review is out of date and should probably be redone. --Rschen7754 00:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
First Tennessee Park
- Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
This article is about a minor league baseball stadium in Nashville, Tennessee. I believe it meets the criteria to become a featured article. The article's previous nomination did not receive enough feedback for consensus. I will be reaching out to WikiProjects Tennessee & Baseball this time. NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
- Tentative support in comprehensiveness and prose, as last time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- I tried reading the article twice but found no issues (except maybe two small paragraphs but that's too nitpick) so I support. Also, I'm also nominating my own GA, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Allen Walker/archive1, so I wondered if you could check it. Also, about the previous review not receiving enough feedback, I have been told I could get more feedback by doing what I have just done: Review other FAN in exchange of another review or request other users you met (or the project) to check it. Good luck.Tintor2 (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Support
Commentsfrom RL0919
Looks pretty good from what I've read so far. Not entirely finished yet, but it's getting late so I'll leave some notes/questions and circle back tomorrow:
- According to WP:CHECKLINKS (report here) there are five external links with significant problems.
- I've replaced several dead references, and I think everything should now be in order. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- "The Nashville Sounds had originally planned to leave Herschel Greer Stadium for a new ballpark called First Tennessee Field in the early 2000s, but the project was abandoned, partly because of the initial effects of the Great Recession." I find this wording confusing. I think you may mean they started working on a plan in the early 2000s (with the move date to be sometime later), rather than planning to leave their old stadium in the early 2000s. Otherwise there must be some explanation about what delayed the project to the point that it could be cancelled during the late-2000s Great Recession.
- I included a more specific original target opening date and removed the recession reference. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Just to clarify: "paid for by five city revenue streams". The property taxes from private developments are two of the five, yes? Otherwise I only count four listed.
- Yes. In replacing dead reference links, I found a better reference that details each development's property tax payments. The sentence now makes the five sources clear. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- The subsection called "Opening" seems to cover a number of things beyond the opening. Perhaps a slightly different header, or should some items be moved to the "Other events" subsection?
- I renamed it "Minor League Baseball" with the intention of it covering the stadium's primary use as a minor league ballpark. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- "The site on which First Tennessee Park was built was formerly a run-down area of old warehouses and parking lots." It is mentioned multiple times above that it was built on the site of a previous ballpark. Suddenly it is warehouses and parking lots. I gather from checking the Sulphur Dell article that this is what happened after the old park closed, but this article doesn't explain. An extra sentence or two about the history would help connect it for the reader.
- I added details comparing the neighborhood when Sulpher Dell stood on the location versus the present/soon-to-be future once other projects are completed. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- "The ballpark's design is inspired by Nashville's heritage." This is immediately followed by discussion of concrete and metal rather than anything about the "heritage" design. I think this sentence would be better served if it was consolidated into the final paragraph of the Design subjection, which does discuss the heritage elements.
- Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
More to come. --RL0919 (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the changes so far; I believe all the issues above are addressed. A few others and hopefully we will be looking good.
- "One of Greer Stadium's most distinctive features was its guitar-shaped scoreboard. Having received overwhelming support from the community, a larger, more modern guitar-shaped scoreboard was designed ..." The placement on the "overwhelming support" clause in the second sentence makes it sound like the new scoreboard got the overwhelming support, but wasn't it support for the the old scoreboard that inspired the new one?
-
- Yes. I added some details about why it wasn't moved and made it (hopefully) clearer that attachment to the old board was the reason for a new guitar scoreboard at the new park. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Seats on both levels are traditional, plastic stadium-style chairs, and all lower-level seats behind and between the dugouts, and all second-level seats have padded seat cushions." Seems like an excess of ands, but I didn't want to accidentally change the meaning by copy editing.
-
- I agree. I think the seating description flows better now. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- "A section of 4-top tables—semi-circular tables surrounded by four chairs—that can accommodate 108 people at 27 tables is located at the end of the lower seating bowl in right field near The Band Box." Since The Band Box isn't discussed until later in the article, it left me wondering about it here. Perhaps some description should be added? "... near a specialty concession area called The Band Box" or something along those lines.
-
- Done verbatim per your suggestion. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's all my comments on prose. Will spot check some sources before finalizing on support or not. --RL0919 (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your changes and comments so far. NatureBoyMD (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Image review: All the flickr images check out, as do the own work ones. Logo's fine as well. The only tentative issue is with this one, since it has the fair use logos quite prominently on the image. It is a nice picture, but if someone could provide a second opinion on the logo issue that would be helpful. (I'll try to provide a source review as well). Wizardman 00:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Wizardman: Due to the lack of any second opinions, there are a few possible alternative images of the scoreboard at Wikimedia Commons that may be able to take its place if the logos are an issue. (Such as: File:First Tennessee Park right field entrance 2.JPG, File:First Tennessee Park, May 5, 2015 - 2.JPG, or File:First Tennessee Park, April 17, 2015 - 13.jpg.)NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay, thought I responded to this; to be on the safe side the second or third images might be a better bet, though I wouldn't keep it from a promotion just from the logo question. Wizardman 14:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Mike Christie
- What does "360-degree views of the field" mean? A 360-degree view is a view in all directions, but surely there's no such view of the field from anywhere not on the field?
- It means that the field can be seen from every spot on the concourse, as opposed to stadiums where part of the concourse is located under or behind seating. I have changed it to read: "The ballpark's wide concourse wraps entirely around the stadium and provides views of the field from every location." NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- "There are plans": suggest "As of 2016, there are plans".
- Done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- "The deal involved Metro receiving": who is Metro?
- I changed the first instance of "Metro" in the prose to "Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County (Metro)". NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- "a new greenway beyond the outfield wall will connect the Cumberland River Greenway to the Bicentennial Mall Greenway": can we get a date for this; either "As of 2016, a new greenway ... is planned to connect" or, if we know it, the planned date of the connection?
- The city's greenway website lists it as complete. I've updated the wording and referenced this. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- The paragraph about the average attendance per game is a bit clunky and repetitive in structure. How about: "By the all-star break in mid-July, the attendance had reached 332,604, a higher attendance than in the entire 2014 season at Greer Stadium, which had totalled 323,961 people over 66 games. The 2015 season attendance finished at 565,548, for an average attendance of 7,965 per game, compared to 4,909 per game for the last season at Greer."
- Done as per your wording. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- "The Sounds hope to host": suggest giving some date context: "As of 2016 would do" (or 2015, if that's correct) but depending on the source you might phrase it a bit more flexibly. You have a couple more sentences that could do with date context, to avoid them aging over the next few years: "will eventually be surrounded by new apartments...", for example, and the following notes about the greenway.
- The first sentence has been removed. The second has been changed to "is now surrounded" since the apartments/ect are already in place. The greenway date has also been addressed. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- "The grandstand has clean lines": what does this mean? If it just means it looks nice, I'd cut it unless you feel the source is worth using for this.
- Removed. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- "Walking vendors traverse the stadium selling canned soft drinks, beer, water, peanuts, Cracker Jack, and other easily toted items": I think you could cut this -- it seems a fairly trivial thing to say about a ballpark.
- Removed. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
-- That's everything I see on a first pass. I'm a bit concerned that there's some trivial detail, but after you respond to these points I'll go back through and see if there's anything that looks worth cutting. Other than that this seems in good shape. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your initial comments. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Support. All my comments above have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Coord note
There was talk of a source review above but not sure if it got actioned; you can request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Requested. NatureBoyMD (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Source review: No deadlinks on a check, and all references appear reliable. My only irk is that the two brew fest refs (#42 and #43) don't have publishers, and for that matter I'd just cut the former ref as it's a primary archived source; the latter ref covers everything for both in any event. Wizardman 03:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I removed the first reference and added the publisher for the second. NatureBoyMD (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sources suffice for me now (if one more prose review is needed let me know, but hopefully there's enough comments here for a final decision). Wizardman 03:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)
- Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
This article is about the second studio album recorded by Romanian singer-songwriter Alexandra Stan. I believe it satisfies the FL criteria after its first run was archived. It has as well undergone a peer review. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Nergaal
- Article doesn't explain the peculiar choice of releasing it in Jpn first. Nergaal (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Nergaal: Done; Thank you so much for your comment. I added information regrading your point in "Background and development". Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Is there an estimate of total sales of the album? Or any certification anywhere? Nergaal (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Nergaal: All the information about charting and sales is included in the "Reception" section. Also, there's no certification for this album anywhere. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- 14k seems kinda low. Is there an estimated total worldwide? Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Nergaal: Nope, sorry. No material nor in Japanese or Romanian. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- 14k seems kinda low. Is there an estimated total worldwide? Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Nergaal: All the information about charting and sales is included in the "Reception" section. Also, there's no certification for this album anywhere. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Nergaal Could you please return to give this nomination a support or oppose, please? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Dan56
- There are several instances of repeated citations, or multiple in a row. Some cases involve synthesis, such as
The recording drew influences of various genres, including dance, techno, pop, rhythm and blues, EDM, Bhangra, Caucasian-flavoured music and German club music.[26][27][28]
If the writer in each source offers different opinions on what the genres are, then they should be attributed separately and stated in the article as being the opinion of the writer;[critic A] observed dance and techno in the album's music,[26] while [critic B] believed it featured pop and Bhangra songs.[27]
, or something to that effect. Dan56 (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done Issue fixed. Maybe have another look? Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Other instances I see involve stating facts from several sources in one sentence, which isn't incorrect but looks less tidy than it can be, like this one:
"Thanks For Leaving" was released on 28 April 2014 as the first single from Unlocked simultaneously with its accompanying music video.[19][31]
In this case, you may want to consider converting the citations to Harvard citations so the footnotes can be combined into one; I've done this often at articles when working toward FA, and here's an example from The Ecstatic. Hope these comments help, and good luck! Dan56 (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done I haven't implemented the "harvard" sourcing—as most of the citations don't even have an author or a date—but fixed the first issue. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Dan56: Thanks you very much for your comments; I appreciate your effort. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Great work! With sources that have no authors or dates, the author field can be filled with "Anon." (for anonymous) and the year field can be filled with "n.d." (no date). Dan56 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Dan56: Added Anon. and n.d. to all sources provided. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Great work! With sources that have no authors or dates, the author field can be filled with "Anon." (for anonymous) and the year field can be filled with "n.d." (no date). Dan56 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Lead and infobox - 1) I understand that Victor was the distributor of the album's first release--in Japan--but Fonogram is mentioned in the lead as being the singer's new record label, and it released the album in several countries--including her native Romania--so it'd make sense to include it in the infobox and make a note of it in the lead that it was one of the album's distributors. 2) I don't understand the part about "it consists of using instrumentation previously explored in her work"; it seems to repeat the idea of the preceding sentence but in more awkward fashion and different verbiage. Perhaps remove it? Dan56 (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Article body - 1) I would recommend another editor review the prose; issues that stand out include some stretching beyond what the sources verify--"it failed to gain much success" is more than what footnote number 11 actually says--and interpreting the sources--"issuance" confuses me in the second section; what does it mean in the context that the Romanian-language source is using it in or in the sense that it is a theme on the album? 2) The Billboard source doesn't explicitly say that "Mr. Saxobeat" was a worldwide hit; this sentence is a bit off-topic anyway, so it'd be best to remove it IMO. Dan56 (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- MOS - 1) The composers and producers in the personnel section are already all credited in the track listing section; MOS:ALBUM#Personnel suggests removing repeated credits when they're already in one of these two sections. 2) This article doesn't really seem to need a "Charts and sales" section, since there's only one instance of charting and only one sales figure to report, both of which are also already written in the article body. I would recommend removing the section. Using tables is useful in situations where there are several or numerous figures to list or organize; other times, prose is preferred (MOS:TABLE). Dan56 (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- @Dan56: All Done; the source questioned is literally reporting that the album itself lyrically approaches themes like "eliberarea, regasirea, un nou inceput", which translated are the things in the article. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- I think whatever you're using to translate words from Romanian is misleading; eliberarea can more precisely mean deliverance, which is still ambiguous and is given no context here in the section. Does the source explain anything further, elaborate? Which songs are about what or how? As a reader, wouldn't you find it useless to have it stated that this is a theme on the album, period, no further explanation? Dan56 (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Dan56: changed wording as suggested. I have to dissapoint you; the source does only say that the whole album has the themes in its lyrics, not selected songs, but the source is to be kept because it's probably one of the most reliable sources from Romania. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- Please attribute it as the writer's opinion then. If there are no other sources writing similarly of the album, or Stan/her writers explaining the themes they wrote of, then it's more appropriate to quote the source verbatim (in Romanian, and perhaps the English translation italicized and in parenthesis). Dan56 (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Dan56: I have attributed it as the writer's opinion, but didn't quote it as there's no big deal with it. I mean, they don't further speak about it in the whole article, it's just a "feeling-less" enumeration of lyrical themes at the beginning of their topic. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- Please attribute it as the writer's opinion then. If there are no other sources writing similarly of the album, or Stan/her writers explaining the themes they wrote of, then it's more appropriate to quote the source verbatim (in Romanian, and perhaps the English translation italicized and in parenthesis). Dan56 (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Dan56: changed wording as suggested. I have to dissapoint you; the source does only say that the whole album has the themes in its lyrics, not selected songs, but the source is to be kept because it's probably one of the most reliable sources from Romania. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think whatever you're using to translate words from Romanian is misleading; eliberarea can more precisely mean deliverance, which is still ambiguous and is given no context here in the section. Does the source explain anything further, elaborate? Which songs are about what or how? As a reader, wouldn't you find it useless to have it stated that this is a theme on the album, period, no further explanation? Dan56 (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Dan56: All Done; the source questioned is literally reporting that the album itself lyrically approaches themes like "eliberarea, regasirea, un nou inceput", which translated are the things in the article. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
-
I'm leaning towards support, but please separate each writer's opinion so it is clear to the reader which is which; the same goes for the sentence about genres/influences. Also, the summary in the lead--about critics praising the album--doesn't seem accurate to me; there are only two reviews of this album discussed in the body, one which seems generally positive and another which seems negative. That "many" critics praised the album is a strong claim. If there aren't any more reviews to discuss, I would stay away from describing any kind of consensus or summary of critical reviews with only two that were known to have been published. Dan56 (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments from CaliforniaDreamsFan
- I'm not too sure about the usage of the Rihanna and Britney Spears' images; only one critic (as from the article) has cited comparisons towards the Unlocked album, which is a bit too much of WP:Non-free content (also WP:Image use policy).
-
- Not done I think that's okay. As far as I know, these imgs are completely free to use. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Also, why is there an absence of the other track lists? Aren't they a crucial part of the album, regardless if its released in specific regions.
-
- Not done This was an implemented comments from the previous FC nomination of Unlocked. In fact, the track lists aren't anything special, so this pays off here. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- There is also an overuse of citations in sentences like "The track—later included on Alesta (2016)[46]—reached the top thirty in Argentina,[47] Poland[48] and Turkey,[49] and the top sixty in Italy,[50] Romania[51] and Slovakia.[52]" (Plus, I don't think these ar neccessary, knowingly that the article already has these references.)
-
- Done The citations are necessary, but tried to fix the issue. Have another look maybe? Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- No "alt" and caption in the infobox, knowing that there are two covers.
-
- Done Alt was already there, but added caption now. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
CaliforniaDreamsFan Could you please return to give this nomination a support or oppose, please? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Carbrera
- Shouldn't the label in the infobox only list the record company from the initial release? In this case, being Victor?
-
- Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Adevărul should be italicized
-
- Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Note A should actually be physically described in the "Track listing" section so it's complete
-
- Done written out Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- The DVD release mentions a DVD format of Unlocked being released, yet there is no mention of it in the article
-
- Done mentioned about it in the "Background and development" section. Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- More to come. Carbrera (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Carbrera: Everything done so far. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Carbrera Could you please return to give this nomination a support or oppose (by continuing your review), please? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Carbrera Can you end this? Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Carbrera Could you please return to give this nomination a support or oppose (by continuing your review), please? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Carbrera: Everything done so far. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think the photo of Britney Spears is necessarily beneficial to the article; you can barely see her face
-
- Done Replaced with another one. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- ""Dance" and "Little Lies" were compared to French disc jockey David Guetta and Spears' Britney Jean (2013) album, respectively." → Who made this comparison?
-
- Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't look like Unlocked was released as a DVD, but rather a CD with a bonus DVD, so the "CD Releases" table should just list the format with something like "Deluxe + DVD" or "Deluxe with DVD" (not a separate table)
-
- Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Reference #5 should have a link for the iTunes Store in the parameter
-
- Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- The lengths in the "Track listing" don't add up to 57:30
-
- Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- I believe some policy wants "2013-14" to be "2013-2014" now
-
- Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Could you abbreviate "Rhythm and blues" to "R&B"?
-
- Done
- Shouldn't there be a track listing for "We Wanna"? There should be a dropdown for each available track listing of the album
-
- Not done See below Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- You state "six singles" in the lead prose but only include five in the infobox
-
- Only five songs were released as singles as promoting the album. However, a "sixth one", "We Wanna", was released for the next studio album, but still appears on few versions of Unlocked.
- Shouldn't the German track listing be included in "Track listing" as well? Carbrera (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@Carbrera: All done! Thank you! Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Carbrera: It initially did feature other tracklistings as well, but the former FA nomination suggested that only the main tracklist should be added. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- Carbrera I've done all your comments. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Giants2008
I was asked for a review on my talk page, and here are a couple of things I found early in the article. I'll look at the rest later.
Background and development: "was made available for digital consumption in October 2013." I really think that "consumption" needs to be changed. It sounds like they were selling food instead of music.
-
- Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Recordings and artwork: "with only one of her eyes being visible". Remove "being", as it is unnecessary in the sentence and its presence leads to awkwardness in this sentence structure anyway.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Reception: Pop Shock wrote that the latter one was good enough to be an X Factor, a reality television music competition, winner's single." The bit inside the commas is making this a rough read. How about "was good enough to be a single by the winner of X Factor, a reality television music competition" instead?
-
- Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Promotion: Another "consumption" here in the first paragraph.
-
- Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Track listing: The first two words of "with them featuring a modified tracklist" seem like they can be removed to tighten the writing without affecting the meaning of the sentence.
-
- Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
In references 5 (third link), 18, 33, 47 (third and fifth links), 48, and 49, the hyphens should be replaced with en dashes per the MoS. Very minor, but I'm sure someone will bring it up if I don't.Giants2008 (Talk) 01:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Giants2008 Could you please return to give this nomination a support or oppose, please? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- @Cartoon network freak: Hi. Has there been a mistake? The PR seems active and, strangely, put under the section Everyday Life. --Efe (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
2015 Formula One season
This article is a comprehensive report of the 2015 season of the Formula One World Championship. I've helped this article being to GA status recently and through the rather high bar which was set for that promotion, I actually feel this is ready to be a Featured Article. Tvx1 13:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Comments by MWright96
- Images
- All images would be better off with alt text for accessibilty per WP:ALT
- General
- I note that you use a mixture of number and written format when you use numbers. You want to use a consistent from especially with numbers ten or over.
-
- MOS:NUMERAL. It would be helpful if you would be more precise and state where (if any) problematic case still remain. Tvx1 15:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC) Possibly done. I have tackled those that were not in line with
-
- Three examples where its problematic:
-
- "Honda therefore returned to the sport after a 7-year absence:"
- "Lewis Hamilton had scored ninety-three points out of a possible one hundred, giving him a twenty-seven point lead"
- " reducing the gap to Hamilton to forty-two points in the process, but fell out of a point-scoring position in Belgium after a tyre failure on the penultimate lap, dropping him to sixty-seven points behind the leader." MWright96 (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- I've fixed the first one, but I really can't see what's problematic about the latter two. They satisfy multiple parts of MOS:NUMERAL
-
- Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words.
- In spelling out numbers, components from 21 to 99 are hyphenated.
- Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures.
- Additionally the majority of the prose has numbers written out, except those that have to be spelt with numerals according to the MOS. Therefore, spelling those two cases with numerals would make them out of step with the rest of the article. I really can't see your problem here. Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- Driver changes
- "They hired the former Caterham driver Will Stevens" - employed
- "and the 2014 European Formula Three third-place finisher Max Verstappen. Verstappen became" - Try not to have the last word of a sentence start the next one like this.
- "while Bianchi was in a coma at the start of the season and ultimately died from injuries sustained at the 2014 Japanese Grand Prix." - Bianchi should have his full name and wikilink it
- Safety innovations
- Pits should be changed to pit lane for non-Formula One readers
- Penalties
- "and if such a grid place penalty was imposed and the driver's grid position was such that it could not be applied in full," - change grid to start to avoid reptition
- Also link grid to Glossary of motorsport terms#G for non-F1 experts
- Wikilink formation lap
- Pre-season
- "Manor Marussia elected to abandon those plans in favor of developing the car for the following season" - favour
- Opening rounds
- "both cars qualified ahead of only the Manor Marussias and eventually retired." - Manor Marussia cars
- European and Canadian rounds
- "Rosberg and Sebastian Vettel did not pit" - make pit stops
- "with 3 successive 1–2 finishes," I think this is better with three successive first and second finishes
- Asian, Russian and American rounds
- "Vettel capitalised on the results with a third-place and second-place finish, respectively," - This sounds better Vettel captalised on the results with third and second-place finishes respectively
- Awards
- Fix the link for Blanchimont corner to Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps#Blanchimont
- References
- I was told at my 2007 Coca-Cola 600 FA nomination that the publisher or works where the publisher name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example fn 3, 5, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20) should be omitted
-
-
- I can see that only some of this have been done. e.g. This specially applies to all references by BBC Sport, Formula1.com, The Guardian, Sky Sports. See how I referenced sources in 2014 Japanese Grand Prix
-
- It would be easier if you just list the numbers of the refs which need to be fixed. Otherwise we'll keep going back and forth forever. I also don't understand your issue with the Sky Sports ones. The work and publisher have clearly different content. Sky Sports is just a part of British Sky Broadcasting which is active in other area's to. Also I don't see what's wrong with the one Guardian ref. It doesn't use both a work and publisher parameter. Anyway, I'll do the BBC and Formula1 refs. Tvx1 15:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have done the BBC and Formula1 refs and some others. I think I also identified and the fixed the Guardian ref you mentioned.Tvx1 19:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- Refs 28 and 34 should have the work as Sky Sports
- The publication date for Reference 75 should be spelt as 25 November 2014 for consistency.
- Also is PlanetF1.com a reliable source?
That's my lot. I may be have a second look if I got the time. MWright96 (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- MWright96, can you make a status report? Tvx1 16:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Tvx1: Overall it looks a little better. My second lot of comments will be up later. Also since it's your first FAC nomination, it would be a good idea to have a look at this mentoring scheme to help you better the chances of this article passing without being failed due to a lack of response. MWright96 (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments – It's been a while since I last did a review for a Formula One-related article here, so this is good to see. I'll jot down a few thoughts from a reading of the article:
First, what is meant to be citing the results and standings tables at the bottom of the article? Tables should be verifiable as well as prose. I'd suggest adding references at the bottom, like the drivers list has.
Team changes: "in favour of return to Honda" needs "a" before "return", I'd imagine.
"Honda therefore returned to the sport after a being absent for seven years." On the other hand, this "a" should clearly go.
Driver changes: "replacing Merhi. Merhi...". Try not to have the name repeat from the ending of one sentence to the start of another, like here.
The Brazilian track's diagram caption has "and the redeveloped used from 2015." There should probably be a word before "used".
-
-
- Yes, that was the one. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
-
Weight and bodywork: "was increased to 702 kilograms, an increase of...". To reduce prose redundancy, you should probably use another word for "increased", such as "raised". That's really repetitive.
Opening round: "Kevin Magnussen failed to reach the grid after suffering an abrupt engine failure during while on his way from the pit lane to the grid." Remove "during" as an unneeded duplication of "while".
I have trouble with jargon in sports articles since I'm a sports fan, but even I was confused by "flyover rounds". I can't imagine a non-Formula One fan understanding what that means. In fairness, I'm able to understand much of the rest of the article.
European and Canadian rounds: I assume the FIA Pole Trophy goes to the driver with the most pole positions in a season? That could be made clearer here, instead of in the awards section.
Awards: If the source allows, we could say what the fastest lap was that got Hamilton that DHL award.
-
- The fastest lap is not awarded for a particular fastest lap. It's awarded to the driver who achieved the most fastest laps during a season. In this case, Hamilton secured it at the Singapore Grand Prix through Vettel (and thus Rosberg failing to) posting the fastest lap of the race. Tvx1 16:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Done. regardless I have added a sourced bit on when Hamilton secured the award.Tvx1 13:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
The note at the bottom of the Drivers' Championship standings table has "The driver did not finish the Grand Prix, but were classified...". "were" → "was".Giants2008 (Talk) 20:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Support – After the fixes, I think this meets the FA criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
-
Comments by Mike Christie
Any particular reason for the citations in the lead? None appear necessary, though you don't have to remove them if you don't want to.
-
- Done. I have removed one which supported information already sourced in the article's body. Tvx1 16:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- I see the remaining information isn't in the body; it's usual (though I don't believe it's an absolute requirement) to only put information in the lead if it's in the body. I'll support without this, but I think it would be better to add this information to the body as well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Done. I have removed one which supported information already sourced in the article's body. Tvx1 16:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
You use "secured" or "securing" as a verb five times in the lead alone; twice would be OK but I think you should replace at least three of them.
"Honda therefore returned to the sport after being absent for seven years": might be simpler as "Honda had been absent from the sport for seven years"; and I'd cut "previously" from the following clause.
- "Lotus ended their association with Renault in favour of a deal with Mercedes. This ended a 20-year involvement of Renault with the Enstone-based team, after being an engine supplier to Benetton since 1995, and being the owner of the team from 2002 to 2010." I don't follow the second sentence -- I assume Lotus is "the Enstone-based team", but why is Benetton mentioned?
- No. the Enstone-based team operated as Benetton during the nineties and early 2000's, as Renault from 2002 up to 2011, as Lotus from then until 2015 and since this season once again as Renault. That's why Benetton is mentioned. Tvx1 16:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- OK, but it's still confusing to someone who, like me, knows none of the background. I can see it would take quite a bit of inline explanation, but I think it needs to be either cut or explained. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm considering cutting it. This is trivial in a season article and is more worthwhile in the team or engine supplier's article.Tvx1 21:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- OK -- I think if you don't cut it, it really does need more explanation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- I'm considering cutting it. This is trivial in a season article and is more worthwhile in the team or engine supplier's article.Tvx1 21:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- OK, but it's still confusing to someone who, like me, knows none of the background. I can see it would take quite a bit of inline explanation, but I think it needs to be either cut or explained. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
"Daniil Kvyat was promoted to Red Bull from Toro Rosso to fill the vacated seat": why is this described as a promotion rather than a move -- aren't these independent teams?
-
- While they do operate as separate constructors, they are both owned by Red Bull (Toro Rosso being the literal translation into Italian of that name). Drivers sign their contracts with the Red Bull company. Tvx1 16:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- OK; I'll strike, but it wouldn't hurt if you explained that at that point in the article, or made Toro Rosso's ownership clear earlier.
- While they do operate as separate constructors, they are both owned by Red Bull (Toro Rosso being the literal translation into Italian of that name). Drivers sign their contracts with the Red Bull company. Tvx1 16:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what a power unit is; is there a link? Does it just mean "engine"?
-
- A power unit is the unit which powers these racing cars. The engine is just one its six main components. The term "power unit" is linked in the teams and drivers table. Tvx1 16:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Struck, since the quality of a target link isn't your problem, but FYI the term "power unit" doesn't occur in the linked article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- A power unit is the unit which powers these racing cars. The engine is just one its six main components. The term "power unit" is linked in the teams and drivers table. Tvx1 16:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- "The change was retroactively applied to Honda": I don't follow this.
-
- Honda were allowed en extra power unit without penalty, since they were a new power unit supplier in 2015, even though the rule had only been introduced roughly halfway through the season. Tvx1 16:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Were Honda the only new supplier that season? How about "This was tweaked after the 2015 British Grand Prix, with new power unit manufacturers being allowed one additional power unit in their first season of competition; this allowance applied only to Honda"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes Honda were the only ones that season and so far the only ones to have entered since the power unit formula was introduced in 2014. I feel though
tthat your proposal somewhat misses the point that the allowance was applied to Honda, despite the rule change only being introduced halfway through the season.Tvx1 21:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)- I don't understand your comment; is there a typo in it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Indeed there was. And there was a part missing. Tvx1 19:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I see your point. How about: "This was tweaked after the 2015 British Grand Prix, with new power unit manufacturers being allowed one additional power unit in their first season of competition; the only manufacturer affected in the 2015 season was Honda, who were allowed to take advantage of the rule even though it had been introduced after the season had begun"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed there was. And there was a part missing. Tvx1 19:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes Honda were the only ones that season and so far the only ones to have entered since the power unit formula was introduced in 2014. I feel though
-
- Honda were allowed en extra power unit without penalty, since they were a new power unit supplier in 2015, even though the rule had only been introduced roughly halfway through the season. Tvx1 16:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
"Despite the team's efforts, they were unable to solve the oversight and could not compete in the Grand Prix": I don't think one solves an oversight. I think this could be shortened and joined to the previous sentence with a comma: "in preparation for auction, and the team was unable to compete in the Grand Prix".
Tvx1: Overall this is in good shape, and I expect to support once these minor points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- The ping didn't work. You have to add the ping and sign your post at the same time for it to work. Tvx1 16:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oops. I knew that; forgot. Thanks for the reminder. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Tvx1: just a ping to say that there are a couple of minor points still unaddressed above -- the comment about the "Enstone-based" team, and the comment about the power unit rule retroactively applying to Honda. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oops. I knew that; forgot. Thanks for the reminder. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:54, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Coord note -- I didn't see an image-licensing review; you can request one at the top of WT:FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Image check - all OK (1 request done)
- All images are CC with sufficient source and author information - OK.
- Flickr-based images show no signs of Flickr-washing or other copyright problems - OK.
- Map information is sourced - OK.
- File:Autódromo Hermanos Rodríguez 1986-2014.svg -
it would be nice to have an aerial photo (or a book source with a description) to verify the track's previous layout (similar to the second track image). The previous layout should be verifiable by interested readers, even if it's probably uncontroversial for topic experts. GermanJoe (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)- Ping @Tvx1:, just to be sure. GermanJoe (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes Yes, I have real life too you know. We were celebrating my father's 70th birthday today and afterwards we watched the Brazilian Grand Prix. Anyway. I added the requested information to the image's description. Tvx1 19:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ping @Tvx1:, just to be sure. GermanJoe (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Comment - please do not use graphical "done" and "not done" templates. These templates may cause problems with FA-processing and -archiving (see FAC instructions). You could use bolded Done text as manual checkmarks though. GermanJoe (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Super Mario Galaxy
Well this was unexpected. I first started work on this article in May when I went through my loft and found my old collection of ONM issues which spanned from 2006 to 2011. I remember my ten year old self reading through one of those issues and looking forward to this game. I've used a couple of those issues for this article, and my subsequent expansion and redevelopment of it carried on for a while. It has just gained GA status, and to be frank I think that this is ready for FAC. For a game considered "one of greatest" I tried making a comprehensive reception section, and even went overboard on development I think. JAGUAR 21:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Participation Guide | |
---|---|
Support | |
Giants2008, Tintor2 (+ sources), Anarchyte | |
Comments/No vote yet | |
Famous Hobo, ThomasO1989 | |
Oppose | |
Comments from Famous Hobo
Well that was certainly fast. Personally, I would have combed through the article a few more times before nominating it for FAC, but if you believe it's ready, then let's put it to the test.
- I think the most important thing was to make sure that all of the sources verified the content in the article (something I used to struggle with), but I took extra liberties to make sure that I got it right while developing this for GA. In particular, I basically wrote the development and reception sections from scratch, so I found sourcing it quite easy as I had everything there (including the physical magazines). I know that comprehensiveness is more of an issue for the FA criteria, and minor issues on prose would definitely be tackled in the review. Anyway, I'll be happy to address these issues! JAGUAR 20:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Lead
- It was first released on 1 November 2007 in Japan, 12 November 2007 in North America, 16 November 2007 in Europe and on 29 November 2007 in Australia. This is just a long list of release dates that most people don't care about. According to WP:VG/DATE, the release dates should be generalized, so maybe just say it was released in November 2007, it covers every release date.
- It is the third 3D original game in the Super Mario series and the eighth main instalment overall. Link 3D. Also, what is original supposed to mean? Why not just say third 3D game, since I'm assuming your referring to SM64, Sunshine, and Galaxy.
- The game was re-released as a Nintendo Selects title in 2011, and as a download via the Wii U's eShop on 31 May 2015 in Japan, 24 December 2015 in North America, and on 4 February 2016 in Europe. Once again, just a list of release dates that no one cares about. Why not just simplify the sentence to say something along the lines "The game has was re-released as a Nintendo Selects title in 2011 and on the Wii U's eShop in 2015"
- It has since won several awards from gaming publications, including multiple "Game of the Year" awards and a BAFTA. What you linked was the BAFTA award show, so a game can't win an award show. Since it won the BAFTA award for Game of the Year, why not just remove that bit and keep it as "including multiple "Game of the Year" awards"?
- It is listed among the top-rated games on various aggregate sites, and is the highest-ranked title on review aggregator GameRankings. This line is redundant. You already mentioned this game's critical acclaim, and how it's regarded as one of the best games ever. This line show be removed
Gameplay
- Super Mario Galaxy is set in outer space,[1][2] where Mario travels from galaxy to galaxy to collect Power Stars, which are earned by completing levels in galaxies or defeating enemies.[3][1] The last two refs are out of order, always keep the refs in numerical order if they are next to each other
- The game uses a new physics engine that allows for a unique feature; each astronomical object has its own gravitational force, allowing the player to completely circumnavigate rounded or irregular planetoids, walking sideways or upside down. Is it important to mention the new physics engine here? This section is about the gameplay, anything game engine related stuff should be kept in the development section.
- The game's main hub is the Comet Observatory, a spaceship which contains six themed domes that provide access to the 42 galaxies available in the game.[3] Five of the domes end with a boss level in which the object is to defeat Bowser or Bowser Jr., which then allows the player collect a Grand Star in order to access the next dome. Why do only five of the six domes have a boss? What's unique about the sixth dome?
-
- I'm not sure, I looked it up on its wiki and found that one of the domes had no boss for no particular reason. The reason for this isn't covered in any RS, although the manual mentions it. JAGUAR 11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
- When the player first begins the game, access is available to only a few galaxies. This reads a bit awkwardly, try "The player only has access to a few galaxies when they begin the game".
- Once 120 Power Stars are collected with both characters, the player is rewarded one additional challenge for Mario and Luigi to complete, as well as two commemorative pictures that can be sent to the Wii Message Board upon each brother completing the challenge. I vaguely remember what the message board was, but for someone who doesn't have a Wii, they won't know what it is. This should either be linked, or explained in more detail.
- The most basic feature is the Star Pointer, which appears on-screen (as long as the remote is pointed at the screen) for the entire game. I don't get this line. Is the Star Pointer a cursor? If so, then the line should read "The most basic feature is the Star Pointer, which is a cursor that appears on-screen..."
- Firstly, the Star Pointer is used to pick up special konpeito-shaped objects called "Star Bits", which are then shot to stun enemies, manipulate obstacles, or feed Hungry Lumas. What's a Luma?
- Nine power-ups supply Mario with a special costume that grants him new abilities. For example, special mushrooms bestow the player with a Bee, Boo, or Spring Suit. First, link power-up. Secondly, I actually don't like how certain words are linked. For example, I think we all know what a bee is, so that doesn't need to be linked, and neither does spring. As for Boo, it should be linked to Boo (character).
- The Super Star grants Mario invincibility, allowing him to destroy any enemies that he touches, as well as jumping higher and running faster. The Super Star link just leads to the Super Mario page with no context.
- When the power meter becomes empty, the player loses a life and must go back to a predetermined checkpoint.[16] The power meter can be temporarily expanded to six units... This threw me for a loop. Why not just say health meter instead of power meter, as I thought power meter was a new gameplay aspect.
Plot
- Not much to say, as it's well written
Development
- My biggest problem with the development section is how all of the sources are from Nintendo. Obviously, if that's all you could find on the game's development, that's fine, but there are several interviews about the game, such as IGN, Wired, and Music4Games. I'm not sure how much info you'll be able to get out of those interviews, but if there is some additional information, it needs to be included in the article.
- Mario creator Shigeru Miyamoto suggested to work on the next large-scale Mario game after Nintendo EAD Tokyo finished development on Donkey Kong Jungle Beat in late 2004,[26][27] pushing for the spherical platform concept to be realised. Are you referring to the character Mario, or the series? If it's the series, then it should be italicized
- The game's script was written by Takayuki Ikkaku. This seems rather thrown in, as Ikkaku is not mentioned at all in the rest of the article. I noticed that the source you used was the game credits, which is fine, but are there any other sources mentioning Ikkaku's role in the game? If not, I'd just remove that line.
- The composition was approved by Yoshiaki Koizumi, the game's director and designer, but when Yokota presented it to Koji Kondo, he stated that it was "no good". You already linked and explained who Koizumi was earlier, while on the other hand, there is no explanation as to who Kondo is. Also, what was Kondo's role in the development? If Yokota was in charge of the musical direction, was Kondo just there for moral support?
-
- Kondo was technically in charge of the soundtrack although Yokota did the majority of the work. The source you gave me mentioned that he acted as sound supervisor, so I mentioned that. JAGUAR 15:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yotaka revealed that he initially struggled to create music that sounded like Mario, but as time progressed he declared that the songs he made for the game had "become natural". A song can't sound like a character.
Reception
- It is the second best ranking game with at least ten reviews on the review aggregator website GameRankings,[58] and the best ranking game of all time with at least 20 reviews,[59] having a score of 97% based on 78 reviews.[37] As discussed a while ago, GameRankings should only be used if Metacritic is not available, which it is. With that said, every Gamerankings sentence should be removed, including from the review score box.
- The game is also the sixth highest rated game of all-time on Metacritic,[60] with a score of 97/100 based on 73 reviews. A 97/100 means nothing, as it is just a number. I'd recommend looking at how Pokémon Black and White does its Metacritic section, by saying what the score equates to.
-
- Rephrased. Yup I sent Black and White to GA ;-D Would I need to say what 97% equates to? The introduction states that the game received critical acclaim and I think that a reader could gather that 97% based on 74 reviews means that it was well received. I'm not too sure on this, so let me know if you want it rephrased further. JAGUAR 15:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- This was something that was pointed out in the Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward FAC. PresN said "Try mixing up the "Bob of Website" formula- "Website's Bob", "Writing for Website, Bob"
- Jeremy Parish of 1UP noted that despite the Wii's limitations, the visuals were "absolutely impressive", especially when modified at a higher resolution. It's 1UP.com, not just 1UP.
- However, Hudak criticised the "traditional Mario-esque" lack of voice acting, despite admitting that if the game did feature voice acting it would "probably seem lame and wrong". This sentence seems completely out of place in the music paragraph, as every other sentence discusses the music
-
- I think it still belongs in that paragraph as it covers all things audio-related, whereas putting it in another paragraph would seem even more out of place. To help matters, I rephrased the introduction to "The soundtrack and audio were well received by critics" and moved the lack of voice acting criticism to the end. Hope that helps. JAGUAR 16:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Super Mario Galaxy received Game of the Year 2007 awards from IGN,[52] GameSpot,[53] Nintendo Power,[54] GameRankings,[55] Kotaku,[56] and Yahoo! Games.[57] Why seperate this line from the rest of the section? Also, don't use GameRankings.
-
- Organisational purposes; I thought it looked weird having a 'listy' sentence in the same paragraph as one filled with prose. I can merge it if you think it's best. Is it really necessary to remove GameRankings here even if it's being used for awards and not an aggregate score? I'm not sure myself. JAGUAR 23:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Czar: I know that czar knows a lot more than me on when GameRankings should be used! Sorry to ping you, do you think it's OK if GameRankings should be used for citing awards and not aggregate scores I think that being the highest ranking game of the site should also be a significant mention. JAGUAR 15:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- (Ping me anytime) I'd distinguish between when editors bestow an award and when an item tops a list, but that's editorial discretion. In this case, GameRankings didn't give a GOTY award, so I'd recast the sentence as journalists who named the game the best of the year and then treat the aggregators and any other list-making groups separately. Definitely worth including, but in a separate sentence and not as a GOTY "award". czar 15:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- For the record, I'm okay with what Czar suggested. Famous Hobo (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Czar: I know that czar knows a lot more than me on when GameRankings should be used! Sorry to ping you, do you think it's OK if GameRankings should be used for citing awards and not aggregate scores I think that being the highest ranking game of the site should also be a significant mention. JAGUAR 15:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- On 7 February 2008, the game received the "Adventure Game of the Year" award from the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences at the Interactive Achievement Awards. Why is it necessary to mention the exact day it won the award, while all of the other awards were simplified to the year they were given.
-
- Mainly because it was the only source which mentioned a date, I think.
- One thing that bothers me about the Awards section is that it just seems like a long list, and I really don't like how most of the sentences begin with "In 20XX". Try mixing up the wording so that it doesn't get so monotonous to read
Overall, a very solid article, but it does have a number of issues that must be addressed before I can support it. Also, do you think you could return the favor by reviewing the Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward FAC. It just needs one more support, and while it looks like David Fuchs will be doing a review, any additional comments always help. Alternatively, there's that No Russian Peer Review I've got up. Famous Hobo (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
- U R MR GAY. This should be in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Wow that is such a trivial thing to place in an article I have no clue why you think it should be used. GamerPro64 14:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- "Trivial"? It was huge at the time. Here are more reliable sources. I am asking for one sentence in the article about it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Just because it was used on sites like Kotaku doesn't mean it isn't trivial. What does it add to the article? What does it do that will help improve the article? GamerPro64 19:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Trivial"? It was huge at the time. Here are more reliable sources. I am asking for one sentence in the article about it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- This nasty personal attack followed by deletion of my legitimate opposition reflects very badly on the nominator. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- You seriously want to add a sentence about "U R MR GAY" in this article? I thought you were joking. It's pointless, trivial, and isn't worth mentioning. JAGUAR 17:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- "I thought you were joking." That doesn't explain why you called me a "fucking moron". Several reliable third-party sources have described it. That makes it non-trivial. Also, I expected to see it mentioned in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Where do you want this in the article, then? In the development section? Reception? And what is it going to look like? Upon release, some fans reported that the stars aligned on the game's cover art read out "U R MR GAY". I'm not putting a derogatory and infelicitous statement anywhere in this article, it doesn't belong here. It doesn't add any value. It's not worth it. It's trivial. It's almost like a joke. And another thing that's a joke is the fact that you had the nerve to oppose this FAC because I refused to put "U R MR GAY" in this article. Nevermind the fact that I've spent over a dozen hours of my time writing, researching and putting the effort into building this article up to an FA standard only to get derailed by somebody like you. I honestly thought you were trolling. Just because reliable sources cover it doesn't make it non trivial. Many reliable sources at WP:VG/S like IGN, Polygon and Kotaku also cover many trivial things like what the colour of a new Pokemon is going to be or a journalist's thoughts of a game's lore. It doesn't make it a pre-requisite reason to add something in an article. I thought that you were an intelligent person but the fact that your oppose read "It makes me sad that this glaring omission has spoilt an otherwise excellent article. I was expecting to read about this phenomenon in Wikipedia's article" made it look like you were tormenting. "U R MR GAY" is a glaring omission and a phenomenon, is it? JAGUAR 12:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- While I don't condone Jaguar's personal attack-- Axl, your request for "U R MR GAY" was challenged with "why is it notable?" and "what does it add?" and you immediately jumped to opposing the FA nomination. This was an extremely petulant move. "U R MR GAY" was already determined to be coincidental and non-notable through previous consensus. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- When multiple independent reliable sources describe a phenomenon, that makes it notable. Asking "what makes it notable?" after these references have been clearly linked is... not sensible.
- While I don't condone Jaguar's personal attack-- Axl, your request for "U R MR GAY" was challenged with "why is it notable?" and "what does it add?" and you immediately jumped to opposing the FA nomination. This was an extremely petulant move. "U R MR GAY" was already determined to be coincidental and non-notable through previous consensus. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Where do you want this in the article, then? In the development section? Reception? And what is it going to look like? Upon release, some fans reported that the stars aligned on the game's cover art read out "U R MR GAY". I'm not putting a derogatory and infelicitous statement anywhere in this article, it doesn't belong here. It doesn't add any value. It's not worth it. It's trivial. It's almost like a joke. And another thing that's a joke is the fact that you had the nerve to oppose this FAC because I refused to put "U R MR GAY" in this article. Nevermind the fact that I've spent over a dozen hours of my time writing, researching and putting the effort into building this article up to an FA standard only to get derailed by somebody like you. I honestly thought you were trolling. Just because reliable sources cover it doesn't make it non trivial. Many reliable sources at WP:VG/S like IGN, Polygon and Kotaku also cover many trivial things like what the colour of a new Pokemon is going to be or a journalist's thoughts of a game's lore. It doesn't make it a pre-requisite reason to add something in an article. I thought that you were an intelligent person but the fact that your oppose read "It makes me sad that this glaring omission has spoilt an otherwise excellent article. I was expecting to read about this phenomenon in Wikipedia's article" made it look like you were tormenting. "U R MR GAY" is a glaring omission and a phenomenon, is it? JAGUAR 12:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- "I thought you were joking." That doesn't explain why you called me a "fucking moron". Several reliable third-party sources have described it. That makes it non-trivial. Also, I expected to see it mentioned in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
@Famous Hobo: thank you for your comments! I should have hopefully addressed everything above. JAGUAR 16:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments – Although I've never played this game, I've been known to take on a Mario platformer from time to time. I haven't read through much of the article yet, but here are a few initial thoughts:
This might be a British English thing, but is "instalment" meant to have only one l?
"with different variations of gravity being the central element of gameplay." Since this is one of those "noun-plus -ing" connectors that us prose people don't really like, how would you feel about dropping "being" altogether?
"The concept for the game's use of spherical platforms were first conceptualized...". "were" → "was", since this refers to the concept (singular), not the platforms themselves (plural).
- The U R MR GAY stuff seems like indiscriminate information for this article, at least in my view. Not everything published in reliable sources should be included in articles, and I wouldn't expect to see cover art issues be prominently mentioned, unless there's some new video game style standard I'm unaware of. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Giants2008: I agree, I don't think it's worth mentioning in the first place. Anyway, thank you for your comments! I've addressed all of your points above. JAGUAR 14:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
-
Development: "desired that one its distinguishing features" needs "of" after "one", I reckon.
I doubt that gravity needs a link, since that is such a basic concept.
The grammar in "Iwata noted an increasing number of consumers to give up during a video game" doesn't seem to be that great. Maybe try "giving up" in the middle?
Shouldn't a 1-Up link be somewhere in the gameplay section instead, where its first mention is?
"and devised ways on how they should incorporate an idea into the game and make it the most entertaining." The beginning of this bit is a little wordy, and the "most entertaining" part doesn't make sense (most entertaining what). How about "and devised ways to incorporate an idea into the game and make it entertaining (as entertaining as possible?)" instead, or some variant of that?
Remove "the" from "that the Super Mario Galaxy's co-operative mode".
Music: Minor, but refs 28 and 35 could be reversed to numerical order.
Super Mario Bros. has a double period at the end. You just need the one from the game's title.
-
- The Super Mario Bros. title has a full stop in itself, but I removed it anyway as I know it will only cause confusion with more readers. I thought Nights into Dreams... was bad enough. JAGUAR 16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
-
I still see this one in the article. It's in the second paragraph of Music, in case there was another one I didn't notice.Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
If we don't have a Donkey Kong Jungle Beat link earlier, please consider adding one here.
Reception: Super Mario Sunshine probably doesn't need the link, since there was one earlier.
Same for Super Mario 64.
"The gameplay ... were also praised." "were" → "was". That word is referring to the gameplay itself, not the specific elements I skipped over; therefore it should be in singular tense. If it was "gameplay element" or similar, then you could get away with a plural.
Sequel: Remove "the" before Famitsu.
-
Add "was" before "originally called Super Mario Galaxy More".Giants2008 (Talk) 20:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Giants2008: thanks for the review! I've addressed all of your comments. And sorry for the delay, I've been having internet problems lately. JAGUAR 16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- Support – The article seems to be comprehensive for its field, and I'm satisfied with the writing after the above fixes. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments from ThomasO1989
I've got more comments on the way, but I can finish those up later tonight or this weekend.
Gameplay
- Super Mario Galaxy is set in outer space, where Mario travels from galaxy to galaxy to collect Power Stars, which are earned by completing levels in galaxies or defeating enemies. This sentence reads a little funny. Maybe change "from galaxy to galaxy" to "to different galaxies"? The "completing levels in galaxies" is a bit redundant, how about "earned by completing missions". You could then quickly cover one or two types of missions ("defeating a boss" or "reaching a particular area").
- Mario is given new moves that take advantage of the Wii Remote's pointer and motion sensing. I think it might make sense to cut out this part of the sentence altogether and mention where the Wii Remote's functions are used only when it's the main point. So in this paragraph, you may have like "The player controls the Star Pointer, a cursor that appears on-screen, with the Wii Remote pointer". Since the use of motion controls used to do a spin is explicitly brought up in Development, mention them in the second paragraph when talking about the spin.
- the Star Pointer is used to blow air at it to influence the direction and speed it moves. This sentence seems a bit wordy, though I believe it's been there for years. Maybe use something simple, like the Star Pointer is used to push the bubble around.
- Someone else could chime in, but should adverbs like "firstly", "secondly", and "thirdly" be used in formal writing?
- Nine power-ups supply Mario with a special costume that grants him new abilities. Add the word "each" to imply that the power-ups are different and the word "temporary" (or a variation thereof) to imply they're not permanent.
- Instant death can occur by being swallowed by quicksand or dark matter; falling into bottomless pits, which either consist of black holes or leaving a planet's gravitational pull and falling into space; getting crushed between objects; losing a race against a non-player character; or other special challenges. Is it truly necessary to list all potential ways Mario could die?
Plot
This section could use some trimming. Not that it's overly long, it just seems a bit wordy, like it's describing certain cutscenes in more detail than what is necessary. I can help out with this one if you'd like.
- That would be appreciated! I don't think it's too long, in fact I think it's just about right for a game like this since it's not plot-heavy. Anyway, I'll try and cut it down slightly. JAGUAR 13:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Development
My issues with this section stem from certain points being presented a bit haphazardly... it could use some re-arranging. There is also many passive sentences.
- Takeo Shimizu, the game's producer and programmer, noted that the most basic action in a 3D action game was to simply run, and concluded that the easiest way to attack was to "spin", not jump. Move this sentence before the immediately preceding one, since it is directly related to why spin was done in the first place.
- the "spin" was changed to be activated through shaking the latter. Technically both controllers' sensing activate the spin, so this should be changed.
-
- The "spin" is only activated through shaking the Wii Remote, not the Nunchuk? JAGUAR 14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- To clarify, the player can actually shake either controller to activate Mario's spin, not just the Wii Remote.-- ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding this decision, Koizumi said that he wanted... You could do away with "Regarding this decision" since the topic is still on Koizumi.
- Furthermore, Iwata added that decreasing... Add "retrospectively" and remove "furthermore".
- The images are pretty, but what do they add to the article? They just seem decorative.
-
- I think that they're important as they display key factors of the gameplay/development and show the reader what the developer's focus was. The top image shows a galaxy and the bottom image shows a spherical planetoid, with both featuring prominently throughout the article. I'd prefer to keep them, but it would be a shame to lose them. JAGUAR 14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- I don't agree with this. I don't think a picture of outer space is necessary to show that the developer's focus was on space anymore than Super Mario Sunshine needs a picture of water, or Pikmin a picture of a garden. The "spherical planetoid" is just a panoramic image, not an actual planetoid. It would make more sense to include them if these exact pictures inspired the gameplay, art, or story. A good example is the picture of "The Swing" used in the article Tangled, since the artist's work was actually used as a direct reference. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think the paragraph on the level design should be combined with the initial idea to use spherical platforms in the first place (first paragraph) since they are directly related.
-
-
- I do think they can be merged into a subsection, "Design", like what is done with Music. Some information could also be cut or condensed. I can write up a draft in my sandbox and present it for comments. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
-
Music
- The task of creating the game's sound effects [...] like they were having that experience. This reads a little too long and doesn't paraphrase the source well. Here is a suggested condensed version: The game originally heavily utilized the Wii Remote speaker for "all sorts of sound [effects]", but Masafumi Kawamura, the game's sound director, decided they were redundant when played in tangent with those from the television. Kawamura decided to restrict Wii Remote sound effects to those triggered by Mario's actions, such as hitting an enemy, feeling that it better immersed the player.
@ThomasO1989: thank you for your review! I've tried to address everything but I didn't understand a couple of your points, such as merging the level design paragraph into the first and the "spin" attack sentence, as the attack itself is accomplished by shaking only one of the controllers, not both. I prefer to keep the images as they show significant symbolism, but I'll remove them if I must. Sorry for coming to this review late, as I've been very busy with RL as well as sorting out a grant I applied on Wikimedia. If you have more comments, I'll be happy to address them. Thanks again! JAGUAR 14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- It's already an article deserving to be an FA but there are somethings I would like to point out:
- There are some references that are used about four times. I would suggest archiving them but that's not an issue (I'm looking at you 1UP)
- The plot section is unreferenced. I know that's not relevant, but could the "Super Mario Galaxy instruction manual" be used to reference some parts?
- Lastly references 79 and 80 look a bit redundant since Metacritic already has all the review.
Anyway good with the article, I really hope it becomes a FA. Also, if you have free time could you provide feedback to my own FAN? It's a bit inactive. Cheers.
- @Tintor2: thank you for the comments! I promise to take a look at your FAC soon, I've been held up with other matters lately. I have addressed everything you mentioned above. I've archived the more important references, and sourced some parts of the plot via the manual. JAGUAR 14:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Source review
I'll be doing the source review @Jaguar:. It'll take a bit of time but everything seems well. I would appreciate it if you do the source review for Allen Walker.Tintor2 (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! I'll start the source review tomorrow. Making sure that the sources confirm the article's prose is easy but takes a while. JAGUAR 20:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'll let it support or pass (it's my first time dealing with FA...) this review since all sources are reliable and are used well such as when quotes are used. However, I would recommend removing the GameRankings' cheats since that while is reliable, the cheats are provided by random users.Tintor2 (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the source review, Tintor! I'm so relieved that I wrote the majority of this from scratch, as that way I can be sure everything is sourced properly and not have it struggle like my earlier FACs. Anyway, I've removed the GameRanking cheats. 13:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'll let it support or pass (it's my first time dealing with FA...) this review since all sources are reliable and are used well such as when quotes are used. However, I would recommend removing the GameRankings' cheats since that while is reliable, the cheats are provided by random users.Tintor2 (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
@WP:FAC coordinators: just checking if there's anything else needed for this nom? Source check is done, and the prose comments above have all been addressed. It's just that I hope to get this one done a bit quicker in stark contrast to last time! JAGUAR 11:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, I know you pinged them both last month but I'd like to see again if we can't confirm from Famous Hobo and ThomasO1989 that they're satisfied with responses/actions re. their comments. Failing that we may need another pair of eyes, but let's see how we go... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- @ThomasO1989 and Famous Hobo: do you have anything more to add? It's just that I'm really anxious to see this out of the way! If not, don't worry. JAGUAR 16:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I just left messages for both of the above for confirmation if they're happy with their points being addressed, although I can't think of anything else. JAGUAR 14:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Anarchyte
I hope this is the correct spot to put my section, if not, feel free to move it. . I haven't read any of the other comments by other users, so if I repeat something, my apologies.
- Gameplay
- where Mario travels through different galaxies to collect Power Stars, which are earned by completing missions, defeating a boss, or reaching a particular area. Are those two words necessary? IMO it flows better without it.
- other space matter for the player to explore "Space matter"... Hm. Any other terms you could use to describe this?
- allowing the player to completely circumnavigate rounded or irregular planetoids, walking sideways or upside down. Would it be easier to simply remove those three words and write it as "completely circumnavigate the planetoids"?
- in which the object is to defeat. Objective.
- which then allows the player collect a Grand Star in order to access the next dome. Rearrange this to which then give the player access the next dome by collecting a Grand Star.
- Grand Star. What's a Grand Star?
-
- I think the sentence explains it, a Grand Star is needed proceed to the next dome. But let me know if you want it rephrasing/elaborating somehow. JAGUAR 11:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- I guess that's fine, but if you wanted to elaborate, I guess you could write something like: "which then gives the player access to the next dome via acquiring a collectable called a Grand Star". Not the most perfect sentence, but it's a start (if you wanted to elaborate). Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- When 120 Power Stars are collected, the player gains the ability to play through the game again as Mario's brother Luigi. Once 120 Power Stars are collected with both characters, the player is rewarded one additional challenge for Mario and Luigi to complete, as well as two commemorative pictures that can be sent to the Wii Message Board upon each brother completing the challenge. Reword and rearrange so that it's something like The player is awarded the ability to play as Luigi after collecting 120 Power Stars as Mario. Once 120 Power Stars are collected with both characters, the player is rewarded one additional challenge for Mario and Luigi to complete, which upon completion, awards the player with two commemorative pictures that can be sent to the Wii Message Board. (I'm assuming you need to play as Mario to get this, I haven't played it myself, )
I'll be able to take another look tomorrow. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jaguar: Here are some more comments regarding the gameplay section and its subsections:
- which then give the player access the next dome by collecting a Grand Star. Do you mean gives?
- a new feature includes the Star Pointer Change to a new feature called the Star Pointer
- which is a cursor that appears on-screen via Wii Remote pointer (as long as the remote is pointed at the screen). Hm... Cut it down to be which is a cursor that appears when the Wii Remote pointer is pointed at the screen.
- used to manoeuvre the bubble around. Remove "around".
Hope these additional comments help! I'll be back in an hour or so. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I'm pretty sure that was one of the worst games of CS that I've ever played, but I'm back. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- The player gains a new ability early in the game, known as the "Spin" technique, which has previously appeared in varying forms. Try rewording to Early into the game, the player learns a new ability known as the "Spin" technique, which has had appearances in varying forms
- that would otherwise be inaccessible. Fairly sure this is my personal preference, but I'd write "be" before "otherwise".
- which is depleted by contact with enemies and hazards. Change to through.
- Mario's health can be restored by collecting coins and his air supply by touching bubbles or coins. Not sure what you're getting at here.
- enemy or hazard contact or if Mario suffers instant death. Add a comma between these two words.
And that's the end of my review of the gameplay section. If you'd like me to take a look at the reception, ping me . Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Anarchyte: thanks for the comments so far! I've addressed everything. Sorry to hear about the CSGO experience. If you're willing to go through the reception section (which I think would be the last as the development section has been covered already), then I'll be more than happy to get back to this as I think that's all that is left to be done here. JAGUAR 14:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
- Reception
- The game received critical acclaim and was a commercial success upon release. It is the sixth highest rated game. Connect these two short sentences. upon release, becoming the sixth.
- and large playing areas would constantly amaze the player. Not sure about this at all.
- however he thought that Super Mario Galaxy "got both perfect". Remove "that".
- stating that the game's detail is only matched by its mission design ingenuity. Remove "that".
- however he noted that the visuals were in similar detail to Super Mario Sunshine. Remove "that".
- stating that the game was polished, engaging and evocative. Repetition of "that" in that sentence. heh get it
- Louis Bedigan from GameZone thought that the visualisations. Remove "that".
- Matt Casamassina of IGN thought that Super Mario Galaxy was the only game that pushed the. Remove the red "that".
- stating that "great art combines with great tech for stunning results". Paraphrase. stating it combines "great art" with "great tech", resulting in what he described to be "stunning results".
- commented that the game's tempo was "abnormally good". Change to commented on the game's tempo, believing it was "abnormally good"
- stating that the control schemes were more subtle Remove "that".
- breaking the laws of physics. Link laws of physics, if it hasn't been already.
- and summarised that the game was the best title since. Change to and summarised by saying it was the best title since.
- Similarly, Hudak thought that the game was a "next-gen reincarnation" of Super Mario 64. Repetition of what's said in the third paragraph.
- Ref 49 isn't dead; add
|deadurl=no
to the template.
- Additionally, Casamassina regarded the motion control well implemented. Change to regarded the motion control as being well implemented.
- Super Mario game, opining that each track. Fairly sure the reader would be sick of the word "opining" by this point. I know I am.
- Williams opined that the game featured the best sound on the Wii. Change "opined" and if it makes sense to do so afterwards, removed "that".
Hope this helps. I'm off to go lose another game of Hearthstone. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Anarchyte: thank you so much for the helpful review! I've definitely addressed everything now. Sorry about the "that" repetition in the reception, I'll be careful to avoid repeating it in the future. JAGUAR 12:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Anarchyte: it only took me an hour but I finally managed to archive all of the links, with the sole exception of one GameSpot link as there weren't any archived versions available, but that should be OK. JAGUAR 22:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: just successfully addressed a new set of comments. Would there be anything else needed for this nom before it's ready? JAGUAR 12:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
@WP:FAC coordinators: , ping JAGUAR 23:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Operation Infinite Reach
This article is about the first-ever American attack against al-Qaeda: the Clinton Administration's August 20, 1998, cruise missile strikes against bin Laden's Afghan bases and a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant suspected of manufacturing chemical weapons for militants. This GA, which incorporates international journalism, academic and popular literature, and government reports, has already received a peer review. I hope you find this interesting! GABgab 16:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Operation_Infinite_Reach.jpg: I don't see this image on the given source page, and the only Sudanese photos there are credited to a private company. Do you have a source to support the given tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Upon further inspection, it doesn't appear that the photo was correctly attributed by its uploader (indeed, it's not on the given site); I've removed it and replaced it with a separate photo. I've also taken the liberty to upload a new, public-domain version in place of the old one. Thank you for pointing this out. GABgab 00:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
- Hi GAB, welcome to FAC.
- First up: See WP:INTEXT. All quotes need to be attributed to whoever said them, with a short (sometimes one-word) description of the author (such as "historian") at the first mention of that author. Also, there are too many quotes for FAC; reword at least two-thirds of them. Keep the quotes that are memorable, or the quotes that have some subtle or precise meaning that might be lost in any paraphrase. Also lose the quote marks in almost all cases where you're not actually quoting someone. (For instance, I'd paraphrase "green light" as approval, regardless of whether someone said "green light".) - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, Dank. I'm in the process of reworking the quotes right now. GABgab 22:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I know it's annoying, but I'm 99% sure this is a standard request at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, I understand; in hindsight, I am a bit quote-heavy in my writing, so this is a good time to kick the habit GABgab 22:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Dank: I have removed a large number of quotes - I'd appreciate any other suggestions you might have to offer. Thanks, GABgab 21:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- That's a lot of work, and looking quickly, you did a spectacular job with it. It should be much easier to get this through FAC now. Unfortunately, I'm not going to have time to review. - Dank (push to talk) 16:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Dank: I have removed a large number of quotes - I'd appreciate any other suggestions you might have to offer. Thanks, GABgab 21:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- No, I understand; in hindsight, I am a bit quote-heavy in my writing, so this is a good time to kick the habit GABgab 22:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I know it's annoying, but I'm 99% sure this is a standard request at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 22:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, Dank. I'm in the process of reworking the quotes right now. GABgab 22:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Comment:
References
- ^ "U.S. missiles pound targets in Afghanistan, Sudan". CNN. August 21, 1998. Retrieved 17 August 2016.
- ^ Younge, Gary (August 22, 1998). "We are in a new ball game, says Pentagon". The Guardian.
- ^ Wright 2006, p. 282.
-
-
- The sections are quite long. Has there been any thought given to breaking up some of them into subsections? I.e. the Aftermath section could be subdivided into "Reactions in the West"; "Reactions in the Arab world", etc. Same could be perhaps done to the the factory attack section and some others. I think this would improve readability. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- K.e.coffman (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Sure, I'll work on the overcite. I think the aftermath section could be easily broken up by region, and the Al-Shifa section could be split into 2 on the attack and the subsequent controversy. GABgab 01:47, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
-
-
Comments Support (Harry Mitchell)
- Nice chunky background section; I like that. It nicely sets the scene.
- I note that Bin Laden isn't linked in the background section. My general rule with linking (especially for key subjects) is to link once in the lead and once in the body, but it's up to you.
- "Turki demanded that the Taliban either expel bin Laden from their country or hand him over to the Saudis, insisting that removing bin Laden from Afghanistan was the price of cordial relations with the Kingdom". This is the first mention of Afghanistan in the body—perhaps put it earlier in the sentence so we know what "their country" is referring to.
- Is it really necessary to link all the job titles in the sentence that starts "That day, Clinton started meeting with his "Small Group""?
- "On August 11, according to the 9/11 Commission Report," Is the information following this disputed? If not, is it necessary to specify its origin? There are quite a few occurrences of this phrase in the article
- "slam dunk," I know this is common in American writing but our MoS frowns on it, see MOS:LQ.
- "At 7:30 PM local time" What is the local timezone, and can we have a conversion to UTC/GMT like we do for the preceding EDT time?
- "American military personnel based in Saudi Arabia.[71][72]" isn't the link on "based" a bit of an easter egg?
- Would the "Al-Shifa controversy" work better as a subsection of the "Al-Shifa plant attack" section, rather than as a section in its own right?
- The first paragraph of the "Attack on Afghan camps" section in particular feels very cluttered with references; are they all really necessary?
- Perhaps link salvo? I'm not sure it's a common term.
- Watch out for more easter egg links; I removed one besides the one mentioned above, the link to flag desecration is another (and is also unlikely to aid the reader's understanding)
- Were there any longer-term impacts on the forces involved or US politics? See the bottom of British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War for an example. It might be that the answer is no, especially given that this is only a few years before 9/11 and that's fine, but you know the source material.
All in all a nice, well-rounded article that you've obviously put a lot of work into. I can't see any major stumbling blocks to promotion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- @HJ Mitchell: I've done most of the fixes you've suggested - I'll handle the last ones soon. Regarding the long-term impacts, I think the true significance of Op. Infinite Reach was that there really weren't any; Bin Laden survived, of course. The later sections do go on to mention how the strikes enhanced his public image in the Muslim world as an anti-American champion, and how the strikes' failure spurred the UAV program. Not to mention the fascinating tidbit from the PDB, and that the Tomahawks may have helped out Pakistan and China. Regarding the Al-Shifa section, I really don't know, since it looks rather bulky with the two sections combined. Thanks for all your help, GABgab 01:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome. I'm happy with your responses and the tweaks you've made so I see no reason not to support. Very impressive work; hopefully this will be your first of many FAs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell: I've done most of the fixes you've suggested - I'll handle the last ones soon. Regarding the long-term impacts, I think the true significance of Op. Infinite Reach was that there really weren't any; Bin Laden survived, of course. The later sections do go on to mention how the strikes enhanced his public image in the Muslim world as an anti-American champion, and how the strikes' failure spurred the UAV program. Not to mention the fascinating tidbit from the PDB, and that the Tomahawks may have helped out Pakistan and China. Regarding the Al-Shifa section, I really don't know, since it looks rather bulky with the two sections combined. Thanks for all your help, GABgab 01:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support
Comment-- I made minor adjustments to section headings for easier navigation, but there's not much else I can see that needs improvement. Very well researched article and an interesting read. One suggestion would be to highlight "propaganda victory" (mentioned in the infobox) but turning it into its own subsection in the Aftermath section. This way people who read the infobox can easily find the material to learn more. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)- @K.e.coffman: I've given that a shot - please tell me what you think. GABgab 19:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Looks good! K.e.coffman (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- Support - a very nicely put together article, great work! The only thing I spot is a harv error in one of the footnotes. I also wonder about the usefulness of the EMPTA molecular model - it doesn't really seem to illustrate anything pertinent. Parsecboy (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Coord notes
- Unless I missed it, we need the usual source review for formatting and reliability that we ask for in every FAC.
- Also, as this will be your first FA if promoted, GAB, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing.
Both the above can be requested at the top of WT:FAC unless one or two of the reviewers above would like to have a go. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Gottlob Berger
- Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
This article is about Gottlob Berger, one of Heinrich Himmler's key aides, who was responsible to a significant extent for the expansion of the Waffen-SS from a supposedly "racially pure" organisation to one which made a mockery of Hitler and Himmler's racial ideas by recruiting from almost all of the countries occupied by Nazi Germany during WWII. Berger was arrested and tried for war crimes after the war, but got off pretty lightly in the end, despite his responsibility for several significant crimes. He was also a close friend and ally of the notorious Oskar Dirlewanger. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- File:War_Ensign_of_Germany_1903-1918.svg includes an error tag
- I've deleted all the flag icons, I'm not a huge fan of them anyway.
- File:Uw_plaats_is_nog_vrij_in_de_Waffen_ss.png: what is the copyright status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- Good point, wasn't PD in The Netherlands in 1996, so not PD-US. Have replaced it with one from the Bundesarchiv. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Support Comments This is a very good article about a horrible person, and a good snapshot of the crazed empire building which was a feature of many senior Nazi officials. I have the following comments:
- "but his organisational skills were largely responsible for the growth of the Waffen-SS to a total of 38 divisions by war's end" - this is probably too strong given that the expansion of the SS was also due to Hitler's preference for it over the Army. Berger seems to have made the "best" of this opportunity.
- Adjusted.
- "briefly held in custody after Adolf Hitler's Munich Beer Hall Putsch in November 1923" - did he play any role in the Putsch, or was he arrested as part of a general round up?
- the sources don't mention any part he played in the putsch, so I assume he was just rounded up with the rest of the Nazi's.
- "Berger played a key role in directing the fifth column Sudetendeutsches Freikorps during the Sudeten Crisis in Czechoslovakia in 1938,[12] and the organisational skills he had displayed there marked him as highly suitable for the SS recruiting role" - this seems a bit out of place at the end of the para
- moved it to the end of the subsection.
- Was Berger's duties at the outbreak of war limited to recruiting members of the SS only, or was he also involved in overseeing recruit training?
- In September 1939 he was only the head of the recruiting department, training was the responsibility of several other departments within the SS-HA.
- " Waffen-SS,[20] a term he coined in an agreement dated 2 March 1940.[21] He used the new term..." - I'd suggest including a translation of the term here - noting that the name means "Fighting SS" would help to illustrate why it was seen to be attractive to the other branches of the SS
- Done. "Armed SS" is probably the more common translation.
- The final sentences of both paras in the "The "national legions"" section are a bit too similar. It also seems a bit narrow to attribute the German failure to expand these units to administrative issues: very few people in occupied countries were willing to volunteer for the German military.
- Tweaked the first para a bit with some more material from Stein. The willingness of people from occupied territories to enlist varied across the board, for example, the pro-German nationalists among the Dutch were fairly keen, at least early on, but the Flemish less so.
- The wording is still a bit similar: the first of the two paras could cover the problems during recruitment and initial training, and the second the problems which arose later on? Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've made the split as suggested, what do you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- The wording is still a bit similar: the first of the two paras could cover the problems during recruitment and initial training, and the second the problems which arose later on? Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- Tweaked the first para a bit with some more material from Stein. The willingness of people from occupied territories to enlist varied across the board, for example, the pro-German nationalists among the Dutch were fairly keen, at least early on, but the Flemish less so.
- How did Berger handle what look to be multiple full-time jobs during the war? Did he delegate the work to others, or leave it undone?
- He had multiple department heads and a good-sized staff. I haven't seen any information indicating that he delegated any more than would have been usual for a man with multiple departmental heads, or that he failed to address any work he had. He was obviously an excellent administrator, which was probably why Himmler wouldn't give him a combat command.
- OK, but it seems likely to me that corners would have been cut. Himmler also had lots of jobs, and didn't do most of them - the idea was to get his finger into as many pies as possible. This kind of double up and empire building was common for the senior Nazi bureaucrats, with historians noting that it messed up the processes of government, such as they were. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- You may well be right, the overlapping chains of command that Hitler (and Himmler) implemented certainly had that effect in a lot of places, notably in German-occupied Serbia, but I haven't been able to locate anything that says this of Berger. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- OK, but it seems likely to me that corners would have been cut. Himmler also had lots of jobs, and didn't do most of them - the idea was to get his finger into as many pies as possible. This kind of double up and empire building was common for the senior Nazi bureaucrats, with historians noting that it messed up the processes of government, such as they were. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
- He had multiple department heads and a good-sized staff. I haven't seen any information indicating that he delegated any more than would have been usual for a man with multiple departmental heads, or that he failed to address any work he had. He was obviously an excellent administrator, which was probably why Himmler wouldn't give him a combat command.
- When did Berger assume command of XIII SS Army Corps?
- More generally, it's not really clear what he did during 1945 prior to the German surrender at present - can this be fleshed out?
- There isn't much to go on. He was obviously involved with the POW role (particularly with the Prominente), and had the kampfgruppe command as well, so they put him in the Alps. There can't have been too much going on with Waffen-SS recruiting at that stage...
- "He was convicted under that part of count three relating to the murder of French Général de division Gustave Mesny, a POW who was killed in reprisal for the death of Generalleutnant Fritz von Brodowski at the hands of the French resistance in October 1944" - this isn't mentioned earlier in the article. What was his role here? Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've moved the mention up, it was a command responsibility-type charge applied to Berger because he was in charge of the POW camps at the time of Mesny's murder.
- I think I'm done, Nick-D. These are my edits. Thanks for the review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Nick-D I reckon I've addressed them all now, take another look and let me know what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- I think I'm done, Nick-D. These are my edits. Thanks for the review. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- I've moved the mention up, it was a command responsibility-type charge applied to Berger because he was in charge of the POW camps at the time of Mesny's murder.
Support All my comments are now addressed. Great work with this article - having high quality articles on Nazi functionaries is an important element of building our coverage of Nazi Germany. Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Nick. A pretty nasty lot, but I agree, we need to improve our coverage of them. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Assayer
I am not sure, if a featured article of the English wikipedia has to be based on the relevant Non-English literature as well. Nonetheless, since the subject is German history, I will name a few studies. While there is no book-length biography of Berger, a couple of articles have been published in German by:
- Alfred Hoffmann: Der "maßlose Drang, eine Rolle zu spielen": Gottlob Berger. In: Täter, Helfer, Trittbrettfahrer, ed. by Wolfgang Proske, Vol. 1, Reutlingen 2010, pp. 21-51.
- Gerhard Rempl: Gottlob Berger. "Ein Schwabengeneral der Tat". In: Die SS. ed. by Ronald Smelser & Enrico Syring, Paderborn 2000. pp. 45-59.
- Joachim Scholtyseck: Der „Schwabenherzog“. Gotthold Berger, SS-Obergruppenführer. In: Die Führer der Provinz. NS-Biographien aus Baden und Württemberg, ed. by Michael Kißener & Joachim Scholtyseck, Konstanz 1997, pp. 77-110.
- Gerhard Rempel: Gottlob Berger and Waffen-SS Recruitment: 1933-1945. In: Militärgesch. Mitteilungen 27, (1980), pp. 107-122.
The article is largely based on books by Adrian Weale and George Stein, respectively. While Weale's book is apparently a synthesis of various studies studies published in English and suffers from the author's apparent inability to read German (review by Richard J. Evans), Stein's study was originally published in 1966 (1984 reprinted in pbk). It is by now considered to be outdated. Publications by Rupert Butler, Chris Bishop, Chris McNab, Jonathan Trigg are not high-quality. Kübler is national-socialist in outlook.
The standard work on the Waffen-SS is still Bernd Wegner's study of 1980, 9th ed. 2010, published in English as "The Waffen SS" in 1990. In recent years the interest in the Waffen-SS has reinvigorated. A representative collection of essays is Die Waffen-SS. Neue Forschungen. ed. by Jan Erik Schulte, Peter Lieb, Bernd Wegner, Schöningh, Paderborn 2014. Many of the contributing authors have also published monographic studies (mainly revised PhD. theses). On the recruitment process, see in particular René Rohrkamp, »Weltanschaulich gefestigte Kämpfer«: Die Soldaten der Waffen-SS 1933-1945. Paderborn 2010.
On the whole the article seems a little unbalanced. There is much information about the organization of the different units, but it is not always clear what Berger has to do with this. For example, the paragraph about the Baltic divisions doesn't even mention Berger or his and Himmler's promises of autonomy to Latvians and Estonians. His role in crushing the Slovakian uprising is passed over rather quickly. Neither do we learn much about Berger's ideology. As early as 1938 Himmler had proclaimed that he intended to recruit "non-German Germanics" for the SS, and in 1940 Berger dreamt to win over millions of men with German ancestry in the Americas and Australia at some point. Moreover, Berger reasoned that by transforming the SS into a full-scale army it could be established as a real alternative to the Wehrmacht. On this see Bernd Wegner: Auf dem Weg zur pangermanischen Armee. Dokumente zur Entstehungsgeschichte des III. ("germanischen") SS-Panzerkorps In: Militärgeschichtliche Mitteilungen 28 (1980): pp. 101–136. More material on the soldierly role models of the SS can be found in Knut Stang: Ritter, Landsknecht, Legionär: Militärmythische Leitbilder in der Ideologie der SS. Frankfurt 2009; Berger's and Himmler's ideas of the Islam have found some attention in recent years, for example by David Motadel: Islam and Nazi Germany's War. Cambridge, MA, 2014. --Assayer (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I'm also not sure of the requirement for non-English sources on en WP, although there is no doubt that biographical articles on non-English-speaking people have made it to Featured status without a significant weight of foreign sources. I will see if I can get access to Wegner, thanks for that advice and the pointers to other sources. I would ask that you provide some evidence that Stein is outdated, particularly given that you have listed a 35-year-old book as being the standard work on the subject. For example, in my main area of specialisation, books from the 1960s and 70s remain standard texts on aspects of interwar and WWII Yugoslavia. Same goes for the reliability of the other sources. A negative review in an academic journal would be the sort of evidence I'd be looking for. Having said that, this isn't a dissertation, it is WP, so the issue is meeting the reliability requirements unless you consider an extraordinary claim has been made somewhere. Berger was the head of recruiting, not the organiser of the new divisions, so the history of the changes in recruitment is germane to his biography. Finally, thanks for the mention of the Slovakian uprising, I will take another look at that. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
-
- The main issue with Stein's work is, that it reproduces the image of the Waffen-SS as an military "elite". Sönke Neitzel characterizes this (with reference to Stein and Höhne) as a myth which originated with the Nazi propaganda during the war. ("Des Forschens noch wert? Anmerkungen zur Operationsgeschichte der Waffen-SS," In: MGZS 61 (2002), p. 406, 415) According to Jens Westemeier recent research has shown that Stein's overall judgement, namely that the significance of the Waffen-SS is to be found "in its part in the great battles for the defense of Hitler's Europe", is grossly misleading. (Himmlers Krieger, 2014, p. 13.) Thomas Casagrande criticizes that Stein takes judgements by Eicke and other commanders about the military worth of the "Volksdeutschen" at face value. (Die volksdeutsche SS-Division "Prinz Eugen", 2003, pp. 305-6.) Wegner provided a social history of the Waffen-SS and in that respect his work is still unsurpassed. Later editions have been revised and improved. Considering that it is available in English I am surprised that it is not being used more often in the English Wikipedia.--Assayer (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't think that is a fair analysis of Stein, despite the title of his book. He outlines what was essentially a two-tier system, the second of which he describes as far from "elite". He's also far from the only writer that identifies what was effectively a two or multi-tier arrangement within the 38 divisions of the Waffen-SS. He observes that what made the first tier "elite" was largely about the size and equipment of those formations, not necessarily the personnel or even training, although indoctrination obviously played a part. Other authors have observed better relationships between officers, NCOs and men in Waffen-SS formations when compared to comparable Army formations, for example. Comparable Army formations would also fit the "elite" description, largely for similar reasons. I have found that Wegner is held by my state library, so I will go and have a look and see what he says about Berger and his recruiting activities. In response to your comment I have added more about the Slovak uprising and some additional material about Berger from Kroener et al in various places. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- I was able to pop into the library and go through Wegner, as suggested. I have started adding material from it, though most of his mentions of Berger are in passing or in footnotes, and the material added consists of fairly minor tweaks here and there. Based on my reading, there isn't a large amount of material in Wegner that really adds to Berger's biography, or even to the chronology of Waffen-SS recruiting that I have tried to capture as a way of reflecting Berger's impact on it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have now added 15 new citations from Wegner covering some additional material regarding Berger's involvement in ideological indoctrination, rivalry with other SS leaders, his relationship with Himmler, the issues with Volksdeutsche and "Germanic" recruitment and a number of other bits and pieces throughout. There isn't much there about Berger himself, but I have tried to capture what little there was, as well as material regarding recruiting more generally. As already noted, I have also added material about the Slovak uprising. Further, despite your comments about Stein, I consider him reliable for the material he is used for in this article, his overall judgement of the Waffen-SS isn't being used here, merely the history of the recruiting process and related material. I believe the article has been improved by the addition of the material from Wegner, and believe it meets the Featured Article criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
- I was able to pop into the library and go through Wegner, as suggested. I have started adding material from it, though most of his mentions of Berger are in passing or in footnotes, and the material added consists of fairly minor tweaks here and there. Based on my reading, there isn't a large amount of material in Wegner that really adds to Berger's biography, or even to the chronology of Waffen-SS recruiting that I have tried to capture as a way of reflecting Berger's impact on it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think that is a fair analysis of Stein, despite the title of his book. He outlines what was essentially a two-tier system, the second of which he describes as far from "elite". He's also far from the only writer that identifies what was effectively a two or multi-tier arrangement within the 38 divisions of the Waffen-SS. He observes that what made the first tier "elite" was largely about the size and equipment of those formations, not necessarily the personnel or even training, although indoctrination obviously played a part. Other authors have observed better relationships between officers, NCOs and men in Waffen-SS formations when compared to comparable Army formations, for example. Comparable Army formations would also fit the "elite" description, largely for similar reasons. I have found that Wegner is held by my state library, so I will go and have a look and see what he says about Berger and his recruiting activities. In response to your comment I have added more about the Slovak uprising and some additional material about Berger from Kroener et al in various places. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
-
Comments by Dudley
- "Berger's SA career was limited by his soldierly ideas of politics and leadership". What soldierly ideas?
- "Berger had achieved the rank of Major der Reserve in the Wehrmacht by 1938, but his initial rank upon joining the Allgemeine SS was SS-Standartenführer, based upon his SA service." Presumably this means that he was then too junior to have suggested camouflage jackets, but this could do with spelling out.
- "Berger played a key role in directing the fifth column Sudetendeutsches Freikorps during the Sudeten Crisis in Czechoslovakia in 1938,[13] and the organisational skills he had displayed there marked him as highly suitable for the SS recruiting role." I would delete the word "had".
- "creating separate sections to deal with recruiting inside and outside the Reich.[37] This latter section" Which latter section?
- Operation Barbarossa - this should be linked.
- "Not content with this fairly minor and surreptitious recruiting effort, Berger proposed to raise a seventh Waffen-SS division from the ethnic Germans of Yugoslavia, something that had been a long-term plan of Berger's." The first and last clauses seem superfluous as you have said in the previous paragraph that Berger had proposed to recruit in Yugoslavia.
- "Tyrolean General Levy Act" Why was a law of the County of Tyrol relevant to Yugoslavia?
- "when an SS judge issued an arrest warrant for Dirlewanger, the SS-HA chief intervened with Himmler saying, "Better to shoot two Poles too many than one too few. A savage country cannot be governed in a decent manner" Presumably Dirlawanger was charged with crimes against Poles, but it would be helpful to clarify.
- "In August 1942, Berger wrote a letter in which he railed against moves to promote SS ideology as a substitute for religion." This could do with expanding. Was he religious and were his rivals (who?) against religion?
- "he historian George C. Stein observes that few of the "national legion" recruits were motivated by "political or ideological idealism"" So what did motivate them?
- More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- "By this time, the crisis in the "Germanic" project was obvious" This appears to mean by the end of the war, when presumably there were bigger problems than the crisis in the Germanic project.
- " In the German-occupied territory of Serbia, the General Government (annexed Poland)" It sounds odd to describe a government as a territory.
- "only 3,000 members of the division escaped encirclement and destruction" Out of how many?
- "In this role, Berger proposed a plan to kidnap and enslave 50,000 Eastern European children between the ages of 10 and 14, under the codename Heuaktion" You have already said this above.
- His only meeting with Hitler mentioned in the article was when he claimed to have received a dressing down. Are other meetings known?
- A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Leo Frank
- Nominator(s): Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Born in 1884, Frank managed a pencil factory in Atlanta, Georgia. When a 13-year-old girl who worked at the factory was found dead in the factory’s basement, Frank was arrested and charged with the crime. After a highly-publicized trial, Frank was convicted and sentenced to death. He appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to no avail, but had his sentence commuted to life imprisonment by Georgia Governor John M. Slaton. In addition to being political suicide, Slaton’s action was ultimately fruitless, as Frank was kidnapped from a rural prison, driven across the state, and lynched in a remote wooden area. His case coincided with the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan and the question of whether he was guilty continues to be debated.
The article went through another FAC way back in 2004, and is currently a good article. There have been some issues with sockpuppet editing, and while this has usually been nipped in the bud at SPI pretty quickly, the article has indefinite semi-protection and I'll be sure to monitor the article in case any issues arise. I've put a lot of work into the article, as have several others, and I'd appreciate any feedback! Tonystewart14 (talk) 08:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comments by Maunus: I will take a look at this article over the next weeks. My first immediate suggestion is that the references section is a little unwieldy and untidy, I would would suggest separating text notes and short citations in the references section, and make the referencing use short citations consistently by moving all long citations (e.g. note 84 and several others) into the bibliography.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- Maunus, do you think it would be good to have a "Notes" sub-section with any long notes, then a separate "References" sub-section with short ones? It would thus be:
-
- 10 Notes and references
- 10.1 Notes
- 10.2 References
- 10.3 Sources
- 10 Notes and references
- Let me know if this looks good or if I should take a different approach. Tonystewart14 (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- Yes, I think that would be best, given how many long textual notes the article has.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- I went ahead and made the change. There are a few references with several bullet points that I left as references, but overall it should be a lot better. Feel free to take a look and let me know if there is anything else that can be improved. Tonystewart14 (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I think that would be best, given how many long textual notes the article has.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
-
I've noticed that trying to put bullet points in the notes formats them incorrectly, to where they are simply inline rather than line breaking before each bullet. You're welcome to make the changes directly if you like. Note that I also made some changes to your lead edits, although I made sure that the parts you edited would still make sense. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- I don't think the bullet points are really important, so I would not have a problem getting rid of them for the sake of separating notes and references. I think Im about ready to support this but I want to read thhrough it one more time to be certain. Best, ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- I went ahead and made the change. Let me know what you think about it as well as the article overall when you get the chance. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think the bullet points are really important, so I would not have a problem getting rid of them for the sake of separating notes and references. I think Im about ready to support this but I want to read thhrough it one more time to be certain. Best, ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Image review
- File:Leo_Frank_Signature.png needs a license tag for the original work
- File:FrankLynchedLarge.jpg needs a US PD tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know he died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for looking this over. The Signature image has a {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} tag already, but if there's another specific tag I need please let me know which one it is. For the lynching one, I replaced the 70 years tag with a US one, so that the death date of the photographer doesn't matter. If there's anything else, feel free to make the edits directly or let me know below. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- The CC tag on the signature covers the derivative work - the reproduction by tracing - of the signature, but it does not cover the original signature. That is quite likely PD, but I don't know for certain which tag would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- I went ahead and added a PD-US tag here, but I'm not sure if there is a proper way to format the page. I tried to say that the original is PD and the derivative is CC4, but if there's a better way to do it feel free to edit that page. This is my first FAC, so I'm still learning some of the finer points. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Any formatting is fine so long as it's clear, and I think yours meets that standard. However, that tag requires pre-1923 publication, not just creation, which means we need to know where you traced it from to ensure that requirement is met. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- I added a link to this document, where I traced the signature from the second page. As this is a notarized petition to a government agency, I believe it should be adequate for "publication", but please let me know if this is incorrect. Tonystewart14 (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
- Any formatting is fine so long as it's clear, and I think yours meets that standard. However, that tag requires pre-1923 publication, not just creation, which means we need to know where you traced it from to ensure that requirement is met. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- I went ahead and added a PD-US tag here, but I'm not sure if there is a proper way to format the page. I tried to say that the original is PD and the derivative is CC4, but if there's a better way to do it feel free to edit that page. This is my first FAC, so I'm still learning some of the finer points. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- The CC tag on the signature covers the derivative work - the reproduction by tracing - of the signature, but it does not cover the original signature. That is quite likely PD, but I don't know for certain which tag would apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for looking this over. The Signature image has a {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} tag already, but if there's another specific tag I need please let me know which one it is. For the lynching one, I replaced the 70 years tag with a US one, so that the death date of the photographer doesn't matter. If there's anything else, feel free to make the edits directly or let me know below. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have now had a chance to read through the article again. I don't find any conspicuous reasons to oppose its promotion, for which reason I support. However, I must say that this is the kind of article where I am not 100% comfortable promoting without having an expert review the content for any misrepresentations of the academic literature. I also do think that the article could still be improved by adding details about the scholarship, how have different historians described and evaluated the case and what is its relevance today. This second level of description of the literature would help me feel sure that the article is accurately representing the literature. This does not mean that I dont trust Tonystewarts' editing of course, but simply means that I think this type of article requires a level of expertise from the reviewer that I simply dont have (I havent for example had time to read any of the used literature here and therefore my support rests on good faith).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Brianboulton
I peer-reviewed this in Nov/Dec 2014, since which time it has doubled its length to stand at a whopping 116kb of Wikitext and 11,500 words. WP articles at featured level are required to be comprehensive, but that does not mean exhaustive. I don't like to criticise the efforts of the article's authors who have obviously laboured mightily, but extravagant length does affect both readability and reviewability. With careful reading I'm so far only down to the Jim Conley section, so have much more to cover. Here are my comments to date, to which I would add a recommendation to the authors consider whether greater use of a "summary" approach in some of the sections could reduce the length considerably.
-
- It might be worth skimming through the GA review, which was when we rewrote and added significant amounts of text. The reviewer, SilkTork, also expressed some concerns about the length, although he also requested additional detail in several areas. We did some trimming then and made an effort not to add details that were trivial. Of course, there could still be material that would be better off removed, so if you have any specific recommendations once you finish the article I'm all ears. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Lead
- A five-paragraph lead is contrary to the MoS recommendation of a maximum four. Overall I think the lead is a little overdetailed; it should be a very concise summary of the subject with the details confined to the text. The first paragraph is fine, but I think the remained should be condensed into three shorter paragraphs. In particular, the final paragraph could be reduced to a single sentence, since these various adaptations are all given in the text.
-
- I went ahead and implemented your recommendation regarding the final paragraph. Reading the rest of it, and knowing the case, it seems compressed to me already, and taking more out would leave out important details. But I'm open to any other recommendations if you think it's still too long. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- "His legal case" → "His trial"?
-
- Correct, and done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- In the fourth paragraph you don't date the march of the 1,200, so "two months later" is indefinable.
-
- I rewrote this a little based on what was in the body. 1,200 specifically isn't mentioned in the body, nor in a couple sources I looked at, so I went ahead and took this out. I added the date of the kidnapping and lynching, as this is important and wasn't mentioned in the lead before. Tonystewart14 (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Social and economic conditions
- "had been going through" → "was undergoing"
-
- I'll call your suggestion and raise you an "underwent" (unless you insist otherwise). Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- "a failing rural situation" is somewhat inelegant. I'd reword the whole sentence as follows: "To serve a growing urban economy based on manufacturing and commerce, large numbers of people were leaving the increasingly impoverished countryside to relocate in Atlanta, often in "squalid slums". The terem "squalid slums" is not worth quotation marks; use a slight paraphrase, e.g. filthy, sordid, wretched.
-
- I reworded this sentence and took out the quotes in favor of a different phrasing. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- "Despite their success, they recognized themselves as a 'people apart', which left them 'with a pervasive sense of anxiety' ". Again there are quotes wrapped around fairly mundane phrases, without attribution, and again it would be better to paraphrase. As a rule, direct quotes should be used sparingly, when particularly arresting phrasing is used, and should be attributed unless the source is obvious from the context.
-
- This has also been reworded. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- "One of their responses..." – "strategies" rather than "responses"
-
- Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- "enhance the image of Jews in the dominant society" – another unattributed and paraphrasable quote.
-
- I rephrased the first part of the sentence. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest a pipe-link on "Reform" to Reform Judaism
-
- Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- The Marx quote beginning "In isolated instances..." is followed by two footnotes but is not itself cited.
-
- This is referenced in the same page as the first footnote, so I went ahead and added a named reference to clarify. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Leo Frank
- "Frank's northern culture and Jewish faith added to the sense that he was different" – do you mean added to his sense, or a general sense?
-
- A general sense, although I'm not quite sure how to modify the sentence to clarify that. Feel free to take a stab at it, or reply below with suggested text. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Mary Phagan
- Can you give more details of the nature of Mary's work at the pencil factory?
-
- I mentioned that she operated a machine used to insert erasers into pencils. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Discovery
- "Her underwear was still around her hips, but stained with blood and torn open across where the vulva would be." I would end this sentence at "torn open"; the remaining detail is overspecific and unnecessary.
-
- Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- Police investigation
- "Frank seemed extremely nervous, trembling, and pale; his voice was hoarse, and he was rubbing his hands..." – whose description of Frank's behavior is this?
-
- See next comment. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- "...and asking questions before the police could answer" – I'm not sure what you mean here. Surely, questions always precede amswers?
-
- This quote from the Oney book should clarify the previous two comments:
...he paced restlessly across the parlor, wringing his hands and firing questions so fast that he apparently didn't leave Black time to answer: "Has anything happened at the factory? ... Did the night watchman report anything to you? ... I dreamt I heard the phone ring around four o'clock."
Evidently, Black's reply to this barrage was a curt "Mr. Frank, you had better put your clothes on, and let us go to the factory." Subsequently, the detective would remember it this way: His voice was hoarse and trembling and nervous and excited. He looked to me like he was pale ... He seemed to be nervous in handling his collar. He could not get his tie tied, and talked very rapid. Boots Rogers would echo these impressions:
Mr. Frank seemed to be extremely nervous. His questions were jumpy ... His voice was a refined voice ... kind of lady-like ... He was rubbing his hands ... He seemed to be excited.
- Frank tells the police that he did not recognise the name Mary Phagan, but later says Phagan was in his office between 12:05 and 12:10 p.m on Saturday? Is this not contradictory?
-
- This is addressed in the "despite" quote below. The reason it says "despite" is that if Frank knew that someone else knew Phagan, that would mean that he also knew Phagan. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- "Despite claiming he did not know Phagan the day before, Frank told Scott that Gantt knew Phagan well..." This is not a "despite" sentence. I think the required sense is something like: "Having claimed the day before that he personally did not know Phagan, Frank now told Scott that Gantt knew Phagan well..."
-
- See above comment. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- "Jim Conley, the janitor at the factory, was arrested on May 1 and would remain in custody until the trial." This sentence seems premature, given that the next section is entirely devoted to Conley.
-
- I removed this sentence, as this fact is indeed in the next section. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll resume when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 14:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
-
- I do apologise for the delay in resuming this review, but for the last few days I have been distracted on various fronts. I'll try to get to it today, and post later. Brianboulton (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- Resuming at last! Will post soon. Brianboulton (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- I do apologise for the delay in resuming this review, but for the last few days I have been distracted on various fronts. I'll try to get to it today, and post later. Brianboulton (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
A few more sections:
- James "Jim" Conley'
- Can you clarify why Conley was kept in custody long after the police had decided that his shirt was not bloodstained? Why were they holding him?
-
- The Oney text just mentions that he made "a statement the detectives didn't even bother to take until fifteen days after his arrest". Apparently he didn't post bail due to his financial circumstances, but the text doesn't specify and thus we don't mention it in the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- "At trial, Conley changed his story..." At what trial? Frank's or his own?
- It was Frank's trial – Conley did not have a separate trial. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- "He said Frank withheld the money until he had burned Phagan's body in the basement furnace." Needs rephrasing, e.g. "He said Frank decided to withhold the money until Conley had burned Phagan's body in the basement furnace."
-
- Done as suggested. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Media coverage
- "As many as" is unnecessary editorial emphasis.
-
- Done, and wrote out "Forty" to start the sentence. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- "prepared ten militia companies": a better word than "prepared" might be "organized"
-
- Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- " Albert Lindemann ... opined that "ordinary people" may have had difficulty in evaluating the often unreliable information and "suspend[ing] judgment over a long period of time" while the case developed". Sentence not grammatatical as written. Maybe add "were" after the "and"
-
- I moved the word 'in' to be before the second -ing word rather than the first. This should help some. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Trial
- Second para: I'd reorganise this, so that the present second and third sentence are placed at the end of the paragraph. The prose would flow more naturally.
-
- Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- "bloodstains" is one word
-
- Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- "The defense theory..." – delete the word "theory"
-
- Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- "The defense brought many witnesses to support Frank's alibi, which suggested he did not have enough time to commit the crime". This sentence needs strengthening; an alibi that merely "suggests" something is not much of an alibi. I suugest: "The defense brought many witnesses to support Frank's account of his movements, which indicated he did not have enough time to commit the crime".
-
- Changed per suggestion above. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- "The prosecution's analysis of stomach contents placed the time of death at 30 to 45 minutes after the last meal. Of this analysis, the defense's expert witness contested both the methodology and the conclusions". I'd say "her last meal", and delete the words "Of this analysis". Can you explain the grounds on which the defense contested this analysis?
-
- Changed to 'her', and the defense is mentioned in the next sentence regarding the inflammation, as well as later in the paragraph where Arnold, one of Frank's attorneys with prior medical experience, rebuts some prosecution arguments. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
More later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow progress but here is more:
- Trial
- You should link Dorsey at first mention, in the previous section.
- Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Frank's alleged sexual behavior
- What is the significance of mentioning "Monteen Stover"? How does he/she fit into the narrative? (I see this is answered later, but you need greater clarity at this point)
-
- I removed the mention of her from this section and reworded some of this section slightly. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- "cross-examined unsuccessfully" – what does this mean? If it means that they could not break his story you should say so.
-
- I removed "unsuccessfully" and specifically stated that the defense failed to break Conley's story. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Judge Roan recognized..." – that's the wrong verb. "Said", "remarked", "ruled", there are many better alternatives.
-
- I changed this to 'noted' and changed "would allow" to "allowed". Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- Timeframe
- "vivid parts" – "vivid" is wrong. "Crucial" is the word.
-
- Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- "whose father worked for the Montags" – who/what are "the Montags"?
-
- I removed the name Montags, but clarified that they were a family who owned a stake of the pencil factory that Frank managed. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Frank's attorneys located witnesses to dispute the alleged early departure from lunch". What is the nature of this allegation, and who made it?
-
- This is addressed in the rest of the paragraph. It mentions some witnesses who saw Frank walking outside at a later time. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- "the locked up factory" needs a hyphen. When was the factory locked, and who locked it?
-
- I added the hyphen, and the page cited just mentions what the article does about it being locked up, although a previous page noted that they locked up at 6 PM. This was during the incident where a fired employee came back at that time to retrieve items he had left in the factory. We could specify this here, although I don't believe it's necessary. We could even leave out the locked-up part in the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Conviction and sentencing
- This seems very sudden: no closing arguments, speeches, summaries? No mention of how long it took the jury to reach a verdict?
-
- I added some content from a previous version of the article. I agree that it was a quite abrupt transition before. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- Appeals
- "Frank's absence from the court when the verdict was announced..." Shouldn't this have been mentioned in your trial account section? It seems important to know why Frank was not in court to hear the verdict.
-
- I mentioned this in the new content under Conviction and sentencing. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- There's some pretty dense legal stuff in this section. I found this particularly daunting: " Louis Marshall, President of the American Jewish Committee and constitutional lawyer, urged them to raise the point, and the decision was made that it should be made clear that if the extraordinary motion was rejected they intended to appeal through the federal court system and there would be an impression of injustice in the trial." Is there a less wordy way of getting this point across, if indeed it is necessary?
-
- Earlier in the article, I added a footnote explaining what an "extraordinary motion" is, and the prior sentence puts this one in better context. The paradox about making it less dense is that it would become more wordy, so I think the current text is a good balance. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- "the significance of the Carter letters was disputed" → "the significance of Conley's letters to Annie Carter was disputed"
-
- Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- "the testimony as it related to" → "the testimony relating to"
-
- Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- "should have been raised earlier in the process" – delete last three words, as implied
-
- Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- Commutation hearing
- "including one written by Judge Roan shortly before he died..." When did Roan die? This should have been mentioned earlier.
-
- He died on March 23, 1915. The article doesn't mention this, and upon looking back at each mention of "Roan" in the article there's nowhere that it would make sense to mention it. The specific day seems too trivial for an encyclopedia article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
- "Smith analyzed the notes and produced a 100-page analysis" → "Smith produced a 100-page analysis of the notes"
-
- Done. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- You have: "The commutation ... was unpopular with most Atlantans" but later: "The public was outraged. A mob threatened to attack the governor at his home..." which sounds like a lot more than "unpopular".
-
- I went ahead and took out this phrase since the next subsection specifically deals with the public reaction. Tonystewart14 (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The rest to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Looking again, after a break: Although the FAC has been open for five weeks, I seem to be the only reviewer active here, albeit with long pauses. But I would really like to see some other input, which will be essential if the article is to earn promotion. Maybe Maunus, who showed an early interest, could be pinged? Brianboulton (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Brianboulton: I finally got around to all of your points above. If you have any comments for the rest of the article or anything else, please let me know when you get a chance. As you suggested, I'll also ping Maunus and Nikkimaria below.
- @Maunus: You made a comment a while back about some of the references being too long. I'm considering moving refs 237, 238, and 240 to the notes section, although I apparently won't be able to use bullet points if I do. I could make it one paragraph and add references after each sentence, although this might be too convoluted relative to the current bulleted references. If you have an opinion one way or the other, we can consider that.
- @Nikkimaria: You commented on the licensing of Leo Frank's signature in the infobox, as while he died prior to 1923 in the U.S., the publication status was initially ambivalent. As I mentioned at the top of this page, I added a link to this document which is an application for executive clemency. This wasn't "published" in the sense of a book, but is a legal document in the public record that I believe should suffice for public domain criteria. Tonystewart14 (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Coord note -- I'm afraid we can't keep this open much longer without some more commentary; we'd generally have archived it before now but I wanted to at least give Maunus the chance to wrap up his review, and see if one or two more might stop by in the meantime. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Following up... Firstly, tks Maunus and Sarastro for adding comments.
- Secondly, we'll need a source review for formatting and reliability before long.
- Lastly, as this is Tony's first FAC we'll also want a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, a hoop we ask all first-timers to jump through. These checks can be conducted by people who've commented already or you can post requests at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Sarastro
I've read to the end of the Background section, and I'm seeing a few minor issues but nothing that is particularly worrying. My only larger issue would be a few terrifyingly long sentences in places. More to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- The whole article is dauntingly long. I'm not sure yet what could be cut, but I suspect some parts could probably be shortened.
- The lead is also a little long; WP:LEAD recommends no more than four paragraphs, so I wonder if we could merge the five paragraphs here into four?
- "Two notes, made to look as if she had written them, were found beside her body": This is a little vague; it looks at first sight like someone forged her handwriting, which is the meaning I think most people would take, but this is not what the main body says. I think some rewording might be needed.
- "Based on the mention of a "night witch"": Presumably this was in the letters, but the meaning is not quite clear.
- "The case attracted national press,": Should this be "national press attention"?
- "with many deeming the conviction a travesty": Based on the next sentence, I wonder would this be better as "many outside Georgia"? Then, maybe the next sentence could be "This criticism fueled local antisemitism and hatred toward Frank".
- The social and economic conditions section is a bit heavy. I wonder if some sentences could be split, simplified or shortened.
- "To serve a growing economy based on manufacturing and commerce, large numbers of people were leaving the countryside to relocate in Atlanta, often in primitive housing,[1] due to a struggling agricultural economy.": There's a bit too much going on in this sentence. Maybe "many people left the countryside" is a little more concise. But I'm not sure to what part of the sentence "due to a struggling agricultural economy" refers: as written, it is a little ambiguous.
- "Employment conditions in the city included child labor, a 66-hour work week, low wages, and unregulated and unsafe work sites": These aren't really employment conditions; maybe "Employment issues in the city"? Or "challenges"?
- "One of their strategies was to select rabbis and leaders who would put forth a positive image for their people to eliminate frictions that would threaten the existing stability.": This sentence has a lot going on in it. Is there any way to simplify it, or split it?
- "An example of the type of tension that Rabbi Marx feared": We haven't really identified any tensions, and certainly none of his fears.
- If we were looking to cut parts, do we really need anything on Marx in this section?
- I can't help wondering why this section is called "Background". The article is named Leo Frank, and this is not really background about him. Even more off-putting, there is a section in Leo Frank's article called "Leo Frank". Maybe move the first section (The Social/Economic one) to the start of the murder section and rename it "Background", and rename the Leo Frank section something along the lines of "Early life"?
- Are we repeating the antisemitism background in both the "social" section and the "Leo Frank" section? Sarastro1 (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
A few more:
- "into an established Georgia family": Not too clear what we mean here by "established".
- "Shortly after her birth, her mother, Frances Phagan, moved the family back to their hometown of Marietta, Georgia.[28] During or after 1907, she moved the family to East Point, Georgia, in southwest Atlanta, where she opened a boarding house.": Not too sure what hometown means here: is it her hometown, or where the family lived before. Also, we have close repetition of "moved the family". I think it may also be neater to open the first sentence with "Shortly after Mary's birth, her mother, Frances Phagan, moved..."
- "That spring, Phagan took a job with the National Pencil Company, where she earned ten cents an hour operating a knurling machine that inserted rubber erasers into the metal tips of pencils, and worked 55 hours per week.": Again, if we were looking to cut some of this back, do we need to know how much she earned? Or precisely what her job was?
- The "Discovery" section begins with three consecutive sentences starting "On..."
- "the factory's night watchman, Newt Lee, went to the factory basement to use the toilet.[33] After leaving the toilet, Lee discovered Phagan's body in the rear of the basement near an incinerator and called the police": Again, looking to cut the length, do we need to know he used the toilet? Why not "the factory's night watchman, Newt Lee, discovered Phagan's body in the rear of the factory basement near an incinerator and called the police."
- "Her dress was up around her waist and a strip from her petticoat had been torn off and wrapped around her neck. Her face was blackened and scratched. Her head was bruised and battered. A 7-foot (2.1 m) strip of 1⁄4-inch (6.4 mm) wrapping cord was tied into a loop around her neck, buried 1⁄4 in (6.4 mm) deep. Her underwear was still around her hips, but stained with blood and torn open. Her skin was covered with ashes and dirt from the floor, initially making it appear to responding officers that she and her assailant had struggled in the basement.": I have a slight problem here with the repetition of "Her" and the use of short sentences which makes this seem slightly sensationalist and tabloid. By all means, list the injuries and facts, but why not make it a little more neutral? To me, as written, this seems more like a dramatised account. (For example, compare the style here to the style of the Social and Economic section) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- "When the police arrived after 7 a.m. without telling the specifics of what happened at the factory, Frank seemed extremely nervous, trembling, and pale; his voice was hoarse, and he was rubbing his hands and asking questions before the police could answer.": Again, if we are looking to reduce the word count, we could lose everything after "nervous" without any huge detriment to the article. If we really need to know his "symptoms", we could add these in a note without distracting from the main tale.
- "gave a written deposition to the police that provided a brief timeline of his activities on Saturday": Also, could we trim this back to "gave a brief written timeline"?
- "and that he had a confrontation with ex-employee James Gantt at 6 p.m. as Frank was leaving and Lee arriving": It's not quite clear who was the "he" having a confrontation, Frank or Lee.
- "Frank also mentioned an unidentified Negro in the factory, although Scott did not place much emphasis on this point.": This sentence is apparently unreferenced.
- For consistency, I've fixed a few instances where we are quoting a "current" writer but use the past tense. I think the literary present applies here, but I think consistency is the most important thing.
- It's not quite clear in the Police Investigation section when, why or for how long the Pinkertons were involved. Who asked them to get involved? As written, it could be read that Frank got them involved, but it is not clear. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think we actually state the cause of death in the main body of the article. Also, was an autopsy carried out?
- Still thinking about the length, I think some of the Conley section could be cut back and given as more of a summary. Although it is well-written and fairly concise, it is a large chunk of a large article. For example, rather than detailing all his different accounts separately, could we not combine them into one and summarise them? I'm sure the first two paragraphs could be combined and shortened. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Note: I'm down to the end of the Conley section now. I've made a lot of suggestions already, so I think I will pause and give the authors a chance to respond, although I'm not sure how active the nominator is at the moment. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thank you for your review so far. I'll get to these shortly. My hope is that this review isn't archived simply due to it being idle, as I'd like to see it pass and will make improvements as necessary.
- One other preliminary remark I'd like to make is that the length of the article is largely due to added content from the GA review, which was intended to make the article more complete by adding content from previous versions. Brian also made a comment about length, so perhaps it could be whittled down some without reverting to the pre-GA version of the article. Tonystewart14 (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment: It's nearly two weeks since I made these comments. As far as I can tell, nothing has yet been done about them. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry about that! I've been very busy but it is the weekend now, so I should get to this by end of day tomorrow. Tonystewart14 (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Here's the first part:
- The whole article is dauntingly long. I'm not sure yet what could be cut, but I suspect some parts could probably be shortened.
-
- As I mentioned previously, we added a good amount of content during the GA review as the reviewer noticed that some important aspects of the case were missing. However, we left out some more minor points that would have required several paragraphs to explain. There may be a few places where things could be cut, but in general the article should be near the length it is now. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- The lead is also a little long; WP:LEAD recommends no more than four paragraphs, so I wonder if we could merge the five paragraphs here into four?
-
- Update: This edit from Midnightblueowl merged two paragraphs together to make the lead four paragraphs. If you think that it should be done another way, feel free to comment. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The GA review made several mentions of the lead needing to adequately summarize the article, especially for a longer one like this, but didn't mention paragraph count, which is not a hard requirement. The first two paragraphs of the lead are short, so I think at least by word count it's not terribly long and covers the article well. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- "Two notes, made to look as if she had written them, were found beside her body": This is a little vague; it looks at first sight like someone forged her handwriting, which is the meaning I think most people would take, but this is not what the main body says. I think some rewording might be needed.
-
- The main body expands on the notes more in the Conley section. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- "Based on the mention of a "night witch"": Presumably this was in the letters, but the meaning is not quite clear.
-
- In the lead, the mention of this has "night watchman" following this phrase to make it apparent that Lee was implicated based on the similarity. This is explained in the body under Discovery. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- "The case attracted national press,": Should this be "national press attention"?
-
- I seem to recall that it was written this way before "attention" was removed by another reviewer here. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- "with many deeming the conviction a travesty": Based on the next sentence, I wonder would this be better as "many outside Georgia"? Then, maybe the next sentence could be "This criticism fueled local antisemitism and hatred toward Frank".
-
- I feel like that might be ambiguous in the sense that it wouldn't be clear if the press attention was completely national or just in a few states besides Georgia. Tonystewart14 (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- The social and economic conditions section is a bit heavy. I wonder if some sentences could be split, simplified or shortened.
-
- I re-read this section just now and recall another comment I made in this review where I said there has to be a balance between density and article length, and I think the text achieves this. I don't think anything is too hard to understand and it's presented in a reasonably brief text. If you have specific suggestions, feel free to mention them. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- "To serve a growing economy based on manufacturing and commerce, large numbers of people were leaving the countryside to relocate in Atlanta, often in primitive housing,[1] due to a struggling agricultural economy.": There's a bit too much going on in this sentence. Maybe "many people left the countryside" is a little more concise. But I'm not sure to what part of the sentence "due to a struggling agricultural economy" refers: as written, it is a little ambiguous.
-
- I made the change you suggested to be more concise. I also removed the second phrase since we already mention how commerce and manufacturing were growing, and this implies that agriculture was struggling. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- "Employment conditions in the city included child labor, a 66-hour work week, low wages, and unregulated and unsafe work sites": These aren't really employment conditions; maybe "Employment issues in the city"? Or "challenges"?
-
- Using the dictionary definition, I think this satisfies "the circumstances affecting the way in which people live or work, especially with regard to their safety or well-being". Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- "One of their strategies was to select rabbis and leaders who would put forth a positive image for their people to eliminate frictions that would threaten the existing stability.": This sentence has a lot going on in it. Is there any way to simplify it, or split it?
-
- I reworded the second part of this sentence to be simpler and clearer. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- "An example of the type of tension that Rabbi Marx feared": We haven't really identified any tensions, and certainly none of his fears.
-
- This refers to the view that Jews were employing Gentile child laborers, such as Frank hiring Phagan and other girls. This is in the rest of the paragraph, so it would be redundant to write it out in that sentence. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- If we were looking to cut parts, do we really need anything on Marx in this section?
-
- I think mentioning him illustrates Jewish relations of the period well without going into excessive detail. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- I can't help wondering why this section is called "Background". The article is named Leo Frank, and this is not really background about him. Even more off-putting, there is a section in Leo Frank's article called "Leo Frank". Maybe move the first section (The Social/Economic one) to the start of the murder section and rename it "Background", and rename the Leo Frank section something along the lines of "Early life"?
-
- This was addressed in the GA review. We actually didn't have the social/economic section for a long time, but the GA reviewer felt this put the article in an appropriate context to answer why Frank was noteworthy. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Are we repeating the antisemitism background in both the "social" section and the "Leo Frank" section?
-
- I don't think so. The only mention of it in the Frank section is the last sentence, which addresses Frank specifically. Tonystewart14 (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Quick reply: Hmm, so to summarise the replies here, "Thanks, but no thanks". I'm not sure there is much point, in that case, in continuing the review. Incidentally, "The case attracted national press" has been in this article since before the FAC began. Also, the lead should be self-contained and should not need reference to the main body to make something clear to the reader. Finally, I appreciate that there were a few issues at the GA review, and things were done for that review. However, this is not a GA review. As it stands, this article is undoubtedly a GA but in my view it is still some way short of FA standard. Given how long this review has been open, that is a concern, and the replies here do not reassure me, particularly as my comments were made over two weeks ago. Rather than worry about the GA review, perhaps addressing the concerns of FA reviewers would be a way forward. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Sarastro1: I should first state that my responses to you were similar to Brian Boulton's in that I went point-by-point and either noted a change or gave my opinion as to why the current version was better. I did make several changes due to your suggestions, which are appreciated. I'll get to part 2 shortly.
- I'm happy to address any responses you have to my comments, but I don't want you to feel like I'm blowing you off; just that I'm giving my take as to why I think the current version is preferable. Tonystewart14 (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Featured article reviews
This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. |
Covent Garden
- Notified: SilkTork, WikiProject London
This article is scheduled to be featured on the main page on 30 June, but it's a complete mess. The introduction is five paragraphs long and comprises a mix of tourist guide-style material and an extended paraphrase of a single source detailing the history of the area; the history section, which should and sometimes does have that information, is poor; the geography and landmarks sections are completely tangled, again frequently containing material that should be classed as history; the rest of the article is a hodgepodge of trivia and unnecessary detail: the stage of the Royal Opera House is roughly 15 metres square, the collection of the Transport Museum had previously been held at Syon Park and Clapham, The Harp has been owned by the landlady since 2010. Et cetera, et cetera. The writing is of poor quality throughout, largely as a result of how disorganised the article is. Here's an example: Platform access is only by lift or stairs; until improvements to the exit gates in 2007, due to high passenger numbers (16 million annually), London Underground had to advise travellers to get off at Leicester Square and walk the short distance (the tube journey at less than 300 yards is London's shortest) to avoid the congestion. The reader of this article, once they get their breath back after trying to read that in one go, will recall that the 300 yard factlet had already been presented to them irrelevantly in the introduction. It's not worth trying to scrub through this piece and spot and fix the issues in time for it to be featured again; this is C-class work and needs significant rewriting before it goes anywhere near the main page. — Scott • talk 22:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. Since FAR generally requires more warning than this on the article's talk page, I'm guessing this will be rejected at FAR ... but if anyone here has time, it would be great if you could offer opinions before June 30, regardless of what happens to the FAR. - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- I brought it directly here because the article has had barely any regular editors and is due to be featured so soon. If this incredibly bureaucratic process rejects it because of that, well... the less said about that, the better. — Scott • talk 23:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- You are also welcome (and recommended) to have a go at tightening the prose yourself ("Before nomination, ... Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article.") — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- And btw, this hasn't actually been transcluded to WP:FAR, so it's just us chatting at the moment. And note that SilkTork said on his talk page that he'll be looking for problems over the next few days. - Dank (push to talk) 11:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- I brought it directly here because the article has had barely any regular editors and is due to be featured so soon. If this incredibly bureaucratic process rejects it because of that, well... the less said about that, the better. — Scott • talk 23:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I think a question we should answer sooner than later is whether it's salvageable in time for TFA or if that slot should be rescheduled. --Laser brain (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I haven't worked on this article for years, so all my notes are gone. I did have it watchlisted to keep it tidy, but took it off my watchlist some time ago. I think I last made an edit about a year ago. I am in the same position, therefore, as anyone else looking at the article, and would need to do the same things. Because of personal circumstances I rarely have the time or energy to spend long periods on Wikipedia, so my time here is random and uncertain. Sometimes I can spend a few days on an article, but rarely at a high level. It will mostly be obvious tidying up. I will take a look at Scott's concerns, though I would urge him in the meantime to get stuck in and do the copy-editing of that sentence he finds over-complex, and to sort the lead into a more acceptable number of paragraphs. Also, Scott, it would help those who are to work on the article if you could more clearly list the areas you feel need attention. You mention the number of paragraphs in the lead, one sentence that is over-long, and that you disagree with the arrangement and value of certain pieces of information, but in general your comment comes over as "I don't like this", rather more than helpful and constructive criticism. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- You are wrong on almost every point. I would suggest not involving yourself in this any further, out of kindness to our readers. — Scott • talk 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Can you be a bit more constructive, Scott? I have seen some minor areas of concern which I am addressing, but other than that you dislike the lead having X number of paragraphs, and one sentence was too complex to parse easily, you haven't given us much to work on. At this point I'm not seeing a valid reason for this "review", and from the timing, the carelessness, the mistakes, and the language, this simply seems disruptive. I am willing to work on the article to address concerns, and I have already done some tidying up, but I am not seeing the cause for concern. At this point the article is substantially as it was when it was accepted as featured, and is up to date with relevant changes to the area, and with current Wikipedia policies and procedures. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- OK. I've just had a quick look, and it does have areas of concern. Some sourced material has been removed, and some trivia and grammar mistakes inserted ("Covent Garden is a area in London..." is currently the opening sentence). It looks like the article has been fiddled out with since I last looked at it. I'll see what I can do. It may be best to roll it back to the last secure edit, and then look at what positive edits have been done since that date, and reinsert them. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- SilkTork asked me to comment. I would say roll it back to the version that passed FAC, or the most recent version that SilkTork is happy with, and see whether Scott still has the same concerns. SarahSV (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- Judging by Scott's comments I think that Scott sees Silktork's writing as part of the problem. I don't think we can have two parallel versions. My vote would be for looking at the current version as it is already being worked on. Fresh eyes are good, so will look later. Will be in transit for a bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- I can't see a problem with the writing. SarahSV (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nor I. The version as it stands is pretty much the version that was passed, and several people were involved in copyediting at the time. There has been minor updating is all. Over the past few months, as I had taken it off my watchlist, some errors had been introduced, which I have now corrected. I have looked at the transport section and refined the information regarding the underground station, which now reads better, and I hope satisfies Scott. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- I can't see a problem with the writing. SarahSV (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Judging by Scott's comments I think that Scott sees Silktork's writing as part of the problem. I don't think we can have two parallel versions. My vote would be for looking at the current version as it is already being worked on. Fresh eyes are good, so will look later. Will be in transit for a bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
- Scope and Stability The main problem with the article is its scope, which is huge – hundreds of years of history and hundreds of notable buildings and businesses. This is an issue for FA status because featured articles are supposed to be complete. As an example, note that the article has a section about "Pubs and bars" but has nothing much about eating establishments such as restaurants. This district contains numerous notable restaurants including London's oldest restaurant, Rules, several incarnations of the Beefsteak Club and modern institutions such as The Ivy. I have written several articles about such places myself, including Food for Thought, Gaby's Deli, Hawksmoor and Old Slaughter's Coffee House.
- It might be feasible to expand the article to include missing aspects such as this but we will then have the problem that FAs are supposed to be stable. The page currently has a banner tag saying that it "is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring" and this indicates that it is not currently stable. I'm not especially bothered about such formalities myself and so will give the page some attention over the coming days, as it approaches the main page.
- Comment I think User:SilkTork has this well in hand. I wouldn't worry too much about what Scott thinks, especially as he seems to have walked away. Despite being an admin, he is a combative and prickly editor. When I remonstrated with him once for abusing his admin powers (threatening to block editors who disagreed with him) he simply removed my comment from his talk page. I suppose this is a COI, but I've tried to be objective when reading the article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- In para 2 of the lead, it opens with Though mainly fields until the 16th century, - which is confusing as it seems to contradict what comes next and is out of chronological order - I'd either remove it or move it along to appropriate time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- You know, that has always troubled me slightly, but I've never done anything about it... until now! Thanks for the push. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- I have addressed concerns raised, and added a restaurant section as suggested. Where do we go from here? SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
-
- I've been walking through the area with a view to making suggestions. There's history around every corner there. Walking down King Street, for example, at one end, by the Apple Store, there's a plaque commemorating the National Sporting Club. Down the other end is the original branch of Moss Bros which closed recently, alas. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Scott, Dank, Crisco 1492, Laser brain, SilkTork, SlimVirgin, Andrew Davidson, Jimfbleak, and Casliber: I pinged everyone who contributed to this FAR, just wanted to ask, what are we doing with this articles TFA? It's still in it's review process. Are we putting the FAR on hold until after its TFA, or is it being switched? Not used to this whole process, so I wasn't sure who to talk to, or this has even been dealt with already. Famous Hobo (talk) 06:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The process is that "The featured article removal coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKay, and Maralia—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage." We are just waiting for that to happen. There was no first stage, so usually the second stage is rejected. I think there was no rejection of this second stage because the article is scheduled for the main page, and it was felt appropriate to give it a look over. It has been looked over and the article has been cleared of recent errors, and has been updated and expanded along the lines suggested in the FAR. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@Scott, Andrew Davidson, and Casliber: Where do we stand here? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Trying to read this, the main outstanding concern appears to be @Andrew Davidson:'s issue around comprehensiveness. So the question is, what should be added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Since you pinged, I'll answer. Despite the fiddling and diddling in evidence above your question, my concerns as originally stated remain almost entirely unresolved in this mess of an article. — Scott • talk 23:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Actually I do think the prose can be tightened. I'll take my coord hat off and keep trimming. Will solicit some independent and thorough eyes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- update - I've had one runthrough and I found some spots I had to massage. I tend to agree with Scott that some material is placed in odd spots, and there is some unnecessary repetition. I can't see any prose glitches now, but I generally find that if I found as many as I did, I suspect there are more that I will have missed. I need to sleep on this and have another look later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments / Singora CasLiber has asked me to look at the prose. I'll do this over the coming week. Singora (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Feedback / Singora
Scotts' comments can be summarized as:
- 1. The introduction is too long.
- 2. The history section is poor.
- 3. The geography and landmarks sections are tangled.
- 4. Much of the article is a "hodgepodge" of trivia and unnecessary detail.
- 5. The prose is weak.
- 6. Conclusion: this is C-class work and needs significant rewriting.
I agree with Scott. I'm surprised there's no section for footnotes (something needs to be done about the excessive trivia and unnecessary detail). IMO, the only interesting part of this article concerns Harris's List of Covent Garden Ladies, the "essential guide and accessory for any serious gentleman of pleasure". Singora (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Featured article removal candidates
Exoplanet
- Notified: JorisvS, Drbogdan, PlanetStar, Astredita, Kevin Nelson, WikiProject Astronomy
Review section
This article no longer appears to meet criteria 1, 2b, 2c or 4 of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. There are several very short sections and paragraphs consisting of single sentences; some sections are merely lists of individual miscellanea. The table of contents is too extensive, and the citations are not formatted consistently. For an article that should be written in summary style, it is over-long with too many individual specific examples that should be summarized to give a more general picture. DrKay (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- This article about the now major astronomy topic deserves it once we address these issues, like expanding short sections and summarizing it. PlanetStar 03:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- @PlanetStar: Please note that "keep" and "delist" are only used in FARC (removal candidates) and not here in FAR (review). As noted above, "In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them." From a quick glance, it does in fact look like it's much too long. If it can be condensed adequately without removing anything essential, I think it has a good chance at staying featured. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
"Relativistic beaming – Relativistic beaming measures the observed flux from the star due to its motion. The brightness of the star changes as the planet moves closer or further away from its host star." Is this name correct? I thought relativistic beaming was for matter moving at near light speed. It might be better to use 'Doppler beaming' unless this use of 'Relativistic' can be confirmed. Praemonitus (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Both terms are used, as well as others. The effect is very small even for close-in planets. The description in the article is poor, though. Lithopsian (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Okay yes, I found one instance that used the term in the context of a planet,[28] compared to many using "doppler beaming". Praemonitus (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- More generally - I see that some work has started to improve the article, but I'm struggling to see how it will be brought back to FA level. As DrKay describes, the problems go far beyond simply being too long. I guess give it a little time and see how it goes. Lithopsian (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment: As a suggestion, the planet article tree can (and does) cover many of these topics. This article should focus on aspects specific to exoplanets: a high level discovery history plus the various detection methods, observation techniques, and nomenclature. Elements of the article that are highly dynamic, such as new discoveries, should be spun off to a child article, leaving just a summary here. Praemonitus (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Graeme Bartlett
There are quite a few minor issues to fix
There are some references where the title is all caps. (or other bits all caps) These should be changed. refs 91 144 165 196 201 207Fixed x6 ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)reference 8 claims to have invalid bibcodeNot fixed Bibcode OK. Per Help:CS1 errors#bad bibcode, digits will be allowed in positions 6–8 at the next code update. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)reference 228 has lower case "kepler" — should this be upper case?Fixed (Kepler M-dwarfs) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)ref 183 time not neededFixed ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)not fixedActually fixed this time ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
ref 174 has "world★" with bonus "★" that should get strippedFixed ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)ref 150 looks to be deformed and missing stuff: Astronomers Find a New Type of Planet: The "Mega-Earth" date=June 2, 2014 authors=HARVARD-SMITHSONIAN CENTER FOR ASTROPHYSICS (but in lower case)Fixed (used the 2 authors listed at bottom of source and publisher=H-S CfA) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)ref 146 looks as if it would be a journal article, but may only be a web page.full date=6 January 2014 Fixed ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)ref 145 missing most info "Probabilistic Forecasting of the Masses and Radii of Other Worlds" Jingjing Chen, David M. Kipping 29 Mar 2016Fixed ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)ref 149 is confusing, it seems you go to a page then click a piece of text to view a video. But what is "22:59"? It looks like a time or duration.Fixed ({{cite video}}) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)ref 88 "01.17.96 – Discovery of two new planets -- the second and third within the last three months -- proves they aren't rare in our galaxy" needs information and formatting author=Robert Sanders date=17 January 1996.Fixed ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)ref 79 "NameExoWorlds" is missing info, date=30 November 2015 publisher=IAUFixed (& surrounding refs) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)- 79 clearly states "Updated on Nov 30, 2015" but you have added "July 2014" (should we use the current one or the version as retrieved when the article was written?) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- (now ref #76) Using the version as retrieved makes more sense to me since it's talking about a 1-time event (the start of NameExoWorlds), so having a 2015 date for a 2014 event seems counter intuitive. The only problem is that the earliest archive.org entry is 15 Aug 2015, which prevents the next logical step of assigning a correct
|archive-url=
. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
- (now ref #76) Using the version as retrieved makes more sense to me since it's talking about a 1-time event (the start of NameExoWorlds), so having a 2015 date for a 2014 event seems counter intuitive. The only problem is that the earliest archive.org entry is 15 Aug 2015, which prevents the next logical step of assigning a correct
- 79 clearly states "Updated on Nov 30, 2015" but you have added "July 2014" (should we use the current one or the version as retrieved when the article was written?) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
ref 60 Kepler telescope bags huge haul of planets is missing date=26 February 2014 author=Jonathan Amos, publisher=BBC NewsFixed ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)ref 59 missing publisher and retrieval date (perhaps many are)Fixed ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)ref 45 Peter van de Kamp has an article, but do we need to author link when there is one in the page already?Fixed by someone else (I would have opted to keep it in, since someone might not see the prose-link while looking at the refs; will leave as-is) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)ref 39 how about finding an online link for "On the Infinite Universe and Worlds"? And given that this was titled De l'infinito universo et mondi to start with, the quote is probably a translation, but from where?Fixed (now ref 36) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 20:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)ref 4 is missing info.Fixed ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)ref 203 " Patterns of Sunlight on Extra-Solar Planets" no publisherFixed ({{cite web}}) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)ref 191 "Astronomers May Have Found Volcanoes 40 Light-Years From Earth" missing infoFixed ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)" life as we know it" incorrect styleFixed ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 22:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)"wasn't available" incorrect styleFixed ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)- "vs." should not be abbreviated in a title or text. Not fixed I don't see this mentioned in WP:MOS, and the MOS uses
vs.
in text. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC) strange unicode in "V 391" ref 72Not sure I can't find it it, and I don't remember fixing it. Is it still there? The only "weird" character I see isØ
, which isn't causing me any problems. (now ref #69) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)- It was between the V and 391. Perhaps it was thin space, but I have changed it to normal space. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
upper-case or uppercase - choose one spelling.Fixed (uppercase) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)triple-star or triple star — choose one styleFixed (triple star, per Star system) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)time-scale or timescale - choose one spellingFixed (timescale, the prevailing usage) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)Super-Earth(s) or Super-earth(s) should Earth have a capital letter? and should it be in quotes:'super-Earth'? (I like caps version best)Fixed (super-Earth, per Super-Earth) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)spin-orbit or spin–orbit (perhaps n dash versus hyphen)Fixed (spin–orbit, prevailing & per Tidal locking) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)RJup is used as a unit without explanation (or non breaking space). Probably it is radius of Jupiter.Fixed ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)In ref 57 a name appears here as Pr Sa, but originally listed in the journal as Andrej Prˇsa, also listed as Prsa, very likely should actually read "Prša".[29]Fixed Prša per pmid & IAU. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)planets' or planets' (I can't tell the difference in these)Not fixed Identical; all 3 instances use ascii 39 (keyboard apostrophe). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)ref 67 and 163 are the same Rodler, F.; Lopez-Morales, M. (fix this last so as not to mess up the ref #s here)Fixed ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)Should "non-linear" be "nonlinear"?Fixed (nonlinear) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)NASA’s or NASA's (different apostrophes)Fixed (straightened) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)maximum-masses should have no hyphenFixed ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Mass‐Radius or Mass-Radius (used in reference names so should not be an issue)Fixed (both titles currently use keyboard hyphens, per their respective bibcodes & dois) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)- Lopez-Morales also appears as López-Morales Not sure what to do; both are correct per their respective sources (I'm tempted to not consider this a problem). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
"isn't" should not be usedFixed ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Thomas N. Gautier III's ordinal incorrectly appears as Iii in ref70Fixed ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)hydrogen-helium or hydrogen–helium or H–He? Pick one of the three.Fixed (hydrogen–helium, per List of planet types & Helium planet ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)In ref 151 "Harps-N" should read HARPS-NFixed ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)link G-type star on first useFixed ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)ref 201 non standard date format FEBFixed ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)extrasolar or extra-solarNot fixed All (minority) instances of extra-solar are in titles. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)exoplanet’s or exoplanet'sFixed (straightened (except in filenames)) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)should equilibriums be equilibria?Fixed (equilibria) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia is excessively linked, and is this the same as Extrasolar Planet Encyclopaedia?Fixed (and yes, also fixed) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)disc or disk?Fixed (disc -> disk, 1 non-title instance) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)1-planet and 2-planet should be one-planet and two-planetFixed ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)°F is used in one spot. Perhaps it should be dropped, or used in the other places with °CFixed °C-to-°F replaced with °C-to-K. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)- None of the images has alt= text, which should differ from the caption and describe what is in the picture, for those who cannot see the image. On hold I've never paid attention to alt text.
Can you (or anyone here) point me to a good example-page, and I'll attempt to apply it?Just found WP:ALTTEXT & will apply it. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Fixed All images have been assigned alt text to the best of my ability. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- @Tom.Reding: please let me do the striking of my own issues! which I will do when I have checked the issue is addressed. Then I know what I have checked or not checked. Thanks for the corrections so far. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
-
- Graeme Bartlett, oops... Sorry about that (I thought it was a just a formatting preference). I'll unstrike my new posts from today. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 23:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment from Lithopsian
The lead is, apart from being rather long, almost impossible to read because it is crammed full of inline citations. My understanding is that an FA should comprehensively address all the points that are summarised in the lead, making citations in the lead entirely unnecessary. If that were done here, the lead would be a lot more manageable and appear shorter even without having fewer words. Lithopsian (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not going to do this, but I hope someone else does (so page watchers know I don't plan on doing everything). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it is too long. Citations don't make it hard to read in the final text. But the sentences in parenthesis make it hard to read. If we can turn these into flowing text it will be clearer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed(?) Graeme Bartlett's suggestion by incorporating the longer parantheticals into the surrounding text. The remaining parantheticals are now only 2 words each. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it is too long. Citations don't make it hard to read in the final text. But the sentences in parenthesis make it hard to read. If we can turn these into flowing text it will be clearer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
- More generally, the lead is supposed to be a concise summary of the article. It most definitely is not that. Praemonitus (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
N
Artistic views should be removed, and the intro should have one of the actual pictures of an imaged exoplanet. Nergaal (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
FARC section
- Multiple concerns were raised in the review section; moving here so we can establish consensus on what issues remain and where this stands. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Backmasking
- Notified: Audacity, SandyGeorgia, Tony1, Chensiyuan (original participants in the FAC that are still active), WikiProject Rock music, WikiProject The Beatles
Review section
I've pretty much said everything I need to at Talk:Backmasking#FA_problems already; suffice to say I don't think this article is anywhere close to the current FA standards and I don't have sufficient source material to make a crack at it myself. There has been little response at the article or the talk page, other than a minor agreement we should come here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
FARC section
Moved to here. No real activity in the 3 weeks it has been listed at FARC and month before that on article talk. lack of inline sourcing is major concern noted, plus reliableness of some sources used. Will delist if no activity in the next two weeks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Not used to the FARC process, but I'd say Delist. The lead is way too small (three really small lines for a decent sized article), occasional lack of citations, and at some points it just seems like the article is listing off backmasking instances in albums, without any real commentary on its use. While it's certainly an interesting article for FA, it just isn't up to standard. Famous Hobo (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- Delist per concerns raised. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)