Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2008: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
promote 5
promote 2
Line 1: Line 1:
== December 2008 ==
== December 2008 ==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Phan Dinh Phung}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atmosphere of Jupiter}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Atmosphere of Jupiter}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Reception history of Jane Austen}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Reception history of Jane Austen}}

Revision as of 21:48, 6 December 2008

December 2008

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:48, 6 December 2008 [1].

Major depressive disorder

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs)

This can be considered a group nomination, although where to draw the line can be hazy. For some months, three editors (me, Cosmic Latte and Paul Gene) have been in a concerted effort to get this here, along with EverSince and others along the way. delldot gave a very thorough review, and orangemarlin, Tony and many others have chipped in with advice, including negotiating a way through alternative therapies and so forth. Do I think it is perfect? No, but I do honestly feel it is one of Wikipedia's best articles and stands up well with others I have been involved with. We didn't send it to GAN mainly as delldot did such a thorough workthrough and the size was such I sorta felt it was a big ask for one editor to read and judge. One final thing, the article stands at 51 kb readable prose, 1 kb more than the upper limit for FAC. However, I have been unable to figure out what the last little bit to lose, or whether folks felt ignoring the rules WRT article size was okay. I figured this may be the best venue for consensus on this, in the coal-face as it were. Anyway, lemme know how we can make it betterer. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restart: old nom with Restart notes. Images have changed and need a new review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone drop a note on my talk page when the image choices are stabilized and I'll rereview then? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity than anything else: can you tell me where this 50kb prose limit comes from? That would make both this article, and say, The Wire (both at 60kb prose now) ineligible for FAC. Sceptre (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIZE. Awadewit (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, no, it doesn't make them ineligible: WP:SIZE is a guideline, 10,000 words is a suggested max, and MDD is at 8,500 words (compared to RCC for example at 12,000). See User:Dr pda/Featured article statistics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Incidentally, I myself would never oppose an article for simply being too long (although I would had it too many references), but I would suggest splitting the article into subarticles. In this article's case, a split I would suggest would be something like history and social impact; causes and symptoms; and diagnosis and treatment; and I would not oppose it for having nearly 300 references; medical articles I often exempt. That said, I won't support the article either. It'd be too daunting for me to read, and I don't like reviewing articles where I don't know much about the topic (in this case, apart from everyone's "knowing somebody who knows somebody", I know little about the subject). HTH HAND. Sceptre (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I freely admit size has been a problem, and has resulted in the birth of some subarticles already, thus we have a treatment (the treatment section was significantly trimmed) and biology article, and I have taken out some material that would be better placed in a future causes article. Furthermore there is a major depressive episode article, and various links to antidepressant and electro-convulsive therapy. History of mental disorders is also linked and this section was trimmed down alot. Question is, what to take out without compromising the comprehensiveness here? Prioritising this has been tricky and wieghing up clinical vs historical vs encyclopedic (whatever that means). I did try to rank snippets and see what was more important before relegating some to subpages. I will see if we can relegate a bit more, as we have various subpages already. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tending to agreeing with Cosmic Latte; flicking through, I did notice a lot of offshoot articles already. I think this is a perfect balance between short and long, just looking briefly at it. Sceptre (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
< Note regarding restart notifications moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Major depressive disorder#Moved 1.> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(sourced on commons page now) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are several issues but, to be brief, let me give one: that the language of the article contains too much jargon and so contravenes our policy WP:NOT PAPER. For example, consider the first sentence of the section on causes: "The etiology of mental disorders is best appreciated through a multidimensional integrative approach that disfavors reductionism and encourages models that consider a wide array of biological, psychological, and social forces." This seems quite horrid and compares poorly with another online encylopedic treatment which has "There are many different factors that can trigger depression.". Colonel Warden (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Agree, I reread it and realised it was very general and no meaning was lost by its removal, and so removed. We did make a concerted effort to remove jargon but some has crept back in with a rejigging. We are trying to address it and you are welcome to list more on the MDD talk page)Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I supported the FAC before the restart, and have now reread it thoroughly. I think the article has improved in many aspects since my last read, so technically it would be silly of me not to support now. Anyway, I have a number of comments written at Talk:Major depressive disorder#Skagedal's comments, and just for the fun of it I'm going to wait with my support !vote until a few things have been addressed. These are the things I find most important:
    • Agree with Colonel Warden about jargony language at some places; there are some specific examples in my notes.
    • Religion as a protective factor stands out; explained better in my talk page notes.
    • "Psychological treatments" is not that well balanced; purely behavioral treatments are missed, and a specific treatment that hasn't received that much research (MBCT) is given undue room, occupying one out of five paragraphs. – strike as balance is now much better; still have minor issues but will take on talk page
    • There's a lot of talk about the role of rumination in modern psychological conceptualizations and treatments, this should be discussed. Forgot this one in my notes. Sorry for not being more specific, I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment. – strike as not specific/actionable, will return to this later on talk page. /skagedal... 10:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make sure to strike these as addressed or adequately discussed on talk page. /skagedal... 11:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Meets FAC criteria and is among the site's best work. Good job Casliber et al. Articles on substantial topics will always have areas of contention. On an open and anonymous project, no one will ever unilaterally agree on the exact presentation of any topic of importance, and someone will always have one more thing to "improve". None of this affects the greater notion that this article is among wikipedia's best work. If FAC takes the endless-laundry-list approach to even broad-topic articles, we will never be able to feature the site's real best work. Feature it and keep working on it, if you like. –Outriggr § 02:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I agree with what Outriggr says. My "endless-laundry-list" at talk page was meant as a possibly helpful list of things I thought about when reading through, not as a "fix this or I won't support". I apologize to the nominators if I was sending mixed signals on this, so let's be clear: This is a great, well balanced, comprehensive, WP:WIAFA-meeting article. /skagedal... 10:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns resolved, Vassyana (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I still think this is a solid article. I played devil's advocate to pick through the sources. I found:
  • Nearly all of the "out of date" materials cited are used to document historical views, as complementary sources, to relate information unlikely to suffer from dating (or known to retain relevance), or to report the views of prominent figures in the field.
  • "Learned helplessness[43] and depression may be related to what American psychologist Julian Rotter, a social learning theorist, called an external locus of control, a tendency to attribute outcomes to events outside of personal control.[44]" (Is this an editorial observation or what the source reports? It is unclear whether this is a good citation or original research as presented. The use of a citation at the beginning of the sentence further gives the impression of original research.
I'm the one who inserted the cite at the beginning there -- it's what the source says. I'm not sure I really understand what worries you about this, though. looie496 (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing and chunky citation are general OR red flags. To clear this up, does the first citation explicity state that learned helplessness may be associated with Rotter's theory? Does the second citation explicitly state that depression may be associated with the model? Vassyana (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, ref 2 (at end) has ext. locus control linked to depression. The crux is does ref 1 link learned helplessness with ext. locus of control. I should have read this more closely as the two terms are not synonymous and I will remove it (see talk). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, linking learned helplessness with ext. locus of control (and depression) is precisely what ref 1 does. That's why I put the cite there instead of after Rotter, where I thought it would be misleading. Anyway, I see that Cas has removed this sentence entirely, which is the simplest way of solving the problem. looie496 (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Milder depression has been associated with what has been called depressive realism, or the "sadder-but-wiser" effect, a view of the world that is relatively undistorted by positive biases.[48]" (The depressive realism model has been heavily criticized. This seems only tangentially related to the article subject, so why not just add a see also link to depressive realism instead of raising the issue in-text?)
  • "Vulnerability factors—such as early maternal loss, lack of a confiding relationship, responsibility for the care of several young children at home, and unemployment—can interact with life stressors to increase the risk of depression in women.[49] However, the validity of risk factors has been widely debated.[50]" (This gives an inaccurate impression to the reader. The validity of risk factors is not widely debated, as such. The principal point of dispute is whether or not those factors increase vulnerability to stressors or stand alone as a risk factors.)
  • "The National Comorbidity Survey (US) reports that 51% of those with major depression also suffer from lifetime anxiety.[208]" While this is certainly a highly notable study, it is over a decade old and the year should be explicitly included in-text.
It's quite the large list of refs, so it's possible that I may have missed something. However, I reviewed the article a few times in an attempt to be completely thorough and did not not any other issues of concern. Vassyana (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(included years of NCS as per last point) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(removed depressive realism - see MDD talk apge) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(removed second sentence on querying vulnerabilities as stand alone factors; it is not a Review article and although interesting, not substantive enough to add a huge deal) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:48, 6 December 2008 [2].

Phan Dinh Phung

Nominator(s): User:YellowMonkey
previous FAC (03:05, 13 July 2008)

Renominating. The previous time, Tony1 said the prose was fine, although another reviewer did not, although I did make his fixes, and nobody else ever turned up. Also, a picture of his statue is now present. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments Minor prose points:
  • "Phan was born in the village of Dong Thai, reputed for producing a number high-ranking mandarins, in" - it would be 'reputed to produce', but you mean known or famous etc.
  • "Phan himself gave early indications of distaste towards the classical curriculum required" - distaste for, I think
  • "Phan also compiled a historical geography of Vietnam, which was penned in 1883" -"written", "completed" or "published".
  • "whom he caught with Tuong" - what, like at it? Needs clarifying
Still needs to be clearer - what act? Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Thuyet took Ham Nghi on a northbound escape to the Tan So mountain base..." rephrase, maybe: "Thuyet escaped with Ham Nghi to the Tan So base in the northern mountains"
  • No Links: Ha Tinh, scholar-gentry
  • "targeted two nearby Catholic villages that ^had^ collaborated with French force^s^.

- done some others myself. Otherwise very interesting & well-written. There must be more sources on the parallels with the Vietcong, no? Worth adding something I think. Johnbod (talk) 05:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked these, and mentioned some bits about how the VC like to portray themselves as modern PHan Dinh Phungs and Truong Dinhs. I was unable to find any material by historians that actually compared them, however, although a few have noted the communist desire to see themselves as a modern PDP or TD. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 05:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Yes, unknown and pre-1933 since that's when he died. The French stuff at the bottom indicates it was published during the French colonial era, so pre-1955 and so PD-Vietnam. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, list by PHAN, Dinh Phung I think. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model!) 02:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I came to this article ignorant and went away informed - well-done! I can't speak to the article's comprehensiveness as I don't know anything about this period of Vietnamese history, but the sources are reliable, the writing is good (the entire article flows quite well), and the illustrations are well chosen. The quoted discussion between Phan and Khai was a particularly nice touch to the article. Awadewit (talk) 06:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Two minor issues, that may or may not need to be addressed:

  • I usually dislike citations in the lead, but I wonder if this sentence might need one? He was renowned for his uncompromising will and principles
Done. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 13:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any information on why he wasn't given the death penalty for refusing to support Duc Duc
I guess that's in Ton That Thuyet's head. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 13:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 3 December 2008 [3].

Atmosphere of Jupiter

Nominators: Ruslik (talk), Serendipodous (talk), Nergaal (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it now fully satisfies FA criteria, in my opinion. I also want to say that it is the most complicated article I have ever written. Ruslik (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - 40KB on a ball of game millions of miles away? Argh.

Dude, you write FAs about video games. Serendipodous 19:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which sell millions of dollars in merchandise and are the largest entertainment industry on Earth, thank you very much :P besides, I don't write 40KB on them, they are all more manageable sizes :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Video games don't last 20 years. The planets are for all time. The way things are going, we'll be telling our grandchildren how great it was when we had electricity, and when that happens, looking up at the planets will be the only entertainment left, like it used to be for thousands of years. Serendipodous 00:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to everything in a block below my comments so I can keep track of things. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they are on Commons, they still need proper licensing. Gary King (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Jupiter Belt System.JPG, Image:NH Jupiter IR.jpg, Image:Jupiter-Earth-Spot comparison.jpg, are still missing offsite URLs for the original source image; all other concerns taken care of. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
first and last should be ok now. For the second one I cannot find a better link than a bbc one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs)
I subbed the original New Horizons gallery as a source. Serendipodous 13:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think now all images are OK. Ruslik (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subbed. Also did the same for the white ovals image. Serendipodous 00:36, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I didn't contribute this time... ;). Anyway, the prose could use a bit of a touch-up. I'll get around to a copyedit ASAP. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 21:22, 26 November 2008
  • The density gradually decreases until one typical for the interplanetary space is reached about 5,000 km above 1 bar pressure level. I added a hidden comment, remove it when you're done, but what comes after typical? —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 21:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I rewrote the sentence (avoided mentioning typical for interplanetary space). Ruslik (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Copyediting now. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done. Serendipodous 16:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment "Oval BA should not be confused with another major storm on Jupiter, the Little Red Spot (or Baby Red Spot) which turned red before the GRS and Oval BA shredded it in late June/early July of 2008." HubbleSite does not support the suggestion that Oval BA was involved in the shredding. Also, there are several cases of the digit 1 being used in prose. Should this be changed to "one"? The double adjective "1 bar" needs a hyphen. Wronkiew (talk) 06:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Little Red Spot passed in between two other red spots. It appears to left of GRS on the image 2, and its remnants appear to right of the latter in image 3. I think such numbers as 1 bar should written in the scientific style, where digitas are usually used. 1-bar ? I actually have never wirtten it in this style. Ruslik (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like single digit measurements are fine, so you should leave them. Digits and spelled out units should be hyphenated in cases where they are double adjectives, see WP:HYPHEN. It is not apparent to me from looking at the image that Oval BA was involved with LRS, I think it needs to be clarified or a better source found. Wronkiew (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ruslik may be confusing that image with this one. That one is of the mergance of the three white ovals to form Oval BA. Serendipodous 19:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've subbed the New Horizons image (which is a duplicate of one below) with the image of the three red spots in conflict. Serendipodous 19:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the image from ref 87 (you actually added it), which shows that Baby Spot was shredded. Ruslik (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image doesn't show the shredding, just the aftereffects. The caption for the image on HubbleSite says only that LRS was "caught up in the anticyclonic spin of the GRS". It does not say that Oval BA was involved. Wronkiew (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concede this point. Little Baby (Spot) was eaten by GRS alone. Oval BA only stood by as a silent witness. I added new reference and clarified that sentence. Ruslik (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And here we see the cub eyeing the mother intently as she stalks and kills her prey, learning vital skills for later life... Serendipodous 23:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additional comments I will feel comfortable supporting if these are resolved or suitably explained. Wronkiew (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would prefer to see less speculation about the processes and properties of Jupiter in the article. There is an over-reliance on the phrase "is thought to" or its variants where the facts are uncertain. This is especially apparent in the lead.
      I removed some "is thought to". However these 'facts' are just conclusions form rather complicated models, which are often equivocal. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lead says that hydrogen sulfide has not been directly observed, but "Observational history" says that HST detected it through spectroscopy.
      You are right here. Only water was not directly observed in sufficient amounts. I changed this. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The latter is caused by the higher condensation heat of the water and the higher water abundance as compared to the ammonia and hydrogen sulfide (as oxygen is a more abundant chemical element than either nitrogen or sulfur)." It's not clear what "the latter" is referring to.
      Done. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This ion produces strong emissions in the mid-infrared part of the spectrum, at the wavelengths between 3–5 μm, and is the main cooler of the thermosphere." I was not able to find any support for H3+ being the "main cooler of the thermosphere" in Yelle 2004.
      On page 27 Interestingly, they find that thermal conduction plays a small role in this region and heating is balanced primarily by H+3 cooling. I can add more a specific ref if necessary. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "At the present rate of reduction it would become circular by 2040, although this is unlikely because of the distortion effect of the neighboring jet streams." There is no reference to support this.
      Added a reference. Ruslik (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 3 December 2008 [4].

Reception history of Jane Austen

Nominator(s): Awadewit (talk) and Simmaren (talk)

In our slow and steady efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Jane Austen, we bring you a history of how Austen's works have been received and how the fan culture surrounding Austen has developed. Simmaren and Awadewit have been working on this article for over a year and believe that it now meets the FA criteria. They would like to thank everyone who has helped shape this article, but most especially Maria, who researched and wrote the "Adaptations" section. This article has undergone a rigorous peer review by Markus Poessel, Scartol, Moni3, and Brianboulton; it has been copyedited several different times, lastly by Jbmurray; it has been checked against the MOS by Epbr123; and it has been BE-ified by Roger Davies. Awadewit (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Simmaren (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Does Image:Greer Garson in Pride and Prejudice.JPG need a Fair use rationale as a screenshot? Otherwise, images check out ok. I haven't read it since I peer reviewed it. I think it has changed some since I saw it last. --Moni3 (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That brings up an interesting question that may either require further research on that image, or taking this discussion completely off this page. I had to remove screenshots from To Kill a Mockingbird because I could not prove that copyright had not been renewed, and even if it had not been renewed, could not prove that it was in the public domain. I called the US Copyright Office for verification. Do you need to prove in the license information tag that this film in particular is in the public domain? Or, by the links, are all trailers from 1923 to 1977 available to use? --Moni3 (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to me that these trailers (and only the trailers) are available. We could solicit a certain Commons editor's advice, however. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For my own edification perhaps we should ask him. Striking concern unless Elcobbola indicates otherwise. --Moni3 (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The trailers are derivative works, not purely original works. Thus they would be affected by the copyright status of the film itself. Kaldari (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this and let me know what you think. It is my understanding that this trailer is indeed in the PD. Awadewit (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, my note to Elcobbola. --Moni3 (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't think about the fact that the trailers are typically published before the movie is. Kaldari (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Review... Kaldari (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "With the growing professionalisation of university English departments in the first half of the twentieth century, criticism of Austen became progressively more esoteric and, as a result, appreciation of Austen branched in several directions. In the late twentieth century, for example, fans founded Jane Austen societies and clubs to celebrate the author, her time, and her works;" In the first sentence "appreciation of Austen" is presented in the context of academic criticism. The phrase is then parlayed into discussion of Jane Austen fan clubs. This switching of contexts was unexpected (for me at least), as I was expecting the "example" to be from an academic context as well. This could be remedied by removing the clause "for example" which strongly ties the two sentences together (perhaps too strongly), or by adding more transitional wording between the two sentences to broaden the context.
  • Transitional wording added: criticism of Austen became progressively more esoteric and, as a result, appreciation of Austen splintered into distinctive high culture and popular culture trends; "for example" removed. Awadewit (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...fans founded Jane Austen societies and clubs to celebrate the author, her time, and her works; consequently, "Janeite" increasingly became a term of opprobrium." Why would celebrating Austen, her time, and her works lead to "Janeite" becoming a term of opprobrium? The connection here isn't clear.
  • New version: In the late twentieth century, fans founded Jane Austen societies and clubs to celebrate the author, her time, and her works; consequently, scholars often disparagingly referred to fans as "Janeites". Awadewit (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "opprobrium" and "ensconced" are a bit academic. Can these be rephrased?
  • Support - although there was some phrasing that made me smirk or laugh, I don't see any problems. I wonder if there were any reviews in America or Europe of any of her work early on, but that doesn't seem too necessary. I think Lewes's picture is a negative (he needs to shave better), but I've never liked him much, so I am biased. By the way, did Fanny Burney ever say anything about the works? Elizabeth Gaskell? Mary Elizabeth Braddon? Juliet Barker's The Brontes provides a detailed account of Charlotte's view of Jane. I didn't know if the source you used really went into it. Barker says (p. 548) "While Charlotte realized, as Lewes did not, that Jane Austen's style and tone were the absolute antithesis of her own, she nevertheless also recognized his criticism of her tendency to melodrama and her 'untrue' pictures of high society. It was, after all, what many of the reviewers had found fault with and Smith Williams himself advised her to avoid. Thanking him for his literary advice, Charlotte told Smith Williams that she kept his letters and referred 'not unfrequently' to them." In 1850, she purchased Sense and Sensibility and (pp. 634-635) "Writing a few weeks later when she had read Jane Austen's Emma, she anatomized the vast gulf that lay between their different styles of writing. (quote - She does her business of delineating the surface of the lives of genteel English people curiously well; there is a Chinese fidelity, a miniature delicacy in the painting: she ruffles her reader by nothing vehement, disturbs him by nothing profound: the Passions are perfectly unknown to her... Her business is not half so much with the human heart as with the human eyes <eyes>, mouth, hands and feet; what sees keenly, speaks aptly, moves flexibly, it suits her to study, but what throbs fast and full, though hidden, what the blood rushes through, <what> what is the unseen seat of Life and the sentient target of death - this Miss Austen ignores... Jane Austen was a complete and most sensible lady, but a very incomplete, and rather insensible (not senseless) woman, ]if/ this is heresy - I cannot help it)" (quoting from her letter CB to WSW, 12 April 1850). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are lots of interesting comments from nineteenth-century writers in particular on Austen. What we decided to include were the ones repeated most often in the articles and books we read. Scott's "Big wow-wow" quote, for example, is repeated everywhere. If you are interested in every scrap ever said about Austen, you should read the Southam collection of reviews. Two volumes of material, which includes everything CB said about Austen and much more. Quite the read. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as semi-collaborator, although the credit is all Awadewit and Simmaren's. This is quite a fine article, but my opinion of Miss Jane still coincides with that of Twain: "I often want to criticize Jane Austen, but her books madden me so that I can't conceal my frenzy from the reader; and therefore I have to stop every time I begin. Every time I read Pride and Prejudice, I want to dig her up and beat her over the skull with her own shin-bone." :) María (habla conmigo) 21:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for an article that I have been watching for a long time. Here we see the paradigm of how FAs should be built, and I advise all editors who aspire to bringing an article to FA status to analyse this article's history. Graham Colm Talk 22:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – with a quibble! "The 1972 adaptation of Emma was the first to be produced by BBC Television". It wasn't. This gives details of BBC P&P adaptations in 1952, 1958 and 1967, Persuasionin 1960-61 and Sense and Sensibility in 1971. And this gives details of an ancient BBC adaptation of P&P, in 1938! Sorry to be a bore with these details, which I think I hinted at in the peer review, but can the above reference to the 1972 Emma please be revised? Otherwise, a joy and a pleasure to read. Brianboulton (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but the paragraph is about TV adaptations of Jane Austen novels, not about TV adaptations of Emma. The impression is given that the BBC started doing these adaptations in the 1970s, which is not the case. I'm not suggesting that these earlier productions be listed individually, but surely it is worth a brief mention, as part of the reception history, that the BBC made its first Austen attempt in 1938, when TV had scarcely been invented, and continued to produce versions at regular intervals during the 1960s and 1970s, even if they weren't very good ones? Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have to check with Maria to see if the sources mention these earlier TV adaptations to any great degree. I know that she reworded this part of the article in response to your concern at the peer review, but perhaps it is still not clear enough. Awadewit (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources that I used only vaguely refer to early adaptations in comparison to the newer, post-1970 ones; basically they are dismissed as being not very faithful to their sources, historically inaccurate, and dull -- completely opposite of what came about with the heritage drama movement. Rather than give the impression that these early adaptations by the BBC are as notable (or as important to Austen scholarship) as the newer ones, I've just reworded the Emma sentence to read: "The 1972 BBC adaptation of Emma, for example, took great care to be historically accurate, but..." Is this better? María (habla conmigo) 00:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is better, because the implication that the 1972 Emma was the first BBC Austen adaptation is no longer there (incidentally, BBC did Emma in 1948 and 1960). I'm not pressing beyond this, but I'm just wondering, in a general way, whether there is a point to be made that the Austen phenomenon might have occurred sooner if the earlier TV productions had aspired to the standards and fidelity of the later ones. Do the sources say or imply anything along these lines? In this respect, Jane Austen on Film and Television: A Critical Study of the Adaptations (MacFarland, 2002) might be useful. Brianboulton (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't recall reading exactly that sentiment, but several critics (including Troost) made the point that the BBC productions became more successful when combining textual/historical accuracy with the appeal of a visually appealing, flashy Hollywood film. The 70s ended up being a clear starting point in this regard. I don't have access to the MacFarland book from my library (and ILL would take too long for this FAC, I fear, especially with a holiday coming up), but perhaps someone else does? María (habla conmigo) 13:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book (by Sue Parrill, McFarland is the publisher) is on the shelf(at the moment) at the University of Chicago library, to which I have access. I can undertake to retrieve it this weekend and take a look if that would be helpful. Simmaren (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of this book is available online at Google Books as well. I read this book a few years ago and I remember being unimpressed by it. How about we at least mention in the article that there were TV adaptations before the 1970s, but that they didn't have near the popular nor the critical acclaim that the later ones did? Awadewit (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as it doesn't make "between 1900 and 1975, more than sixty radio, television, film, and stage productions of Austen's various works were produced" at the end of the first paragraph in the section repetitive, sure thing. María (habla conmigo) 17:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria, what would be the best source for this? I'm scanning mine and they all focus on the annus mirabilis of 1995. Awadewit (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brian, the more I look into this, the more difficult it becomes. I have several books here on Austen and film (both television and movies) and none of them discuss the pre-1970 television adaptations at all. They all give about once or two sentences to those adaptations. The essays in these books focus on the 1940 P&P, the post-1970s TV adaptations, or the sudden explosion of Austen adaptations of the 1990s. The most I can do is add a phrase explicitly stating that these were not the first TV adaptations. I can't source much more than that at this point. It would take a lot of digging and these pre-1970 TV adaptations are clearly not at the center of Austen adaptation studies. (Note: I can't even source the general statement I suggested above, which is more of a synthesis of a bunch of material. I can't point to a single page on which that statement appears.) Awadewit (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The impression that the 1972 Emma was the first BBC Austen adaptation has been removed from the text, and that was my prime concern. If there is no worthwhile source saying anything about the earlier adaptations, perhaps we should leave it at that? I've looked at the text, and it might be hard to fit in your phrase saying that earlier adaptations existed, without disturbing the flow. Please consider the point resolved, without further expenditure of time. Brianboulton (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support no quote, just a support. Yomanganitalk 00:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. It's a thorough and interesting article and I learned a boatload, but I feel it needs some auditing for us pop culture-bred morons :) (Further comments moved to talk, [5] 03:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC) ) -- Changed to Neutral. Awa and co. have addressed most of my concerns, but I am still unsure about statements presented as straightforward facts which may be misunderstood and accessibility. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 4) In the lead, I feel the referencing is spotty; either ref it all or don't. I don't see how "become one of the best-known and widely read novelists in the English language.[1]" is any less controversial or wanting of a citation than the quote "but it was not until the 1940s that Austen was firmly ensconced in academia as a "great English novelist"" for example.
    • 5) "scholars often disparagingly referred to fans as "Janeites"." There are instances where it seems like a little too much effort has been put into "historicizing" the content; do scholars no longer refer to fans as "Janeites"?
    • 8) "the way women depend on" is this meant to be present? As it's talking about the time of her writing I think it would be better as past (even though, of course, many of the same constraints women face have changed little).
    • 9) I feel some of the quotes could be audited; for example, I have no clue what "They were full of it at Althrop" means, so wikilinks, editing, or parentheticals or brackets or whatnot would aid me. I'll point others out as I seem them.
    • 13) "sixpenny series" is that the equivalent of a pulp edition or something nicer? I don't have a clue one way or another.
    • 15) "Several important early works, glimmers of brilliant Austen scholarship, paved the way. " ok that sounds downright peacockian. To your deference
    • 16) It's a bit offputting that the 1930's section begins by talking about the 1940's and then jumps back to the 1910's.
    • 20) I'll admit it might not be that important of a mention, but the most recent Austen bit I can think of was PBS broadcasting "the complete Jane Austen" as part of Masterpiece Theatre-as far as I know new productions of most of the works and then the 1995 P&P. (according to the site it was a first for US television, so it might merit a mention.)[6] editor deference
    • There are a few other minor grammar issues, such as overuse of commas, but I'm not going to make you hunt for them and will do a light copyedit when the more important (to me, anyway) issues are taken care of. They are but nitpicks.

Like I said, it's a well-written bit, I just think it could use some edits to make it more friendly to readers who aren't grad students specializing in english period literature :) If you could reply below in a block rather than in between my comments, it would help me understand what is being done and makes discussion easier to follow. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to David:

I'll try to convey my issues with the article more clearly-maybe inline comments would help. As regards 1), the thing is anyone outside of literature or media analysis has no idea what "reception studies" are, and so "reception history" isn't exactly the most helpful description for us uninitiated. I don't really have an issue with it being the title as much because I hate verbose titles more than anything, but I think the lead could still be structured to be more newb-friendly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think comments on the talk page would be better, since there are so many people involved here. Awadewit (talk) 20:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think sandy said "no" to talk page comments last I checked, but I could be misconstruing her inscrutable ways again :) In regards to 5), my issue wasn't with having context (I like history, I like context too, looking back my choice of words was bad) but more with what I see as sort of making recent and current comments and analyses sound like they were written awhile ago- the whole "latter 20th/early 21st" bit. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were supposed to move long discussion to the talk page? Awadewit (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, I'll go ask Aunt Sandy :P Also in re: to 17), if it's that general, than just paraphrase rather than quoting. It's just bothersome to read a quote with no attribution (whether it's contestable or not), because then I have to hunt for who made the statement. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: Can I just say that I much prefer threading? I have to have two tabs open in order to follow all of these comments now, otherwise I would be scrolling like crazy.) Awadewit (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I understand, but with a long list it turns into a wall of text which I have to sift through to find out what's been done and what needs to be addressed. Sandy said it's up to you if you want to put this on talk, so I leave formatting up to you.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we are not going to thread, can you find some sort of orderly way to arrange your responses, then? Right now, I have to hunt for them. Perhaps you could create a list in response to our list ("Responses to Awadewit and Simmaren", maybe)? Awadewit (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to lose internet on the train, but if we use the talk I'll have more leeway in formatting so we can do it inline if you want. I'll try to start on it tonight (EST). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If by inline comments, you mean hidden comments in the article, I would much rather not. It is easier to have a discussion on a talk page. If by inline you mean, threading, I am all for that. :) Awadewit (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied responses to the FAC talk page - I thought you were going to transfer new concerns to the article talk page. Oh well. Awadewit (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it seems to me that Twain's comments on Austen are not really explained... it gives a pithy quote but not his criticism of Austen. Is more ommitted becuase it would unbalance the article? gren グレン 07:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Twain quote is intended to illustrate and perhaps sharpen the preceding sentences in the paragraph, which summarize Austen's reception in the United States and which provide the context for it. In the sources, the debate between Howells and Twain is frequently mentioned, and Twain's dislike of Austen is almost always described. We thought about including a good quote from Howells, and there are a couple of pungent quotes from Twain that would have served the purpose, but this is the one that best fit within our constraints of size and scope. Unfortunately, quite a bit of "good stuff" had to be left on the cutting room floor. Simmaren (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of Twain's quotes, actually, are pithy rather than explanatory. That's his style. Thus we explained in the article that "Twain used Austen to argue against the Anglophile tradition in America". Awadewit (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I did a peer review for this piece, and I enjoyed it thoroughly. I suppose I'm one of the English major people described above, so perhaps it's best for others to parse its readability for layfolk. However, I've never been a Janeite, and nevertheless I found it very engaging and accessible. Another quality article from Awadewit and Simmaren and Maria, meeting – in many cases surpassing – the FA criteria. Scartol • Tok 18:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 3 December 2008 [7].

13th Airborne Division (United States)

Nominator(s): Skinny87 (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has gone through a peer review, GA Review and A-Class Review, and I think it's ready to become an FA-Class article. It's part of an Airborne Warfare project I'm undertaking, already having got Operation Varsity to FA and 11th Airborne Division to A-Class. Skinny87 (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - I fixed up the images, so they all have descriptions and verifiable licenses. Awadewit (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments & support—

  • I think compound dates have spaces between them and the en dash.
  • I don't see any other problems, really. A nice article, and happy to support.

JonCatalán(Talk) 17:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Otherwise links check out and sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link fixed and deleted respectively! Skinny87 (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sandy. I managed to fix one, but I can't find the other links that the disambig box is telling me are in the article. I fixed one Fort Bragg but the box says there's one more, and I don't know how to fix the 14th Division one as it's part of a template. Skinny87 (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got the other Fort Bragg dab; an easy way to find it is use the "find" tool (ctrl+f on a PC, probably "apple+f" on a Mac). The other problem with the 14th Division dab is that the division never actually existed; it was a phantom division, and likely won't ever have an article of its own. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - The article is not correct about the division's intended deployment. It was scheduled to be shipped to the Philippines in January 1945. The Battle of the Bulge caused it to be rushed to Europe instead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hawkeye. What source are you getting this from? None of my soirces state it was destined for the Phillipines. But if you tell me what source it is I'll have a look at it. Skinny87 (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Primary documents of course! Try Ruppenthal, Vol. 2, p. 286
  • "It was officially activated in August 1943" Meaning that the division received a training cadre from the 11th Airborne Division and 78th Infantry Division and a trainload of inductees direct from some reception centre with no military experience whatsoever. Other trainloads arrived over the next few weeks and months, until the division was largely filled, while officers attended various specialised training courses. Equipment trickled in. Training started in earnest when about two thirds of division equipment had been delivered. Most divisions were not fully equipped until alerted to move overseas. BUT
  • "Between April 1943 and February 1945, the division remained in the United States" I think you mean August, not April!
  • "but was not immediately shipped out to a combat theater, remaining in the United States as a reserve formation." NOT SO. The training cycle usually took about a year. It started with basic training for the inductees and then worked up to small unit and ultimately division manouvres. The 13th Airborne Division was not ready to be shipped overseas until September 1944.
  • "Consequently the division did not take part in the first two large-scale airborne operations conducted by the Allies, Operation Husky and Operation Neptune,"
  • It could not have possibly participated in Sicily, since it was not formed at this time, nor Normandy because it was not ready. In September 1944, the 13th Airborne Division was stripped of 1,652 enlisted men to provide reinforcements for the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions. (See AGF Study No. 7) Since its total strength was only about 8,300, this represented about a third of its infantry strength, and required restarting the whole training process anew. As a result, it was not fully trained until January 1945.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a lot to take in Hawkeye, but I'll try and get it added into the article within a few days. Skinny87 (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right, everything but the Philippines bit is added in, Hawkeye. If you can add that I hope I've solved all the issues you have with the article. Skinny87 (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I don't know when Hawkeye will be back online, as I do know he had to go to the US recently and his time on wiki was sporadic, which is understandable; I'm hoping that any further reviwers won't take that the above fact hasn't been added in yet as a mark against the article. Hopefully it'll be added in as soon as possible; I'd do it myself but I don't have the book or any references in my own sources supporting that the division was destined for the Phillipines. Skinny87 (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the status on this ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, sorry Sandy, it's all done, dusted and solved. Knew I'd forgotten something! Skinny87 (talk) 08:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Good article considering that the 13th Airborne Division never saw combat. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support —another well-written article from Skinny87, everything seems to be in order. Disclosure: I've done some minor work on the article, including minor copyediting, links, merging references, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Okay, this is going to sound picky, but this is a US army article, so why is the spelling British? I see "U S Army Centre of Military History" in the refs, when it's properly "U S Army Center of Military History". Probably needs a double check for other spelling concerns.
  • Another nitpick, why is it "Maj. Gen George W Griner.." Shouldn't it be "Major General George W. Griner"? (US habit is to put in the period after middle initials, plus why is the rank abbreviated?)
  • Bit of overlinking also, no need to link New York City and Pacific.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth - I take your point on the British spellings and the period in Griner, and hopefully all British spellings should be gone now, but please highlight any more that need to be fixed. However, I've been told time and again in articles on American military formations that using 'Maj. Gen.' or 'Lieut. Gen.' is the way to go; I used to spell it out fully but got shouted down a few times. I hope it won't be a problem for it to remain that way. I've also dealt with the overlinking
I'd say that not everyone is going to know the abbreviations for military ranks, so it's probably wiser to spell out in full the first usage and give the abbreviation in ()'s for later usage, just like any other abbreviation in an article. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just about to change the first use of Major General in 'Formation' when I noticed it's spelt out in full and wikilinked in the lead. Is that okay, or should I expand its first use in 'Formation' as well? Skinny87 (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huzzah! Thanks very much! Skinny87 (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, that's great! Thanks Sandy! Skinny87 (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 3 December 2008 [8].

Tanks in the Spanish Army

Nominator(s): JonCatalán(Talk)

This article covers the history of tanks in the Spanish Army from 1919 to the present time. It passed a Good Article review and an A-class review (through the Military History WikiProject), and was copyedited to an extent during both processes. Just to avoid tiring people who have a right to be tired, I will double check on the footnotes and make sure none are repeated. Thank you for your time! JonCatalán(Talk) 05:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Image:Trubia.jpg - Just to be clear, there are no Trubia tanks left anywhere in the world which someone could take a photo of?

Lovely tank photos, btw! Awadewit (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I changed the first image to another image I took of the T-26, and to clarify; no Trubia prototypes currently exist. JonCatalán(Talk) 12:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New image checks out and I've clarified the fair use rationale. Awadewit (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The lead is way, way to long - it's getting on for 1,000 words and needs to be cut by at least 50%. Please see WP:LEAD. The problem arises because you have included discursive details in the lead, instead of providing a broad summary of the article's content. Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is a summary of the article. It was almost impossible to cut more information from the lead, and avoid leaving some parts of the article not summarized. According to WP:LEAD (which I have read before), an article with over 30,000 characters may have a lead three to four paragraphs long. This article's prose size is 48kB long, and the article itself is 83kB long. I don't see anything that says that the lead can only be about 500 words long, although if you check on Word Processor, the current lead is 800 words long, not 1,000 words long; the only thing on that page which mentions "500" is that the lead should be expanded when the stub is about 400 to 500 words long (not the lead). JonCatalán(Talk) 19:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out, taking a second look, that each section really has around two sentences on it, in the lead. Most have one sentence. I honestly can't see which details are "discursive". JonCatalán(Talk) 19:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I suggested you looked at WP:LEAD, I wasn't drawing your attention to any specific numbers, I was meaning you should look at its general guidelines, what it says about overview, about summary style, its emphasis on the lead as a brief summary, about readers not being dropped into the middle of the subject from the word go, etc. I don't accept your statement that it is "impossible to cut more information from the lead". It is supposed to summarise the topic in a general way, leaving the detail to the body of the article. There is simply far too much detail in your lead, which properly belongs elsewhere. Brianboulton (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't read what I said. The current lead summarizes the article, and barely goes into any detail whatsoever. Read the lead, then read the article. Each section is covered by one or two sentences (which is standard). It's a long lead, because it's a long article. According to WP:LEAD an article of that length can have four paragraphs (which it does). Cutting from the lead will mean that entire sections aren't covered, which is certainly against MoS guidelines. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read exactly what you said, and disagreed with it, as I do with your later statement that this huge lead "barely goes into any detail whatever". But I'm not getting into any further argument about it - let others judge. Also, please accept that this is not a personal attack. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure, I'm not taking this as a personal attack. I just find your argument to have a lack of foundation, given that you haven't even provided examples of what you think goes into detail (and how you think that the detail in the lead even compares to the detail in the article). You have just repeated the same thing three times, without actually supporting your argument with any evidence. JonCatalán(Talk) 21:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To but in, I've looked at the lead, and it doesn't seem that long, and I can't find any details that could be taken out that weren't strictly necessary; it's a large article covering a broad topic, so I think it's okay. Skinny87 (talk) 07:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • '8 millimeters (0.31 in) Hotchkiss machine gun, and was later re-armed with a Spanish 7 millimeters (0.28 in) machine gun' - Millimeters to Millimeter, please
  • 'Upon inspection by the Spanish government, including King Alfonso XIII, it was decided to procure another ten—including eight armed with machine guns and two armed with cannons' - Do we need to know the King inspected the tanks - seems kinda superfluous.
  • 'The French government declared that there were no vehicles available for sale, and later added that under no circumstances would they allow Spain to rearm these vehicles - why did they suddenly refuse?
  • 'the tank was powered by a four cylinder Hispano-Suiza 40/50 engine, which had equipped the Spanish Army's military trucks since 1915' - which the Spanish Army's military trucks had been equipped with since 1915
  • 'Designed to avoid having problems with the tracks coming off the vehicle, the new track system substituted the traditional tracks with a track system which was held together by a lateral metal wall, with the roadwheels suspended from the chassis' - I think 'tracks' are repeated too many times in this sentence.
  • 'The new tank proved satisfactory—and even bettered the French FT-17 in some aspects—and the Spanish Army ordered the construction of four prototypes' - how did it better the FT-17?
  • In the T-26 Shipment Table, the Additional Information comments aren't all aligned correctly.
  • 'During the Spanish Civil War, the Nationalist Army only developed a single tank, taking advantage of the capture of the Trubia Factory in the north, in 1937. Based on the Republican Trubia-Naval, the German Panzer I, the T-26 and the Italian CV-33, it was designed to unite the best of all three major light tanks used by the Nationalist Army during the war.[90] The tank was named the Carro de Infanteria modelo 1937 (Infantry Tank model 1937).[91] However, it did not perform as well as expected, and it was not put into mass production.' - The name of the tank needs to come sooner than it does now, I kept expecting it but didn't find it.
  • 'The Nationalist's tank disparity with Republican forces caused Nationalist commanders to offer up to 500 pesetas for each captured T-26, to Spanish soldiers' - offered spanish soldiers upto 500 pesetas for each captured T-26
  • 'At the end of World War II, the Spanish Army counted on a tank force composed of ...' - 'had' instead of 'counted on'

Okay, those are all the comments. I think if they're satisfied and I don't find anything else problematic, I'll Support the article. Skinny87 (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, those templates were missing adj=on; they are fixed now. I'll remove King Alfonso XIII, and in regards to why the French decided to stop the sale, I don't think my reference really gives a specific reason, other than the one already provided by the text (...and later added that under no circumstances would they allow Spain to rearm these vehicles with the Spanish 7 millimeters (0.28 in) machine gun, and consequently denied the sale.).
I changed the sentence about tracks to: Designed to avoid having problems with the tracks coming off the vehicle, the new design substituted the traditional tracks with a system which was held together by a lateral metal wall, with the roadwheels suspended from the chassis.
In regards to the comparison between the Trubia and the FT-17, it's explained in the paragraph. For example, The track system was the most innovative and unique part of the new Trubia light tank. Apart from the new tracks, the Trubia was to have a greater velocity (at least 30 kilometers per hour (19 mph)) and greater road range than the FT-17. While a new machine gun was installed on the glacis plate, the tank's crew was increased from two to three, which caused the hull to be enlarged; this also allowed the engine to be maintained from inside the vehicle, allowing the crew to fix small breakdowns in the field.
Everything in the table is aligned center, it's just that the comments are long enough so that it takes up the entire cell (except for the third "additional comment"). The table was edited by another user to make the unreadable prose shorter.
Everything else should be fixed! Thanks! JonCatalán(Talk) 21:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well, that's me satisfied Catalan, so Support — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinny87 (talk • contribs) 07:28, November 24, 2008
A quick query (I didn't spot this before) - in the US aid section it refers to "...the XII Armored Brigade, which was formed by the 61st Alcázar de Toledo Armored Infantry Regiment, the 61st Asturias Mechanized Infantry Regiment..." - should these regiments both have the same number? Shimgray | talk | 12:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that! The Asturias was the 31st Mechanized Infantry Regiment. JonCatalán(Talk) 17:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Named refs again: Jon, this comes up on every one of your facs, I shouldn't still be playing this broken record :-) Sample:
^ de Mazarrasa (1990), p. 77
^ Manrique, La Brunete, p. 73
^ Candil, Carros de Combate, p. 166
^ de Mazarrasa (1990), p. 77

If you can't catch them visually, you can put them in a spreadsheet and sort the spreadsheet to locate the repeats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. As mentioned, it's an ongoing effort of mine to hunt them down and fix them. I caught another instance; I will continue to look. JonCatalán(Talk) 00:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can teach you how to check them using an Excel spreadsheet if you remind me sometime. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It comes from the inclusion of the "History of the tank" template. I forgot to add tags on its page. The issue should be fixed now. JonCatalán(Talk) 03:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: But please shorten the Lead. KensplanetTalkContributions 08:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose re lead (see also my earlier comments). It's not just the length, it breaches other MOS requirements, too. It does not start with a short declarative statement that pinpoints the article and says why the subject is notable. It drops the reader right into the middle of the subject with no introduction or lead-in. Its length is out of proportion, even for a longish aRticle on a broad subject, and that length comes from too much detail in the lead text. For example, while it is appropriate to say that both sides in the Civil War were supplied with tanks from other European powers, it isn't necessary here to give all the model numbers. That is one example. I tried to raise this point with you earlier but you were unwilling even to consider it. If you are now prepared to discuss the issue, I am happy to make other suggestions. I have no other problems with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not I who was unwilling to discuss the issue. It was you. I asked you for specific examples of what I could remove, and thankfully you have at least provided on right now. I'm not sure how you want me to introduce the lead; perhaps you could give me an example or help. "Tanks in the Spanish Army" is an introduction within itself (we know we're talking about tanks in the Spanish Army), and the first sentence denotes that the article is about the history of tanks in the Spanish army (the short declarative statement is: Tanks in the Spanish Army have over 80 years of history, from 1919 to the present.). Finally, according to WP:LEAD an article with over 30kB may properly have a lead which is four paragraphs long, and this article is 80kB long and has a lead which is four paragraphs long (I don't see the breach in MoS, like you claim there is). JonCatalán(Talk) 21:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I shortened the lead as much as I really could; I removed facts that could be removed, whereas the lead would still make sense. JonCatalán(Talk) 22:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have taken out about 150 words; you could possibly lose a few more by the removal of redundancies, (e.g. in the first line it isn't necessary to say both "have 80 years of history" and "from 1919 to the present" since they mean the same thing), and the odd peacock words (extremely capable). I leave such things for you to consider. You have to put a bit back to explain what the T-26B was, that was surpassed (3rd para). Overall, the changes certainly improve the lead, though I still don't like the way one is rushed into the subject rather than "led", but I appreciate that you have attempted to address my concerns, and I have struck the oppose. Brianboulton (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed mention of the T-26, outright. Any idea on how to start the introduction, though? JonCatalán(Talk) 16:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on this. Brianboulton (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my suggestion is that you replace the first two sentences with the following single sentence: "Tanks in the Spanish Army have over 80 years of history, from the French FT-17s first delivered in 1919 to the Leopard and B1 Centauro models of the early 21st century." Then follow on with "The FT-17 took part in..." etc. This, I think, provides a good lead-in to the topic, and gives a clearer idea of the article's range. It replaces reference to the inspecific "current state" with the time-specific "early 21st century", and is also slightly shorter. What do you think? Brianboulton (talk) 19:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I instated that sentence. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My concerns were almost entirely with the lead, as discussed above, but these concerns have been adequately addressed. I could probably suggest ways of reducing the lead further, but enough is enough, and I am happy to support the article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • I'm going to assume that "Carros de Combate Modernos...) is in Spanish?
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I didn't evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes it is. For some reason it didn't show up, even though it was included in the citation template. I'll put the "es" icon outside of it. JonCatalán(Talk) 15:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Birth of the Spanish tank force: 1919–1926

  • On the fourth line of the first paragraph, there is a typo. "Canon" should be spelt "Cannon".
  • In the second paragraph of that section you say that the French government "agreed to the sale of ten machine gun armed FT-17s and a single command tank." Could you please explain how this command tank was different from the other tanks?
  • In the next sentence you say that these tanks were presented to the "Escuela Cetral de Tiro, or theCentral Firing School". There should be a space there.
  • In the third paragraph you say "the tanks were forced to withdraw back to Anvar". It's "withdraw to Anvar" or "fall back to Anvar", you can't say "withdraw back".

Early indigenous tank development programs: 1925–1935

  • In the Trubia tank section, "the tank was powered by a four cylinder Hispano-Suiza 40/50 engine, which the Spanish Army's military trucks had been equipped with since 1915" would be better phrased as "the tank was powered by a four cylinder Hispano-Suiza 40/50 engine, the same engine the Spanish Army's military trucks had been equipped with since 1915"
  • "While touring Europe for a second time, in an attempt to integrate foreign design trends into the new Trubia, Captain Ruiz de Toledo" would be better phrased "While touring Europe for a second time, and in an attempt to integrate foreign design trends into the new Trubia, Captain Ruiz de Toledo"

Tanks during the Spanish Civil War: 1936–1939

  • Shouldn't "Organization of Popular Front armored forces" be a subsection of "Armor of the Popular Front"? Not saying you should do this but it's what I would have done,
  • "The loss of many of the Republic's BT-5s during the Battle of the Ebro caused them to retire the tank to its reserves." — should be their reserves.
  • "Officially, the Italians lost an estimated 2,700 casualties during the campaigning around Guadalajara; the Republican Army lost an estimated 4,000."

You can say that they "lost 2,700 men" or else "sustained 2,700 casualties". One can't "lose casualties" lol.

Post-war era: 1939–1953

  • "Beginning in 1945, now-Major Verdeja" would be better phrased as "Beginning in 1945, the now-Major Verdeja"

Late Cold War: 1970–1991

  • "Ultimately, the Germans were not able to sell the Leopard tank" would be better phrassed "Ultimately, the Germans were unable to sell the Leopard tank"
  • "With a fuel tank of 970 liters (210 imp gal), the tank had a road range of 600 kilometers (370 mi) and the fuel was, on average, sufficient for 18 hours." Sufficient for 18 hours of what? I assume this should be either combat or travelling.

The rest of the article is fine. If these very minor problems are cleaned up the article will make a brilliant FA, wholeheartedly support recognition.--Patton123 18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I took care of most of it, except for two things. First, the FT-17 command tank issue. I'll have to look up my source and see if it mentions the differences. Unfortunately, I don't have a book dedicated to the FT-17 in general (although maybe I can find something). The second was the suggestion on the sentence that deals with traveling to Europe. The suggested replacement was: "While touring Europe for a second time, and in an attempt to integrate foreign design trends into the new Trubia, Captain Ruiz de Toledo" -> I believe that adding "and" into the sentence makes it seem as if his tour of Europe was for another purpose, while the specific intention was to look at foreign design trends. Otherwise, however, it should all be fixed! Thank you again. JonCatalán(Talk) 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes on second thoughts I agree, it would sound like his trip to Europe was for some other reason. I'll search the net for some sources about the FT-17 myself in the mean time, and post any good ones I find here.--Patton123 19:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, information about the command tank added! JonCatalán(Talk) 19:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Patton123 22:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 21:11, 3 December 2008 [9].

Primate

Nominator(s): Jack (talk)

Recently listed as a good article, primates are an importance subject for any encyclopaedia. The article has seen significant improvement since July and is now stable. Jack (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restart, old nom. Per WP:FAC instructions, "Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly." There have been substantial rewrites and changes, long delays, new images, and it is not clear to me if new images or sources have been vetted. Please make an effort to respond promptly to concerns raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image concerns have been addressed. I was keeping track of what was left to do on the talk page, will attend to Dank55's comments shortly. Jack (talk) 01:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do the images need to be rereviewed or not? Awadewit (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image status was unclear before images were added, then some deleted, so I'm unsure where this stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only additional image since the images were reviewed, is Image:Shanghai-monkey.jpg (licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License). Jack (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The new image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I will support as soon as: I find out if my copyediting dealt sufficiently with SV's concerns, any new images and sources are vetted (per Sandy), and my previous comments are addressed. Nice job. I can't speak for Ruslik, but you've certainly been diligent dealing with his concerns; you answered my one remaining question; and neither SV nor anyone else has raised the concerns we saw before the restart, which I hope means that this round has fixed the problems to everyone's satisfaction. Well done. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report: I'm doing a little more copyediting now. Jack, check my recent edits to make sure they're okay. Everything I wanted is taken care of now except for this:

I'd recommend either defining exactly what you mean by "primitive ... body plan", or removing it; the following material defines what you mean in detail, and is easier to understand, too. Readers could quickly figure out what "body plan" means from the wikilink, but they still wouldn't get what "primitive" body plan means here, I think. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think I've done this one properly, the sentence won't really work if I elaborate too much on "primitive body plan". Jack (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've removed it for now. Btw, there are only 242 ghits for "primitive body plan", and some of those were not using the phrase in the specialized sense, so readers may have difficulty with the phrase. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding "all species possess some adaptations for an arboreal lifestyle", I think I agree that it's a little unclear, but maybe I'm just not getting it because I'm not a biologist. We primates have backbones, one form of which first arose among our fish ancestors ... does that mean we have "adaptations for a submarine lifestyle", even though we don't live underwater? Would it work to say this? "Not all primates are adapted for living primarily in trees, but all primates are adapted for climbing for many purposes, such as escaping predators." No need to list baboons, geladas, humans etc. here in the lead; that can stay in the relevant section. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or, "Some primates (including humans and baboons) do not live primarily in trees, but all primates [continuing as above]". - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I used the second suggestion (but replaced the second "primate" with "species"). Jack (talk) 15:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was getting more at "arboreal lifestyle"; for one thing, the word "lifestyle" has been so overused and misused that it's almost a word to avoid now, at least in a general encyclopedia. I'll replace this with "climbing trees", but feel free to revert. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading the article with SlimVirgin's objection about readability in mind, I've decided I don't have a general objection on these grounds. All of Monkey (start-class) and much of Ape (C-class) are more readable for non-biologists; as long as we have something for everyone, we've more than done our job. That's why people like Wikipedia; we're easily the top content site in the world (we're 5th by hits, and most people headed to google.com or msn.com are on their way to somewhere else). - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: I don't have a "general objection", but I made changes along these lines in my copyediting and asked for more changes here (such as my first two points). I just don't think the problem is unfixable, and I hate inefficiency more than anything; I'd rather get this stuff fixed now than have the article fail and have to do this all over again in a month. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding "30 grams (1.1 oz), to the Gorilla, which is 200 kilograms (440 lb)", these units weren't spelled out or linked at the first occurrence. Per WP:MOSNUM, they don't need to be linked (since they're not obscure units) although they can be at first occurrence; but "In the main text, spell out the main units and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses (e.g a pipe 5 centimetres (2 in) in diameter and 37 kilometres (23 mi) long). [*] When there is consensus to do so, the main units may also be abbreviated in the main text after the first occurrence." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 01:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The first occurrence was in the lead section, "Primates range in size from the 30 g (1 ounce) Pygmy Mouse Lemur to the 200 kg (440 pound) Mountain Gorilla." - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I hope it goes without saying, but don't throw this in there because it sounds good, add some version of this if it goes along with your thinking and it's already sourced or easily sourced. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (lead and Evolutionary history section)
    1) In the lead Prosimians most closely resemble early proto-primates,. However proto-primates are not mentioned in the main text. I suggest removing this passage about proto-primates from the lead.
    Changed to: Prosimians have characteristics most like those of the earliest primates, and included... Jack (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2) In evolution subsection I read The suborder Strepsirrhini, ... is generally thought to have split off from the primitive primate line about 63 mya (million years ago),. However in the next paragraph I read According to genetic studies, the lemurs of Madagascar diverged from the lorisiforms approximately 75 my. There is a contradiction here. Could lemurs and lorisiforms diverge from each other 75 mya ago, taking into account that Strepsirrhini diverged from primitive primates only 63 mya ago?
    Because of differences in genetic and fossil studies, there is no real consensus as to divergence points. The paper indicating that lorisiforms split 75 Mya (with a 95% credibility interval of 66.9–84.4 Mya) makes no mention of the strep/hap split. I recommend we follow the recent genetic study by Horvarth for lemurs, it has a much wider range than previous lemur studies (over 200 lemur species) though that leaves the question of where the strep/hap split was. I've seen the last common ancestor of the primates being: 77 Mya (Steiper, 2006), 64–80 Mya (Pace, 2007), 63–90 Mya (Martin, 1993), 81.5 Mya (Tavaré, 2002 - also thinks no more than 7% of primate species are represented by fossils), euprimates at 80–90 Mya (Martin, 2007) then I've seen the strep/hap divergence at: 50 Mya (Porter, 1997), 61 Mya (Yoder, 1997) and 80 (Martin, 2003) & (Tavaré, 2002). Though I do agree this needs to be clarified, I'll attempt to clear it up. Jack (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you will clarify this. Ruslik (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do, think I might need to get some outsider opinion first though. Jack (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3) I also read in the second paragraph the three remaining families that include the lorises, the Aye-aye, the galagos, and the pottos.. So three families or four (lorises, the Aye-aye, the galagos, and the pottos)?
    There are many species within those three families. The more recognisable subfamilies from Lorisidae are mentioned (lorises and pottos), I've changed it now to "lorids"; the family name. Jack (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    4) I see another inaccurate statement (fourth paragraph) In 2008, the Aye-aye family, Daubentoniidae, was confirmed to be a lemuriform.... However in the previous paragraph Aye-aye was listed together with lorises, not lemurs, and in the scheme in the next subsection Aye-aye has its own infraorder (Chiromyiformes). Please, clarify this.
    Now reads: In 2008, the Aye-aye family (Daubentoniidae) was confirmed to be a lemuriform and descended from the same ancestral lemur population that rafted to the island, it is contained within the Chiromyiformes infraorder, forming a sister clade to the lemurs. Lemurs/lorids split then lemurs/aye-ayes split, so aye-aye is lemuriform (as opposed to lorisiform) but is not contained within Lemuriformes. Jack (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    5) In the fifth paragraph of the evolution subsection I read and contains the two clades: the parvorder Platyrrhini that developed in South America and contains New World monkeys is one, and the parvorder Catarrhini that developed in Africa and contains the Old World monkeys, humans and the other apes in the other. "is one" "in the other" are redundant here, in my opinion.
    You're right, removed offending words. Jack (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    6) Although anthropoid primates could have made it to North America and island-hopped to South America during the Eocene,[20] and Antarctica supported large, dense forests for a southern migration, The language here is not encyclopedic, especially "made it to". Please, clarify this sentence (split it in two sentences).
    Okay, changed wording. Jack (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    7) The young Atlantic Ocean was not nearly as wide as it is today ... Please, specify what was the width of Atlantic in Oligocene/Miocene.
    Added reference to this statement, the reference has a picture of the width but no specific width value. Jack (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    8) Close behind came lorises and tarsiers, also African castaways. Again unencyclopedic language.
    Changed to: Soon after, the lorises and tarsiers made the same journey. Jack (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    9) In the Classification subsection In older classifications, the Primates were divided into two superfamilies: Prosimii and Anthropoidea. How old are those classifications?
    I've mentioned that McKenna & Bell disregarded Prosimii and Anthropoidea. Jack (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After looking at this again, McKenna & Bell weren't the first to follow this classification. Added information to reflect this. Jack (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    10) I would appreciate more information about hybrids. It is interesting topic. How long do hybrids live? Can they breed, or they infertile?
    This section was cut down purposefully due to length constraints on the article. Jack (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope my comments are helpful. I will continue tomorrow with other sections. Ruslik (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They look really helpful, I'll get on to them as soon as I can. Cheers, Jack (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments 2 (Distinguishing features. Anatomy, physiology and morphology)
    11) Please, explain arboreal habitats at the first use.
    Added (trees and bushes) immediately afterwards. Jack (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    12) Please clarify that posterior lobe is in Cerebellum (I initially thought that it is part of the cerebral hemispheres).
    Changed to more concise wikilink: Posterior lobe of cerebellum. Jack (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    13) In the list of features not all items have inline citations.
    Am I out of practice on inline citations? The times I've seen it come up at WT:V, there was agreement that "five digits on the fore and hind limbs with opposable thumbs and big toes" was exactly the kind of thing people didn't want to see line-by-line citations for, they wanted a cite to a general textbook, which is in the sentence that introduces the list. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 11:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case it is better to remove citations from items altogether, because they create false impression that some information is cited and some is not. Ruslik (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I originally cited every distinguishing characteristic (to the same source, which was a list of distinguishing characteristics), the someone recommended that I just reference the whole paragraph. The paragraph was then turned into a list, and then people added extra distinguishing characteristics (which I don't believe are distinguished from other orders) and cited them to other sources. So the unreferenced points are all from the original source at the beginning of the paragraph. I'll have a look at what the best method of action is. Jack (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I understand, Jack. I'm going to fix this in the way that I think Ruslik wants ... which is to copy the citation that's currently meant for just the whole list to the end of each line that isn't cited by another source. If there were only one major editor on this article, as often happens at WP:GAN, I think there might be an additional argument that citing some but not others may bring up a question in some reviewers' minds of where exactly the material is coming from and how the article was constructed. In an article that's a community effort, we can't, of course, restrict anyone's right to ask for sourcing for just one fact, or the right of any editor to exercise independent judgment that there's a better source out there for a particular fact than the general textbook. I think Ruslik is just asking for the reason he states: use consistent formatting ... if you put cites at the end of some elements of a list, then cite every element ... otherwise readers may misunderstand. I'll do that now. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    14) In the Anatomy section there is a sentence The primate collar bone is retained as prominent element of the pectoral girdle; this allows the shoulder joint broad mobility.. It is strange, in my opinion. It implies that primate's pectoral girdle is more mobile, because it has an additional bone (clavicle)?
    From the clavicle page: It serves as a rigid support from which the scapula and free limb are suspended. This arrangement keeps the upper limb (arm) away from the thorax so that the arm has maximum range of movement. This is an important characteristic of primates; without extremely mobile forelimbs brachiation would not be possible. Jack (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    15) The main hominid molar cusp (hypocone) evolved in early primate history, while the cusp of the corresponding primitive lower molar (paraconid) was lost. So I do not understand how many cusps humans have, five or four?
    They can have either 4 or 5. I've added it to the paragraph. Jack (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    16) at the time of dinosaurs is not very scientific. Please, specify time (or period).
    Done. Jack (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    17) In Sexual dimorphism subsection Studies are helping to find the relative contribution of the various selective and non-selective mechanisms in sexual dimorphism evolution and expression. Redundant sentence.
    Removed. Jack (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ruslik (talk) 10:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ruslik more very helpful comments, I'm trying my best to keep up with you. Jack (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final comments
    18) In the 'Social system' subsection the first sentence says Richard Wrangham proposed that social systems are best classified by the amount of movement by females occurring between groups Please, clarify if this theory is applicable to all animals (and humans) or only to non-human primates?
    Only non-human primates. Made change. Jack (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    19) In the 'Interactions with humans' section there is sentence Some of these are zoonotic diseases that can also be transmitted to humans, most notably the potentially fatal Herpes B Virus. Please, explain what 'there' refers to in it. This sentence partially duplicates previous two sentences.
    Changed to: Viruses such as Herpesviridae (most notably Herpes B Virus), Poxviridae, measles, ebola, rabies, the Marburg virus and viral hepatitis can be transmitted to humans; in some cases the viruses produce potentially fatal diseases in both humans and non-human primates. Think I managed to remove an 'also' as well! Jack (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    20) Within the order Primates, humans are recognized as persons and protected in law by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This sentence conveys an impression, that UN Declaration somehow mentions primates (includes humans and excludes other primates). However the declaration just states that everybody (meaning humans) has some rights. Primates are not mentioned in it at all.
    Added only before humans. Jack (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I happy to support this article if my last concerns are addressed. Some copy-edit may be necessary as some weasel words are too overabundant (also, for instance). However I am an expert in criterion 1a. Ruslik (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My concerns have been addressed so I support now. Ruslik (talk) 06:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again Ruslik. Jack (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: footnotes and references ideally should be seperate. Sceptre (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The footnotes thing is mentioned at WP:Layout, but maybe that's not a persuasive argument (I couldn't tell your view on these things from your userpage). Would you do me a favor and read my blatherings at User:Dank55/Essays#What style guidelines are supposed to be on the value of style guidelines, and tell me if that's in any way persuasive about the value of arguing this on the style page rather than in the middle of someone's FAC? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe it's just me who does it, but I sometimes put footnotes explaining a point seperate from citations, and use a, b, c, etc to denote them, qv The Trial of a Time Lord. It helps a bit with reading, e.g. I was a bit perplexed about the "every continent on Earth" statement, clicked the ref to see a citation, and it was an explanatory footnote lost in the sea of citations. :) Sceptre (talk) 04:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, I separate them myself (unless I'm being lazy, which is ... a lot :). But a lot of contributors don't like to separate them. My gut feeling is that we won't be able to get an agreement at WP:Layout to say they have to be separated, but it wouldn't bother me at all if people want that change. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I made the separation, per the comment. I only found two instances (humans inhabiting Antarctica and Article 6) but maybe I missed something. And, now that you reminded me, I need to get down to basement to finally start watching my DVD of Trial. :) Rlendog (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by jimfbleak Primates ... as well as an increased reliance on stereoscopic vision at the expense of smell this sounds as if a good sense of smell and stereoscopic vision are mutually exclusive, and you can't have both. Is that correct? I can't see any obvious reason why a dog, for example, couldn't be good with sight and smell, jimfbleak (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As they increasingly relied on their stereoscopic colour vision, their sense of smell was less important and therefore was no longer selected for. See this graphic from here. Primates are far more reliant on vision, dogs are far more reliant on smell. Hope this answers your question, do you still think a change should be made? Cheers, Jack (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) The prose looks much better than when I reviewed this article nearly two months ago, a few more suggestions:

  • "Richard Wrangham proposed that social systems of non-human primates are best classified by the amount of movement by females occurring between groups." Sounds more like a suggestion than a proposition to me. Changing proposed will also eliminate the repetition of "proposed" occurs in the next sentence.
    Changed proposed to stated. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Non-human primates (NHPs) are rarely granted the same legal rights as humans, despite the close evolutionary relationship."-->Despite the close evolutionary relationship, non-human primates (NHPs) are rarely granted the same legal rights as humans.
    Done. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In South America, but not in Central America, squirrel monkeys associate with capuchin monkeys."
    Done. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A few hunters have found and killed individuals since then, and its prospects remain bleak." "its"-->the species'.
    Done. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Primate species each move variously by brachiation, bipedalism, leaping, arboreal and terrestrial quadrupedalism, climbing or knuckle-walking." What does "each" mean here?
    Changed to Primate species move by brachiation, bipedalism, leaping, arboreal and terrestrial quadrupedalism, climbing, knuckle-walking or by a combination of these methods. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mean endocranial volume is 1201 cubic centimeters in humans, 469 cm3 in gorillas, 400 cm3 in chimpanzees and 397 cm3 in orangutans." Is there a reason for the absence of conversions?
    Brains are measured in cubic centimetres, I wouldn't have thought conversions would be very helpful. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are 21 critically endangered primates, eight of which have remained on the IUCN's "The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates" list" Per MOSNUM, comparitive quantities should be written out the same; i.e. There are 21 critically endangered primates, 8 of which have remained on the IUCN's "The World's 25 Most Endangered Primates" list.
    Done. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Accounting for 25% to 40% of the fruit-eating animals (by weight) within tropical rainforests, primates play an important role by dispersing seeds of many tree species." Important role in what? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to: important ecological role. Thanks for the comments again. Jack (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - the prose is much better now. Shyamal (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Like the lemurs, the New World monkeys had unclear origins. - is the past tense intended ?
    Changed to have. Jack (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the evaluation of current populations as distinct species is in flux - statement can be improved but I am not sure how ? The same goes with the start of the sentence A few new species are discovered each year....
    Changed to: Although primates are well studied in comparison to other animal groups, a number of new species are still being discovered; genetic tests on some populations have also revealed previously unrecognised species. Not sure if this is too clumsy, or if I'm allowed to link 'being discovered' to Primates discovered in the 2000s? Jack (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In modern, cladistic reckonings, the Primates order is a true clade. - What is a true clade - I suspect you really want to say it is monophyletic - if so it should just be that the Primates form a monophyletic clade or such like...
    Changed to mention monophyly. Jack (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biological anthropologist Colin Groves - could do without the prefixes, in fact even the mention of the author is not really needed - just the number of species in the year with the reference should do.
    Changed to: Primate Taxonomy listed about 350 species of primates in 2001,:ref: the author, Colin Groves, increased that number to 376 for his contribution to the third edition of Mammal Species of the World (MSW3). Jack (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Primates have two forward-facing eyes - no objection, but is the two really needed !
    Removed two. Jack (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the Eocene, most of the northern continents were dominated by two groups, the adapids and the omomyids - dominated or just occupied ?
    From Sellers' Primate Evolution: "Each of the major geological epochs are characterised by major primate adaptive radiation such that a relatively few taxa dominate the primate fauna." I've added the reference. Jack (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adapids survived until about 10 mya. Omomyids, on the other hand, perished about 20 million years earlier. - more comfortable if the extinction order is put in sequence without the need for arithmetic and backward glances.
    Changed to: Omomyids perished about 30 mya,:ref: while Adapids survived until about 10 mya. Jack (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to genetic studies, the lemurs of Madagascar diverged from the lorisiforms approximately 75 mya. These studies, as well as chromosomal and molecular evidence - Genetic studies presumably includes those "chromosomal studies".
  • Catarrhines are routinely trichromatic due - the special phrase "routinely trichromatic" needs to be marked by italics - and should ideally be explained in a section within Evolution of color vision in primates.
  • Variously, both Euarchonta and Euarchontoglires are ranked as superorders. - redundant and removable statement - clades are rank free and it is completely normal to "variously" indicate positions relative to Linnean ranks.
  • I don't see much info specific to either chimps or bonobos, although I wouldn't say that there's a WP:WEIGHT issue with the slightly greater emphasis on chimps (despite being a bonobo fan, myself), given that comparitively little research has been done on bonobos, given their rarity and geographic isolation. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentions of the Common Chimpanzee = 3, mentions of the Bonobo = 2. Not undue weight, when refering to chimpanzees both Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus are included. Jack (talk) 12:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term Chimpanzee is sometimes used in the article to just refer to the Common Chimpanzee. So the difference is higher and there is a problem with the consistency of the terminology.--Sum (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/December_2008&oldid=256299647"