Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
- Afrikaans
- Alemannisch
- አማርኛ
- العربية
- অসমীয়া
- Azərbaycanca
- تۆرکجه
- বাংলা
- 閩南語 / Bân-lâm-gú
- Башҡортса
- Беларуская
- Беларуская (тарашкевіца)
- भोजपुरी
- Български
- Boarisch
- Bosanski
- Català
- Čeština
- Cymraeg
- Dansk
- Deutsch
- Eesti
- Ελληνικά
- Español
- Esperanto
- Estremeñu
- فارسی
- Français
- Frysk
- Gaeilge
- Galego
- 한국어
- Հայերեն
- हिन्दी
- Ido
- Bahasa Indonesia
- Íslenska
- Italiano
- עברית
- ქართული
- Қазақша
- Latviešu
- Лезги
- Lietuvių
- Magyar
- Македонски
- മലയാളം
- Malti
- मराठी
- Bahasa Melayu
- Minangkabau
- Mirandés
- Монгол
- Nederlands
- नेपाली
- 日本語
- Napulitano
- Нохчийн
- Norsk bokmål
- Norsk nynorsk
- Олык марий
- Oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
- Pälzisch
- Plattdüütsch
- Polski
- Português
- Română
- Русский
- Саха тыла
- Shqip
- සිංහල
- Simple English
- سنڌي
- Slovenčina
- Slovenščina
- Soomaaliga
- کوردی
- Српски / srpski
- Suomi
- Svenska
- Tagalog
- தமிழ்
- Татарча / tatarça
- ไทย
- Türkçe
- Українська
- اردو
- Vèneto
- Tiếng Việt
- 文言
- Xitsonga
- 粵語
- Zeêuws
- 中文
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Editorofthewiki (talk | contribs) at 02:27, 2 July 2008 (→Nominations: 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
- Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:
It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache |
Featured article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools: | ||||
Nominating
Commenting, etc
|
Nominations
- 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 22:29, 6 September 2008 [1].
- Nominator: Editorofthewiki (talk), --LordSunday
- previous FAC (00:49, 15 July 2008)
The previous FAC raised concerns about the article's prose. I think that has been adressed via a peer review. While this is short, it's quite comprehensive, and I think it fulfils the FAC criteria. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 14:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WeakSupport as co-nominator - Prose concerns have been adressed, but the article is still short. However, I'll co-nom again since I hjelped quite a bit with this article last time. This time I feel that there is a chance the article will pass, but I would have liked to dedicate more time to it. --Meldshal42? 15:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
What makes http://www.iranmania.com/news/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=10815&NewsKind=CurrentAffairs&ArchiveNews=Yes a reliable source? I see it's got a (AFP) code at the byline, is that the French News Agency? Maybe you can find the same story in a newspaper?
- I believe that the Iran News (their official newspaper-type paper) runs IranMania. But I think we could find it in a news article, let me check. --LordSunday 15:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am now sure that the source is reliable, as USGS uses it. I have also added another asource from iranmania. --LordSunday 15:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does USGS use it though? Or did you find that the site is run by the Iranian newspaper? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AFP stands for Agence France-Press, one of the oldest news agencies in the world. See under "News Links" at http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/index.html It's the first link. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- THat link is dead, by the way. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong URL. It is http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2002/eq_020622/ --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't show that the usgs uses it as a source, they are merely linking to it, as one of several news links on that page. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why the US government would be linking to a source that is wrong. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh. The US Government has no clue at times. But whatever... it'll do..
- I don't know why the US government would be linking to a source that is wrong. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't show that the usgs uses it as a source, they are merely linking to it, as one of several news links on that page. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong URL. It is http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2002/eq_020622/ --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- THat link is dead, by the way. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- AFP stands for Agence France-Press, one of the oldest news agencies in the world. See under "News Links" at http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/index.html It's the first link. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How does USGS use it though? Or did you find that the site is run by the Iranian newspaper? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am now sure that the source is reliable, as USGS uses it. I have also added another asource from iranmania. --LordSunday 15:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise sources look okay. Links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image check complete - descriptions, sources, and licensing look ok. Awadewit (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simple Comment - Current Ref 2 needs its accessdate formatted properly. It is currently a red link. --haha169 (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandy fixed it. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Excellent work. My concerns about prose from the previous FAC have been addressed very satisfactorily. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please have an independent collaborator verify this article's sourcing; it's rare that I have to correct sources in an article at FAC.[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All the faulty URLs have been fixed. For the two you added, I was simply too lazy to type it in. Sorry about that. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1b, comprehensiveness, and 1c, factual accuracy issues.
Please verify the following text via other sources:
- The earthquake's epicenter was near the small village of Bou'in-Zahra (sometimes spelled Bouynzahra) ...
Sourced to an iffy source (which could be replaced): * http://www.iranmania.com/news/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=10792&NewsKind=CurrentAffairs Nowhere does that source back the statement that Bouynzahra is an alternate spelling of Bou'in-Zahra, or even mention Bou'in-Zahra.
- First of all, that isn't even cited to that source. Second, The article is written by Agence France-Press, one of the oldest and most respected news sources, so it thus cannot be classified as "iffy". --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 02:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not any more, but it was :-) [3] Now there is a self-reference to Wiki in the footnotes, which is a no-no. And potentially issues with our naming conventions, as well as a breach of WP:LEAD, where alternate names should be mentioned in the lead. The fixes you implemented have moved away from guidelines, and haven't convinced me of either the name or the location of the quake. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See USS Illinois (BB-65). FA, same deal. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 22:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind, I have reworded the note as to avoid a self reference and mentioned the alternate titles in the lead. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 02:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See USS Illinois (BB-65). FA, same deal. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 22:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not any more, but it was :-) [3] Now there is a self-reference to Wiki in the footnotes, which is a no-no. And potentially issues with our naming conventions, as well as a breach of WP:LEAD, where alternate names should be mentioned in the lead. The fixes you implemented have moved away from guidelines, and haven't convinced me of either the name or the location of the quake. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, another reliable source disagrees, saying that Boi'in-Zahra is 60 kilometers from Qazvin, the capital of the province, and specifically saying that Bouynzahra was another city affected:
- ... la mayoría de las muertes ocurrieron en la población de Bou'in-Zahra, a 60 kilómetros de Qazvin, la capital de la provincia. ... La televisión iraní mostró ayer las primeras imágenes de la tragedia en las que los habitantes de Bouynzahra, otra de las ciudades afectadas, aparecían cubiertos de polvo y arrodillados ante sus casas destruidas. http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/500/muertos/2000/heridos/terremoto/Iran/elpepiint/20020623elpepiint_14/Tes
And yet another source says that Bouynzahra is a district, not a town:
While one source appears to equate the two words, calling Bouynzahra a city:
Yet another spelling, Buin-Zahra, offered at this page,[4] and it's not clear that the article is comprehensive, considering all of the information available in all of these sources. Need to nail this down better.
Complicating issues further, our article on Qazvīn Province mentions Booin Zahra; this needs to be sorted.
- Booin Zahra is wrong, corrected. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it is determined that Bouynzahra, Buin-Zahra, Booin Zahra and Boi'in-Zahra are the same city, it would seem that a better source (like the telegraph, above) could be used, but it's not clear to me at this point whether they are the same. Worse, it doesn't appear that any of these are the official name used for the earthquake anyway:
Other official sources linked in the article call it the "Avaj Region Earthquake" or "Avaj Earthquake" or "Changureh Earthquake";[5][6][7][8] how was the article name chosen, and why aren't these alternate names included in the lead? Also, why isn't more of the information, history, geology from these sources included? I suggest more thorough research is needed here, and a closer look at comprehensiveness based on the info in the sources. Perhaps getting one of the Wiki geologists involved would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article name was chosen because the official report placed the epicenter at Bou'in-Zahra. I will work on incorporating the sources into the article. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another concern: searching google scholar on the correct name (Avaj earthquake) yields numerous scholarly sources. Have those sources been accessed? [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This source looks good: http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jsnds/contents/saigai_report/Changureh20020622.html. I would add it but I'm off to breakfast.
- I've used the source for the article. There wasn't much to add, anyway. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have accessed the journal sources, and added anything of value. I think the article is as comprehensive as possible. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 02:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've used the source for the article. There wasn't much to add, anyway. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This source looks good: http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jsnds/contents/saigai_report/Changureh20020622.html. I would add it but I'm off to breakfast.
- The endnotes are all over the place. Clicking the [c] takes me to note a at the bottom; clicking note b at the bottom takes me back up to [a] (and many other random things). Please fix. —Giggy 11:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? I just tried that out and none of that stuff happened. You should ask Sandy, she put them in there. --LordSunday 12:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I didn't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I put them in there, thank you very much. I think I've fixed the problem, as it works for me. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 14:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm interested as to what "relaticve" means. Nousernamesleft (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a typo, fixed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Awesome, they're fixed. —Giggy 07:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a typo, fixed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm interested as to what "relaticve" means. Nousernamesleft (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? I just tried that out and none of that stuff happened. You should ask Sandy, she put them in there. --LordSunday 12:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images -could use some images for encyclopedia purposes. Have you looked to see if USAID or anybody has any public domain images? I doubt that uploading fair use images would be permitted.
- Couldn't find anything, sorry. (I hate copyright paranoia as much as you do.) I wonder if we could take some images from the IRNA site, but other than that, zip. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 04:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The small village of Kisse-Jin was the home of roughly 80 corpses following the rupture". "The home" of "corpses seems a bit crude and looks awkward, need rewording The Bald One White cat 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "In the small village of Kisse-Jin, roughly 80 corpses were recovered following the rupture." --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 04:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good. I couldn't find any free images either although one site had some great eyewitness images of the disaster which would considerably help the article. Perhaps one day Iranian wikipedia will have one? The Bald One White cat 12:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Comments - The 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake (also known as the 2002 Avaj earthquake or the 2002 Changureh earthquake[a]) occurred on June 22, 2002 in a region of northwestern Iran which is crossed by several major fault lines. Wikilink Iran and fault line.
- Done. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 04:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), the earthquake was felt as far away as the capital city of Tehran, approximately 180 miles (290 km) east of the epicenter, although no damage was reported there. Most houses in the region were single-story masonry buildings, and virtually all of these collapsed. Really needs to be split into two sentences.
- Huh? It is two sentences. Please elaborate. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 04:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, I misread. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? It is two sentences. Please elaborate. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 04:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:Kharaghan.jpg confuses me. The caption in the article says the towers are seen after the 2002 quake, while the image description says the picture depicts them before the 2003 one.
- There was a 2003 one, though I don't think it damaged the area. Apparently the pictures were before the 2002 one, which I fixed on both the article and the image. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 04:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The earthquake occurred at 02:58 UTC (7:28 a.m. Iran Standard Time),[1][5] while most of those affected were in their homes. This sentence tells me most people were in their homes, while this sentence, Most of the dead were women, children and the elderly,[15] as many of the men were working in local vineyards tells me the men were outside? Which one is it?
- Hmm, I seemed to have contradicted myself. Changed to "...while many Iranians were in their homes." --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 04:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Newer structures, many built in accordance with the Iranian code of practice for seismic-resistant design, survived much better. Is poorly worded
- Changed to "Newer structures built in accordance with the Iranian code of practice for seismic-resistant design fared much better." --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 04:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake triggered many landslides over an area of about 3600 km2. We already know the earthquake was in 2002; no need to repeat it.
- Removed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 04:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Gary Oshea of International Rescue, the volunteersdid not have enough technical equipment, and the religious leaders seemed unwilling to contribute much. Is "volunteersdid" a word?
–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Duh, it was a typo, fixed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 04:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Image:Kharaghan.jpg is pre-earthquake description, then what is the necessaity of this image in this article? The image does not illustrate the effect of the earthquake. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but it does show what the building was like, for illustration purposes. I wonder if I can use fair use images on the article. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 05:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Article is overall well-written and well-referenced. Support. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More Blofeld comments
My main concerns like Sandy Georgia's about the article is comprehensiveness and quality of prose and the way in which the facts are presented and indeed their full verification. It could use a copyedit for style particularly with the removal of the stubbier sentences of which there are a lot into more flowing sentences which have a greater readability. I found the earlier sections of the article quite difficult to read and found myself having to reread certain phrases or sentences to make sure I understood it.
I;ve a little confused by reading in the introduction that the "area is known for destructive earthquakes" yet later down it appears that" Earthquakes happen less frequently in the Qazvin Province compared to the Iranian national average Earthquakes happen less frequently in the Qazvin Province compared to the Iranian national average". If this is the case then the area can't be particularly renowned for its destructive earthquakes which appear more commnly elesewhere. If you are referring to the extent of the damage or intensity of the quake then you need to reword this to avoid confusion. The Bald One White cat 14:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no, I don't think it is really all that confusing. The area experiences strong earthquakes, when it has them. --Lord₪Sunday 14:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"This particular landmass is believed to be "growing through a relict Neogene topography" -does nothing to explain to me what this is to me - WP:CONTEXT. Most people would think"What on earth is a "relict Neogene topography" -It is important the reader reads that section and doesn't have any grey areas of understanding. The Bald One White cat 14:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll leave that one to Ed. --Lord₪Sunday 14:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have linked the word "Neogene". Hopefully that helps. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 14:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I feel there are too many citations particularly in the first few paragraphs of the Damage and casualties often three or four a sentence which seems to affect its readability and flow. The second sentence is particular is an example of Over-citation with what looks like 5 citations. The rest of that section is OK.I am always keen to improve citation but occasionally it does not often need to be done as oftne as one might think. The Bald One White cat 14:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the reviewers here proposed that we add more references to touch it up a bit, so I really don't get this whole mess. I agree, with Blofeld, we are over-citing. --Lord₪Sunday 14:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More citations? Its extremely well referenced. The Bald One White cat 14:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am simply citing each fact, according to thesource. How do you propose I can change this? --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 14:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Most of the dead were women, children and the elderly,[15] as many of the men were working in local vineyards" - problematic in that this seems to include the entire population pyramid of dmeogrpahics. Children, women, working men and the elderly. Information given seems a bit vague and not precise. The Bald One White cat 14:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand what you mean. I simply said who died and who didn't. Please elaborate. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 14:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said that most of the dead were women, children, working men and the elderly which in any normal society would be pretty much stating the obvious. If a specific group such as women and children received far more deaths than any other part of society though or a certain group was most affected please assert this. If not, then encyclopedically that sentence has little value. The Bald One White cat 14:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I just said that most of the dead were women, children, and the elderly. The men, for the most part, survived. I think this was clear enough. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 15:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Over 20 aftershocks were recorded,[1] with magnitudes up to 5.1 on the moment magnitude scale.[2] At least three caused further casualties and damage.[3] Most of these had their epicenter within 25 km of the main shock.[4]
I would avoid short snappy sentences and keep this in two sentences to make it flow better. The Bald One White cat 14:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done by you. Heh. --Lord₪Sunday 14:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Damage to the historic Kharaqan tomb towers, which were in a good state of preservation before the event, suggests that the earthquake was one of the most powerful in the region for approximately 900 years". This seems like a speculative sentence and WP:OR. I'm not debating whether it is true given that the structure has remained intact for 900 years but doesn't the nature in which a building is affected depend on the precise epicentre of the quake and the geology in which the plates collides. Different angles or process can have a major impact on the way in which the surface is affected in different areas and damage to that building could have resulted from a different dynamics and the pattern of movement rather than the sheer force of the quake. "The most powerful in the region for approximately 900 years" is quite a statement and would require scientific expertise to back this claim up other than just speculation. The Bald One White cat 15:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tweaked. --Lord₪Sunday 15:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This statement had a ref to a scientific journal, so it certainly wasn't OR. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 15:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats good I should have followed up that source, but it still didn't back it up by any scientific evidence in the article and seemed to be more a casual observation. Could you show me where in the Source that is provided it analyses the structural dynamics of the Kharaqan towers? Where does it back up this claim of the 900 years? The Bald One White cat 15:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That shows only the abstract of the article. I acessed the entire thing, which said that. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 15:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you of course but if somebody else is verifying it they'd want to check it.
- Never mind, I have linked to a PDF document which shows the entire article. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 15:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great job Ed. That journal is an excellent scientific analysis of the disaster. The Bald One White cat 15:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abdarreh and Abdareh. Are these the same places or are they different? There is a variation in spelling if so and "vincinity" I take it you mean "vicinity"? If you are discussing Abdarreh and the other village I would keep that in one paragraph. The first sentence of that seems to have been misplaced in the preceding paragraph The Bald One White cat 15:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both typos, fixed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 15:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47 "fall and topple zones". Does a fall and topple zone have a formal meaning? What is meant by this exactly? Landslides triggered by the earthquake mostly occurred in the "most susceptible geologic areas", where there were many landslides before. Slightly awkward could be reworded and needs clarification. Do you mean the epicentre or along fault lines or what? If you mean areas of a weak geological structure as I think he do which are most "susceptible to damage" then it is pretty obvious that landslides will affect these areas most. Thats what I would think anyway as a reader. The Bald One White cat 15:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Linked and reworded. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 15:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"After officials launced an appeal for assistance". Do you mean "Other officials launched an appeal for assistance"? If so whom and what? The Bald One White cat 15:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Iranian" added. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 16:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the lead, it states 1,300 were injured. However, according to the source, 2000-4000 were injured. Another sources states 245 were killed, not 261. Which is right? how do you turn this on 16:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The source (BBC) says that 1,500 were injured. That was pretty much a final report, so I've used that. Likewise the 261 is from the USGS, and the info for 245 was preliminary. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 16:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the source in the lead says different to the text. Could it be fixed? how do you turn this on 16:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I get it? --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 22:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the source in the lead says different to the text. Could it be fixed? how do you turn this on 16:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The source (BBC) says that 1,500 were injured. That was pretty much a final report, so I've used that. Likewise the 261 is from the USGS, and the info for 245 was preliminary. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 16:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "There was great public anger" sounds like something out of a tabloid newspaper. What's wrong with "The public were angry"? how do you turn this on 16:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually that would be "The public was angry" :) Fixed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed :-) Forgive my atrocious Engrish skillz how do you turn this on 16:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mine ain't oll korrect either. :) --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 16:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed :-) Forgive my atrocious Engrish skillz how do you turn this on 16:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"A bridge failed..." What does that mean, it collapsed? how do you turn this on 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, reworded. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 16:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Surface cracks were observed between the villages of Abdareh and Changureh, that suffered the heaviest damage, being roughly 25 kilometers from the epicenter." That sentence sounds incredibly awkward. how do you turn this on 16:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to: "Surface cracks were observed in Abdareh and Changureh, the villages that suffered the heaviest damage,[5] being roughly 25 kilometers from the epicenter.[2]" --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 16:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Supporting per request. how do you turn this on 21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "per request" mean? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It means someone asked me to make a !vote, here. I wasn't canvassed, and since I commented here it makes sense for me to make a !vote in the end, right? how do you turn this on 21:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Each time I have looked at this article to see if it's ready for promotion, I find ongoing issues. There are citation cleanup needs still, there was overcitation, there are MoS breaches on units and missing conversions, there are accessdates when there are no URLs, etc. These are basic cleanup issues that should have been tended to long ago, and give concern about the Supports so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it my support you find concerning? If so, I'll remove it. how do you turn this on 19:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I have adressed the issues. If not give me a holler. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly won't strike my perfectly valid opinion at someone's concern; I'm unsure why you would, How. In defense of my support, I simply place a great deal less weight on the issues you mention than you seem to, Sandy. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I am rather new to this process, so I thought I'd made a mistake in supporting. I happen to agree with NUL that the issues aren't really concerning at all. As long as it is written well and is fully cited and accurate, that's fine for me. I don't consider the way the references or units are formatted as a big problem that can prevent this being featured. But this is a noob's opinion. how do you turn this on 23:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That basically summarises my thoughts as well. My last message, by the way, was probably badly worded - I'd strike it if the concern was rather important - such as the entire article being a copyvio - but I simply don't place much weight on those issues, as you said. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I am rather new to this process, so I thought I'd made a mistake in supporting. I happen to agree with NUL that the issues aren't really concerning at all. As long as it is written well and is fully cited and accurate, that's fine for me. I don't consider the way the references or units are formatted as a big problem that can prevent this being featured. But this is a noob's opinion. how do you turn this on 23:19, 5 September 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 15:02, 16 July 2008 [10].
- Nominator(s): Haha169 (talk), Judgesurreal777 (talk)
previous FAC (21:25, 13 May 2008)
This article had nearly passed the previous FAC, in my opinion, with only a few more days left until a possible promotion. Since then, DHMO, now User:Giggy, has given it a peer review, and the article has only improved since then as members of the taskforce edit any errors they've seen. The previous FAC was archived when an issue was still being discussed, and I believe that the issue has been addressed satisfactorily. I believe that this article meets FA criteria, but please give any suggestions for improvements. --haha169 (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are the principle contributors and was the nomination discussed with them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please let me know if WP:FAC instructions were followed: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination." Do other signficant contributors (who were recently active) agree the article is ready, and were they consulted?
- I've talked to Satoryu prior to the nomination, a few weeks past. He said, "Wait a few weeks". I've talked to Arrowned, but I received no reply, and it was only recently that I noticed Sukecchi and FullMetal Falcon were still active, since they've been straying away from VG articles. I've also discussed the article's status with Giggy, but not about possible FACs. And I discussed with Judgesurreal, who has recently became a major contributor, but obviously not on the list. And me, I'm on that list, so... --haha169 (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please let me know if WP:FAC instructions were followed: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination." Do other signficant contributors (who were recently active) agree the article is ready, and were they consulted?
- Where are the principle contributors and was the nomination discussed with them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Satoryu 329
- Sukecchi 283
- Haha169 268
- HighwayCello 245
- FullMetal Falcon 234
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This generally looks good; however, please disambiguate the following links: Link, Wario Land. Gary King (talk) 03:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, that's what the new FAC tool is. I'll do it right now,
consider itDone --haha169 (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, that's what the new FAC tool is. I'll do it right now,
- Co-nominating - As Haha has stated, the article issues from the last FAC have been addressed. The only issue I see that people may notice is a long Gameplay section, but you will also notice there are many different gameplay options and modes to explain, and the plot section is also incorporated as a subheading under Gameplay, so it is only natural that it is a bit longer than most gameplay sections. It should therefore be FA worthy at this point. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
What makes the Kotaku refs (current refs 74 and 78, both by McWherter) reliable sources?
- Otherwise sources look good, all links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FixedCurrent ref 74, we had a discussion about in the previous FAC. "It is an interview with the creators, and you cannot fake an interview" like that. I've removed current ref 78. --haha169 (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly nearly there Comments - given that I am watching the thing at the moment I may as well review it:
- Brawl's roster of Nintendo characters expands that of its predecessor; - the roster isn't doing expanding (as a transitive verb) as such, so needs to be reworded. 'Brawl's roster of Nintendo characters has expanded from that of its predecessor;' or 'has grown', 'has been enlarged'. Have a play with this.
- Done - I decided to use, "have grown in number from". I think it works. --haha169 (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There were numerous minor issues of redundant words, tense, repetition, some passive verbs and grammar that I corrected as I went along as I felt the prose needed a bit of a massage. I can't think of what else it needs comprehensive-ness wise, so once this grammar issue is fixed i will Support. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ashnard gave lots of examples below, which I have all fixed. If you can find anymore, please feel free to list them. I will go on a treasure hunt for mistakes and errors after a while. But I'm not the best editor to do this, since I'm biased...:P --haha169 (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:Neutral: Okay, as said, I'll review the article. I'll work from bottom up, as there's something I noticed straight away:
- Three decimal places is inappropriate for a Gamerankings score. Round down, or round to one decimal place. I think I remember reading in MoS that three decimal places should be reserved for scientific use, but I can't find it now.
- Done, it looks odd with all those decimals anyway. I think its vandalism because GR doesn't list so many decimals in the first place. --haha169 (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Upon release, Super Smash Bros. Brawl
hasreceived widespread critical acclaim." Redundant.- ??, I've only seen one instance in the article where that it used. --haha169 (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've said this in other FACs, but having a "Reception" format divided by pros and cons is just simplistic and basic. However, I do realise that this is just personal preference, so I don't expect anything to be done over the course of this FAC.
- It is basic, but if you have a preference, we can work on it after the FAC.
- I have a problem with source 83. You say that "GameSpot editors noted that", yet it is attributed to a review source, which is supposed to be reviewed by one person. Then I follow the link to realise that it isn't the review, and them quoted words aren't contained on the page.
- Fixed Both issues. --haha169 (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An author isn't named in source 84, although one is clearly specified in the link.
- There is one now. --haha169 (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Make sure that author attribution is consistent, as some list the forename followed by the surname, while others use the reverse order.
- I've fixed Bryan Vore to Vore, Bryan, but that was all I spotted. --haha169 (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agh, source 91 doesn't state the author although it is clearly stated in the link. I'm not going to look through all the refs—check every ref to ensure that all the info is provided. I can see many at a cursory galnce.
- Fixed Its been put in my someone. I've also added an author to current ref 96, or last ref. Added author to Gamespot review ref as well. --haha169 (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Solid Snake is the first third-party character to make an appearance in a Smash Bros. game." Are we forgetting the blue hedgehog as well? The article is contradicting the statement made in "playable characters".
- Fixed image caption to say: "the first third-party character to be announced for appearing in a Smash Bros. game." Since Solid Snake was announced way before the blue hedgehog--haha169 (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "emphasise". Conflict of language. The article uses American English predominantly, so it should stick with that.
- Fixed --haha169 (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Melee leading to the international release of the
formerly exclusiveFire Emblem series,[72] he became more interested in characters exclusive to Japan-only releases" Exclusive...exclusive. If you're mentioning the FE international release, then there's no need to say "formerly exclusive".- Done --haha169 (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "but Sakurai said that Metal Gear creator Hideo Kojima "practically begged" for Snake to be included in Super Smash Bros. Melee, which did not happen since the game was too far into development." This needs a source, especially considering a quote is included in the sentence.
- Done Added IGN ref. --haha169 (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "game's official Japanese site, for possible inclusion." Needless comma
- No longer applicable. --haha169 (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally find it strange that two very similar sections—Inclusion of characters and Playable characters—are separate although again, this may be just personal preference.
- Inclusion of characters is about the development teams' decision to put what characters in as PC, AT, or trophies, etc. Characters is just describing how the selected ones are from a wide range of Nintendo games, 3rd party, etc. --haha169 (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Nintendo president Satoru Iwata announced the next installment of Super Smash Bros. was
not only alreadyin development for their nextgamingconsole,butand would hopefully be a launch title with Wi-Fi compatibility for online play." I've striken (struck?) some things I feel the sentence could do without. Strange to write in this way.- Fixed --haha169 (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The announcement was a surprise to Sakurai,
creator of the Super Smash Bros. series. In 2003, Sakuraiwho left HAL Laboratory in 2003.the company that was in charge of the franchise's development." Just clarifying what, in my opinion, is an unnecessary way of wording the data.- Done --haha169 (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "He was not informed of Nintendo's intent to release another Smash title, despite the fact that Iwata told Sakurai shortly after his resignation from HAL that if a new Smash game was to be developed, he would want Sakurai to again serve as director." Needs a source
- Current ref number 10 is the source, being used to source the next sentence. --haha169 (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "It was not until after the conference that Sakurai was called to Iwata's hotel room, where he was asked to be involved in the production of the new title, if possible as its director." How is the reference to the hotel room required to establish this concept. In the broad spectrum of things, this is a meaningless detail, unless something is being implied.
- Rewritten the sentence, see if you like it. --haha169 (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "At the pre-E3 2005 press conference, the Nintendo president Satoru Iwata announced the next installment of Super Smash Bros. was not only already in development for their next gaming console" – Development of the game did not begin until October 2005, This inconsistency needs to be corrected as soon as possible.
- Fixed Did some random fixing up here and there. See how it looks now. --haha169 (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "of May 2005 was the only member of the new development team." Again, I don't understand how this is compatible with the previous statement.
- Removed that sentence. Looks amazing without it. --haha169 (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Nintendo also enlisted outside help from various developer studios, including Game Arts. Sakurai stated that these people had spent excessive amounts of time playing Super Smash Bros. Melee. This team was given access to all the original material and tools from the development of Melee, courtesy of HAL Laboratory." Why have three short sentences that aren't linked when they could so easily be joined? poor prose.
- Fixed. --haha169 (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "several Smash Bros. staff members that reside around the area of the new office joined the project's development" Shouldn't it be reside in the area around the area of the new office.
- Fixed --haha169 (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "As far as Wi-Fi play is concerned, Sakurai stated his plan was to include Wi-Fi connection compatibility and online functionality" The two are virtually synonymous, so why mention both? Why not join to the next sentence instead of having a standalone statement.
- Yep. Removed. --haha169 (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "as stated in the Toukouken on the Japanese version of the Smash Bros. website" The what? Wikilink or explain.
- I don't know what a Toukouken said. Revised to fit the reference. --haha169 (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "just 2 months". Write out in full, per WP: MoS#Number.
- Done --haha169 (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Nintendo of Japan president Iwata" You've already stated his position in the company. Plus, he's the president of the whole company, so why say "Nintendo of Japan"?
- Removed True. That could be to differentiate between Reggie Fils-Aime, but I find it un-needed, since his position is described elsewhere, and the name is also linked. --haha169 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "was pushed back one week". Too informal for my liking, use "delayed".
- No longer in article --haha169 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "As Super Smash Bros. Brawl is the first Wii title to use a double-layer disc, Nintendo has conceded that some Wii systems have trouble reading the game due to a dirty laser lens." Strange way of wording things. Implies that the second disc to use this won't have problems.
- I'm not even sure when that was added. It was really recent, and consensus was against its addition, so I've Removed it. --haha169 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've mentioned this before, and I suppose it is still personal preference, but I find "Stages" to be needless.
- I don't think you have. But anyways, I just can't remove such a well-cited section, and it does include some new aspects to a Smash Bros. game.--haha169 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "statuettes of video game characters and objects, that can be collected in the game" Needless comma here.
- No longer applicable. --haha169 (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another example of how the prose could be better: "Returning from Melee are trophies, statuettes of video game characters and objects
, that can be collected in the game. These trophieswhich give brief histories or descriptions of their subjects."- Good idea. Fixed --haha169 (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Trophies obtained in this manner may contain information on the backstory of the game." What game? That which is represented in the trophy or Brawl.
- Fixed The Subspace Emissary. --haha169 (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cut out some redundant "also"s.
- Done --haha169 (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The players' nicknames will be displayed during multiplayer matches." Why are short, needless sentences like these littered across the article?
- Removed your example, but I couldn't find other short and needless sentences in the article. --haha169 (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "A Spectator mode allows players to watch matches from players who have enabled the "Allow Spectators" option," Defining a gameplay feature by way of another feature in the game will leave non-gamers non-the-wiser.
- Fixed--haha169 (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "While waiting for a match to start online, players may practice fighting against Sandbag." And yet you wonder why "Gameplay" is so long with a writing style like this.
- ...true. I've removed the sentence you pointed out, and will scourge for more. --haha169 (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "A purple cloud slowly forms around the stadium, where the Ancient Minister and his Subspace Army appear and detonate a Subspace Bomb, transporting the stadium into Subspace." Writing style is inappropriate. The cloud doesn't need to be mentioned, nevermind the fact that it appeared "slowly"—like that gives us a judgement of the speed anyway.
- Done Changed to "The Ancient Minister and his Subspace Army suddenly appear and detonate a Subspace Bomb, which transports the stadium into Subspace" --haha169 (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The section also contains multiple unexplained terms such as "subspace". Reading it I think you'd be better rewriting from scratch.
- Done, its an alternate dimension where Taboo lurks. Source cited on the bottom of section, in Sakurai's DOJO plot update. --haha169 (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "and the Primid, enemies that come in many variations." None-the-wiser.
- Fixed "eneimies that fight with a variety of weapons". Better? --haha169 (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Stickers" are capitalised in the SSE section, but not in "Vault". Why?
- Um, I don't know. But it's fixed now. --haha169 (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, I may as well just stop there. My oppose is reluctant but well founded I feel. There's too many inconsistencies, contradictions, errors, and poor examples of prose to be ignored. Sorry. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ashnard, its fine. That's what an FAC is for anyway. I'm certain I can fix all the problems you've mentioned, making the rest of the FAC easier. I should be thanking you anyway, since you volunteered to do this before I nominated anyway. Your help is very much appreciated. --haha169 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell me when you're done and I'll look over the article again and reconsider. I'll also say not to feel any onus to address problems that have been judged as personal preference, as I can't force something which may amount to an opinion. Cheers. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, since you've been working hard on this and other related Smash articles, and we all want the FT. Don't worry, many of your examples mention one example, and I'll try my best to find others with the same problem. --haha169 (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed Ashnard's Concerns, IMO. --haha169 (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I've copyedited a bit and added a load of author info missing from multiple sources. Ref 7 and 55 need sorting out by a major contributor. I'll return with a full copyedit and review, after which I'll reconsider the oppose. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a date to ref 55, and 7 was added very recently, here. I'll see what I can do about 7, but I think USK rating is unnecessary. Update - I've removed ref 7.--haha169 (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I've copyedited a bit and added a load of author info missing from multiple sources. Ref 7 and 55 need sorting out by a major contributor. I'll return with a full copyedit and review, after which I'll reconsider the oppose. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed Ashnard's Concerns, IMO. --haha169 (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, since you've been working hard on this and other related Smash articles, and we all want the FT. Don't worry, many of your examples mention one example, and I'll try my best to find others with the same problem. --haha169 (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell me when you're done and I'll look over the article again and reconsider. I'll also say not to feel any onus to address problems that have been judged as personal preference, as I can't force something which may amount to an opinion. Cheers. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've declared myself neutral considering the examples have been addressed and that I've copyedited the text. I still think too much weight is given to particular aspects, but that may amount to personal preference. The main issue is the quality of prose I feel. Thanks for your hard work addressing my comments. Ashnard Talk Contribs 12:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor Support the article is great shape, though criteria 1e (stability) won't be easily handled (new info — specially on awards, though it didn't stop other articles from promotion — and many vandals). At least it's semi-protected to help. igordebraga ≠ 14:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I requested for semi because of the vandals. There won't be any problems with them for a while. Awards will come out at the end of the year, "Game of the Year" awards, and that won't come for a while, at least. I don't the stability will be a big issue, at least during the course of the FAC. But thanks for your concerns and comments! --haha169 (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Brawl allows the player to select between 35 characters. Some can transform into alternate forms, with different move sets and play styles. Some are new, but others return from Melee—in some cases updated or refined, either in appearance, fighting capabilities, or both. - This implise that all characters from melee either stayed the same or got better (fighting-wise). This isn't quite true - some characters have been made much weaker fighting-wise since Melee (Sheik) while others have been greatly improved (Zelda). Raul654 (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: If you need a source for my above comment, see this mlg article: Zelda was buffed from Melee which helps a lot because Shiek was slightly nerfed on some of his Melee-style killing moves, such as Foward Air. Raul654 (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I do, in fact, trust your source, the whole matter is of opinion. I can add it in as a reception complaint, though. Is that fine?--haha169 (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Actually, after reading the source more in-depth, I'm going to think about a good way to put it in the article. Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: If you need a source for my above comment, see this mlg article: Zelda was buffed from Melee which helps a lot because Shiek was slightly nerfed on some of his Melee-style killing moves, such as Foward Air. Raul654 (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support, I think this article is very close to FA status, the only problem I think is that the prose needs a little sprucing up. Some examples:
- "Brawl's roster of Nintendo characters has grown in number from that of its predecessor, and is the first in the series to feature third-party characters. Like its predecessors, Brawl is a departure from traditional fighting games, notably in its simplified move commands and emphasis on ring outs over knockouts." I believe the first instance of the word "predecessor" is redundant, as it is used in the next sentence. Changing it to Super Smash Bros. Melee, which it already links to, would solve this problem.
- The second paragraph of the article uses the word Brawl four times. I think you could replace one or two instances of it with "the game" in order to eliminate redundancy.
- "A player can choose from a large selection of characters, controlling them as they fight on various stages, each attempting to knock their opponents off the screen." Wouldn't the sentence work better with "Players" instead of "A player"? I don't know if that's just my personal preference or not.
Overall, there are just a few minor quirks, but other than that I think it should be good to go. Artichoker[talk] 21:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Your edit summary says, support, right? Ok. And, what are these quirks? I'd love to fix them soon. --haha169 (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What? I think you only read the last paragraph of my edit. There is a beginning paragraph that states Weak Support, then three bullet points, and then a final paragraph. Artichoker[talk] 22:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed, Fixed, Fixed! :) --haha169 (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What? I think you only read the last paragraph of my edit. There is a beginning paragraph that states Weak Support, then three bullet points, and then a final paragraph. Artichoker[talk] 22:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Image:SolidSnakeandMarioinBrawl.jpg is still in the article, and I still believe it violates "significant" clause in WP:NFCC. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- However, this time the image caption has been rewritten to establish notability. 3rd party inclusion is very notable, and violates Sakurai's promise back in 1999 to stick with Nintendo 1st and 2nd parties. Plus, it has text about it right next to the image. --haha169 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True... one thing, however... the larger image sizes don't seem to add much except to add blank white space (such as the snake picture.) Perhaps they could be resized down to thumb (except for the cast pic). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ??? I see a white space no matter how small I put it. Could you please elaborate more? What size exactly? Thanks. --haha169 (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think David means that "250px" should be removed, so that only "thumb" is left. That way you get the standard image size. The Prince (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. —Giggy 13:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I understand now. Thank you, Giggy. --haha169 (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. —Giggy 13:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think David means that "250px" should be removed, so that only "thumb" is left. That way you get the standard image size. The Prince (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ??? I see a white space no matter how small I put it. Could you please elaborate more? What size exactly? Thanks. --haha169 (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- True... one thing, however... the larger image sizes don't seem to add much except to add blank white space (such as the snake picture.) Perhaps they could be resized down to thumb (except for the cast pic). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- However, this time the image caption has been rewritten to establish notability. 3rd party inclusion is very notable, and violates Sakurai's promise back in 1999 to stick with Nintendo 1st and 2nd parties. Plus, it has text about it right next to the image. --haha169 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - did some more minor copyediting, I think it's finally ready. —Giggy 13:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. :) --haha169 (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I fixed a few quote endings where the quotation marks were inside the sentence (". instead of ."); other than that, the article looks good. I was going to bring up something with the images, but it appears that has been dealt with. Since I have nothing further to suggest, I give the article my full support. -- Comandante {Talk} 17:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks :). I thought we'd fixed that already, but good job at catching some more! :) --haha169 (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to hold off, I guess, until I've been able to go through it all, but some openers: Neutral:
- TopTenReviews link is not properly formatted. (cur. #84, [11])
- I'll get to that immediately. Done. --haha169 (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- jeuxvideo.com: what makes this site reliable?
- Replaced I see it reliable enough, looks like French IGN. However, I found a better source saying the exact same thing so I decided to replace it. --haha169 (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- {{cite web}} not complete filled out for all refs (ex. cur #97 is missing the date of publication.
Reply ...There is no ref 97. 96, 95, and 94 all have publisher dates, so I believe you made a mistake.--haha169 (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Now I see what you mean - after I fixed a ref, it appeared. I've added date of publication. --haha169 (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Concerned about weight of sources. There are next to no print sources, but that doesn't bother me as much as the fact that about 50% of the sources are from a primary source (the game's page.) Couldn't secondary sources be used to balance this?
- Reply There are really no printed sources except for the instruction manual, and they are all on the game's site anyway. The rest of the sources are all reliable. Jeuxvideo is answered above. --haha169 (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead does not address all aspects of the article (e.g. development)
- "Masahiro Sakurai, director of the previous two games in the series, assumed the role of director for the third installment at the request of Iwata.[10] When development of the game began in October 2005,[11] various second and third party Nintendo developers collaborated on Brawl." Is there about Development. Gameplay, Reception, and everything else is also in the lead. --haha169 (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The game's musical score was composed through a collaboration between 38 renowned video game composers,[17] and was lauded for its representation of different generations in gaming history." doesn't really fit when you suddenly switch gears from reception to music creation. Reword or split into two different statements.
- Reception does include reception of music, but I'll try to find a way to re-word it. --haha169 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 4.85 million units as of March 31.... could we find sales figures more recent, that might thus include Europe and Australia?
- Reply No, Nintendo doesn't give sales data a lot. We update when Nintendo releases, and they have not released. --haha169 (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding info on sales, there's the UK sales charts for Brawl. Cheers. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been looking for that for so long! But...there is no sales numbers. Just sales standings. Plus, wouldn't it be violating WP:SYN if we combined it with JP and NA sales? And also, this is ignoring the sales in France, Spain, Germany, Italy, and the rest of the EU, not to mention Australia. Perhaps we should wait until the Nintendo sales report... (Ashnard, do you know how to access those? I can't find them using normal Google.) --haha169 (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be used, although actual numbers are preferable. Yes, it would be original synthesis to combine sales for multiple regions and then present it collectively as total sales. I'm afraid I don't know how to access them. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh well. I guess the best thing to do is to wait for the guys at List of best-selling video games article update them. --haha169 (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find you any sales figures, but the company "GfK international" seems to be in charge of charts, and here are the Australian charts for it's debut week and it's second week (last week), along with the Spanish and German charts for it's debut week there. Hope they help and are usable! Deamon138 (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I don't know where they got the information from, so the figures are probably not reliable, but this has sales data galore. It says that SSBB has sold 5,963,306 units worldwide in total, and there are figures for different weeks too. I guess if these figures are deemed reliable enough, that would be fantastic, but it seems unlikely. Deamon138 (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You guessed right: VGChartz data are not to be used on Wikipedia. However, Gamespot is perfect. Thank you so much! --haha169 (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Oh wait. Gamespot only has charts, not figures. That won't work so well. Thanks anyway. --haha169 (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you not say somewhere in the article (using Ashnard's and my links), "It outsold all other games in it's debut week in the UK, Australia, Spain and Germany" or something much better phrased (you know what I mean)? Or is chart data not allowed for a FA? Deamon138 (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, its not specific enough, and the Brawl article wasn't organized to do this. I could possibly fit it in, but it would be much simpler to wait for numbers. --haha169 (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you not say somewhere in the article (using Ashnard's and my links), "It outsold all other games in it's debut week in the UK, Australia, Spain and Germany" or something much better phrased (you know what I mean)? Or is chart data not allowed for a FA? Deamon138 (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh well. I guess the best thing to do is to wait for the guys at List of best-selling video games article update them. --haha169 (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be used, although actual numbers are preferable. Yes, it would be original synthesis to combine sales for multiple regions and then present it collectively as total sales. I'm afraid I don't know how to access them. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been looking for that for so long! But...there is no sales numbers. Just sales standings. Plus, wouldn't it be violating WP:SYN if we combined it with JP and NA sales? And also, this is ignoring the sales in France, Spain, Germany, Italy, and the rest of the EU, not to mention Australia. Perhaps we should wait until the Nintendo sales report... (Ashnard, do you know how to access those? I can't find them using normal Google.) --haha169 (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding info on sales, there's the UK sales charts for Brawl. Cheers. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, do what's best for the article, but I will say that chart data is acceptable in any VG article. On a side note, The World Ends with You uses VGChartz, but with an "according to" to sort of negate any dependence on a dubious source. Whether this is an example to follow remains to be seen as the article is still undergoing FAC. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. It's a GA article. But WP:VG has a discussion about it...so I'd rather not. Chart data is acceptable, but I'd rather have uniformity. "Brawl sold 1.5 million in U.S. on first day, and hit #1 charts in UK." ... sounds odd without numbers, but that's IMO. --haha169 (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who says that both facts (i.e. that it sold X in one place, and it placed Y in another place), have to both be in the same sentence? Surely as long as they're both mentioned somewhere in "Reception" it doesn't matter? Deamon138 (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then there will be organization issues. There are only two or three sentences about sales in the Reception anyway. That would make it a bit difficult. I don't know - maybe you can try on one of your sandboxes, Deamon? I'll see what I can do, but I still think it would be much easier to wait until numbers come out. But yes, I will try.Hmm...I read over the few sales data sentences, and added another one in it. How do you like it? --haha169 (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Yeah, what you've put seems fine imo. So long as no-one else has a problem with writing "European", as in "top in several places in Europe", then I think it should suffice. Deamon138 (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- VG articles usually describe the entire Europe, or European Union, as opposed to separate countries. --haha169 (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Anyway, hopefully there's not too much more to do to get the coveted FA standard for SSBB! Deamon138 (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- VG articles usually describe the entire Europe, or European Union, as opposed to separate countries. --haha169 (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, what you've put seems fine imo. So long as no-one else has a problem with writing "European", as in "top in several places in Europe", then I think it should suffice. Deamon138 (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who says that both facts (i.e. that it sold X in one place, and it placed Y in another place), have to both be in the same sentence? Surely as long as they're both mentioned somewhere in "Reception" it doesn't matter? Deamon138 (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, well above a GA standard and very deserving of FA status. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! --haha169 (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing only image licensing: looks good, I think. I'm not sure about the importance of the Snake image. --NE2 13:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check out the discussion with David Fuchs. The image caption says all. Its definitely less important than the others, but still merits entry due to the importance of its subject. Thanks for reviewing, though.--haha169 (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Brawl is a great article which is very worthy of FA status.--Smashbrosboy (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! --haha169 (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, I don't think this is surprising considering your username! Deamon138 (talk) 01:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, after the recent volley of changes and copy-edits. --Laser brain (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, not happy with the tone and accessibility. It's come a long way, but it still reads like a game guide to me. The lead and opening sections are thick with jargon, poor narrative, and audience-specific prose. I've left some examples below starting from the top. At the least, a thorough treatment by a non-gamer is needed to sort out the rough prose and jargon.[reply]- Disappointed that the penchant for long strings of foreign-language characters persists in the opening sentence, causing me to have to jump over a good 1/3 of the sentence's length to continue reading.
- This follows
policythe guidelines is what I meant to say, see here. If you have a problem with it, bring it up on the talk page over there. Artichoker[talk] 16:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- No, it's not a policy. It's an editorial decision. --Laser brain (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you find a policy that states "All FA articles cannot have foreign titles?" --haha169 (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, as I said, it's an editorial decision and I recognize that. I don't care for it, and I'll probably comment on it every time an article comes to FAC with it. It's funny though, because every time I say something, someone tells me it's a policy to have it in there, which is simply not true. --Laser brain (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you find a policy that states "All FA articles cannot have foreign titles?" --haha169 (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not a policy. It's an editorial decision. --Laser brain (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This follows
"When development of the game began in October 2005, various second and third party Nintendo developers collaborated on Brawl." Not well-written. They collaborated only when the development began? Terms like "second- and third-party" should be hyphenated. Why is "Brawl" not in italics here?- I did some work on it - that sentence has always been awkward and difficult to proofread. Maybe some more help might do it some good. --haha169 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Brawl's roster of Nintendo characters has grown in number from that of Super Smash Bros. Melee, becoming the first in the series to feature third-party characters." Bewildering to a non-gamer and without context. The reader has no idea of the significance of the characters and who "third-party" characters would be. As written, the "roster" is "becoming the first in the series".- First of all, let's say I come across an article that talks about "Charon", but I have no idea what it means. I click on the link. Quite simple; that's why things are wikilinked. And it is first in the series regarding third-party inclusion. --haha169 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please check my revision for correctness. --Laser brain (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good. I like the new revision. Never thought to write it that way... --haha169 (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please check my revision for correctness. --Laser brain (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, let's say I come across an article that talks about "Charon", but I have no idea what it means. I click on the link. Quite simple; that's why things are wikilinked. And it is first in the series regarding third-party inclusion. --haha169 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Like its predecessors, Brawl is a departure from traditional fighting games, notably in its simplified move commands and emphasis on ring outs over knockouts." Again, lacking context or meaning to lay readers. We've not even had a basic sentence such as, "The object of Brawl is to use one of the available characters to knock other characters out of a ring." Readers have no idea what the game does yet.- Fixed --haha169 (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why link "multiplayer" for reader context but not "single-player"? The linking strategy is erratic. Some puzzlers like "side-scrolling" appear unlinked early but are linked later in the prose.
- I've fixed the concerns you've used as examples. When I'm done with the rest of the list, I'll come back and see if I can catch some more. --haha169 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It received an aggregate review score of 94% on Metacritic and 93.3% on Game Rankings." You've just been writing about the musical score—the score received a 94%?- Fixed Oh, apparently that's an organization error that was missed during the huge lead proofread. Thanks for catching that. --haha169 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Players can choose from a large selection of characters, controlling them as they fight on various stages, each attempting to knock their opponents off the screen." As written, the stages attempt to knock their opponents off the screen.- Fixed "Players can choose from a large selection of characters, each attempting to knock their opponents off the screen as they fight on various stages." - better now? --haha169 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Instead of using health bars, percentage displays are employed, which begin on 0%, but increase as the characters take damage." I implore you—imagine you know nothing about video games and re-read this.- I doubt anybody is ignorant such basic things like health-bars and math. A character gets hurt, percentage increases. Difficult? I really doubt that anybody, non-gamer or not, can't understand that. --haha169 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disappointed that the penchant for long strings of foreign-language characters persists in the opening sentence, causing me to have to jump over a good 1/3 of the sentence's length to continue reading.
- I hope I don't come across too harsh—I can tell a lot of work has gone into this. But, it's not ready in my view. You absolutely have to get some more non-gamer eyes on this. --Laser brain (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's always appreciated when you give a big list of "disappointments" at the last part of an FA with a few hours to react before it gets archived :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's a fair assessment of the situation. It's not as if the nomination was the subject of wild approval before I left comments. Of the editors above that actually delved into the prose, I see either neutral or outright oppose. --Laser brain (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is difficult to get non-gamer eyes, since only gamers volunteer in the Volunteers for Peer Review list. I'll fix your concerns immediately, as well. Thank you for reviewing - I can tell the article has improved since your comments are no longer asking to fix very obvious errors. --haha169 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Laser Brain, am I right in assumming that most of the errors, in your opinion, congregate in the lead and the gameplay sections? --haha169 (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Laserbrain, there are absolutely no opposes above, except for yours. --haha169 (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, you got me. Fuchs switched to neutral. After I posted this. I actually stopped reading after the lead and gameplay sections to get these issues posted, but I hope I will find fewer game-guide jargon issues when I'm clear of the gameplay and plot. I realize it's difficult but I had two other non-gamers sit down and read what I covered, and they were confounded. You are too close to the text to understand the challenge here, I think, which is why I'm requesting an external copy-edit. --Laser brain (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you're getting here. But the problem is, it is very difficult to get a non-gamer to copyedit this thing. Don't think I haven't tried. I got Ashnard, Giggy, and several other people to copyedit/peer review it, but they were all a part of WP:VG. When I went to the "I can copyedit anything" list, each one came up with the excuse: "I'm too busy." If you have any suggestions, though, I'd gladly take it. --haha169 (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Continued at Talk. --Laser brain (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't have any more specific fixes, your oppose is not valid. Either list more things to fix, and we can fix them, or strike your oppose. Fishing for others to find copyediting problems in FAC is not cool. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Judge, please calm down. I doubt Sandy will archive this FAC just yet. If she does, I'll just re-start it with valid reason. Plus, truthfully, its not the FAC assessor's job to copyedit the article. Its our job to. LaserBrain does list some interesting issues, but its very possible that his concerns will not hinder this FAC process greatly. --haha169 (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ::Deep breathes:: Ok, what I'm saying is that yes, it is our job to copyedit it, but people have copyedited the hell out of this article, it has already had three peer reviews, and at this point, for us to take his prose concerns seriously, he must state what issues remain specifically. Can't fix what we can't see. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have that issue a lot, myself as well, Judge. You're not the only one. --haha169 (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize changes have been made in response to my comments, and I will revisit them shortly. Since editors are quite actively addressing feedback, I will do my best to delineate any remaining issues. Hopefully we can get this wrapped up in time to see the article promoted. --Laser brain (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Fixing your concerns was actually the first thing I did. I learnt that in the previous FAC - delaying doesn't do any good. Thanks for your effort. Its greatly appreciated! :)--haha169 (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize changes have been made in response to my comments, and I will revisit them shortly. Since editors are quite actively addressing feedback, I will do my best to delineate any remaining issues. Hopefully we can get this wrapped up in time to see the article promoted. --Laser brain (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Judge, please calm down. I doubt Sandy will archive this FAC just yet. If she does, I'll just re-start it with valid reason. Plus, truthfully, its not the FAC assessor's job to copyedit the article. Its our job to. LaserBrain does list some interesting issues, but its very possible that his concerns will not hinder this FAC process greatly. --haha169 (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you're getting here. But the problem is, it is very difficult to get a non-gamer to copyedit this thing. Don't think I haven't tried. I got Ashnard, Giggy, and several other people to copyedit/peer review it, but they were all a part of WP:VG. When I went to the "I can copyedit anything" list, each one came up with the excuse: "I'm too busy." If you have any suggestions, though, I'd gladly take it. --haha169 (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, you got me. Fuchs switched to neutral. After I posted this. I actually stopped reading after the lead and gameplay sections to get these issues posted, but I hope I will find fewer game-guide jargon issues when I'm clear of the gameplay and plot. I realize it's difficult but I had two other non-gamers sit down and read what I covered, and they were confounded. You are too close to the text to understand the challenge here, I think, which is why I'm requesting an external copy-edit. --Laser brain (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's a fair assessment of the situation. It's not as if the nomination was the subject of wild approval before I left comments. Of the editors above that actually delved into the prose, I see either neutral or outright oppose. --Laser brain (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's always appreciated when you give a big list of "disappointments" at the last part of an FA with a few hours to react before it gets archived :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Laser brain, if there is no policy against having the Japanese in the first line like this article does, then why should that hamper its chances at becoming a featured article? Deamon138 (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deamon. That's not the problem. The issue being discussed on the talk page is the problem. Check it out here. --haha169 (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know. I was just referring to his problem further up the page, on which hos last comment was, "I'll probably comment on it every time an article comes to FAC with it." If there's nothing wrong with it, then it shouldn't affected this articles chances. If he doesn't like that articles are allowed it, it should be raised on the appropriate VG page, not here. Deamon138 (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He said it wouldn't matter whether or not he comments on it. Its not really a big issue - even he said so himself. He doesn't care. But deamon, remember that Laser Brain reviews pretty much every FAC article, so he can't remember everything. --haha169 (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, thank you Laser Brain! Just another note, I wiki-linked "Health Bars" to help anybody who honestly doesn't understand what health bars are. --haha169 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He said it wouldn't matter whether or not he comments on it. Its not really a big issue - even he said so himself. He doesn't care. But deamon, remember that Laser Brain reviews pretty much every FAC article, so he can't remember everything. --haha169 (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know. I was just referring to his problem further up the page, on which hos last comment was, "I'll probably comment on it every time an article comes to FAC with it." If there's nothing wrong with it, then it shouldn't affected this articles chances. If he doesn't like that articles are allowed it, it should be raised on the appropriate VG page, not here. Deamon138 (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Deamon. That's not the problem. The issue being discussed on the talk page is the problem. Check it out here. --haha169 (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes: why is European red-linked? (Why is European linked at all?) I see at least one missing publisher: ^ Gerstmann, Jeff. "Super Smash Bros. Brawl - Review". Retrieved on March 28, 2008. WP:PUNC logical punctuation issues throughout. Copyedit needs: ... Hideo Kojima "practically 'begged' " for Snake to be included ... (strange quote marks). Redundancy even in the lead: Overall, Brawl received an aggregate ... (what is the use of "overall" here?) I believe the block quotes are wrong, see WP:MOS#Quotations. Perhaps ask User:Epbr123 to fix these MoS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Sandy. I've fixed your concerns. I'll ask Epbr123 to see if he'll help, as well. Thanks again. --haha169 (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional queries We're almost there, I think. I've been making some edits but I'm left with a few questions/issues:
- "In Classic Mode, the player goes through a number of randomly generated matches, although there is a specific order of appearance for each series." I couldn't make heads or tails of this statement—can someone clarify?
- Done --haha169 (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we confident that "minigame" is not jargon? I've never heard of minigames outside the the context of video games. At the first mention, how about saying, "Brawl also features objective-oriented minigames, or small games within the game, in Stadium Mode."
- Done Sounds a bit awkward, but looks fine to me. --haha169 (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It does sound awkward. I was hoping someone would one-up me. :) --Laser brain (talk) 04:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Sounds a bit awkward, but looks fine to me. --haha169 (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the above sentence is the first mention of "Stadium Mode" with no explanation.
- Fixed --haha169 (talk) 04:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Though primarily a single-player mode, cooperative multiplayer is available." What makes it primarily a single-player mode?
- Fixed Its designed as single-player, listed in single-player section, and most people play it single player. I only included the last example, since all of them would be too much. --haha169 (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "This mode features a power-up mechanism ..." Spot the jargon.
- Fixed --haha169 (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Once one character loses a life, another character on the team can take his or her place until the stock count, of which each stage has a set number, depletes." This lost me.. stock count? How/why does it deplete?
- Fixed. Ah, I understand. Fixed. --haha169 (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Sakurai claimed that this mode would be more "fleshed out" than the single-player modes in previous Smash Bros. titles." The name is mentioned rather suddenly after not reading it since the lead, I think—I had to scroll back to recall who it was. Suggest beginning the sentence with "Game director Masahiro Sakurai claimed ..."
- Fixed. Added a little creativity myself, but nothing major. --haha169 (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Naming some modes you capitalize "mode" (Stadium Mode, Adventure Mode) and some you don't. Please make consistent.
- Fixed. --haha169 (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I spotted at least one "mini-game" as opposed to "minigame". Please make consistent.
- Okay. Fixed. Thank you for your review! --haha169 (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "In Classic Mode, the player goes through a number of randomly generated matches, although there is a specific order of appearance for each series." I couldn't make heads or tails of this statement—can someone clarify?
--Laser brain (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All right. I believe I've addressed all concerns. I feel proud of myself. You should to, Laser. Thank you for your hard work. Is there any more? --haha169 (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to support above after making a few more tweaks. Well done, and thanks for addressing my comments so quickly. You may want to ping Ashnard, David Fuchs, etc. to let them know additional copy-editing has been done. --Laser brain (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! I know I've told you this many times throughout the course of the day, but your work is really appreciated. And yes, I'll ping Ashnard and Fuchs. Thanks again! --haha169 (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to support above after making a few more tweaks. Well done, and thanks for addressing my comments so quickly. You may want to ping Ashnard, David Fuchs, etc. to let them know additional copy-editing has been done. --Laser brain (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All right. I believe I've addressed all concerns. I feel proud of myself. You should to, Laser. Thank you for your hard work. Is there any more? --haha169 (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Make sure that new additions are revised properly: "Brawl reached number one on both European[99] and Australian[100] sales charts, surpassing all competition that week." "surpassing all competition that week."—that's usually what being numer one means. Doesn't state which weeks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fixed. —Giggy 08:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Make sure that new additions are revised properly: "Brawl reached number one on both European[99] and Australian[100] sales charts, surpassing all competition that week." "surpassing all competition that week."—that's usually what being numer one means. Doesn't state which weeks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say that the article is looking better regarding prose and minor issues. It seems the accessibility and readership has been fixed, although I didn't notice it because of my gamer mindset. However, I am remaining neutral mainly regarding personal prefrences. I've stated them before, but this is mainly due things like the organisation of Reception, and the weighting given to particular gameplay aspects. However, that's just me—I'm sure the article will pass anyway. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's perfectly fine. Thanks anyway. :) --haha169 (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say that the article is looking better regarding prose and minor issues. It seems the accessibility and readership has been fixed, although I didn't notice it because of my gamer mindset. However, I am remaining neutral mainly regarding personal prefrences. I've stated them before, but this is mainly due things like the organisation of Reception, and the weighting given to particular gameplay aspects. However, that's just me—I'm sure the article will pass anyway. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:38, 16 July 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 00:06, 6 July 2008 [12].
This article documents a small battle during the Texas Revolution. I'm intending it to be the first in a potential featured topic on the Siege of Bexar. Although I would have liked to include a map of the area in which the battle took place, none of the books that discussed the battle included maps or diagrams, and the creeks used as landmarks are fairly small and may have changed course since 1835, so I did not create my own. Karanacs (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Short but sweet. Well-written and referenced throughout, definitely meets the criteria in my eyes. Well done, Karanacs. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look good. No links to check. I did fix a small typo I saw. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Short, but so was the battle.
The first sentence of the "Background" section is worded strangely. The "in 1834" seems to be misplaced, perhaps?What region is being referred to in the sentence beginning "On October 11…"? If you mean the future state of Texas that's accurate, but it almost reads as if the Gonzales area was meant. Gonzales was in the Green DeWitt colony while Austin's colony was quite a ways away, in 1835 terms, at least.On my screen setup, the James Bowie image ends where the "See also" section begins, creating an indented head but with the text below at the left margin. Swapping sides for the two images would solve the issue.- The swapping of images has solved this one but created the same issue for the "Aftermath" section. Since that section is longer than the two lines of the "See also" section, it's not much of a concern to me, at least. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence about the deserter being seen in Gonzales doesn't seem particularly relevant.The "References" section contains a mix of {{citation}} and {{cite book}} which results in (ever so slight) formatting differences for some of the books. Also, the Hardin book (which is manually formatted) does not list the place of publication- I fixed one typo, and added a relevant external link.
— Bellhalla (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch on the ambiguous "region"; I've switched that to "in Texas" and fixed the other prose issues you have pointed out. I don't want to swap the images, as MOS says the images should look towards the text. I'll see if I can expand the section by a sentence or two so that the See Also is pushed down a bit. Karanacs (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need a qualifier on colonists for Stephen F. Austin to distinguish his colonists from, say, the Canary Islanders. I'm thinking something along the lines of American or Anglo but neither seems exactly right to me.— Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Changed to "first English-speaking colonists". Karanacs (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very nice. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "first English-speaking colonists". Karanacs (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch on the ambiguous "region"; I've switched that to "in Texas" and fixed the other prose issues you have pointed out. I don't want to swap the images, as MOS says the images should look towards the text. I'll see if I can expand the section by a sentence or two so that the See Also is pushed down a bit. Karanacs (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This looks good. Gary King (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A minor question: can we get {{Infobox Military Conflict}} put in? Kirill (prof) 04:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought about that and decided not to put it in. The article is so short that is seems overkill to have an infobox too. Karanacs (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, all other articles in the "Texas Revolution" box have an infobox. I think it is helpful for readers to get the quickest possible overview about a battle. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hadn't realized that alll of the other articles in the Texas Revolution campaignbox had infoboxes. I've added one. Karanacs (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, all other articles in the "Texas Revolution" box have an infobox. I think it is helpful for readers to get the quickest possible overview about a battle. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought about that and decided not to put it in. The article is so short that is seems overkill to have an infobox too. Karanacs (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Support
- I'm not that knowledgeable in Texas history. Most folks would say this is a good thing. However, I have some questions.
Can you state in the first sentence that it was a battle/skirmish/dustup/froofraw? Was it part of a bigger war or revolution? That's not clear in the lead.- So... 20 people died for grass... what happened to the grass? Does any historian say? And for God's sake, if not, why?? Seriously - I'm wondering this.
How is this event seen in history? A proud moment in the lives of all Texans, or a chuckle-fest and metaphor for misplaced enthusiasm or a consequence of not having well-disciplined and engaged troops? A 19th century Grenada?- If this was part of a larger war or revolution, did it lead to anything other than a surge of faith in the abilities of Texians?
- Small articles sometimes create the most puzzlement. --Moni3 (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Moni, I was afraid that some of this might leave non-Texas a bit lost. Since your list is so short, I'll respond below you, and you can put your comments wherever.
- I've reworded the first part of the lead to hopefully be a bit more clear.
- Amazingly enough, no historian has remarked on what happened to the grass. I would assume the Texian horses ate it.
- Most of the books that I read didn't do much analysis of the battle (a side effect of being a pretty small fight...over grass). I had already included Edmondson's view that it was "a ludicrous affair". Should I make that more prominent (put it in the lead, perhaps)? If you think it would help, I could also include more information on how much of a joke the Texian army really was (seriously, it is a miracle Texas is not still part of Mexico).
- I clarified that the Texians agreed to attack Bexar on Dec 5 partly as a result of their Grass Fight victory.
- Thank you, Moni, I was afraid that some of this might leave non-Texas a bit lost. Since your list is so short, I'll respond below you, and you can put your comments wherever.
- Does this help? Karanacs (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is much clearer now, thanks. Consider it my condemnation of all Texas historians who have not addressed what happened to the grass. If people must die in battle, it should be known what good their deaths did in the grand scheme of human history. It's a silly idea, yet... what a horrifying thought that you had to lay down your life for bushels of grass that no one cared about. --Moni3 (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments.Support. I can write long easily; I'm glad to see someone writing short! But regarding parts of the lead:- Is there a wikilink for the "Mexican Army" of the time, that could be used in the first sentence?
- In the first paragraph we have the "members of a volunteer militia", the "volunteer Texian army", and the "smaller number of adventurers from the United States". Are these all one and the same? In that case "militia" and "army" need to be reconciled. Or are only the first and the third the same?
- The "pack" wikilink goes to animals, not trains.
- Saying "historian Alwyn Barr states that ..." in the lead sounds like a lame. Don't we know enough to say something like, historians believe blah blah, although side X claimed much larger numbers at the time.
Will come up with comments on rest of article later. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is my first attempt at a short article. I've rewritten the first paragraph of the lead to try for a bit more clarity. I also created an article on the Texian Army today that I've now wikilinked too (maybe that will help). I've switched the link from pack animal to packhorse - this article does explain that packhorses were often used in "trains" of several animals. As for the number of Mexican dead, every source I've found lists a different number and some just don't list a number. Barr is the only historian to write a book focused on the Siege of Bexar and go into detail on this battle, so I chose to highlight his number, hoping it would be the most accurate. Karanacs (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Frustrated, too much childhood experience with pack trains, I guess, but a pack train usually includes horses, mules and burros. Wish we could fix that, although it's not your problem, but worried that non-English-speaking readers will have no idea what the heck it is. Can't we make pack animal discuss pack trains? It's not only horses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great job creating the Texian Army article ... however, the use of "Mexican Army" and "Texian Army" does not stay consistent in this article ... in "Background" there's a "Texian army" with only Texian wlinked, and later there are a lot of "Mexican army" and "Texian army" mentions with mixed case. I don't know what the MILHIST conventions are with respect to this, but looking at a few FA articles, Something Army and Something Navy usually stay capitalized throughout. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment, on the "Background" section. This is covering the origins of the Texas Revolution and the beginnings of the conflict. Compared to other FA "Battle of ..." articles, this seems too much. Generally these articles just start with some background on a particular campaign, or stage of the conflict, and that leads into the description of the particular battle. In this case, you might just start with the Siege of Bexar. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the case issues; thanks for pointing out that oversight. As for the background, I included the first few sentences on why the revolution started primarily because I thought there would be very few readers who knew about it, and since the article was really short it wouldn't hurt to start there. I'd be willing to remove most of the first 3 sentences in the first paragraph, but I think the section does need to start with the Texas Revolution beginning. The way the Texian Army formed really did have an impact on this battle (random gathering of settlers who were highly disorganized and didn't know how to be soldiers). I also think the reasons they were in the Bexar area are important. Karanacs (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Removing the first three sentences makes sense.
- Also, I'd argue that the last sentence of "Aftermath" doesn't belong either. You'd have to explain or wikilink what "parole" is (I know, but many readers won't, since it doesn't happen much any more), and in any case, it seems pretty remote from the Grass Fight.
- Also, a minor change: in "Although the battle, which historian J.R. Edmondson termed a "ludicrous affair", ...", I'd replace "battle" with "engagement" or somesuch, to avoid a repetition of a few words earlier. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your continued comments. I've removed the first 3 sentences of the Background section adnd made the word change you mentioned. I'm going to keep the last sentence of aftermath as it is somewhat related (win in grass fight convinced troops they could attack Mexican Army, which resulted in Mex. Army surrender and leaving the province), but I have wikilinked parole for more clarity. Karanacs (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, support now indicated above. Nice job on the whole thing. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your continued comments. I've removed the first 3 sentences of the Background section adnd made the word change you mentioned. I'm going to keep the last sentence of aftermath as it is somewhat related (win in grass fight convinced troops they could attack Mexican Army, which resulted in Mex. Army surrender and leaving the province), but I have wikilinked parole for more clarity. Karanacs (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec with Karanacs directly above)
- "many of the men became sick, and groups of men began to leave, most without permission." - there weren't any female soldiers were there? It may sound awkward without "the men" but I dunno if you need to say it both times. *shrugs*
- "scattering the mules" - other than in the lead, this is the first time mules are mentioned... maybe it's just me but until now I had no idea mules were involved.
- "Four Texians were wounded in the fighting. One soldier deserted during the battle." - merge these sentences?
Overall a good, short, sweet read. —Giggy 13:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded to "many soldiers became sick, and groups of men began to leave"; specified in first paragraph of Battle section that it was a "pack train of horses and mules" (I thought this was a common term but I guess I'm the only one who reads Westerns ;)), and combined the sentences you mentioned. Karanacs (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It probably is a common term; I'm just Australian. :-) —Giggy 13:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded to "many soldiers became sick, and groups of men began to leave"; specified in first paragraph of Battle section that it was a "pack train of horses and mules" (I thought this was a common term but I guess I'm the only one who reads Westerns ;)), and combined the sentences you mentioned. Karanacs (talk) 13:56, 3 July 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.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack the Ripper royal conspiracy theories
- 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 16:57, 15 July 2008 [13].
- Self-nominator: –thedemonhog talk • edits
This good article is about an episode of fourth season of the television show Lost. Thanks to Mizu onna sango15 for copyediting it. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A few of the external links are dead. Go fix them. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh sorry, I probably should have done that before I nominated the article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "and achieving a 5.3/14 in the key adults 18–49 demographic." – What do the numbers mean? Nielson Ratings, I assume, but this needs to be explained. Gary King (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not that important to the average reader, so I just removed it completely. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, just a question though, why is it that the pictures are so small? They are completely overwhelmed by the prose. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 04:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- What makes http://tvbythenumbers.com/ a reliable source?
- Otherwise sources look good, all links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They publish information on Nielsen Ratings that can be found nowhere else on the Internet by someone who is not a member of the press. Information that has been published elsewhere checks out. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments pertaining to images:
- Image:Dharka.jpg - purpose of "To illustrate an important scene" is not adequate. WP:RAT and WP:NFCC#10C require rationales to be detailed, clear and relevant to each use. Caption contains "filmed at a rock quarry"; why is a fair use image needed to convey this understanding (NFCC#1); what significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8) is really made by seeing the backs of characters/crew and equipment?
- See WP:MOS#Captions regarding use of periods after complete sentences. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 16:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Periods have been added. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support another great article from WP:Lost. igordebraga ≠ 14:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose neither of the two non-free images have valid FU rationales Fasach Nua (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support pictures have adequate FU rationales, but could they be improved? Well referenced, written, all sections required are present and clear, intro could do with some rearranging:
- 1st Paragraph - Details
- 2nd Paragraph - Plot, characters
- 3rd paragraph episode reception, etc.
- But it is completely optional, other than this article is great. Should be promoted JTBX (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How can "To illustrate a pivotal moment in the episode" be considered a detailed rationale? Is Illustration critical commentary? or is it just eye candy? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How are the rationales now? Should Image:Dharka.jpg be replaced with an edited version of this or this? –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont see how either of those images convey anything about the rock quarry. Would it be possible to get a free image of the rock quarry? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How are the rationales now? Should Image:Dharka.jpg be replaced with an edited version of this or this? –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How can "To illustrate a pivotal moment in the episode" be considered a detailed rationale? Is Illustration critical commentary? or is it just eye candy? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, I have to agree about the rock quarry: it adds nothing the readers' understanding, and looks like an adornment. So ... it's a film set in a rock quarry, and that's what it looks like. See NFCC 3a and 8. LINKING: I've removed the autoformatted dates so the high-value links can breathe. It's still quite heavily linked, but better now. MOSNUM no longer encourages autoformatting. Hard-spaces added, too. Can you check that the numbers are consistently rendered as numerals? Usually it's 10 and above unless there's a reason for spelling one out (like start of sentence). Why is "assassin" linked? I see "blah. ... blah", so check MOS for spacing and number of ellipsis dots, which are better as sequences of periods rather than the symbol.... four without previous space when at a period, and ... spaced three when chopped mid-sentence. TONY (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments and thanks especially for your changes to the article. The article actually has numbers consistently spelled out, unless decimals are involved. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing only image licensing: first one looks good, I think; I'm not sure about the quarry. --NE2 13:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The picture has been replaced due to its strong opposition. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes; inconsistent WP:DASH usage (some unspaced emdashes, other spaced endashes), WP:MOS#Ellipses attn needed (spaces), WP:MOSNUM attention needed throughout (... the survivors' ninety-seventh day on the island... ), copyedit needs (glancing at the last sentence ... The San Diego Union-Tribune[42] Time, ... reveals missing comma), and times need WP:NBSP and correct formatting (9:00 PM ... see Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Times). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure what the MOSNUM problem is. I suspect that you want "ninety-seventh" changed to "97th", but MOSNUM states that "numbers greater than nine may be rendered in numerals or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words". Everything else has been addressed. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:55, 15 July 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 02:01, 5 July 2008 [14].
A bit timely—and no, I didn't arrange the announcement of the sale of U.S. Sugar, though I found my timing in writing this series astoundingly coincidental. I must write or call the governor of Florida and express my thanks. This is the next in the series on the Everglades. Here's hoping that people can learn from past mistakes... Thank you for reading it. Article creator, Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see I have two dead links, both of them recent stories in the Miami Herald. Apparently the URLs in recent stories at the Herald get changed over to their archives, which is by login only. I tried to find them in LexisNexis for the page number, but the latest stories are in mid-May. Any suggestions? --Moni3 (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If they are available in newspapers, then just use {{cite news}} and don't include a URL. Gary King (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I need a page number for that, don't I? --Moni3 (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be ideal. If you can't find the page number, that's fine. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I think at the very least, title is required. That's the most important data for finding the article in the first place. Gary King (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the links, and forgot to report it. Had a total brain fart - The Miami Herald does not number pages in LexisNexis. They only include the section the story was in. I've only done two other FAs with the Miami Herald as sources... --Moni3 (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I think at the very least, title is required. That's the most important data for finding the article in the first place. Gary King (talk) 21:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be ideal. If you can't find the page number, that's fine. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I need a page number for that, don't I? --Moni3 (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with a few questions.
- Lake Okeechobee, a large and very shallow lake - do you know how shallow? Very is not very helpful. Same for the river.
- During the wet season when the lake fills, - is it dry during the dry season?
- Exotic animals imported by the pet trade have escaped or been released and later on Several animal species have been introduced to Everglades waterways, many of them released as exotic pets - is this repetition deliberate? GrahamColmTalk 11:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Measurements for Lake Okeechobee are included, some new wording in the next sentence, and redundancy removed from the Invasive species section. Thank you, Graham. --Moni3 (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support'. Moni3 has produced another fabulous article. Well-written, well-referenced. All the best, Cam (Chat) 20:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not reviewing, I helped edit, happy so far - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]
- Not reviewing, but I'd like to help out. "...were discovered in waterways in 1986...": maybe a modifier would be helpful, like "these waterways" or "Everglades waterways" or "South Florida waterways". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hmains just added 3 commas, and they don't seem to match Moni's style to me, in this article or the other Everglades articles. Most style guides these days allow you to omit the comma after "short" (undefined) introductory phrases, such as "In the 1960s..." Can anyone see a reason we need those 3 commas? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the commas will make Hmains happy, they can stay in. If they will cause an oppose, then I guess take them out. --Moni3 (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I'm pulling in my own agenda here; maybe you guys can help me decide what my agenda ought to be. A lot of people, including Moni (I think) and myself, believe that "edit warring over optional styles" is not a good idea. If people make changes to one of my articles, I generally just leave them if I can't come up with some clear grammar rule or style guideline that argues against them...it's not important, and I like democratic editing. FAC ought to be different, though. If I know Moni's style, and I know that her style is acceptable, and I think that making random changes that don't agree with her style is something I would object to if she were submitting this article to a magazine and I really was her copyeditor...isn't FAC the place to say so? Isn't this supposed to be our "very best work"? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. By "agenda" I mean, I have a feeling that if someone sticks up for the nom(s) at FAC, someone who isn't voting and didn't write the article, someone who knows the style of the nom(s), WP's style guidelines, the FAC process, and a little about copyediting in general, then a variety of good things will happen. It's a theory I'd like to test. Apologies to Moni for testing it on her FAC :) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I find I have to pick my battles on a collaborative encyclopedia where dramatic struggles over hurt feelings take place daily. Three commas does not, at the time, warrant my objection. I dig in primarily where content accuracy is compromised. Were this a peer reviewed paper to be published where I am the primary author and random folks don't have access to edit it at whim or will, I might forbid the three commas. Like I said, if you think they stick out like a sore thumb and don't reflect the best work of the encyclopedia, by all means I will change the commas. --Moni3 (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't match your style, but they're okay. If you're happy, I'm happy. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cap removed, see WT:FAC for issues with Wikipedia:Template limits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't match your style, but they're okay. If you're happy, I'm happy. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I find I have to pick my battles on a collaborative encyclopedia where dramatic struggles over hurt feelings take place daily. Three commas does not, at the time, warrant my objection. I dig in primarily where content accuracy is compromised. Were this a peer reviewed paper to be published where I am the primary author and random folks don't have access to edit it at whim or will, I might forbid the three commas. Like I said, if you think they stick out like a sore thumb and don't reflect the best work of the encyclopedia, by all means I will change the commas. --Moni3 (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. By "agenda" I mean, I have a feeling that if someone sticks up for the nom(s) at FAC, someone who isn't voting and didn't write the article, someone who knows the style of the nom(s), WP's style guidelines, the FAC process, and a little about copyediting in general, then a variety of good things will happen. It's a theory I'd like to test. Apologies to Moni for testing it on her FAC :) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I'm pulling in my own agenda here; maybe you guys can help me decide what my agenda ought to be. A lot of people, including Moni (I think) and myself, believe that "edit warring over optional styles" is not a good idea. If people make changes to one of my articles, I generally just leave them if I can't come up with some clear grammar rule or style guideline that argues against them...it's not important, and I like democratic editing. FAC ought to be different, though. If I know Moni's style, and I know that her style is acceptable, and I think that making random changes that don't agree with her style is something I would object to if she were submitting this article to a magazine and I really was her copyeditor...isn't FAC the place to say so? Isn't this supposed to be our "very best work"? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Extensive article. EE 02:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Sources look good, and links check out, except for the Miami Hearld glitch noted above, which is being worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Disclaimer: I have copyedited this article.) Another fascinating (and now timely) article from Moni3 regarding the Everglades. I knew nothing about the restoration of the Everglades before I read this article - the material was presented clearly and concisely and I believe I understand the major issues at play in the debates. The recent information regarding U. S. Sugar has also been integrated well (no recentism here!). Well done! Awadewit (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Support Issues resolved. I think the article contains a great many useful facts but it is very incomplete and omits some significant facts and major debate on the issue. Please see this link [15] for an idea of what this article needs to include in order to meet WP:NPOV policy. Big Sugar, as the sugar industry is called in South Florida has been coddled by the US government ever since Castro came to power in Cuba. The Cuban Sugar barons, the Fanjul Family, moved to South Florida in the 60's and created a significant sugar empire with the help of the the US government. It was an effort meant to cripple Cuba's sugar exports and harm their economy. The result was that sugar produced in the Unites States eliminated the crop as one of the main sources of income for the impoverished island of Haiti as well as Cuba. The price of sugar skyrocketed in the US which produced the domino effect of chasing some candy companies out of the US and into Mexico where they were not required to buy US sugar (as all other US consumers were). The sugar barons have a long history of making large payouts to all political parties, they have their own political action committees that raise very large amounts of money (from their own corporations) that are used for political purposes (see this article from Naples News [16].) The government, according to this article, then pumps 14 billion back to the farmers each year in return. Because of this form of government corruption, any efforts to clean up the Everglades were obstructed for many years. Lawton Chiles broke the deadlock by walking into the courtroom with a vial of polluted everglades water and finally admitted the extent of the problem - effectively ending the long series of court battles over Everglades cleanup. While the current news reports about US Sugar Corp's selling out to the goverment claim that this will help resolve the problem, the fact that the Fanjul Family's many sugar corporations like Okeelanta, Flo-Sun, Inc. and many others remain the largest sugar producer in the Everglades and they have not sold out to the governement remains a significant problem. US agricultural policy that supports Big Sugar like the Fanjul Family, killed the economy of Haiti and results in higher prices for US consumer goods that contain sugar is also the driving force obstructing the restoration of the Everglades according to a significant POV that should have some mention in the article. This New York Times article from 1990 also helps clarify this significant problem [17]. NancyHeise (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Nancy. I'm aware of Big Sugar's role in the restoration process, and there is an article that is related to this one that discusses the surge of power and production of US Sugar, called Draining and development of the Everglades. I tried in this article to give an overview of the problems the Everglades have been facing, and I know the power the Fanjuls have held in the past in local and statewide politics. However, I felt I had to keep this accessible to people who are reading this from other parts of the country, as well as the world, who have no knowledge of the inner-workings of state and local issues. I didn't feel it was appropriate to overwhelm readers with many details of the workings of US Sugar that border on corporate deviance. There are mentions of the strength of the sugar lobbyists in this article, specifically about the battles over phosphorus being pumped into the lower Glades. Governor Chiles' attempts at coming to a resolution about it is also mentioned. Foremost, I wanted the focus of the article to be on the diminished quality of the Everglades, how it has impacted local metropolitan areas, and how state and federal government agencies, and business interests (including Big Sugar) have been unable to agree on the best course of action to be taken. What you are suggesting may be more appropriate for the article on the US Sugar Corporation, which, coincidentally, was created several days ago. --Moni3 (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Moni, Thanks. I'm sorry that I could not support your article in its present form. I will reconsider my vote if there is some mention of the significance of US sugar policy in creating the obstacles to Everglades restoration that have existed over the years. You dont need to go into great detail but mention of this fact would make the aritcle complete. Right now, its omission makes the article violate FAC criteria and could be easily remedied by a paragraph or two. Since your article is not too long in its present form you could easily add this information I think. I also ran across this article on the Fanjul's that may also be helpful. [18]. Also, in the archives of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, you will find a whole series of articles they did on the problem of Big Sugar and the Everglades. I can't remember the name of the series but I may have kept one of the articles and may locate for you. NancyHeise (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will consider the addition of stronger information about the power of the sugar coalition in South Florida. I will do some reading of my sources as well as the ones you suggested. I do not, however, think it should be a smear piece on the Fanjuls—that would indeed make it POV. I am no fan at all of the sugar or real estate industries and I'm willing to think perhaps I'm holding back as not to appear POV against them. I would appreciate input from other editors who have read this article, specifically addressing my question about too much detail on the inner workings of political deals between the government and US Sugar. --Moni3 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that a smear piece would violate FAC criteria. The link I gave you to the Fanjuls actually has more nice than not-nice things to say about them but it gives the reader the fact that they are accused of polluting the Everglades. NancyHeise (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Before I wade into this swamp (!), I should do some research. Beyond the links you have provided, Nancy, is there anything else you would suggest I read? And Moni3, what would you suggest I read? I'll start with those sources. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where there are government sources, I try to go straight to them, but Washington Post journalist Michael Grunwald wrote what I think will be the standard on political histories of South Florida, in The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise. That's where I'm getting most of my infomation about the political battles between the various state and federal agencies, Big Sugar, and real estate interests. It's chronological, and it's a book, so I don't expect you to read all or any of it during this FAC. My pages are dog-eared and marked up, so I can find it quickly. My question was really - how much of these maneuverings should be included? I found the details about what parts should be restored, how, and why to be daunting. For four years the state sued the federal government, countersuits, back and forth, and I summed it up with A costly legal battle took place from 1988 to 1992 between the State of Florida, the U.S. government, and agricultural interests regarding who was responsible for water quality standards, the maintenance of Everglades National Park and the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. I figured people don't really want to read about each suit, who initiated it, how much was at stake, etc, especially since Chiles stepped in to fix it in the end. Though Big Sugar has had their finger in the political pie of South Florida since the 1960s, the issue that they had a clear stake in was the penny-a-pound tax that went to state ballot in 1996, and I summarized it this way: A controversial penny-a-pound (2 cent/kg) tax on sugar was proposed to fund some of the necessary changes to be made to help decrease phosphorus and make other improvements to water. State voters were asked to support the tax, and environmentalists paid $15 million to encourage the issue. Sugar lobbyists responded with $24 million in advertising to discourage it and succeeded; it became the most expensive ballot issue in state history. I'm just trying to find the balance, of course, about what will illustrate what has been at stake and how far it can go.--Moni3 (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The best place to find all references government or no on the subject would be the South Florida Sun-Sentinel which has followed the story for decades. Government Accounting Office also has information which was summarized in an editorial several years ago by columnist Stephen Goldstein. You will need to go into the Sentinel's archives by doing an advanced search and you will probably have to pay to view the articles. I personally dont think you need any more than a paragraph (at most two) maybe in a section called "Big Sugar" that gives some overview of the controversy and the role played by Big Sugar in defeating many years of efforts to clean up the pollution. Lawton Chile's walk into the courtroom with a vial of water was a very dramatic and unprecedented gesture. Good luck, if I can find more sources, I will let you know. I personally wrote several letters that were published in both Palm Beach Post and Sun-Sentinel columnist sections (Im not a columnist) because I had audited the sugar farms for several years and wrote a summary of the problem which was then used (without my knowledge or permission) by an anti-sugar subsidy group as evidence in testimony before Congress. NancyHeise (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where there are government sources, I try to go straight to them, but Washington Post journalist Michael Grunwald wrote what I think will be the standard on political histories of South Florida, in The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise. That's where I'm getting most of my infomation about the political battles between the various state and federal agencies, Big Sugar, and real estate interests. It's chronological, and it's a book, so I don't expect you to read all or any of it during this FAC. My pages are dog-eared and marked up, so I can find it quickly. My question was really - how much of these maneuverings should be included? I found the details about what parts should be restored, how, and why to be daunting. For four years the state sued the federal government, countersuits, back and forth, and I summed it up with A costly legal battle took place from 1988 to 1992 between the State of Florida, the U.S. government, and agricultural interests regarding who was responsible for water quality standards, the maintenance of Everglades National Park and the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. I figured people don't really want to read about each suit, who initiated it, how much was at stake, etc, especially since Chiles stepped in to fix it in the end. Though Big Sugar has had their finger in the political pie of South Florida since the 1960s, the issue that they had a clear stake in was the penny-a-pound tax that went to state ballot in 1996, and I summarized it this way: A controversial penny-a-pound (2 cent/kg) tax on sugar was proposed to fund some of the necessary changes to be made to help decrease phosphorus and make other improvements to water. State voters were asked to support the tax, and environmentalists paid $15 million to encourage the issue. Sugar lobbyists responded with $24 million in advertising to discourage it and succeeded; it became the most expensive ballot issue in state history. I'm just trying to find the balance, of course, about what will illustrate what has been at stake and how far it can go.--Moni3 (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Before I wade into this swamp (!), I should do some research. Beyond the links you have provided, Nancy, is there anything else you would suggest I read? And Moni3, what would you suggest I read? I'll start with those sources. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that a smear piece would violate FAC criteria. The link I gave you to the Fanjuls actually has more nice than not-nice things to say about them but it gives the reader the fact that they are accused of polluting the Everglades. NancyHeise (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will consider the addition of stronger information about the power of the sugar coalition in South Florida. I will do some reading of my sources as well as the ones you suggested. I do not, however, think it should be a smear piece on the Fanjuls—that would indeed make it POV. I am no fan at all of the sugar or real estate industries and I'm willing to think perhaps I'm holding back as not to appear POV against them. I would appreciate input from other editors who have read this article, specifically addressing my question about too much detail on the inner workings of political deals between the government and US Sugar. --Moni3 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Moni, Thanks. I'm sorry that I could not support your article in its present form. I will reconsider my vote if there is some mention of the significance of US sugar policy in creating the obstacles to Everglades restoration that have existed over the years. You dont need to go into great detail but mention of this fact would make the aritcle complete. Right now, its omission makes the article violate FAC criteria and could be easily remedied by a paragraph or two. Since your article is not too long in its present form you could easily add this information I think. I also ran across this article on the Fanjul's that may also be helpful. [18]. Also, in the archives of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, you will find a whole series of articles they did on the problem of Big Sugar and the Everglades. I can't remember the name of the series but I may have kept one of the articles and may locate for you. NancyHeise (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Nancy. I'm aware of Big Sugar's role in the restoration process, and there is an article that is related to this one that discusses the surge of power and production of US Sugar, called Draining and development of the Everglades. I tried in this article to give an overview of the problems the Everglades have been facing, and I know the power the Fanjuls have held in the past in local and statewide politics. However, I felt I had to keep this accessible to people who are reading this from other parts of the country, as well as the world, who have no knowledge of the inner-workings of state and local issues. I didn't feel it was appropriate to overwhelm readers with many details of the workings of US Sugar that border on corporate deviance. There are mentions of the strength of the sugar lobbyists in this article, specifically about the battles over phosphorus being pumped into the lower Glades. Governor Chiles' attempts at coming to a resolution about it is also mentioned. Foremost, I wanted the focus of the article to be on the diminished quality of the Everglades, how it has impacted local metropolitan areas, and how state and federal government agencies, and business interests (including Big Sugar) have been unable to agree on the best course of action to be taken. What you are suggesting may be more appropriate for the article on the US Sugar Corporation, which, coincidentally, was created several days ago. --Moni3 (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reset. Added the following in Water quality:The sugarcane industry, dominated by two companies named U.S. Sugar and Flo-Sun, were responsible for more than half if the crop in the EAA. They were well-represented in state and federal governments by lobbyists who enthusiastically protected their interests. The Audubon Society pointed out that the sugar industry, nicknamed "Big Sugar", donated more money to political parties and candidates than General Motors. The sugar industry attempted to block government-funded studies of polluted water, and when the federal prosecutor in Miami faulted the sugar industry in legal action to protect Everglades National Park, Big Sugar tried to get the lawsuit withdrawn and the prosecutor fired. The sugar industry is mentioned again in Sustainable South Florida, again in Implementation, and once more in Future of Restoration, in a telling quote by one of their own lobbyists. I think this implicated the sugar industry as a major playor in this problem. I hesitate to put any more emphasis on the industry lest the article place the majority of blame upon sugar. While I find sugar is not very nice and is quite harmful, I don't consider them to be the major reason why the Everglades is in the sad state it is in. Real estate, and government indifference and incompetence helps to form one big ball of wrong. --Moni3 (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that Big Sugar is not solely responsible for Everglades damage and you have hit on all of the causes in your article nicely, now including Big Sugar as one of the major players. I appreciate your addition and will change my vote to Support. Many thanks for your hard work. NancyHeise (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No extra research needed on my part, I see! Back to working on my Wikimania paper, then! Awadewit (talk) 14:15, 1 July 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 00:54, 10 September 2008 [19].
- Nominator(s): Realist2 (talk)
- previous FAC (20:43, 3 July 2008)
I'm nominating this article for FA, I'm the main contributor. — Realist2 12:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
What makes the following sources reliable?- http://www.acclaimedmusic.net/Current/A543.htm
- I removed the source and the info supported by it, it was added a few days ago by a newish editor, I was always dubious about it but didn't want to be bitey. — Realist2 13:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.acclaimedmusic.net/Current/A543.htm
I'll admit to being utterly puzzled by current ref 39 (Uncut presents NME originals ...). I'm not sure WHAT is being referenced here. Needs to be clarified.- Sure, this is a magazine by NME about 80's music. I bought the online version specifically for this article (as suggested by WesleyDodds). It doesn't contain an ISBN therefore since it's online. I will look to see if there's any more attribution details on it to add to the reference. I might be able to wikilink to the article. — Realist2 13:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the article NME Originals, obviously I used the 80's version. Hopefully that helps you understand it a little better than I can explain it. Will still look for more details on attributions though. — Realist2 13:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you'd just use {{cite journal}} to make it work correctly. I think. Try that and we'll see. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've never used that template before, I must confess. I'm not sure what I should reference. Should I reference the specific review by Melody Maker or do I source the NME magazine from where the review is found (or at least from where I found it). The NME magazine is basically a collection of reliable album reviews by different organizations. I have a feeling I need to give details on the review attribution's and the NME magazine from which I found it, thus I am royally confused how to use that template. Sorry for being a little retarded on this. — Realist2 14:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries at all. I have to run errands, but when I get back I'll walk you through it on the article talk page, how's that? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, the album review itself was by Melody Maker, Paolo Hewitt, December 4, 1982, page 22.
- I found the review in...
- Uncut presents NME Originals 80's. Steve Sutherland. (2005). p68
- That's the info I have, hope it helps, and would very much appreciate help with that template, yes, thank you. — Realist2 14:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay author=Maker, Melody, coauthor=Paolo Hewitt, title=(title of the article, is it Thriller Review?), journal=MNE Originals 80's, editor=Steve Sutherland (may have to add (editor) after that in the field to make it clear), year=2005, pages=68. Plop those into the template and see what you get! And no, you're not a problem at all. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, that wasn't much good, maybe it's better if we write it without templates? :-( — Realist2 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- {{cite journal | author=Maker, Melody |authorlink=Melody Maker |title=Thriller Review |journal= Uncut Presents NME Originals 80's |year=2005 |pages=68}} gives Maker, Melody (2005). "Thriller Review". Uncut Presents NME Originals 80's: 68.. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that looks better now. — Realist2 16:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- {{cite journal | author=Maker, Melody |authorlink=Melody Maker |title=Thriller Review |journal= Uncut Presents NME Originals 80's |year=2005 |pages=68}} gives Maker, Melody (2005). "Thriller Review". Uncut Presents NME Originals 80's: 68.. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, that wasn't much good, maybe it's better if we write it without templates? :-( — Realist2 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay author=Maker, Melody, coauthor=Paolo Hewitt, title=(title of the article, is it Thriller Review?), journal=MNE Originals 80's, editor=Steve Sutherland (may have to add (editor) after that in the field to make it clear), year=2005, pages=68. Plop those into the template and see what you get! And no, you're not a problem at all. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries at all. I have to run errands, but when I get back I'll walk you through it on the article talk page, how's that? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've never used that template before, I must confess. I'm not sure what I should reference. Should I reference the specific review by Melody Maker or do I source the NME magazine from where the review is found (or at least from where I found it). The NME magazine is basically a collection of reliable album reviews by different organizations. I have a feeling I need to give details on the review attribution's and the NME magazine from which I found it, thus I am royally confused how to use that template. Sorry for being a little retarded on this. — Realist2 14:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you'd just use {{cite journal}} to make it work correctly. I think. Try that and we'll see. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the article NME Originals, obviously I used the 80's version. Hopefully that helps you understand it a little better than I can explain it. Will still look for more details on attributions though. — Realist2 13:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, this is a magazine by NME about 80's music. I bought the online version specifically for this article (as suggested by WesleyDodds). It doesn't contain an ISBN therefore since it's online. I will look to see if there's any more attribution details on it to add to the reference. I might be able to wikilink to the article. — Realist2 13:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's the theme of the day, please spell out abbreviations in the footnotes. Examples include, but are not limited to, RIAA.- DONE, some are still abbreviated but according to their related article they are always abbreviated. Hope that's better. Don't think I missed any that needed changing. — Realist2 14:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, sources look good. The links checked out with the link checker tool. I was unable to evaluate the non-English sources. (Which, however, were nicely noted as non-English in the footnotes, thanks!) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on images and media files
Image:Michael Jackson Thriller.ogg - There is no fair use rationale for the Thriller article.- DONE, but I don't understand fair use so I'm probably talking B.S. — Realist2 15:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a bit more. Awadewit (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE, but I don't understand fair use so I'm probably talking B.S. — Realist2 15:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Michael Jackson 1984.jpg - The source link does not work.- Originally comes from ({{Information |Description=President Ronald Reagan and first lady Nancy Reagan welcome pop singer Michael Jackson to the White House. |Source=NARA |Date=1984 |Author=White House Photo Office |Permission=White House Photo, PD |other_version) as seen in Image:Michael Jackson with the Reagans.png but don't know how to change it. — Realist2 15:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You just had to search the archives for the photo. Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Originally comes from ({{Information |Description=President Ronald Reagan and first lady Nancy Reagan welcome pop singer Michael Jackson to the White House. |Source=NARA |Date=1984 |Author=White House Photo Office |Permission=White House Photo, PD |other_version) as seen in Image:Michael Jackson with the Reagans.png but don't know how to change it. — Realist2 15:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Mjthriller.jpg - It would be nice to have purpose that is a little more clearly articulated than the equivalent of "best video ever". :)- DONE, I think, again, probably talking a load of B.S. in the world of fair use requirements. — Realist2 15:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Far better. Jackson sounds like a revolutionary artist here. He's Pablo Picasso. :) Awadewit (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He is a revolutionary artist, he's changed a lot of things (not just music) ;-) — Realist2 21:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Far better. Jackson sounds like a revolutionary artist here. He's Pablo Picasso. :) Awadewit (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE, I think, again, probably talking a load of B.S. in the world of fair use requirements. — Realist2 15:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC) These should be easy issues to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Media concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for going out of your way to help. — Realist2 21:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Take a look at [20]. Mm40 (talk | contribs) 02:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea what that means and I don't claim to be psychic either lol, could you clarify what is wrong and I'll do my best to fix it? — Realist2 02:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It means there are several links to disambiguation pages. Per {{disambig}} these should be fixed so they point to the right page. —Giggy 11:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I've gone ahead and fixed one. The other is in the template at the bottom, so ignore it. —Giggy 11:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It means there are several links to disambiguation pages. Per {{disambig}} these should be fixed so they point to the right page. —Giggy 11:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I know I promised to ce this, but sadly I have minimal access to a computer these days. The way I see it \, this article still has some way to go before it can be FA:
- Highly publicized events: this section is largely unnecessary (and the heading a little unclear and ambiguous). You can transfer the content to the other sections maintaining an an approximately chronological order. Further, some of the stuff could be down as they are only tangential to Thriller : "Written primarily by Jackson, with help from Lionel Richie . . . Jackson was perceived as a humanitarian"
- Can I just remove it entirely, it helped the album sell but it's really not important to Thriller — Realist2 13:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been deleted by Wesley. — Realist2 14:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I just remove it entirely, it helped the album sell but it's really not important to Thriller — Realist2 13:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "In a Melody Maker publication Paolo Hewitt gave Thriller possibly its worst review." -- how do you know that there weren't other reviewers who rated it even worse?
- Changed — Realist2 13:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Off the Wall combines the genres . . . "Workin' Day and Night" and "Get on the Floor"." -- its hard to see why this stuff is in the Thriller article instead of Off the Wall. I'm confused why Thriller's music is mostly discussed in comparison with its predecessor.
- Gone — Realist2 17:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "When Rod Temperton wrote the song "Thriller" . . . did not have the "edginess" of other album tracks." - why in this and not the "Thriller" article?
- If your talking about - When Rod Temperton wrote the song "Thriller", he originally wanted to call it "Starlight" or "Midnight Man" but settled on it because he felt the name had merchandising potential.[16] - then I would argue this Merchandising potential extends to the album title not just the song title. — Realist2 13:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Eventually, they found Eddie Van Halen of the rock band Van Halen; Van Halen did not inform his band mates about the collaboration until the album was released" How can a band tell its band members anything? :P
- Removed — Realist2 14:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Taraborrelli describes "Human Nature" as the most moody and introspective song on the record, with the lyrics, "Looking out, across the morning, the City's heart begins to beat, reaching out, I touch her shoulder, I'm dreaming of the street"." -- seems like an incomplete sentence to me. A description should follow since you have "with the lyrics" in there.
- I can't see it, but I think that's my English, I agree it doesn't quite run but I don't know why. Could you clear that up for me? — Realist2 00:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Autodate links are out of fashion . . . are they really required here (there are so many)?
- DONE — Realist2 14:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think a copy-edit from the likes of music editors such as Ceoil or WesleyDodds should bring this article really close. I'll comment more later in the week.
- Article has been besieged by Wesley and Ceoil (thanx you guys/gals), hope that helps. — Realist2 14:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
indopug (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the lead is awkward. The first paragraph basically does a "super-summary" of what a lead normally includes, and then it sort of goes back and summarises the article again in the next few paragraphs. Take a look at some other album FAs and try and format it based on those... —Giggy 11:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I basically over viewed the article, taking the main points of each heading. If it's just the first paragraph that is annoying I can cut it? — Realist2 15:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm reading your assessment of the first paragraph of the lead and I have to disagree that it's a "super-summary" of the article. The lead first paragraph reads...
- Thriller is the sixth studio album by American pop musician Michael Jackson, released on November 30, 1982 by Epic Records. Recording sessions took place between April and November of 1982 at Westlake Recording Studios in Los Angeles, California. Assisted by producer Quincy Jones, Jackson wrote four of the album's nine tracks, a production budget was set at $750,000. Thriller was Jackson's first studio album since the critically and commercially successful 1979 record Off the Wall. Reviewers believed that Thriller shared similar genres to Off the Wall, featuring funk, disco, soul, soft rock, jazz and pop ballads. Thriller was darker than his previous release, covering themes such as paranoia and the supernatural.
- This paragraph only covers the details up to the end of the "Themes and Genre" section. At the very most the first paragraph is a summary of everything before the album was actually released and in that context I see nothing wrong with the first paragraph or the similar style I have chosen for the descending paragraphs of the intro.
- I don't see the problem but I'm not really bothered about the lead, feel free to do with it what you like. :-) I just don't know what your looking for. — Realist2 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I played around with the lead a bit and I think it's looking better. I'll come back for a close look at prose at some point. It's really close to FA, I think. —Giggy 01:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Suits me, cheers. :-) — Realist2 01:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I played around with the lead a bit and I think it's looking better. I'll come back for a close look at prose at some point. It's really close to FA, I think. —Giggy 01:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the problem but I'm not really bothered about the lead, feel free to do with it what you like. :-) I just don't know what your looking for. — Realist2 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a section at random to look at the prose...
- "was written a few years before 1982 and has a similar sound to the material of Off The Wall" - "a few years prior to 1982", "material on Off The Wall" - see if these rewords make it sound better.
- Done — Realist2 13:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ""The Girl Is Mine" tells of two friends' fight over a woman, arguing over who loves her more" - that's almost obvious just from the song title. You could go into more detail on what Jackson was talking about with that particular song (if there was more to it).
- That was really all there was to it, like the article says, when that was released as the first single some people had concerns about the album. It's a very simple song by Jackson's standard. You would think two legends like MJ and McCartney would have been a little more creative. The title really does sum up the song. — Realist2 13:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "was described as, "the closest Jackson has come to crooning a sexy, soulful ballad after his Motown years", according to Taraborrelli" - change "according to" to "by" and remove the commas
- DONE — Realist2 14:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "This is evident on the songs "Billie Jean" and "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'"" - use his full name for the Allmusic ref
- DONE — Realist2 14:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Midway through paragraph two of Themes and genres you talk about "Beat It"... then the title track... then "Beat It" again. It gets confusing; put the two "Beat It"s together for a start.
- Done — Realist2 14:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
—Giggy 11:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The personnel need to be reformatted; see WP:ALBUM#Personnel.
- Done (I think) — Realist2 00:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. They should probably be alphabetized (by last name) and the first instance of each instrument should be linked. See what I did in Off the Wall (album)#Personnel.
- Done — Realist2 01:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I see no problems now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: Prose is of a high quality, other issues are resolved. Well done. —Giggy 03:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm still working my way through the article and it looks pretty good so far. I am worried about the lack information on the recording process, especially given the critical attention given to the sound of the album. I understand Jackson has given few interviews about it, but what about Quincy Jones? He's not interview-shy, and he wrote an autobiography that should probably be checked out. What about the other people who worked on the album? WesleyDodds (talk) 01:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All the major players (bar Jackson obviously) talked at detail about it on the audio for the 2001 reissue (which I've already used), I think everything that's noteworthy is there, further information would become disinteresting, if it even exists. Quincy Jones mutters some crap about it being all about god all the time, really it's a load of B.S. — Realist2 01:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would add some balance of viewpoints to include what Quincy and the others thought of the recording process. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll look into what other players say, Jones never offers up anything intellectual.— Realist2 02:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the 30th August, I left a document on your talk page with lots of info, I'm still awaiting a response as to what, if anything, is worth including in the article from that document (noting for transparency). — Realist2 15:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll look into what other players say, Jones never offers up anything intellectual.— Realist2 02:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would add some balance of viewpoints to include what Quincy and the others thought of the recording process. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All the major players (bar Jackson obviously) talked at detail about it on the audio for the 2001 reissue (which I've already used), I think everything that's noteworthy is there, further information would become disinteresting, if it even exists. Quincy Jones mutters some crap about it being all about god all the time, really it's a load of B.S. — Realist2 01:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Better Looks much better than when it originally got here. But, why is the contemporary sales/charting info of the album split across two different sections? (Release and Commercial reception) Boring MoS doubt: why is the "thriller" song sometimes written as Thriller? I think just "Thriller" throughout would be better, because it cons\fuses with the album itself ("The choreography in Thriller has become a part of global pop culture") indopug (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the Thriller music video (which has it's own page), it's a short film, thus is in italics. The album and video are italics the song it in brackets "...". We have 3 articles dedicated to Thriller lol. — Realist2 15:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DONE - I moved a lot of the release info info the reception section. I then realised the release section would be quite small as a stand alone, so made it a release and reception section. I moved all the info on the re-releases to the legacy section. — Realist2 16:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- its very odd to see "It ranked number 20 on Rolling Stone magazine's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time list in 2003" right after "Thriller was not universally praised."
- Moved. — Realist2 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since so much text has been moved around, you should check whether everything is linked the first time or not.
- Checked, few alterations, seems to be OK. — Realist2 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved stuff in the R&R section around and now I guess I'm happy with the overall content of the album. A couple of runs from uninvolved copy-editors (to make the prose exemplary and the MoS perfect) should see this one through. Good work! indopug (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Will try to get it copy edited, but Wesley and Ceoil have already given it the once over, as have a few others. Don't know who else to turn to. — Realist2 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Copy edited again by Kodster and Ceoil. — Realist2 22:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Will try to get it copy edited, but Wesley and Ceoil have already given it the once over, as have a few others. Don't know who else to turn to. — Realist2 14:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose— for now. I would love to see an expansion of the music section, with more information on the instrumentation and styles of the song, as opposed to mere mentions of the their lyrical content. What are some of the musical achievements of this album? Did Jackson help to popularize any new sounds? etc. Also, unless copyright concerns hinders it, I'd love it if more sound samples were included. This would help to address my previous points. Orane (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- We have 3 samples now, hope that helps. — Realist2 22:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport.I agree with Journalist that the music section could be expanded; its mostly a collection of quotes at the moment. Also, Walter Yetnikoff's "Howling at the Moon" gives great insight into Jacksons hunger for world wide fame at the time, his obsession with perfection during the albums's production, and his relationship with Jones (Not actioble as such, just a tip).Ceoil sláinte 22:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]- While I don't own anything by Walter, I think the background section already establishes Jackson's determination for perfection and power and his displeasure with the result of his prior record as somehow substandard. The article also mentions how he almost pulled the album when Quincy jones told him it would be a flop. I think the article already establishes him as a perfectionist, maybe without saying the words specifically. I've left a document on Journalist's talk page which you (Ceoil) are obviously open to read and pick out anything useful that I should include. — Realist2 22:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It mentions it but there is no colour. Its documented, yeah, but there is no real sence of the personal dynamics at play at the time. Anyway, was just a suggestion. Ceoil sláinte 00:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to have to do this to the article, because I think that it's very good. But I'm afraid that I'm still not quite satisfied. Sound samples are o.k, but they are meaningless if the body of the article does not adequately address their significance. I just need more in depth info. There are so many things that the section could still improve on. Did Jackson use any samples, for example? I was reading the article for "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'" and it talked about the African chant, which was taken from Manu Dibango etc. What about his voice/vocal arrangements? A few other featured articles on albums exemplify what I'm talking about: Be Here Now (album), Loveless (album).
- I'll make a promise. If the music section is rewritten without the over reliance on quotes (you could extrapolate, while quoting where necessary), then I'll support, even if my suggestions aren't all addressed. I realize that this album is still pop/rock, which means that musical elements such as significant riffs, crescendos, and other nuances aren't exactly the strong point. I won't fault you if you can't find any information on it. Orane (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a little thing. I've checked the booklets for Thriller (2001 edition), HIStory (double disk), The Ultimate collection (Box set) and none of them credit any sample for the Thriller album. Unless the official album booklets give the credit, I feel uneasy about claiming there were samples. Does anyone have the original 1982 release? Maybe there are credits in there? — Realist2 15:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some info on his vocals. I don't understand how I can remove the quotes and still keep the article NPOV. In-fact at a prior review of this article I received an oppose because the claims were not attributed to a writer in the text. Since every positive comment ever made about Jackson it attacked as POV, almost everything said about him needs a name next to it otherwise it's tagged as POV. Are there any statements you/anyone thinks I can cite without having to quote it and still remaining NPOV? I think I'm gunno need some help with this one. When it comes to Jackson, I'm so used to having to quote things to maintain NPOV, I almost don't know how to write any other way lol. — Realist2 16:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a few extra things, removed some of the quoting and rearranged some of the text. Of to bed soon. — Realist2 23:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not happy. The music section is largely a collection of direct quotes of how various journalists described the album. You need to search for unrefuatable facts, ie "influenced by funk", "played in the key of G", "uses such and such effect", whatever, and state facts without mentioning the specific journalist's name (the ref is enough if its obvious or fact). eg: Christopher Connelly of Rolling Stone magazine argues that with Thriller, Jackson would begin his long association with the subliminal theme of paranoia and darker imagery.[21] This is evident on the songs "Billie Jean" and "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'", Stephen Erlewine of Allmusic observed.[20] is a simple fact attribituded four times. That said, I think this is an easily fixed problem, and the recent additions are generally strong. And I found Yetnikoffs book in a dusty corner this afternoon. Ceoil sláinte 20:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Thriller was certified 27x platinum in 2005"; eh, what does '27x platinum' mean? But thats a small easily fixed thing, and I'm combing through the prose for final ce issues but fairly happy now given the extensive editing since my last comment. I'm pleased to lend "support" on this basis; its very interesting article, fairly treated and covers all sides, well and engagingly written. Thanks for all your hard work, more please. Ceoil sláinte 00:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It means that it has shipped at least 27,000,000 copies in the US. I'll c;clarify that. — Realist2 00:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've struck out my oppose. I like the new additions to the article;they go along the lines of what I'm looking for. Works for me. Don't know about Ceoil. I was reading the WP article on Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words, so I understand where Realist is coming from. Orane (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:23, 8 September 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 00:52, 12 July 2008 [21].
previous FAC (15:43, 5 April 2008)
Self-nominator. The major objection raised by the first FAC has been dealt with: McCain-written sourcing has been minimized, with in particular the POW section now being primarily based on the two standard works that cover all the American POWs in Vietnam, Hubbell's P.O.W. and Rochester and Kiley's Honor Bound. All remaining McCain-written cites now contain an explanation in the footnote for why they are being used. Another major improvement in the article came with the partial release of McCain's military records by the Navy a few weeks ago; the article now gives more specific dates, assignments, reasons for medals awarded, etc., than it did before. Various other improvements have been made since the last FAC as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Stylistic suggestion, but generally any section or subsection over about five paragraphs gets too dense for readers and probably should be broken into more sections or subsectioned. Specifically the Prisoner of War section is huge and daunting to even think about reading.- Ealdgyth, thanks for your comments and link checking as usual. Breaking the POW section into two parallel sections doesn't seem right, so I've divided it into three further subsections. I may tweak the names, but we'll see if this works better. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better. I hope (read that as a hope, not a promise) to try to review this later more fully. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the following reliable sources?- http://www.irishabroad.com/Irishworld/IrishAmericaMag/augsept06/firstword/
- Turns out this cite isn't needed anymore, because the other genealogical cite being used supports the Scots-Irish ancestry. Removed. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.mors.org/publications/phalanx/mar01/morss.htm for "There was a fixed Bachelor of Science curriculum taken by all midshipmen;"? It's already sourced to a much better source, probably can be eliminated.- The first source, the Naval Academy history web page, only says that the fixed B.S. curriculum started in 1933 and "later" was replaced by a much more elective curriculum. But we need the year, to support McCain's point that his poor class rank was partly caused by having to take a lot of courses he wasn't interested in/wasn't especially good at. The Military Operations Research Society source is used to fix the date of the elimination of the fixed B.S. curriculum, which was 1968, a decade after McCain graduated. Admittedly a symposium briefing document isn't as solid a source as a paper presented at the same symposium would be, but this material was likely taken from some other Naval Academy history that doesn't happen to be online (or if it is, I couldn't find it), and overall I don't see a reason to doubt it. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Urf. Im not convinced this is a reliable source for the information, honestly. Check the Naval History sites? Just a guess, but given the date they changed the curriculum, perhaps it was connected to the Vietnam War and maybe something related to that will show it? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Am looking into this ... Wasted Time R (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, the MORS cite has now been replaced by a 1977 article from the Air University Review journal (see this page for a description of the journal itself), which shows the reform to the fixed curriculum didn't start until shortly after McCain graduated, and didn't really take effect until around 1968. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.irishabroad.com/Irishworld/IrishAmericaMag/augsept06/firstword/
- Otherwise sources look good, all links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Looks great. What's a "dream-like" romance exactly? -- VegitaU (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From Timberg's The Nightingale's Song p. 46: "Even though he lived it, or something like it, McCain recounts his romance with Elena these days as if it were a dream. In some ways it was. But it wasn't just his dream. With minor variations, it was the dream of all but the most inert midshipmen. Duty, honor, country, sure, those things were important ... [but] the chance of someday being swept away and ravished by a beautiful woman in some exotic locale has always been an unspoken part of the deal. ... McCain's fling with Elena, though rare, was not all that rare. Things like that happened often enough to keep that goofy dream alive." Maybe I should add some of this to the footnote, to try to explain the usage. And thanks for the comment and praise. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now done this. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- From Timberg's The Nightingale's Song p. 46: "Even though he lived it, or something like it, McCain recounts his romance with Elena these days as if it were a dream. In some ways it was. But it wasn't just his dream. With minor variations, it was the dream of all but the most inert midshipmen. Duty, honor, country, sure, those things were important ... [but] the chance of someday being swept away and ravished by a beautiful woman in some exotic locale has always been an unspoken part of the deal. ... McCain's fling with Elena, though rare, was not all that rare. Things like that happened often enough to keep that goofy dream alive." Maybe I should add some of this to the footnote, to try to explain the usage. And thanks for the comment and praise. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments:
In the section on "Family heritage", I wonder why the focus is exclusively on the paternal line of descent. This seems kind of sexist, unless his mother's side of the family consisted of a bunch of nobodys (and ditto for his paternal grandmother's ancestors, et cetera). I mean, if we're going to discuss the family tree, why only focus on people who had the last name "McCain"? That was a small fraction of the subject's ancestry, right?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Regarding "The family tree has a long heritage of American military service, with ancestors fighting ...", those ancestors include not just McCains but also various Youngs, who produced Elizabeth Young, who married Slew's father in 1877 [Faith of My Fathers pp. 18-20], so there is some inclusion there. Regarding the focus on Jack and Slew McCain, that's the natural thematic approach that every bio takes, but if there is something interesting in other parts of the tree, I'd be happy to see that in. The other avenue to explore is the Teoc plantation in Mississippi, which might be worth a sentence. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- McCain's maternal grandfather was Archibald Wright, an interesting guy. He made a fortune as an oil wildcatter. Lived to be quite old. Born in Mississippi. A stay-at-home Dad after he hit it rich. (And a second-cousin four times removed of George Washington.)Ferrylodge (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've added Archibald. I've also added Teoc plantation, along with the slaves (I know, possible trouble magnet, but I think it's in context), sharecroppers, and Mississippi John Hurt (how weird is that) aspects, along with a statement that McCain's heritage has always been military, not Southern. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to be clear that I did not ask for more info about his father's side of the family, such as slaves, Mississippi John Hurt, et cetera. Generally speaking, I think it's rarely necessary or useful for a Wikipedia biography to discuss distant ancestors whom the subject of the biography never even met. We got into this kind of thing at the Mitt Romney article, where people wanted to include lots of info about polygamous great-grandparents and that sort of thing. If distant ancestors are discussed in this article, I hope they at least stay here, and do not migrate into the main John McCain article. Again, all of this stuff about his father's side seems undue weight, given the dearth of stuff about his mother's side. It may be traditional to focus on patrilineal descent, but it's still sexist.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, adding the Teoc part was my idea, once the section was 'opened up' (I'd mulled over it previously). McCain did spend time at the plantation, so it and its history is relevant in the very brief way we now cover it. McCain makes a point that the ancestral attachment to a specific place made his grandfather's decision to leave it behind and adopt the rootless life of a naval officer more remarkable. Yes, the Mitt Romney goings-on were awful: people were trying to jam the whole LDS-polygamy history into that article. That ain't gonna happen here. Agree that there's no reason to add any of this to main article. As for sexist, McCain's mother gets several mentions in what I wrote, as a significant influence on John. Had she been born in a different era, she might have become a Navy Admiral herself, or an art professor, or who knows what. As for her ancestors, find more good stuff about them, we'll put it in. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, how about that Roberta and Jack eloped in Tijuana, after her parents disapproved of the marriage proposal?[22] Doesn't this seem more pertinent than stuff about distant ancestors? How about that Roberta has a twin sister who's still alive? How about giving the ages to which John McCain's four grandparents lived?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the elopement. Rowena Wright seems a bit far afield; we have almost nothing on John McCain's own siblings. I added the years for Slew, but is there a source for the other three grandparents, including Archibald? From this John McCain peer review comment, apparently we can't use this Wargs genealogy, and this NEHGS summary doesn't list the years for the grandparents (can you buy the full report? dunno, but my WP "budget" has already been spent on Washington Post, Arizona Republic, and Philadelphia Inquirer archive articles :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Believe it or not, there is no full NEHGS report. The full article is two paragraphs long. But it still has some interesting stuff: "his parents were born in Iowa and Oklahoma. His grandparents were natives of Mississippi, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas."Ferrylodge (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the southern ancestry on both sides. I've also now worked in Rowena, as part of Roberta and Rowena's adventurous travel practice (serves to illustrate origin of McCain's instincts) and as a second cite on Roberta's role in informally educating him. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand the reluctance to mention that his mother was born in Oklahoma and raised in southern California. Apparently, those facts do not mesh with the theme that McCain is a southerner and descendant of slave-owners. There are now five footnotes to the article titled "McCain's ancestors owned slaves" though McCain never met those ancestors. McCain did, however, meet his mother. Can we please mention briefly that she was born in Oklahoma and grew up in southern California? It's fully supported by the existing references ("nehgs" and "nyt121407"). Thanks (and many people consider neither California nor Oklahoma to be part of the Southwest).Ferrylodge (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and done. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not understand the reluctance to mention that his mother was born in Oklahoma and raised in southern California. Apparently, those facts do not mesh with the theme that McCain is a southerner and descendant of slave-owners. There are now five footnotes to the article titled "McCain's ancestors owned slaves" though McCain never met those ancestors. McCain did, however, meet his mother. Can we please mention briefly that she was born in Oklahoma and grew up in southern California? It's fully supported by the existing references ("nehgs" and "nyt121407"). Thanks (and many people consider neither California nor Oklahoma to be part of the Southwest).Ferrylodge (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the southern ancestry on both sides. I've also now worked in Rowena, as part of Roberta and Rowena's adventurous travel practice (serves to illustrate origin of McCain's instincts) and as a second cite on Roberta's role in informally educating him. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Believe it or not, there is no full NEHGS report. The full article is two paragraphs long. But it still has some interesting stuff: "his parents were born in Iowa and Oklahoma. His grandparents were natives of Mississippi, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas."Ferrylodge (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the elopement. Rowena Wright seems a bit far afield; we have almost nothing on John McCain's own siblings. I added the years for Slew, but is there a source for the other three grandparents, including Archibald? From this John McCain peer review comment, apparently we can't use this Wargs genealogy, and this NEHGS summary doesn't list the years for the grandparents (can you buy the full report? dunno, but my WP "budget" has already been spent on Washington Post, Arizona Republic, and Philadelphia Inquirer archive articles :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, how about that Roberta and Jack eloped in Tijuana, after her parents disapproved of the marriage proposal?[22] Doesn't this seem more pertinent than stuff about distant ancestors? How about that Roberta has a twin sister who's still alive? How about giving the ages to which John McCain's four grandparents lived?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, adding the Teoc part was my idea, once the section was 'opened up' (I'd mulled over it previously). McCain did spend time at the plantation, so it and its history is relevant in the very brief way we now cover it. McCain makes a point that the ancestral attachment to a specific place made his grandfather's decision to leave it behind and adopt the rootless life of a naval officer more remarkable. Yes, the Mitt Romney goings-on were awful: people were trying to jam the whole LDS-polygamy history into that article. That ain't gonna happen here. Agree that there's no reason to add any of this to main article. As for sexist, McCain's mother gets several mentions in what I wrote, as a significant influence on John. Had she been born in a different era, she might have become a Navy Admiral herself, or an art professor, or who knows what. As for her ancestors, find more good stuff about them, we'll put it in. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to be clear that I did not ask for more info about his father's side of the family, such as slaves, Mississippi John Hurt, et cetera. Generally speaking, I think it's rarely necessary or useful for a Wikipedia biography to discuss distant ancestors whom the subject of the biography never even met. We got into this kind of thing at the Mitt Romney article, where people wanted to include lots of info about polygamous great-grandparents and that sort of thing. If distant ancestors are discussed in this article, I hope they at least stay here, and do not migrate into the main John McCain article. Again, all of this stuff about his father's side seems undue weight, given the dearth of stuff about his mother's side. It may be traditional to focus on patrilineal descent, but it's still sexist.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've added Archibald. I've also added Teoc plantation, along with the slaves (I know, possible trouble magnet, but I think it's in context), sharecroppers, and Mississippi John Hurt (how weird is that) aspects, along with a statement that McCain's heritage has always been military, not Southern. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- McCain's maternal grandfather was Archibald Wright, an interesting guy. He made a fortune as an oil wildcatter. Lived to be quite old. Born in Mississippi. A stay-at-home Dad after he hit it rich. (And a second-cousin four times removed of George Washington.)Ferrylodge (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding "The family tree has a long heritage of American military service, with ancestors fighting ...", those ancestors include not just McCains but also various Youngs, who produced Elizabeth Young, who married Slew's father in 1877 [Faith of My Fathers pp. 18-20], so there is some inclusion there. Regarding the focus on Jack and Slew McCain, that's the natural thematic approach that every bio takes, but if there is something interesting in other parts of the tree, I'd be happy to see that in. The other avenue to explore is the Teoc plantation in Mississippi, which might be worth a sentence. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
The bit about hitting the power lines in Spain says he was "flying too low over Spain." Was he in formation or alone, and did he get disciplined for it? Just curious, no problem if you don't know. Also, we mention all the awards he got, but do we know if he was ever subject to any formal disciplinary action (aside from at the Academy)?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Would love to know the answers to all of these questions. Please get the DoD to release his full Navy records! ;-) In particular, there's a story that the Spain collision caused a power blackout and a minor international incident, but Timberg says the tale is overblown. Would love to find a Spanish news story from the time on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
I'd suggest adding the bolded words: "On July 3, 1965, McCain married Shepp in Philadelphia.[55] She already had two children, Douglas and Andrew, born in 1959 and 1962 respectively;[56] he adopted themFerrylodge (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]the following yearin 1966."- Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
"Made a lieutenant commander" should probably be "Promoted to lieutenant commander" or "He made lieutenant commander."Ferrylodge (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
The article says his last bombing target "had almost always been off-limits to U.S. raids." This is kind of mystifying. Why would it have been off limits? I don't doubt that it was, but it might be good to briefly mention the reason, if we know it.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Due to its location in central Hanoi and the possibility of collateral damage. On top of all Hanoi targets being politically sensitive to begin with. Explanation added, same cite covers (the excellent Pribbenow article, for which I inexplicably didn't have a url link before, but now do). Wasted Time R (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
Please change present tense to past tense: "lead led an effort to only write letters home that portrayed the camp in a negative light."[23]Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Done. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
"Jack McCain's tour as CINCPAC ended in September 1972,[145] despite his desire to have it extended so he could see the war to its conclusion." This is kind of mystifying, though undoubtedly true. Can we briefly mention why the tour ended (e.g. "routinely" or "due to incompetence" or whatever).Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- McCain says Nixon turned down Jack's request to stay on. Reason not clear, but apparently Jack (and John) somewhat bitter about it. I've been on the lookout for a more neutral source on all this, but haven't run across it yet. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One of my military-knowledgeable sources says doesn't know the reason or a source for it, but suspects it was because during 1972 no one knew for sure how much longer the war would continue, and to keep Jack McCain on until it did would have meant his planned successor would have been put in "command limbo". Wasted Time R (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- McCain says Nixon turned down Jack's request to stay on. Reason not clear, but apparently Jack (and John) somewhat bitter about it. I've been on the lookout for a more neutral source on all this, but haven't run across it yet. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
These two sentences make it sound like he attended his father's funeral on the same day his father died: "Jack McCain died on March 22, 1981.[186] The same day in late March saw McCain attending his father's funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, wearing his uniform for the final time before signing his discharge papers, and then flying to Phoenix with his wife Cindy to begin his new life.[186]"Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Clarified it to "Later in March, the same day saw McCain ..." Just trying to end the article with some engaging prose! :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
When used as a verb, the word "nurse" usually means something that only women can do.[24] "Overly, and subsequently Day, nursed McCain and kept him alive". Maybe "tended to" or "cared for" instead of "nursed"?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I dunno, this search shows a lot of writers using the same construct, including reporters for the New York Times and Arizona Republic. I know what you're saying, but I think the laxer meaning is now in general use. And "nursed" conveys more the heavy level of care required; see the Coram book on Bud Day for some graphic descriptions of what was involved. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some more past tenses need to be cleaned up. For example, "In September 1964, he became a flight instructor at Naval Air Station Meridian in Mississippi, where McCain Field was named for his grandfather.". Does this mean the field was dedicated after McCain III arrived? If it had already been dedicated, the sentence should read "where McCain Field had been named for his grandfather". Melchoir (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed to "had been". Thanks for spotting this, and please give more places where you see problems ... Wasted Time R (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. But would like to see something about his mother's side of the family, as mentioned above. And the heading "Final years" bugs me. How about "Final years in Vietnam"?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec)Thanks for all your comments and the support (I got off easy this time, but you're allowed to come back for more later ;-). Yes, I'll add the mother's side later today, it's on my list of things to work further on. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The POW subsection titles are new and I'm still ruminating on them. I've changed it to "Release" for now, which is what the somewhat similar chapter in Faith of My Fathers is called. I'm trying to keep them terse, because they're there are visual separators more than content indicators. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support This generally looks pretty good. Gary King (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your support! Wasted Time R (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if there should be a section on the contemporary legacy of events during these years. Let me be clear, I do not, do not, do not want to see one of those petty little "Controversy" sections pop up in this article. But there must be a few worthwhile things to say. Is this a 1(b) concern for comprehensiveness? Melchoir (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this were the only article, perhaps. But this is the first of a sequence of biographical subarticles under John McCain, that's denoted by the template box you see at the top. So, for example, House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000#Vietnam redux covers McCain's 1990s work in the Senate related to Vietnam, while various parts of Cultural and political image of John McCain deal with how McCain's early personality evolved once he became a politician, how McCain's war service affected his political image and perception, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another way of saying this is, after you finish the end of this article, you're invited to read the next one, House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000, whose opening body section begins "Having moved to Phoenix in March 1981, McCain ...", thus picking up the story where it left off here. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the other articles link back; I'm just wondering if there should be explicit links forward as well. Maybe the box is enough. Melchoir (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For me, the real issue is just getting users to find these articles. For example, so far this month, John McCain has been hit 595,000 times; this article, 20,000 times; House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000, only 1,400 times; and Cultural and political image of John McCain, 4,000 times. That's a pretty steep fall-off, that (to me, at least) calls the whole WP:Summary style approach into question. And each of these subarticles has "good stuff" that editors often complain is missing from, or underplayed in, the main article.Wasted Time R (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe the readers don't understand that the "Main article" links actually point to a different webpage. It could also be that 97% of visitors don't care about the details and wouldn't have read the text even if it were returned to the main article. The complaints would be the most troubling to me; you'd think anyone invested and knowledgeable enough to complain would know where to look! Melchoir (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I've thought the {{main}} template's wording could be improved, or maybe put in a different color font so that it's more easily seen. I agree that to really know what's going on, you'd have to monitor reader's web sessions and see where they go and what they do. For all we know, lots of readers may just read the lead section of articles and nothing else, in which case nothing we do to make subarticles visible would matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe the readers don't understand that the "Main article" links actually point to a different webpage. It could also be that 97% of visitors don't care about the details and wouldn't have read the text even if it were returned to the main article. The complaints would be the most troubling to me; you'd think anyone invested and knowledgeable enough to complain would know where to look! Melchoir (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For me, the real issue is just getting users to find these articles. For example, so far this month, John McCain has been hit 595,000 times; this article, 20,000 times; House and Senate career of John McCain, 1982–2000, only 1,400 times; and Cultural and political image of John McCain, 4,000 times. That's a pretty steep fall-off, that (to me, at least) calls the whole WP:Summary style approach into question. And each of these subarticles has "good stuff" that editors often complain is missing from, or underplayed in, the main article.Wasted Time R (talk) 03:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the other articles link back; I'm just wondering if there should be explicit links forward as well. Maybe the box is enough. Melchoir (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the prose in the lead could be strengthened. I'm not quite sure enough about any of these points to just edit the page myself, so here goes: Melchoir (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "attended many schools growing up as his family moved among different naval facilities" Feels like some punctuation would help, and "among different" is redundant.
- "adopting two children from her previous marriage and having another child with her" "Having" seems awkward, and "with her" isn't absolutely necessary.
- "five and a half years" Should this be "five-and-a-half years"?
- "out of sequence with other prisoners there longer" Needs a verb.
- "and then was the Navy liaison" Unnecessarily passive, especially in comparison to the preceding part of the sentence. Would "became" be better?
- "divorced his wife Carol in 1980, and married" This time I don't think the comma is needed.
- "married the former Cindy Hensley shortly after." I think this should be "shortly thereafter". With "after" you expect a following phrase. (After what?)
- I've made changes on these, see what you think. The only one I didn't do was "five and a half years"; a google search seemed to show that at least half the usages like that these days don't use hyphens. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "who were eventually won over by his combination of charm and penitence" -- weaselly and needs to attribute those to someone since not clearly factual. I think there is some more like this but I haven't read it all yet. gren グレン 00:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comment. It's from Nicholas Kristof's reporting in this article, where he interviewed lots of people from that era. Kristof wrote: "Some family friends were appalled that a man who seemed so decent, so full of compassion for anyone who needed help, could treat his own wife in a manner they regarded as brutal. But Mr. McCain gradually won everyone around again, with the same traits he now displays after making a mistake: a combination of charm and penitence." If you read the article, Kristof gives specific examples of some friends where this happened. And note this story overall was not a puff-piece; it was Kristof's reporting in it which revealed that John and Carol McCain were not separated at the time he met Cindy Hensley, contrary to John McCain's previous assertions (and those of his biographer Robert Timberg). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not always the best with style but I still think "charm and penitence" should have quotes around it to show that it's not our words. Without the quotes it seems like we are ascribing these as definite feelings when it's (educated) conjecture of a writer. I think it's a fine sentence but that should be made clear. gren グレン 07:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't want to get into the quote and attribution business here (too awkward), so I reworded the clause to "... who were eventually won over by the force of his personality and his frequent expressions of guilt over what had happened." This seems to capture what those Kristof interviewed were saying. How does this seem to you? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not always the best with style but I still think "charm and penitence" should have quotes around it to show that it's not our words. Without the quotes it seems like we are ascribing these as definite feelings when it's (educated) conjecture of a writer. I think it's a fine sentence but that should be made clear. gren グレン 07:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comment. It's from Nicholas Kristof's reporting in this article, where he interviewed lots of people from that era. Kristof wrote: "Some family friends were appalled that a man who seemed so decent, so full of compassion for anyone who needed help, could treat his own wife in a manner they regarded as brutal. But Mr. McCain gradually won everyone around again, with the same traits he now displays after making a mistake: a combination of charm and penitence." If you read the article, Kristof gives specific examples of some friends where this happened. And note this story overall was not a puff-piece; it was Kristof's reporting in it which revealed that John and Carol McCain were not separated at the time he met Cindy Hensley, contrary to John McCain's previous assertions (and those of his biographer Robert Timberg). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentsSupport- I found it an interesting article, as he indeed seemed to live quite a full life at an early age.
- I feel as if there are too many parenthetical statements. For a Featured Article, I think most of them can be integrated with the rest of the text.
- I removed a couple sets of parentheses.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a MoS guideline about parenthetical statements being bad? If so, where? To me, they're a useful syntactic tool for including extra information without creating a digression or confusing the narrative. In one case, I've restored the parenthetical, for reasons given in the edit summary. I'm certainly willing to look at them on a case-by-case basis, but I don't understand the notion that Featured Articles shouldn't use them much (I may well have missed it somewhere). Wasted Time R (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider most parenthetical statements unnecessary for encyclopedic writing. If it's a digression, then it doesn't belong. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This may be your view, and you are free to use this approach in articles you write, but I don't see any WP guidelines against the use of parenthetical expressions. The FA Franklin D. Roosevelt article, to pick one I took at random, has about 20 real parenthetical statements and expressions in it (in addition to abbreviation introductions, date ranges, etc.). So I doubt there is any FAC prohibition or admonition against them either. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider most parenthetical statements unnecessary for encyclopedic writing. If it's a digression, then it doesn't belong. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a MoS guideline about parenthetical statements being bad? If so, where? To me, they're a useful syntactic tool for including extra information without creating a digression or confusing the narrative. In one case, I've restored the parenthetical, for reasons given in the edit summary. I'm certainly willing to look at them on a case-by-case basis, but I don't understand the notion that Featured Articles shouldn't use them much (I may well have missed it somewhere). Wasted Time R (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed a couple sets of parentheses.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I have never been tortured in prison, and it is undoubtedly an emotional experience few are able to comprehend, this statement: and the North Vietnamese were never able to break him again sounds melodramatic and filled with praise. I think it would be sufficient to state that he did not feel as if his spirits were broken after a certain point.
- I changed "were never able to" to "did not" which is a bit more matter-of-fact. Who knows what the North Vietnamese could have done if they had tried harder?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Break" here means to give "confessions", military secrets, anti-American statements, etc. (See definition 21 at http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/break.) That's what the North Vietnamese weren't able to do again. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you quantify this statistic, please: By 1971, some 30–50 percent of the POWs had become disillusioned about the war and less reluctant to make propaganda statements for the North Vietnamese
- Some imprecise phrasing was here. Hubbell, the source, says that 30-50% were disillusioned with the war, both due to lack of apparent military progress (meaning they'd never get out) and to the growing anti-war movement back home (which the North Vietnamese were happy to tell them about). As a result, "many" (but not necessarily 30-50%) of the POWs adopted a "to hell with it" attitude — why go through torture or other misery to resist giving a statement offering aid and comfort to the enemy, when members of Congress and half the country seemed to be make the same kind of statements on their own volition? Hubbell concedes that they had a point. I've now expanded and reworded this part a bit, but I can't go into too much description of this in this context. We really need an article on the whole Vietnam POW experience; right now, Hanoi Hilton partly does that, but somewhat illegitimately since a lot of what happened occurred in other camps. Other material is spread out amongst the individual Category:Vietnam War prisoners of war articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide a name or organization of who is speaking for all the POWs who cheered the resuming of bombing of North Vietnam? Since several sentences earlier the article states some of them were losing their faith in US motivation for the war, what is the difference here?
- The previous answer should clarify some of this — much of the disillusionment was with the lack of progress in the war, not the inherent motivation for it, although there was some of that too. I've also found a New York Times article from March 1973, that confirms that most of the long-time POWs cheered the Christmas bombings, while some of the newer POWs were just scared by it. I've added this description and cite to the text. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you state what about Ronald Reagan McCain admired? He was governor of California at the time. What part of Reagan's political or personal actions did McCain highlight as admirable?- Reagan already had a considerable national rep after being elected Governor (he was mocked onstage at Woodstock, for instance). But I've taken out the "role model", since that pertains more to McCain's future political career, and instead have added text describing what McCain admired about Reagan at this time (thought Vietnam service honorable, wouldn't get country into war it was unwilling to win) (whether the latter is really true of Reagan or any other prez is a discussion for a different time). Wasted Time R (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I can appreciate not all Vietnam Veterans experienced flashbacks, I cannot accept that someone beaten and tortured in captivity for over five years had no adverse psychological effects from the ordeal. I think the article needs to state right out McCain's own quotes about his never experiencing such a thing. (I still wouldn't believe it.)
- I tend to disagree. The article already quotes psychologists: "Psychological tests, given to all the returning POWs, showed that McCain had 'adjusted exceptionally well to repatriation' and had 'an ambitious, striving, successful pattern of adjustment'.[159]" Moreover, I don't see why a person who goes through all that would not have positive psychological effects. Solitary confinement provides time for introspection and contemplation, which can be very beneficial, and one can learn a great deal about human nature by being thrust into such an extreme situation. So, I don't think there's any reason to assume psychological damage, especially given that he does not seem to have sustained any brain injury.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being cloistered in a monastery gives one the opportunity for personal reflection. Being beaten within an inch of your life and tortured to say things that go against everything you've been taught does not foster a well-adjusted psychological state. Is there a direct quote from McCain that states he never had any adverse mental effect from his time as a POW? It appears from the article now that he has experienced more trauma from sleeping around and hurting his wife than he did at being tortured. I think that's an odd position of priorities. --Moni3 (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the cited source, McCain "felt that he had profited by his experience and had changed significantly" and "learned more about himself, about others."[25] Being subject to physical abuse can sometimes have a strengthening effect, though it's not something one would do voluntarily. Should we put this quote into the article?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being cloistered in a monastery gives one the opportunity for personal reflection. Being beaten within an inch of your life and tortured to say things that go against everything you've been taught does not foster a well-adjusted psychological state. Is there a direct quote from McCain that states he never had any adverse mental effect from his time as a POW? It appears from the article now that he has experienced more trauma from sleeping around and hurting his wife than he did at being tortured. I think that's an odd position of priorities. --Moni3 (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This became a big issue in McCain's 2000 campaign, when Republican opponents started circulating the word that McCain was mentally unstable as a result of his POW experience. (See John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2000#Campaign_developments_1999.) McCain had to release 1,500 pages of his Navy and civilian medical records, to show that this was not the case. Although he didn't experience nightmares or flashbacks, the sound keys rattling would startle him (echoing the sound the prisons guard had made); I almost included this once before, and have now done so. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To the bigger question of how did the POW experience affect him, the whole last chapter of Faith of My Fathers attempts to grapple with this. I've included the biggest point he makes, at the end of the POW sections: "He also gained an appreciation, from experiencing the mutual help and organized resistance of the POWs, that his earlier individualism needed to be tempered by a belief in causes greater than self-interest.[120]" He makes some other points too, but I think it's better to "show, not tell" here: as the biographical narrative indicates, he hit the ground running (figuratively, not literally) when he came back, with a sense of purpose he didn't have before, and hasn't stopped since. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to disagree. The article already quotes psychologists: "Psychological tests, given to all the returning POWs, showed that McCain had 'adjusted exceptionally well to repatriation' and had 'an ambitious, striving, successful pattern of adjustment'.[159]" Moreover, I don't see why a person who goes through all that would not have positive psychological effects. Solitary confinement provides time for introspection and contemplation, which can be very beneficial, and one can learn a great deal about human nature by being thrust into such an extreme situation. So, I don't think there's any reason to assume psychological damage, especially given that he does not seem to have sustained any brain injury.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was astounded that McCain had extramarital affairs in Jacksonville. Having grown up there, I wondered how he found these people. I think I shall chalk that up to his not being very discriminating...
- Different strokes....Ferrylodge (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmpf! As the footnote text indicates, some (maybe most, don't know) of the affairs were while he was on flight stops around the country, and thus not in Jacksonville. But, from the available sources, McCain seems to have been the "my type is every type" kind of guy ... Wasted Time R (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This wasn't a complaint. It was just a statement of surprise. --Moni3 (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Praise: The same happened with most of McCain's other friends, who were eventually won over by the force of his personality and his frequent expressions of guilt over what had happened Quotes from these friends would help it.
- Everyone hates this sentence! (Already changed from previous commenter above.) The quotes from the cite that would be added are:
- "We were ticked ... I'd glare at him, and he'd say, 'Nance!' ... If you meet him, you're under his spell. He's irresistible." and
- "He has always felt very guilty about it. I have never talked with him for more than 40 minutes when he didn't bring it up, saying he felt badly about it."
- Do we really want to bog the text down with these quotes? It risks giving the whole matter undue weight. And for sure we'd get criticism that the quotes are puffing up McCain even more than this text. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone hates this sentence! (Already changed from previous commenter above.) The quotes from the cite that would be added are:
- I don't think it has to be ponderous. Can you include something like ...were won over by the force of his personality, which had the effect, according to Friend X of being "adjective", and Friend Y as "another adjective". --Moni3 (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would end up as
- The same happened with most of McCain's other friends, who were eventually won over by the force of his personality, which family friend Nancy Reynolds described as "irrestible", and his frequent discussions what had happened, about which liaison office subordinate James McGovern said, "He has always felt very guilty about it."
- We're now giving this more space than how he reconciled with his children, more space than the divorce terms, etc. I just don't see the merit in it. Are we doubting Kristof's account of this so much? Are there other sources out there which claim that McCain lost most of his friends after the divorce? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is a matter of how much space is devoted to one issue or another, but how information is presented as neutrally as possible. It's a bit frightening to think what impact this article might have on voters. Because of the time of year, this article should get extra scrutiny for POV. This is part of why I am concerned about the unreal aspect of McCain's not being bothered by his POW experience and the extra helping of guilt about sleeping around on his first wife. This illogical juxtaposition of emotions sound like the perfect things a candidate should say to sway public opinion. The editors of this article have more responsibility than other FAC editors. This may be unfortunate, but I don't think so. We have to hold you to a bit of a higher standard knowing how often this article is used by readers, and for what purpose. I admire you for bringing the article this far and working so diligently to make sure all the comments are addressed. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've worked on Hillary Rodham Clinton for three years, so I'm used to the added POV scrutiny and welcome it :-) But we're not claiming that he isn't "bothered" by some aspects of his POW experience. As the article says about his forced "confession", "He was haunted then and since with the feeling that he had dishonored his country, his family, his comrades and himself by his statement,[119][120] but as he later wrote, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."[89]" And of course, "His injuries left him incapable of raising his arms above his head to this day.[25]" which bothers him every day (he has trouble putting jackets on, and can't comb his hair). But in terms of general psychological effects, he's gotten a clean bill of health from a number of medical/psychiatric exams, many of which were conducted in the 1970s, long before he was viewed as a politician much less a presidential candidate. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure how much this is worth commenting on further. I guess you can decide. I'm not saying McCain should be under the bed with a knife in his teeth at the sound of loud bangs. There's a difference between having nightmares, anger at your captors, and shame for being broken, and being considered mentally ill. He doesn't have to be diagnosed with a neurosis or a psychosis for him to be affected by his experiences for years after. I wouldn't fault him for it at all. It makes him more human and seem less like a cardboard prop of a political machine. It wouldn't be his tensing up at the rattling of keys that would concern me about his being president. I think the article so far is written very well. It's quite engaging and tells a remarkable story about a young man's life. It just raises questions of logic; if McCain has said that the sum lesson of his time in captivity was that it made him more reflective and stronger, my opinion would be that he really hasn't dealt with the anger and pain of it all, or he's lying. --Moni3 (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- McCain has said: "Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war. I hate war, and I know how terrible its costs are."[26] Is there anything like this currently in the Wikipedia article?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That remark was made in 2008. I prefer to use the quote that he said a couple of days after the 1967 Forrestal fire, that's already in the article: ""It's a difficult thing to say. But now that I've seen what the bombs and the napalm did to the people on our ship, I'm not so sure that I want to drop any more of that stuff on North Vietnam."[75]"
- McCain has said: "Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war. I hate war, and I know how terrible its costs are."[26] Is there anything like this currently in the Wikipedia article?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- McCain hasn't said that that was the sum lesson of this time in captivity. He spends a whole chapter ("Free Men") in Faith of My Fathers on this. Perhaps the key paragraph in terms of this discussion is this: "Neither did we expect to soon forget the years of anguish we had suffered under our captors' 'humane and lenient' treatment. A few men never recovered. They were the last, tragic casualties in a long, bitter war. But most of us healed from our wounds, the physical and spiritual ones, and have lived happy and productive lives since." (p. 345) To support that conclusion, you can also read POW James Stockdale's New York Times op-ed on this, "John McCain in the crucible", which he wrote after McCain was being hit with instability rumors during his 2000 presidential campaign. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure how much this is worth commenting on further. I guess you can decide. I'm not saying McCain should be under the bed with a knife in his teeth at the sound of loud bangs. There's a difference between having nightmares, anger at your captors, and shame for being broken, and being considered mentally ill. He doesn't have to be diagnosed with a neurosis or a psychosis for him to be affected by his experiences for years after. I wouldn't fault him for it at all. It makes him more human and seem less like a cardboard prop of a political machine. It wouldn't be his tensing up at the rattling of keys that would concern me about his being president. I think the article so far is written very well. It's quite engaging and tells a remarkable story about a young man's life. It just raises questions of logic; if McCain has said that the sum lesson of his time in captivity was that it made him more reflective and stronger, my opinion would be that he really hasn't dealt with the anger and pain of it all, or he's lying. --Moni3 (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've worked on Hillary Rodham Clinton for three years, so I'm used to the added POV scrutiny and welcome it :-) But we're not claiming that he isn't "bothered" by some aspects of his POW experience. As the article says about his forced "confession", "He was haunted then and since with the feeling that he had dishonored his country, his family, his comrades and himself by his statement,[119][120] but as he later wrote, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."[89]" And of course, "His injuries left him incapable of raising his arms above his head to this day.[25]" which bothers him every day (he has trouble putting jackets on, and can't comb his hair). But in terms of general psychological effects, he's gotten a clean bill of health from a number of medical/psychiatric exams, many of which were conducted in the 1970s, long before he was viewed as a politician much less a presidential candidate. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is a matter of how much space is devoted to one issue or another, but how information is presented as neutrally as possible. It's a bit frightening to think what impact this article might have on voters. Because of the time of year, this article should get extra scrutiny for POV. This is part of why I am concerned about the unreal aspect of McCain's not being bothered by his POW experience and the extra helping of guilt about sleeping around on his first wife. This illogical juxtaposition of emotions sound like the perfect things a candidate should say to sway public opinion. The editors of this article have more responsibility than other FAC editors. This may be unfortunate, but I don't think so. We have to hold you to a bit of a higher standard knowing how often this article is used by readers, and for what purpose. I admire you for bringing the article this far and working so diligently to make sure all the comments are addressed. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would end up as
- I don't think it has to be ponderous. Can you include something like ...were won over by the force of his personality, which had the effect, according to Friend X of being "adjective", and Friend Y as "another adjective". --Moni3 (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence is confusing: Later in March, the same day saw McCain attending his father's funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, wearing his uniform for the final time before signing his discharge papers, and then flying to Phoenix with his wife Cindy to begin his new life.
- I've rephrased it: "Later in March, McCain attended his father's funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, wearing his uniform for the final time before signing his discharge papers, and the same day saw him flying to Phoenix with his wife Cindy to begin his new life."Ferrylodge (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I realize now I can fix the date in question - it's March 27, five days after Jack's death, per Worth the Fighting For. I've reworded again, based on that. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good luck. Let me know if you have questions. --Moni3 (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Moni3, thanks very much for your comments. I'll be responding on all of them, in a few hours ... Wasted Time R (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry it took me so long to return. --Moni3 (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, and thanks! Wasted Time R (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry it took me so long to return. --Moni3 (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not bad, but it's very heavily linked, which affects readability, appearance, and the likelihood that high-value links will be followed up. I see "Mississippi" linked many times in one para: two are separate, so one of those can go. "English" should not be linked. See MOSLINK. "Boarding school"? We do speak English. Tons of repeated links (such as "Southern/ers"). Just once, please. Complete audit required. I've removed the date autoformatting, which is no longer encouraged. See MOSNUM, which no longer encourages date autoformatting and which now prescribes rules for the raw formatting), and MOSLINK and CONTEXT. TONY (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony1, thanks very much for your comments. Regarding heavy linking, I've begun the reduction of these. "Mississippi" has been reduced, as has the overlinking in that first section. I'll continue with the other sections tonight. I will say that military articles tend to be more linked than most, due to the many place names, unit names, base names, equipment names, etc. that occur. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now gone through and reduced links throughout the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding date autoformatting being discouraged, this is the first I've heard of that. I hope everyone agrees, because otherwise I'm going to get whipsawed on this. Also, if autoformatting is out, I'm screwed on the dates and accessdates in all the cites, all of which were done in the ISO yyyy-mm-dd format. Guess I'll have to look for a tool that converts all of these into the hardcoded American format.... Wasted Time R (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony1, thanks very much for your comments. Regarding heavy linking, I've begun the reduction of these. "Mississippi" has been reduced, as has the overlinking in that first section. I'll continue with the other sections tonight. I will say that military articles tend to be more linked than most, due to the many place names, unit names, base names, equipment names, etc. that occur. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "my father's career. ... At each new school"—Nope, "career.... At"
- These occurrences all fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:50, 9 July 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.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boy Scouts of America
- 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 05:37, 15 July 2008 [27].
- Nominator(s): JonCatalán (talk)
This article passed a Good Article Review on 17 June 2008, but subsequently failed its A-Class Review - this seems to be the system, given that it only received a single support (although no opposes). Everything in the review was responded do, and if there were issues they were fixed. Given that in my opinion it did pass the ACR, it just did not receive enough attention from potential voters, I want to put it up for FAC, instead of going through the ACR process again. Please, tell me if there are any issues and I will immediately solve them, thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- MilHist A-class Review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandy, this is the Peer review. Yours is the ACR. Woody (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandy, this is the Peer review. Yours is the ACR. Woody (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- The Santa Barbara Sistemas reference is lacking publisher.
I'm assuming that current note 39 United Nationas Register of Conventional Arms is the same as the the ref "Spain" United Natioansl Register of Conventiaonl Arms? Probablys should list the note as "Spain" United Nations Register of Conventional Arms to make it consistent.- I'm unable to judge the reliability of the Spanish language sources.
- Please alphabetize your references for ease of the reader finding them from the notes.
- Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback on the sources; the Spanish-language sources are from El País, a national newspaper, while the majority of the rest are from a monthly defense magazine called Fuerza Terrestre - many of the sources used for this article (except those published in Fuerza Terrestres) were also used for the Lince (tank) article. In regards to the SBS reference, who would I mark as the publisher? It's the company's website. As for the alphabetization of the sources, sources without authors are listed first and by title, otherwise they are alphabetized by author. Finally, I changed note 39! JonCatalán (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The SBS, I'd list the company as the publisher, that's who is putting the information out. I'm sure Sandy will look at the Spanish language sources for me, since I'm distressingly monolingual. (Okay, well, some Latin, but that's so useful!) I'd alphabetize all the references together. The idea is that when the reader wants to look up the full bibliographical details, they go to the references list which is alphabetical and easily find the shortened form you've used in the notes. So the references should have the first item of the entry be whatever the first item of the notes is. Usually that's author, but if it is lacking an author, it's title. So you alphabetize the references by the first item listed in each entry to make it easier for the reader to find the correct entry. Right now, they can't do that easily. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done! JonCatalán (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll check the Spanish-language sources once they are cleaned up. JonCatalán, after several FACs, we shouldn't have to point out the same issues again. Please separate References used in the article from those not used (as Further reading). Please use consistent date formatting and linking within your citations. Please use the language icon (in Spanish) consistently within citations (either at the beginning or the end of each citation, as long as you're consistent). And please use endashes instead of hyphens on page ranges: User:Brighterorange can run a script to fix them for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done! JonCatalán (talk) 13:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The SBS, I'd list the company as the publisher, that's who is putting the information out. I'm sure Sandy will look at the Spanish language sources for me, since I'm distressingly monolingual. (Okay, well, some Latin, but that's so useful!) I'd alphabetize all the references together. The idea is that when the reader wants to look up the full bibliographical details, they go to the references list which is alphabetical and easily find the shortened form you've used in the notes. So the references should have the first item of the entry be whatever the first item of the notes is. Usually that's author, but if it is lacking an author, it's title. So you alphabetize the references by the first item listed in each entry to make it easier for the reader to find the correct entry. Right now, they can't do that easily. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to Spanish language tagging, all the references should have 'Spanish' added in the template (instead of adding the es icon out of the template) - the news article seems to put it at the end, and the rest seem to put it after the title. Perhaps the templates should be revisited, because in regards to template Wiki code all of the references are consistent. All of the articles and books cited in the references section are used in the text, as well. And, if I missed some references I apologize, but I thought I had changed all the dashes to en dashes. :/ I apologize. JonCatalán (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was 'changing' all the dashes to endashes, but it won't save the changes - so, I'm assuming that they are already endashes. JonCatalán (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good news. I left a message on the citation template talk page and it should all be standardized now! JonCatalán (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "1987 – 1993" – "1987–1993"
- "Santa Bárbara Sistemas, Santa Bárbara Sistemas y el Programa Leopardo 2E, retrieved June 5, 2008" – missing publisher
Gary King (talk) 19:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both have been fixed! For the note, I kept consistency with the references and put Santa Bárbara Sistemas after the title, to denote the publisher - since, there is really no stated author. JonCatalán (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Made some minor edits. It is much better documented than the Leopard tank article. Good job. Enriquecardova (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but I think 'see also' sections are discouraged because they are not aesthetic. Many of those tanks are wikilinked from the article. Perhaps there is a better way of wikilinking some of those links? Thanks. JonCatalán (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Has only improved since its (unfortunately) failed ACR. And yeah, "See Also" shouldn't be used in a well-wikilinked article. Cam (Chat) 06:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No strong feelings on the See Also. It can be taken out.Enriquecardova (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on availability Hi, I am leaving my flat this weekend and so my internet access may be non-existant. I will try to access the computer prior to 14 July, but that's when I return to San Diego, California. If I do not respond to requests until then, you know my reasoning - I hope that this can stay open until then. JonCatalán (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support
- The Leopard 2E is expected to remain in service until 2025 at least - This needs to be rephrased as the end sounds awkward, but otherwise it's a fine article and definitely FA material. Skinny87 (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, since it's supposed to remain in service until 2025, I took out the at least (redundant, in any case). JonCatalán (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make it past the first two sentences:
- The Leopard 2E is a variant of the German-made Leopard 2 main battle tank tailored to the requirements of the Spanish Army, which acquired it as part of an armament modernization program named Programa Coraza, or Program Armor. The acquisition program for the Leopard 2E began in 1994, five years after the cancellation of the Lince tank program, when Spain started procurement efforts to acquire the Leopard 2.
WP:ITALICS are used for non-English language words, but the opening sentence is the opposite, with Programa Coraza unitalicized yet Program Armor italicized. Please check the entire article for italicization of foreign phrases (non-English). I can't sort what the first sentence means; it seems to be missing a comma somewhere, and I don't know what "main battle tank" means. I can't sort the meaning of the second sentence. Acquisition program ... procurement efforts to acquire? Isn't that redundant? I think it says the same thing three times (acquisition, procurement, acquire). Is it trying to say, "In 1994, five years after the Lince tank program was cancelled, Spain started the program to acquire the Leopard 2E? That's as far as I got; the prose is going to need attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, Sandy. I did some copyediting to work on the sentences you mentioned and to do some copyediting per Tony's comments below. I hope it looks better now. If not I will continue to work on it when I return to San Diego on the 14th. Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until copy-edited throughout by fresh eyes. Here are random examples.
- "In 2005 it was declared by the Spanish government that the 108 Leopard 2A4s were to cost Spain 16.9 million euros, which were to be paid by 2016." Clumsy sentence.
- Equivalency. Why not plain "equivalence"?
- "Like the Swedish Leopard 2S (Strv 122), the Leopard 2E also has increased armor thickness"—Spot the redundant word.
- Hyphen? "identical second generation thermal viewers"
- What's wrong with this one? "These are integrated into the tank's by"
TONY (talk) 10:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Tony, thanks for the review! I did some 'extensive' copyediting on the article, trying to get rid of some redundant words. I hope it looks better now. As per the hyphen in thermal viewers, I don't think there is one (one is not included in the source, for example - but the author of the source is Spanish and English is not his native language so I'm not sure). If it doesn't look good yet I will continue to work on it when I come back and try to put it through the league of copyeditors. Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have asked another editor to look through the article and copy edit it as needed, but I don't know when said editor will be able to get to it. I hope that this FAC is not forgotten! JonCatalán (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support with one caveat:
- On my computer, there is a very large gap between the heading for Programa Coraza and the text in that section. I suspect that is because the image is underneath the infobox. Perhaps the image could be moved to the left?
Karanacs (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With the editing done while I was flying the problem doesn't seem to show up on my computer here, but I did see it when I was using a computer in an internet café in Madrid. Is the problem still existing on your screen? JonCatalán (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, partial and incomplete date delinking on yet another FAC, and failure to add WP:NBSPs on delinked dates. Also, is it Armor Program or Program Armor? The article is inconsistent. All of the date delinking and NBSPs need to be fixed. Incorrect endashes as well (2003 – 2008); please have someone who knows MoS go through and catch all of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For future reference, WP:NBSP just changed.[28] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for going through and offering some samples. For example, I tried to add some nbsp's were I could find the need for them, such as Leopard 2 and what not. I'm not sure about 'manhours' - it's certainly the terminology the source uses, but it may not be politically correct from an English-speaking perspective. I'm not sure. JonCatalán (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've withdrawn my oppose, but there are still a few things to fix. There's "2x" in the infobox; is this meant to be two times ...? If so, "2 ×".
- "with 15 more being delivered before the end"—Remove "being".
- Should "Leopard 2E" be bolded in the captions?
- "It is also one of the most expensive Leopard 2s built to date"—Remove "also". I see other alsos that need to be weeded out ("scope ...").
- Caption: Close-up ...—Shouldn't finish with a dot. See MOS. TONY (talk) 08:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS I think I've fixed the hard spaces and date auto stuff. TONY (talk) 09:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I believe that User:Mattisse has been kind enough to do quite a bit of copy editing and fixed these issues themselves. JonCatalán (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing only image licensing: looks good. --NE2 13:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, all the images are my own. JonCatalán (talk) 03:41, 15 July 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 19:19, 25 July 2008 [29].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's passed GA, and why do one species when you can do 24? I'm a significant contributor (262/383 currently), but other members of the bird project have been very helpful, especially with the images. Reviewers please note that I'll be away for two days during the week, so responses may not always be instantaneous (something to look forward to when I get back) jimfbleak (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Remove the period from "A Eurasian Nuthatch climbing a tree trunk in search of food." – it's a sentence fragment
- The table is huge – perhaps move it to List of Nuthatch species?
Generally, the article looks pretty good. Gary King (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the full stop. I'd rather leave the table as is for now, if there is more support for hiving it off, obviously I'll reconsider; prior to FAC it hasn't been suggested. jimfbleak (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going to review the article for GAN but when I saw the list, I was scared away :) Gary King (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the table presents the information well, and, if it was not there, the article would probably need a list of species. Snowman (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reduced the image thumbnails to 100px, less overwhelming now,
could maybe go to 80 if necessaryjimfbleak (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reduced the image thumbnails to 100px, less overwhelming now,
- Support
Comments- just starting to look through now.At 37kb, the article is at the lower end of FA size anyway.Prose looks good first up but there are a few comprehensiveness issues: - The
taxonomy section doesn't really talk about the family sittidae until it pops up mentioned by name after the mention of sittellas. I think it needs a couple of sentences at the bottom of first para or beginning of second para, on definition of sittidae (Linnaeus the authority of the family too?).
Also, the cladebox mentions the wrens/gnatcatcher clade etc but this is not mentioned in the text. It would be good to have,along with why they are placed there (morphology or DNA) (still not mentioned what it is based on) and how strong is the evidence - are there any alternatives?
- This is the consensus tree and for this part there is apparently fairly strong evidence from DNA. Added the reference and noticed that the usual academic standard pp. for multiple pages and p. for single page is not followed. Shyamal (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any fossil record? There should be something on evolutionary origins and where they are thought to have occurred.Great work. If there is doubt about what the fossil is, then explain the knowledge including uncertainties and possibilities. This is one of those great situations where a bit of openminded writing and less dogma is fantastic. Let the reader be the detective and draw their own conclusions...sorry I am going off on a tangent but you get the idea.
and perhaps should be promoted to a full species. - not thrilled about the wording - sounds like the WP article is pushing for this. Can be worded differently - 'strong evidence for specific status'? or something similar.
first-year birds - sounds odd to me - 'year-old birds' or 'birds in their first year'?
It has occurred as a vagrant - 'It has been recorded as a vagrant'?
Breeding and survival has lots of eggs, by switching I think you could get rid of one lot.
Anyway, these may be doable or not on sourcing. Let us know. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done as far as possible. the minor points all fixed. I can't find anything on the evolutionary origins of the Sittidae (Lesson, not Linnaeus), although it's "obvious" they arose in SE Asia. I've rejigged the cladebox text into the main, but I have nothing more than what's there. Should I remove the text and cladebox? I already had the fossil ref (there's nothing else I can find) but didn't put it in originally since it may not be a nuthhatch (or a treecreeper) - new genus, not Sitta or Certhia jimfbleak (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the fossil issue, that's all there is, I only have access to the abstract, and everything that says is in the text. On the superfamily bit, I've added the DNA basis and set it in context, but there is virtually nothing else out there regarding the robustness of including the wrens and gnatcatchers with the nuthatches and treecreepers. jimfbleak (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done as far as possible. the minor points all fixed. I can't find anything on the evolutionary origins of the Sittidae (Lesson, not Linnaeus), although it's "obvious" they arose in SE Asia. I've rejigged the cladebox text into the main, but I have nothing more than what's there. Should I remove the text and cladebox? I already had the fossil ref (there's nothing else I can find) but didn't put it in originally since it may not be a nuthhatch (or a treecreeper) - new genus, not Sitta or Certhia jimfbleak (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look good, links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It generally looks good. I have added some cite info about food caches (something my supervisor is into in a big way). I do have a major problem with the first line and the taxonomy section however, it is inconsistent and confusing with regards to whether the article is about a family or genus. The taxobox states that it is about the family Sittidae and genus Sitta, but the first line only alludes to the genus. The Taxonomy section mentions that the family sometimes includes the Wallcreeper, but that species is treated as its own family on its page. If the article is about the whole family then Sittidae should be bolded and in the first line. If the whole family is taken to include the Wallcreeper and this is the family page then that atypical "nuthatch" must get further mentions in the text. If it isn't included in this page but in the Sittidae family then a new page is needed for the family. Perhaps a better solution is to simply treat it as a separate family for now and treat this page as the family page for the Sittidae. But the current arrangement isn't really good. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All these edits and I never checked the taxobox!. I've fixed this now as the genus, made Wallcreeper consistent, and substubbed Sittidae so it's not a redirect jimfbleak (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (Full disclosure, I am WP:BIRD member and have made a few contributions to this article while reviewing). I would mention which family the genus is from in the intro. And curses for expanding an article to featured status, then demoting it down to genus and creating another family stub. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All these edits and I never checked the taxobox!. I've fixed this now as the genus, made Wallcreeper consistent, and substubbed Sittidae so it's not a redirect jimfbleak (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Note to reviewers I think I've now addressed outstanding concerns from Gary, Caliber and Sabine's Sunbird. I'll be in London until Tuesday now, so responses to further comments unlikely before Tuesday pm at earliest. jimfbleak (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks and apologies. I'll try to work up the Sittidae article when this is done, and I'll add the family to intro jimfbleak (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The image Image:Red-breasted-nuthatchmirror.jpg is a derivative of Image:Red-breasted-Nuthatch.jpg. I think the mirror image should be attributed partly to the original author and partly to the author who modified it for this article. Other images on this page need checking too. Snowman (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have wrote in the attribution details to the mirror image, but I note that the copyright that was given to it is different from the original source image. I think that only the uploader (who is away until Tuesday) can change this, if it needs correcting. If the image is not needed, I guess that it can be deleted. Snowman (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem fixed by using a new cropped image: I am not sure why a mirror image was used, and so I have re-cropped the source image (leaving it facing to the right) and repositioned the new image on the left of the page. This semiautomated tool on commons did most of the work. Snowman (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that, you seem to have sorted it all while I've been in London. I'm not sure what the convention is on attributing modified images. Obviously the modification is my own work, and I have to name the original image to justify GFDL, but I don't know what else is expected. Since you've sorted the issue here, perhaps we could discuss elsewhere (the bird project page? jimfbleak (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not know the exact details, but the license on the original work has implications for the licenses of modified works ad infinitum. Anyway, I think that the semi-automated tool did not have an option to use the license that you used for your modified work (no longer on the page). I think that explains it, but you can start a discussion on a specialised page, if you want to. Snowman (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for completeness, I've now discovered the derivative image page on commons, so problem shouldn't arise again. jimfbleak (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not know the exact details, but the license on the original work has implications for the licenses of modified works ad infinitum. Anyway, I think that the semi-automated tool did not have an option to use the license that you used for your modified work (no longer on the page). I think that explains it, but you can start a discussion on a specialised page, if you want to. Snowman (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that, you seem to have sorted it all while I've been in London. I'm not sure what the convention is on attributing modified images. Obviously the modification is my own work, and I have to name the original image to justify GFDL, but I don't know what else is expected. Since you've sorted the issue here, perhaps we could discuss elsewhere (the bird project page? jimfbleak (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem fixed by using a new cropped image: I am not sure why a mirror image was used, and so I have re-cropped the source image (leaving it facing to the right) and repositioned the new image on the left of the page. This semiautomated tool on commons did most of the work. Snowman (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have wrote in the attribution details to the mirror image, but I note that the copyright that was given to it is different from the original source image. I think that only the uploader (who is away until Tuesday) can change this, if it needs correcting. If the image is not needed, I guess that it can be deleted. Snowman (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The table has the header "Species in taxonomic order", but this is not explained, and there is no footnote. I think this jargon should be explained. Snowman (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A footnote has been added, but it seems to be incomprehensible. The foot note says "...means that the list is in the order of the relationships between the species", which does not explain what the order is. Is it the order in which they were discovered? or something to do with the DNA of the species (and if so what)? The page about taxonomy that it is now linked to also does not explain what taxonomic order is. Snowman (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnote added and reworded - if you're not happy with this version, please reword as appropriate. jimfbleak (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The rewording seems better, but as I was seeking an explanation and as I do not know much about this, I can not make substantial edits to the footnote. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that there is much more that can be said - the reasons for the order vary from case to case, all we can say is that this is what it's thought to be jimfbleak (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The rewording seems better, but as I was seeking an explanation and as I do not know much about this, I can not make substantial edits to the footnote. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnote added and reworded - if you're not happy with this version, please reword as appropriate. jimfbleak (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, Jim, I recognise the prose patterns. Let's take the opening:
The nuthatches are a genus, Sitta, of generally very similar small passerine birds found in much of the Northern Hemisphere. Together with the Wallcreeper, they constitute the family Sittidae. They have a distinctive shape with large heads, short tails and powerful bills and feet, and all the species are recognisable as belonging to this group. These are vocal birds with loud, simple songs.
Oppose—Maybe the first clause is OK, but it's a pity it has a choppy, hiccoughy rhythm. The move from the taxonomic them to where they're found, back to the taxonomic, doesn't help. Move the "found in" phrase down to where you talk about their shape etc. Comma after "shape". Why is "all the species are recognisable as belonging to this group" (which, genus? family? I'm confused) jammed into a sentence about their appearance. It's a complete mess. Sorry.
- "Most nuthatches breed in temperate or montane woodland, but two species have adapted to rocky habitats." OK, temperate or montane, compared with just rocky: is rocky temperate or montane? Or tropical? Your normal punters like me could be forgiven for thinking that "rocky" occurs in all climates.
- "All nest in holes or crevices, and several members of this genus reduce the size of the entrance to the breeding cavity by constructing a mud wall." First you refer to them as "All"; then they get the full shebang, "of this genus". Very awkward.
- Careful with you use of "but", which usually implies contradiction. The two "buts" in the lead are only just OK.
- "head first", I think, should be hyphenated, especially in BrEng.
This can't possibly be promoted. The prose is wickedly awkward, so that readers have to work harder than they should, but still don't get the straight, etched line they deserve. A fresh copy-editor is required, and it's not a quick job. All of the text needs surgery. You have a lot to offer WP in this field, but I can't see these unfortunate features of your writing style improving. I don't mean to attack you personally—far from it: I nurse a hope that you might become a fine writer. Tony (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewritten intro per comments above jimfbleak (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presentation of the table; I think the table can usefully summaries more details of the genus. I have reorganised the table to make better use of space. There is now room in the table for a description in which identification details of the species and the length of the birds could be included in an easy to scan format. Scanning is easier when the image is to the left of a block of text. Snowman (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not happy about this. The information for each species should be in the species' article. I don't want an edit war in the middle of FAC so the alternatives are- You complete the species' details (I can just about live with that.)
- revert to previous format
- withdraw article from FAC - even I wouldn't support it with an almost empty column
jimfbleak (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion on the talk page indicates that the table needed an improved format, and you have written "if you want to change the format, please go ahead" here, and that is what I have done which seemed to be with your blessing, at least in part on 8 July 2008, 11 days after this FAC started. It is a wiki article, so several editors can help to complete the table. There is some criticism of this article in this FAC, and some editors have criticised the table on the talk page rather than discussing the table here. There is a lot of information on this page that is also in the species pages, so that is not a problem in itself, the table being is an easy-to-view summary of the genus. Some of the images are diagrammes, some photographs, some drawings, and there is one video link, and the inconsistency has been mentioned on the talk page. The new description column will bring more consistency to the table. This article needs every help it can get at aiming at FA level. Edit warring is irrelevant to my table reformat, which is to improve the table on the nuthatch genus, and is as discussed on the talk page under two discussion headings, at least in parts. I hope that the main editors of this page can continue to improve this page, with the help of opinions and contributions from editors new to the page and I welcome more opinions on the table. It may look like the article is heading for a fail and it may seem to be a good tactic to withdraw your FAC nomination, but many pages have improved during FAC and I would like to give it more time. Snowman (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Description details added in new table column. Snowman (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion on the talk page indicates that the table needed an improved format, and you have written "if you want to change the format, please go ahead" here, and that is what I have done which seemed to be with your blessing, at least in part on 8 July 2008, 11 days after this FAC started. It is a wiki article, so several editors can help to complete the table. There is some criticism of this article in this FAC, and some editors have criticised the table on the talk page rather than discussing the table here. There is a lot of information on this page that is also in the species pages, so that is not a problem in itself, the table being is an easy-to-view summary of the genus. Some of the images are diagrammes, some photographs, some drawings, and there is one video link, and the inconsistency has been mentioned on the talk page. The new description column will bring more consistency to the table. This article needs every help it can get at aiming at FA level. Edit warring is irrelevant to my table reformat, which is to improve the table on the nuthatch genus, and is as discussed on the talk page under two discussion headings, at least in parts. I hope that the main editors of this page can continue to improve this page, with the help of opinions and contributions from editors new to the page and I welcome more opinions on the table. It may look like the article is heading for a fail and it may seem to be a good tactic to withdraw your FAC nomination, but many pages have improved during FAC and I would like to give it more time. Snowman (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing only image licensing:
Image:Rocknuthatchmirror.jpg needs source details, as does Image:RedbreastedNuthatch23.jpg (what page was that downloaded from?).--NE2 13:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll reupload shortly now I know the correct way to do this jimfbleak (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the first image I gave incomplete and incorrect details, now amended on the image page. Wikimedia fx wouldn't let me licence this as a derivative, but since they are from the same pd source, this can stand alone anyway now. The red-breasted is a US federal picture, but I can't now find the source, so I've deleted it from the article. 16:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you; all fixed now. --NE2 16:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the first image I gave incomplete and incorrect details, now amended on the image page. Wikimedia fx wouldn't let me licence this as a derivative, but since they are from the same pd source, this can stand alone anyway now. The red-breasted is a US federal picture, but I can't now find the source, so I've deleted it from the article. 16:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'll reupload shortly now I know the correct way to do this jimfbleak (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support On a fresh read-through after the recent rounds of editing, I am satisfied with the prose. --Laser brain (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks, credit to the reviewers jimfbleak (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I must concur with my colleague that the prose is very hard to get through. I'm not talking about glaring errors—the prose just needs smoothing. Some random examples:
- "Nuthatches are vocal birds with loud, simple songs, which they use to advertise their territories." Advertise seems an odd word, but perhaps it's my ignorance of birds. Do they want other beasts to come in (which "advertise" suggests) or to stay out?
- "They are omnivorous, eating mostly insects, nuts and seeds, and the habit of wedging a large food item in a crevice and then hacking at it with a strong bill gives this group its English name." Odd construction makes readers go far ahead of "... and the habit" to discover that it's not another list item and is actually outlining another concept.
- "The nuthatches are all placed in the single genus Sitta ..." Why not just "the genus Sitta" since you already wrote "all"?
- "... the word element hatch being related to hack through palatalization." Linguistics journal, yes. General-audience encyclopedia, no please.
- "The family Sittidae is usually considered to contain the "true" nuthatches in the subfamily Sittinae, and the Wallcreeper as the only representative of the subfamily Tichodromadinae." Again, very belabored and I'm left unclear about what you're really saying.
- A definite candidate for withdrawal, copy-editing, and peer review. --Laser brain (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've addressed the specific points made ("advertising" is standard, but I've spelt it out anyway). Thanks for the invitation to withdraw, but I decline to do so. A family level article was never going to be easy, but Nuthatch can take its chances here. If it fails, so be it, I'll concentrate on Greater Crested Tern instead. Having been rebuffed twice by an fac copy editor in the past, I see little mileage in that route - or are you volunteering?. jimfbleak (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will copy-edit almost anything on request, but you'd have to wait for me to finish a couple other commitments. Also, I'd have to be monitored to make sure I don't change the meaning of various passages. A good example is "advertised" above, but I thank you for teaching me something today. :) --Laser brain (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that's fine, thanks for kind offer. jimfbleak (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will copy-edit almost anything on request, but you'd have to wait for me to finish a couple other commitments. Also, I'd have to be monitored to make sure I don't change the meaning of various passages. A good example is "advertised" above, but I thank you for teaching me something today. :) --Laser brain (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've addressed the specific points made ("advertising" is standard, but I've spelt it out anyway). Thanks for the invitation to withdraw, but I decline to do so. A family level article was never going to be easy, but Nuthatch can take its chances here. If it fails, so be it, I'll concentrate on Greater Crested Tern instead. Having been rebuffed twice by an fac copy editor in the past, I see little mileage in that route - or are you volunteering?. jimfbleak (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport. A fine article. A few comments:- I have a question about the intent of this sentence: **"The two species are not strongly tied to woodland; as their names imply, the two rock nuthatches breed on rocky slopes or cliffs, although both will move into wooded areas when not breeding." The prior sentence discussed to woodland species; why the sudden reference to rock nuthatches in a sentence that starts by discussing two woodland species? Is the intent to note that though several species are tied to woodland, not all are?
- That's what I was trying to say - this bit has given me more grief than anything else. It shouldn't be "the two species", anyway, I've corrected that.
- That fixed it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I was trying to say - this bit has given me more grief than anything else. It shouldn't be "the two species", anyway, I've corrected that.
- "They nest in cavities, with most species using tree holes except for the two species of rock nuthatches, making a simple cup lined with softer materials to receive the eggs." I've copyedited this sentence but would change it further if I knew for certain that the rock nuthatches are the only nuthatches not to use tree holes. Is that the case?
- That's correct
- OK; I've edited it further. Let me know if the new phrasing is still accurate. Mike Christie (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's correct
- The cross-section of the nest is "based on various sources" according to the uploader of the image. Could you add a citation to at least one appropriate source? I don't insist that the citation be in the article; adding it to the image talk page would be OK. It looks as if the Harrap and Quinn reference to pp. 155-158 in the adjacent text probably covers it.
- I'll do that as soon as I've posted this
- Done, used H&Q
- I'll do that as soon as I've posted this
- I looked at Albatross as a comparison article, since it's featured and covers more than a single species. There are some sections in that article that don't appear here. Can you comment on whether it would be useful to have sections, or perhaps just a little more information, on evolution? How about a map showing distribution (not down to the individual species, but just of the overall Sitta distribution? Is there anything interesting to be said about their flight? Is there any notable courting behaviour?
- Small birds like nuthatches leave few traces in the fossil record, and I can find nothing concrete about their evolution although they "obviously" spread from south Asia. I have zero map-making skills, and I'm not sure what it would add - basically shading in most of NAM, Europe and Asia. Unlike albatrosses, where the flight is well-studied, small non-migratory birds excite little interest. I'll check again to see if there's any thing to add about courtship.
- There's nothing for the family as a whole. Courtship is described in detail for a few well-studied species, notably Eurasian, but nothing that can be safely generalised. In previous FAs I've also looked at diseases and parasites, but these small woodland birds don't attract much investigation.
- Fair enough. If you can source a statement about their "obvious" origin, phrased that way, that would be a reasonable addition, I'd think. Mike Christie (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing for the family as a whole. Courtship is described in detail for a few well-studied species, notably Eurasian, but nothing that can be safely generalised. In previous FAs I've also looked at diseases and parasites, but these small woodland birds don't attract much investigation.
- Small birds like nuthatches leave few traces in the fossil record, and I can find nothing concrete about their evolution although they "obviously" spread from south Asia. I have zero map-making skills, and I'm not sure what it would add - basically shading in most of NAM, Europe and Asia. Unlike albatrosses, where the flight is well-studied, small non-migratory birds excite little interest. I'll check again to see if there's any thing to add about courtship.
- I've done a copyedit pass and found a few things to fix, some of which were noted by others above. Overall I think the prose is FA quality now. I'll be glad to support once the points above are addressed.
-- Mike Christie (talk) 10:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your much needed help, if you can get the rock nuthatches to make sense, I'd be grateful. jimfbleak (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- remaining concerns now addressed. jimfbleak (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Switched to support. Mike Christie (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks to you and users Shyamal, Circeus and Snowmanradio who have also helped to salvage this article. jimfbleak (talk) 13:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Switched to support. Mike Christie (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- remaining concerns now addressed. jimfbleak (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your much needed help, if you can get the rock nuthatches to make sense, I'd be grateful. jimfbleak (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
both negative and positive (in response to the above)
- I think the table is fine. I'm not overly bothered by the variation in pictures and drawings. I think the link to taxonomic order in the title is enough explanation.
You may want to order the refs in numerical order, e.g. ...north of its extensive range.[40][39] (there are several)- Lead
They forage for insects hidden in or under bark - I don't think bark needs to be wikilinked, it's a common term.
- Taxonomy
The English name, "nuthatch", of the genus refers to the habit... - Could you safely remove of the genus?...hacking at it with their strong bill: hatch being etymologically related to hack. - I would think you'd need to replace being with is, or else replace the colon with a comma.Some taxonomists place the nuthatches and treecreepers in a larger group along with the wrens and gnatcatchers. - could you get rid of along?The fossil record for this group appears to be restricted to a foot bone of an early Miocene bird from Bavaria which has been identified as an extinct representative of the Certhioidea clade. - what does appears to be? Wouldn't we know for sure whether it was? Also, I would remove this wikilink around clade and link the first instance instead.Species boundaries in the nuthatches may be difficult to define; the Red-breasted Nuthatch of North America, the Corsican Nuthatch and the Chinese Nuthatch have breeding ranges separated by thousands of kilometres, but are similar in habitat preference, appearance and song. - the may be difficult is a little confusing here. Can we know for sure whether it's difficult? Also, this is a long, complex sentence, you could maybe split it.Together with the Krüper's and Algerian Nuthatch, which they also resemble in plumage and vocalisations, they form a superspecies, the members of which all excavate their own nests - this sounds awkward to me. How about which have similar plumage and vocalisations to the... and separating the members of which all excavate their own nests into a new sentence?They have been regarded as anything from one to four species,[4] with the latter being the current view. - this sounds awkward to me, with the anything from, and the with transition, but I can't figure out how to fix it.
- Description
Patterns on the head can include a long black eye-stripe, contrasting white supercilium, dark forehead or cap. - wouldn't there be an and? Is eye-stripe really hyphenated? Is there a better way to word than can include?This is a very difficult sentence: The sizes of nuthatches vary from the Giant Nuthatch, 195 mm (7.75 in) long and weighing 36–47 g (1.3–1.6 oz)[35] to the Brown-headed Nuthatch or the Pygmy Nuthatch, both around 100 mm (4 in) long and weighing about 10 g (0.36 oz),[21] but all are immediately recognisable as members of the same family. How about two: The sizes of nuthatches vary, but all are immediately recognisable as members of the same family. The largest is the Giant Nuthatch, which is 195 mm (7.75 in) long and weighs 36–47 g (1.3–1.6 oz), and the smallest...- Their songs tend to be simple, and often identical to the calls but longer in duration - what's the difference between a song and a call?
- Er, what's the difference between a breeding song and a contact call? I don't suppose there's an article to wikilink to?
- Good idea, now linked
The Red-breasted Nuthatch coexists with the Black-capped Chickadee in much of its range - This sentence introduces the rest of the paragraph, but your reader has no idea why they're reading it until later. I would rearrange it to have the last sentence higher up. Or you could include it as a parenthetical in a later sentence (which is quite long and could stand to be split).
- Distribution and habitat
Representatives of the nuthatch family occur in suitable habitat in most of North America... - suitable? I don't think this adds any explanation, it's kind of circular....although both will move into wooded areas when not breeding. - could you do away with will with no change in meaning? How about both? Also when not breeding strikes me as a little awkward, but this may not need to be changed. What about changing the clause to ...only moving into wooded areas when they are not breeding?Those that breed further north, like Eurasian and Red-breasted, may be lowland birds in the north of their range, but associated with mountains further south. I read this sentence several times and still don't get it.The Velvet-fronted Nuthatch is the sole member of the family for which the preferred habitat is tropical lowland forests. - would it change the meaning to say which prefers?
- Breeding and survival
The altricial chicks take about 21–27 days to fledge - could you explain altricial in parentheses?One hundred and seventy Pygmy Nuthatches have been recorded at a single roost, and this species is also able to lower its body temperature when roosting - This is confusing because it covers two different topics. I would split out the second half of this sentence and combine it with the next sentence.- I moved a sentence for flow here. If the ref at the end of it applies to the whole paragraph, you should move it to the end again, but I didn't want to for fear of making it look like the ref endorses more than it does. delldot talk 15:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref moved
- Feeding
...often hanging on on foot and supporting themselves with the other. - often hanging on one foot?It may carry the bark tool from tree to tree, or to cover a seed cache. - I would add the second half of this sentence to the previous one, or flesh it out and make it its own sentence.These caches are remembered[56] for as long as 98 days. - citation for the 98 day figure?
- Status
- Some nuthatches, like the Eurasian Nuthatch and the North American species, have large populations and wide geographical distributions, and present few conservation problems,[14] although local populations are affected by reduction and fragmentation of woodlands. - Long sentence. Also, is present the right word here?
- Still looks long to me, but I'll defer to others if they think it's all right. delldot talk 15:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some nuthatches, like the Eurasian Nuthatch and the North American species, have large populations and wide geographical distributions, and present few conservation problems,[14] although local populations are affected by reduction and fragmentation of woodlands. - Long sentence. Also, is present the right word here?
- I've left as is for now, seems disjointed to me if split into two sentences
The endangered White-browed Nuthatch is known only from the Mount Victoria area of Burma, where forest up to 2,000 m (6,560 ft) has been almost totally cleared and habitat between 2,000–2,500 m (6,560–8200 ft) has been heavily degraded. - I don't understand the measurements. If we're talking area, wouldn't it be square meters? Or is this above sea level or something?Nearly 12,000 people live in the national park, and their fires and gum traps add to the pressure on the birds. - What's a gum trap?The former species prefers open pine woodland, and is better able to cope with tree felling, but although still locally common, it has been lost from several of the areas in which it was recorded in the early 20th century - too long.A law for the promotion of tourism came into force in Turkey in 2003, further exacerbating the threats to the habitat. - this is too vague to be helpful. What did the law do that threatened them?- Good, but you might remove the "foreign investors" thing; surely foreign investors aren't more of a threat than any other kind? Or do they somehow develop in a less sustainable way? delldot talk 15:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, the only point really was that it was particularly difficult for foreigners to invest before the 2003 law.
We've discussed this before: I'm still not really comfortable with the paragraph based on a primary study in Breeding and survival (Beginning An American study showed that nuthatch responses...). This wouldn't be cool in the medicine Wikiproject, but I don't know anything about the bird project--is this common practice? My problem with original studies is that the article seems to assert that this is always the case based on one study, it's not clear how relevant it is, and other issues with primary sources. But if other folks in the bird wikiproject say that use of primary sources is ok, I'm fine with it.- How about combing the article for long, complicated sentences?
Did you get that copyedit from Laser Brain? If not, I think it's still a good idea. Let me know when you've addressed these and (hopefully) when you've gotten the outside copyedit so I can have another look. delldot talk 16:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- as far as bird related sources go, the most useful thing about wikipedia articles at least from a research point of view are the links to primary sources, especially when there is a dearth of reviews or compilations (secondary/tertiary sources) to go by especially on ecological, behavioural and not to mention the ongoing work in phylogenetics.Shyamal (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, if others think it's fine, I'm fine with it too. delldot talk 17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed a couple (can't find an earlier clade), try to get the rest done tomorrow. Just to add to the "sources" comment, even with a reasonably well-known group like this, if you take away the primary sources, there's very little apart from Harrap & Quinn for most of the many Asian species, and comprehensiveness becomes an issue.jimfbleak (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I can get the clade thing myself. I don't think the comprehensiveness would suffer in this case if you were to remove the info about the hawk/egg predator study, but I'm fine with the primary source staying. delldot talk 19:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've addresses all your comments as best I can, please let me know if there are any other issues or if my changes have failed to fully answer your concerns. I'm between a rock and a hard place on sentence length, since Tony always opposes my FACs partly on the basis that the sentences are too short and choppy. I'm genuinely very grateful for the time and effort you have put into helping with this FAC, but unfortunately laser brain says that a copyedit in the timespan of FAC is now unlikely, so your efforts and mine may yet come to nought, since the two opposes will probably stand by default. Thanks again, jimfbleak (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I can get the clade thing myself. I don't think the comprehensiveness would suffer in this case if you were to remove the info about the hawk/egg predator study, but I'm fine with the primary source staying. delldot talk 19:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed a couple (can't find an earlier clade), try to get the rest done tomorrow. Just to add to the "sources" comment, even with a reasonably well-known group like this, if you take away the primary sources, there's very little apart from Harrap & Quinn for most of the many Asian species, and comprehensiveness becomes an issue.jimfbleak (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All right, if others think it's fine, I'm fine with it too. delldot talk 17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- as far as bird related sources go, the most useful thing about wikipedia articles at least from a research point of view are the links to primary sources, especially when there is a dearth of reviews or compilations (secondary/tertiary sources) to go by especially on ecological, behavioural and not to mention the ongoing work in phylogenetics.Shyamal (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, beautifully done jimfbleak. Sorry for the sentence length thing, it's incredibly frustrating to be given conflicting suggestions by reviewers. But I do think there's a balance to be struck, and I still think some sentences are too long. For example, The Western Rock Nuthatch builds an elaborate flask-shaped nest from mud, dung and hair or feathers in a rock crevice, cave, under a cliff overhang or on a building, and may decorate the exterior of the mud wall or nearby crevices and cracks with items such as feathers and insect wings. I should have been clearer before: it's not exactly a sentence's length that's the issue, rather how easy it is to follow. I think sometimes replacing commas with colons or semicolons can give the reader a little pause and can separate ideas more distinctly. I don't think the efforts are for naught; if the article's improving, that's a good thing, whether or not it passes this process. Having produced a piece of work of this quality is something you should be proud of whether or not it has a shiny sticker. Looks like Awadevit's going to give it a copy edit, I look forward to seeing it afterwards! delldot talk 15:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks for the kind words, Awadewit seems to have fixed the rock nuthatch sentence. jimfbleak (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
}} Thanks for addressing these. Let me know when Awadewit's through copyediting: I'll read it again and hopefully be able to give my complete support! delldot talk 15:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--reads clear as a bell now. Just a couple more issues I picked up on my last read-through:
There are some sentences in the table that end with periods, some that don't.
- The descriptions I've added full stops since some have one mid-way anyway. The ranges, I've left without full stops except for the single example of a complete sentence. Is this mad?
- Much better, but there's still a full stop after "Endemic to Burma" and "China, Burma, and Thailand" in the White-browed Nuthatch and Giant Nuthatch rows, I don't see how these are different from the other ranges in that column. Am I missing something? A very minor point anyway. And yes, where there's a full sentence keep the full stop. delldot talk 16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those two deleted now. jimfbleak (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better, but there's still a full stop after "Endemic to Burma" and "China, Burma, and Thailand" in the White-browed Nuthatch and Giant Nuthatch rows, I don't see how these are different from the other ranges in that column. Am I missing something? A very minor point anyway. And yes, where there's a full sentence keep the full stop. delldot talk 16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The descriptions I've added full stops since some have one mid-way anyway. The ranges, I've left without full stops except for the single example of a complete sentence. Is this mad?
Juveniles and first-year birds are difficult to distinguish from adults because they are almost identical--Can this sentence be made less redundant? Either remove the first half of the sentence or expand on how they're almost identical.
- fixed by User:Shyamal
However, two species are not strongly tied to woodlands: the two rock nuthatches breed on rocky slopes or cliffs, although both move into wooded areas when not breeding --this sentence has two, two, and both, I think some of these are redundant.
- fixed by User:Shyamal
- Brilliant job, folks. I trust you'll take care of these couple minor things even though I'm supporting. delldot talk 13:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks to you for your constructive assistance with this difficult FA, and your support jimfbleak (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This may be a sign of my ignorance, but why does the article start "The nuthatches are" instead of "The nuthatch is"? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is because it is a group name rather than dealing with something specific. Something like vehicle; hard to make that kind of article start in singular form. Shyamal (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? There's no grammatical reason why the noun shouldn't be in the singular. I was wondering if there were some other reason. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Might this be a BE difference? I know there are singular/plural differences between AE and BE. Awadewit (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- May be just style. One could have "A nuthatch is a member of the genus Sitta", and this approach seems to be followed in dictionaries. Here are some other comparable bird group articles:
- Huh? There's no grammatical reason why the noun shouldn't be in the singular. I was wondering if there were some other reason. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eagle - Eagles are large birds of prey which are members of ...
- Egret - An egret is any of several herons, ...
- Heron - The herons are wading birds in the Ardeidae family.
- Kite_(bird) - Kites are raptors with long wings ...
So the choice seem to be between:
- A group_member is a member of another_grouping_name ...
and
- Group_members are individuals with group_characters ...
with the bird people preferring the second form which appears to be more informative. Shyamal (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I have started to copyedit this article. I am a slow copyeditor, though, and I usually need several passes to really polish an article.
I also have a question about one of the images. It is getting cut off on my screen. Here is a screenshot. Awadewit (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My browser (FF3) like yours cuts off the sound button, I have no idea why.
- The {{listen}} template doesn't scale; I forced the image size, which "fixed" the problem. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have finished my first copyediting pass. This was just to work on some paragraph and sentence-level organization. I am now going to work on words and punctuation. Please check over the changes I made to make sure that I did not introduce any errors.
- I have finished my second copyediting pass. I have left a series of questions on the article talk page to help with clarification. I will do a third copyediting pass later today or tomorrow. Awadewit (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have finished the last of my copyediting. It would be ideal to have another person run through the article, if one could be found. Awadewit (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Are there any videos of nuthatches hanging upside down? That would be awesome.) Awadewit (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be , but the only free video is the one linked from Blue Nuthatch. I'll check the changes when I do the next bit.
I think the lead needs to be a bit more of a summary of the article. For example, here are some major points of the article not mentioned in the lead: there are species boundaries issues; "The species diversity for Sittidae is greatest in southern Asia (possibly the original home of this family)"; the coloring of the nuthatch; the nesting practices of the nuthatch; etc. Awadewit (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll probably do this in the morning. Colouring probably too variable to summarise easily, but I'll look.
- I've had a shot at this, except nesting. It already say they nest in holes, and there are few other practices they have in common jimfbleak (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any idea regarding population sizes for each species? How many of these birds are there? (Is that a silly question?) Awadewit (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Potentially silly answer) Actually such estimates can vary widely and estimates tend to exist only where the species are rare, large and distinctive or the distribution range is small. Most ornithologists love to study species only when they get rare enough for the funding agencies to dole out money for research and at that stage there are few enough birds to count. Shyamal (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are estimates for the European and NAm, I'll add these to table. They are little more than educated guesses by the scientists. It defies belief that Red-breasted has twice the population of Eurasian, given the latter's enormous and tree-filled range. jimfbleak (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the table, are we going with "lower parts" or "underparts"?
- All changed to underparts
Is "eye stripe" one word or two? The article has both. I've checked several dictionaries and I think it is two words, but I wanted to make sure before I changed everything. Awadewit (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All changed to eye stripe (FF "find" function is invaluable for this!) jimfbleak (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - This is a well-written, interesting article on nuthatches. I didn't know anything about nuthatches before I started copyediting it, but now I'm quite fascinated. I keep telling everyone I meet little factoids about nuthatches. :) The article has presented its information in an accessible and organized way. It is well-illustrated and the sources appear to be reliable. Thanks for the hard work put into this! Awadewit (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Even better than your usual work. Fantastic tabling and media use, in addition to good verification and sound prose. Steven Walling (talk) formerly VanTucky 04:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Steve, I like the new incarnation jimfbleak (talk) 05:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had a Nuthatch on the bird feeders in my garden for the second time in 20 years today, does that count as a support???? jimfbleak (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on images
Image:Krupersnuthatch.jpg - In the description, this just says "my own work". I assume it is by the uploader, Jimfbleak, but it would be good to make that explicit.
Image:Rocknuthatchmirror.jpg - This image should indicate what encyclopedia it is taken from ("1905 encyclopedia" is not very revealing!) and I believe it should also indicate that it is cropped. Was this book published in Germany? (Need to know to check the license.)
- I've added the page and book titles, Naumann was German, publication details can be found here jimfbleak (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is Naumann's entire name? I'm trying to verify that he has been dead long enough to allow this book to be in the public domain. Also, note that the source for the image indicates it was published in 1897, not 1905. Was this a multivolume encyclopedia or something? Sorry to be so picky, but we have to get the details right!
- Johann Friedrich Naumann died 15 August 1857. He published The Natural History of German Birds between 1820-1844, so presumably multi-volume. I don't know why the dates on the website are after his death, presumably a later posthumous edition (I don't read German). This source hasn't had problems anywhere else, but if you're not happy, remove the image. Thanks, jimfbleak (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We just need to find the right date for this particular edition. I'll see what I can do. Awadewit (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added all of the details to the image description now. Awadewit (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We just need to find the right date for this particular edition. I'll see what I can do. Awadewit (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Johann Friedrich Naumann died 15 August 1857. He published The Natural History of German Birds between 1820-1844, so presumably multi-volume. I don't know why the dates on the website are after his death, presumably a later posthumous edition (I don't read German). This source hasn't had problems anywhere else, but if you're not happy, remove the image. Thanks, jimfbleak (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is Naumann's entire name? I'm trying to verify that he has been dead long enough to allow this book to be in the public domain. Also, note that the source for the image indicates it was published in 1897, not 1905. Was this a multivolume encyclopedia or something? Sorry to be so picky, but we have to get the details right!
- I've added the page and book titles, Naumann was German, publication details can be found here jimfbleak (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awadewit (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Bluenuthhatch01.jpg - In the description, it would be better to say "Watercolor drawing by Jimfbleak", rather than "my watercolor drawing".
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Awadewit (talk • contribs) 12:59, July 24, 2008
- Oppose - formating concerns, i.e, a large table in the middle of the text before any of the important information is not encyclopedic and makes pleasure reading difficult. I have concerns over the pictures (some are way too large) and the shortness of topics such as description. Final picture is not alternated. Plus, references aren't harvnb citation style for those that can be, i.e. there isn't a template there, which would be necessary. Also, you rely heavily on only a few books, when there are tons of "bird guides" and other resources out there, which seems to suggest that the page is not as comprehensive as it should be. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that many of the images are thumbnails, which means you control the size in your Preferences. --Laser brain (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that is incorrect. They are set by default at 180px, unless they have a px tag. However, those images are not set at that, and wont be for most people. For instance, the one is set at "275px", which overrides any controls. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I know that. The two I checked randomly did not have sizes specified, hence my word many, not all. Which images do you think are too large? --Laser brain (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The red-breasted nuthatch with the media file is forced to 275px because otherwise the image and the media file are cut off on some screens. See the discussion above. Awadewit (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One image still seems to stick out, and the final image isn't alternated. Now, the rest of the problems mentioned haven't been addressed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The description section for the family as a whole has to be short, since the 24 species have few shared characteristics. The information on the individual species is in the table. There are "tons of bird guides" out there, but most are field guides which are mainly intended for identification and specific to a particular country's avifauna; they do not give much behavioural information. Harrap and Quinn is the standard text for this family, and for 15 Asian species I know of no other source giving details of breeding biology, diet etc. Even for the Eurasian Nuthatch, there is no other serious life-history text apart from Snow and Perrins (for the European part of its range only, and that's largely based on Harrap and Quinn). "tons of field guides" is unhelpful, please point me to ones I've missed that give the information, are not based on Harrap, and give life histories for the Asian species. Or are you saying that Harrap is not comprehensive enough? jimfbleak (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I know that. The two I checked randomly did not have sizes specified, hence my word many, not all. Which images do you think are too large? --Laser brain (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that is incorrect. They are set by default at 180px, unless they have a px tag. However, those images are not set at that, and wont be for most people. For instance, the one is set at "275px", which overrides any controls. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comprehensiveness - comment is unhelpful, seems unfounded. What information is both available and missing? There are no sources I can find (and I did a great deal of research) that add anything significant to what is already here - eg there is nothing for the family as a whole, on, say, parasites and diseases. Again please be more specific about what reliable texts or other detailed sources you think I have omitted to use. jimfbleak (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't understand the references comment -what's wrong? - the article has been intensively reviewed and copyedited. How does it deviate from Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines? jimfbleak (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- images - I've move the last image as requested, put the red-breasted back to a thumb. Only forced pics now are the 100px in table jimfbleak (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Table - nowhere else it can logically go. There has to be some way of giving basic information about the 24 species, and anything other than a table will take up far more space. jimfbleak (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (copied from talk) I've moved species list as suggested, makes sense. On comprehensiveness, I think you miss the point. The article is about the genus as a whole, not individual nuthatch species, which have their own articles. I could easily write an article this length for Eurasian Nuthatch or any of the four American nuthatch species (it's the Asian ones which lack information - I note that of your links, only one was for an Asian species, one European, rest all American). The intention isn't to write every fact about every one of 24 nuthatch species - for what it's worth, I found 65 articles/books on just Eurasian Nuthatch in my research. Looking at the refs you gave, I've actually dealt with, for example, cooperative breeding in Brown-headed, and locomotion for the group as a whole, and I can't see why I need multiple refs for the same info (not required by MoS). In fairness, it's not enough to say there are lots of sources I haven't used - there are probably several hundred given the size of this genus. I repeat, if there are specific aspects of the genus Sitta that I haven't covered and for which the information exists you should specify what is missing, otherwise you give me no way of actioning your concern. Thanks jimfbleak (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (copied from talk) If you feel that it is unactionable, then state so on the FAC, and Sandy will take that into consideration when she decides. However, there are a lot of books out there on the genus as a whole or provide information on the genus. I just feel that the topic could use some more detail. A lot of your references tend to be references linked to the same line, instead of providing more information. Feel free to say more and go into depth. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (copied from talk) Examples of books on Sitta genus would be helpful, I only know of Harrap and Quinn. jimfbleak (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (copied from talk) If you feel that it is unactionable, then state so on the FAC, and Sandy will take that into consideration when she decides. However, there are a lot of books out there on the genus as a whole or provide information on the genus. I just feel that the topic could use some more detail. A lot of your references tend to be references linked to the same line, instead of providing more information. Feel free to say more and go into depth. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "except for the two species"
- "From mud, dung and hair or feathers, the Western Rock Nuthatch builds an elaborate flask-shaped nest whose exterior and nearby crevices it may decorate with feathers and insect wings." The word order (the opening phrase) is highly "marked": why? I've been struck down for using "whose" to refer to an inanimate object.
- Why the sudden future tense, in conflict with the previous tense? "This species will also nest in river banks or tree holes and will enlarge its nest hole if it is too small." If the bird is too small?
- Word order again: "Depending on the species, the eggs may be incubated by the female alone or by both parents, for 12 to 18 days." Put the last phrase without comma after "incubated". "are typically", not "may be".
- "For those few species for which data are available". "the few".
When I opposed above, it wasn't a complete fix-it list, but examples of why the whole text needed treatment. Why am I seeing lots of glitches in just one small sample of text under "Behaviour"? Tony (talk) 06:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I not sure that the for is necessary in British English, but I've changed it anyway. I agree about "From mud...", not sure where that came from. Fixed others as per comments. The article has had a detailed review from Delldot, and a copyedit from Awadewit, as per your original request jimfbleak (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps Laser brain could give it a once over? Awadewit (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I not sure that the for is necessary in British English, but I've changed it anyway. I agree about "From mud...", not sure where that came from. Fixed others as per comments. The article has had a detailed review from Delldot, and a copyedit from Awadewit, as per your original request jimfbleak (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to point out that with the recent image de-sizing, the red-breasted nuthatch image and media button were cut off on my screen. I explained this above, but someone de-sized it anyway. I have forced the size so that the entire image, the button, and the media help link are all visible. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, with a few minor comments.
- This reads awkwardly to me: "A 2006 review of Asian nuthatches suggested that there are still unresolved problems in nuthatch taxonomy and proposed splitting the genus Sitta. This suggestion would move ...". should that be something like "... with the proposal to split the genus ..."? What suggestion?
- "The law reduced bureaucracy and made it easier for developers to build tourism facilities ...". Shouldn't that be "tourist facilities"?
- "For the few species on which data are available ...". I know that data is strictly the plural of datum, but even the OECD now concedes the use of data as singular: "... data is available" certainly sounds much more natural to me anyway.
- Overall a nice, attractively laid out, and informative article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:29, 25 July 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.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tea & Sympathy
- 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 [30].
- 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]
- Support All points cleared. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Image concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Hue linh luoc su Hoang Cao Khai.jpg - We need a date for this photograph to verify the PD license. The description is also missing an author. If the name is unknown, please fill in the field with "unknown". Awadewit (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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]
- Note, I can't keep up with all the different naming conventions, I need a defaultsort or persondata hint about how to list alphabetically. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 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
- 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 00:06, 6 July 2008 [31].
- Nominator(s): Gary King (talk), Nergaal, Itub, WikiProject Elements
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it has finally reached FA level. I haven't submitted an FAC in a month and a bit, so bear with me ;) Editors who have done MAJOR work to this article include Nergaal and Itub, among many others who helped do some copyediting, finding references, and making sure things look nice and tidy. This article is definitely the most technical I have worked on, by far, but I think we have done a great job with this. Gary King (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as co-nominator. I was hoping to finish filling in a couple of small gaps in the section on occurrence and production before the FAC, but I'll let the reviewers decide whether those gaps are an impediment to promotion or not. These gaps should be filled within a few days, which is well within the usual duration of the FAC process. In the meantime, any comments about the FA-worthiness of the existing content and presentation are of course welcome. Other than that, in my biased opinion, the article is accurate, comprehensive enough, and meets the other FA criteria as far as far as I can tell. The only aspect I can't comment on is the "prose brilliancy" requirement, which is too subjective for me to judge. --Itub (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gaps added? Nergaal (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the late reply, I hadn't noticed your question. I filled most of the gaps that I had in mind, but there are a couple left. 1) I'd like to expand a bit the part that describes the method of production. The Ullmann and Kirk-Othmer encyclopedias have very detailed descriptions of the industrial processes, with diagrams and everything. While we don't need such gory details, a couple more sentences would be good IMO. 2) Production figures. The problem here is that the values I've found are either for the USA only, or are too old, or are for helium only. I still haven't decided which ones to use. --Itub (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 2) the most recent figures are perhaps the most useful; separate references may be used for each entry; try SciFinder if you have access to it. Nergaal (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the late reply, I hadn't noticed your question. I filled most of the gaps that I had in mind, but there are a couple left. 1) I'd like to expand a bit the part that describes the method of production. The Ullmann and Kirk-Othmer encyclopedias have very detailed descriptions of the industrial processes, with diagrams and everything. While we don't need such gory details, a couple more sentences would be good IMO. 2) Production figures. The problem here is that the values I've found are either for the USA only, or are too old, or are for helium only. I still haven't decided which ones to use. --Itub (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
what makes http://www.decompression.org/maiken/home.htm a reliable source?
- See this explanation for an explanation. Gary King (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
- {{citation}} is only used in the References section, and that is the case because the article uses {{harvnb}} which only works with {{citation}}. I believe recently promoted FAs also do this. Gary King (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not that you're using citation that is the problem. It's that you're using citation ALONG WITH cite. One or the other, not both. If you want to stick with harvnb, you'll need to remove the cite templates and switch them over. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Gary King (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't cap my comments for me. Sandy asked me a while back to only cap long commentary. This isn't that long that a strike through won't work. Also, I'll note that somewhere someone left off an end font tag, because you've changed the font on the whole of the FAC page with something missing. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC) - font issue fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the applications section has little on Xenon as an anaesthetic, which phenomenon itself is considered as a major puzzle by some (like Sir Roger Penrose). Shyamal (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - seems comprehensive, well organised, written, cited and illustrated. My only observations below: Shyamal (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- somewhat confusing usage of "discovering" a "synthetic" element (and seems to imply serendipity) in A synthetic member of the group, ununoctium (Uuo), has also been discovered
- The abundance of the noble gases in the universe decreases as their atomic numbers increase. I think this should be reworded to explicitly indicate that it is an observed trend rather than something that can be "controlled" - that atomic numbers could be altered.
Quick Comment - Please close and archive the peer review for this article. Giants2008 (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I left a few comments at the peer review (sorry, a bit late) - have they been addressed? giggy (:O) 13:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, we closed it before you commented there. However, I will still take a look at your comments. Gary King (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still a few unresolved issues at the PR (taking at random the point about Bobrow; second bullet point... plenty more though). You're welcome to reply to the comments on that page or to copy-paste them here and reply. —Giggy 02:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I have gotten to all the points. Gary King (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support —Giggy 07:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – While the column of elements in the lead looks great, it's not very informative when you consider the lack of a legend to explain the meaning of the colours and border styles used. Can some explanation of these be added? {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a fancy legend. I hope that helps! Gary King (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks great. :) {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 20:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a fancy legend. I hope that helps! Gary King (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Infobox is a bit fussy – is the primordial etc bit standard?
- Intro –shouldn’t non-metallic be hyphenated?
- but very little is known of its properties due to its rarity. Rarity seems odd for a synthetic- isn’t it more the difficulty of making and working with it?
- consequently, they are liquids only over a small temperature range. The noble gases show extremely low chemical reactivity; consequently,
- isolated a new element, argon, from the Greek word for inactive (αργό(ν)). I thought it was isolated from air, not a word –second para of history needs a good copyedit really
- radon fluoride but krypton difluoride.inconsistent
- Xenon is the least volatile of the noble gases obtainable from the air, and although it is an unusually safe anesthetic, its compounds are toxic there’s no obvious connection between an element’s properties and those of its compounds – witness NaCl
- temps sometimes in K, C and F, sometimes just C and F – inconsistent. Since this is a proper science article, I’d stick to K only (three temp units looks a mess)
Nice article, just needs polishing – check my tweaks and revert if you don’t like jimfbleak (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Primordial" has been expanded.
- The table is standard in similar articles.
- Nonmetallic is from the word nonmetal.
- The element is still discovered rather than synthesized itself, just in a lab instead of in "the wild".
- Consequently has been changed
- Good point. Done.
- Radon Fluoride is RnF and Radon Difluoride is RnF2, so they are different
I might be wrong, but the reason why they simply call it fluoride is because they don't really know the stoechiometric formula. They just know something with Rn and F has formed. Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Changed
- All in Kelvins now, with C and F conversions which are necessary for most people
Support
- Suggestion: why not move radon difluoride to radon fluoride, and remove the formula? jimfbleak (talk) 10:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support and commend
- Well done, a beautiful, engaging, well-written, comprehensive article. I haven't enjoyed reading a science article so much in a long time, (but I still don't know what exactly helium replaces in breathing gases; perhaps it's just simply used:).
- Dhould be more clear now.
- Would ''instability be better than unstable nature?
- This sentence is a bit odd, Argon is the most plentiful noble gas on Earth, while krypton is the lightest noble gas to be converted into chemical compounds. There seems to be a false contrast here.
- I can't wait to see this article on the main page. GrahamColmTalk 16:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both issues have been resolved. Thanks for both of your supports! Also, I'd like to see this article on the main page; it'd be a nice change from biographical, sports, and video game articles :) Hopefully it will educate a few aspiring chemists, too! Gary King (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - prose generally looks fine, a few things though:
- The first sentence states that being a noble gas is equivalent to being in group 18, but later it says "...but preliminary experiments have shown that it may have similar chemical and physical characteristics to other noble gases, and may therefore be a noble gas without being a member of group 18." Clarification would be appreciated.
- "Lord Rayleigh discovered that
somesamples of nitrogen from the air were of a different density than nitrogen that resulted from chemical reactions"
- Nice work overall. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first sentence actually states "The noble gases are the nonmetallic, inert elements in group 18", so the "nonmetallic" and "inert" characteristics are required. Gary King (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate, but it can still be misinterpreted as "The noble gases are the elements in group 18, which are inert and nonmetallic", though it's meant to say "The noble gases are those elements in group 18 which are both inert and nonmetallic"? Can we come up with a phrasing that's not ambiguous (and not as awkward as my unambiguous example)? {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about "the noble gases are elements in group 18 that are both inert and nonmetallic"? —Giggy 04:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fitting in a mention that the group is on the periodic table in there would be difficult, though. Gary King (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about "the noble gases are elements in group 18 that are both inert and nonmetallic"? —Giggy 04:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate, but it can still be misinterpreted as "The noble gases are the elements in group 18, which are inert and nonmetallic", though it's meant to say "The noble gases are those elements in group 18 which are both inert and nonmetallic"? Can we come up with a phrasing that's not ambiguous (and not as awkward as my unambiguous example)? {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first sentence actually states "The noble gases are the nonmetallic, inert elements in group 18", so the "nonmetallic" and "inert" characteristics are required. Gary King (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – In the last paragraph of the history section, mentions of two superheavy elements are made. It is unclear in this paragraph what the relevances of these discoveries are to noble gases. For example, while Uuq is given as having potentially noble-gas-like properties, it is not commented on that this is not necessarily predicted by its atomic number (it's "eka-lead", not "eka-radon"); nor is it said why the synthesis of Uuo (which is predicted to be a noble gas by its atomic number) is a discovery. It would be helpful to an uninformed reader to understand why these discoveries are significant to the topic at hand. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 02:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I now notice that some of this is described in the lead; nevertheless, can we please have more detail in the relevant section? {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support A well written article indeed. Some minor comments:
- "The abundances of the noble gases in the universe decrease as their atomic numbers increase." This seems a little clunky to me although I am not sure how it could be improved.
- "and it is also used as an anesthetic ..." Is the "it" here superfluous? I changed a few like this, then I realised on a technical article this could change meaning. Sorry if there has been any errors made.
- "This localization of charge is accommodated by the fact that the fluorine atoms are highly electronegative." I am not a big fan of the use of "by the fact". Would "This localization of charge occurs because fluorine atoms are highly electronegative" or if that implies a causation where none exists, then "This localization of charge is allowed because fluorine atoms are highly electronegative".
- Minor points all and support is given regardless. Well done. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I believe I have addressed your concerns. Thanks for the Support! Gary King (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Seems good overall. I just have a few comments:
"They have several important applications..." does this mean just Helium and Radon (as in the prior sentence), or all of the noble gases?"The melting and boiling points for each noble gas are close together" should include a value to avoid vagueness. For example, "within a range of 10 °C or less."The statement, "leading them to rarely react with other elements," seems odd somehow. Perhaps it is too anthropormorphic? Something like, "Hence they rarely react with other elements" would be more direct.- Thanks.—RJH (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, done, and done. Pro or against FA? Nergaal (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning toward support. But I'd like to see after Ruslik's comments are resolved. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oppose. The article makes lots inaccurate statements, is not comprehensive and and is not well-written. Some examples (from the end of the article):
1) "Krypton is used in lasers by doctors performing eye surgery", While this is formaly true, it fails to mention that NG are used in excimer lasers—one of the most succeseful type of lasers. The ArF and KrF lasers are widely used in optical (or UV) lithography. The majority of modern electronic chips is made with them. This is much more important application of excimer laser than "eye surgery". This type of lasers is widely used in fusion experiment (see for example Nike laser). Neon is also used in helium-neon laser and helium is used as a buffer gas in many gaseous lasers.Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Cool, but do you have a [citation needed] for ArF laser? Nergaal (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Type "ArF laser lithography' in google. Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea about this field. I could try to cherry pick from the articles you gave, but I am not sure weather that would be enough. Do you know someone who knows enough about the field to add the information there? Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded the paragraph about excimer lasers. I'm not an expert, but I tried to summarize the salient points from the introduction and the table of contents of the book I cited. --Itub (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea about this field. I could try to cherry pick from the articles you gave, but I am not sure weather that would be enough. Do you know someone who knows enough about the field to add the information there? Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Type "ArF laser lithography' in google. Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool, but do you have a [citation needed] for ArF laser? Nergaal (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2) Another paragraph begins with: "In the early 20th century, hydrogen was used ...". However the article is about NG, not about hydrogen. Why not to begin with "Helium is used for ..."? This paragraphs is not well-written in my opinion.Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- done Nergaal (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3) The paragraph about diving is not well-written as well. It begins with "Helium has a low solubility in fluids, ...". Why not to begin with "Helium is used in breathing mixtures ..."? In other words you should state at the begining where helium is used, then explain why it is used, not in reverse order like in the article. In addition this paragraphs is misleading in respect to influence of solubility. It creates an impression that the helium is no better than nitrogen. This is not true, and helium is used instead of nitrogen, partly because of its low solubility (in addition to low narcotic effect). As a result the decompression is accelerated and divers can ascend faster than with nitrogen in their blood. The article, in my opinion, should not go into irrelevant details like "Divers breathing helium mixtures use a modified form of dive tables or software to determine a schedule that allows them to ascend safely".Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- done. Nergaal (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is much better now. Ruslik (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- done. Nergaal (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4) From 1)-3) above it is clear that 'Applications' section should be expanded and needs thorough copy-edit.Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I've expanded the section a bit, adding more uses in lighting, metallurgy, medicine, cryogenics, and in scientific instruments. The big use that still needs significant expansion is lasers; I don't know that much about lasers so if someone who knows can write that it would be nice. --Itub (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Expansion I think is done. As for copy-edit, anyone? Nergaal (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I copy-edited it myself. Ruslik (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Expansion I think is done. As for copy-edit, anyone? Nergaal (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've expanded the section a bit, adding more uses in lighting, metallurgy, medicine, cryogenics, and in scientific instruments. The big use that still needs significant expansion is lasers; I don't know that much about lasers so if someone who knows can write that it would be nice. --Itub (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5) What is "ppm by mass" and "ppm by volume"? I have always thought that ppm refers to "particles per million". I don't see any connection with either volume or mass. The values that are listed in the article are (probably) mass fractions and should be listed as 0.23 etc. In addition, I can not find such values in the ref cited (Anders et al. 1989).Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- So I recommend you: a) to use a newer publication (Lodders et al. 2003, for example); b) to cite the values from it accuratly (i.e. ppm is ppm, mass fraction is mass fraction). Also pay attention that such articles usually give two types of abudances: in the Sun's photosphere (around 0.24) and primordial (around 0.27). If you write about abudances in the universe the latter values should be used.
- You have been misled about the meaning of ppm. It means parts per million, and is very often used in terms of mass and in terms of volume, just like "percent" can be used as "percent by mass" or "percent by volume". 1 ppm=0.0001%=0.000001, that's all there is to it. --Itub (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be right here. However in literature that I usually read "ppm by mass" is rarely used. Mass fractions or ppm (by number of particles) are much more common.
My main concern is about the validity of values themself. Please, use newer refs and cite them accuratly.Ruslik (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] I just noticed that abudance of Radon is given as 0.00. While correct can this be written better? Why not to say that radon does not (usually) naturally occur?- I've added a table of abundances using the values from the reference Lodders (it turned out that the old values were not from Anders but during the heavy editing someone changed the reference without updating the numbers!). I've also renamed "ppm by volume" to "volume fraction (ppm)" in case that's more agreeable. It needs to be emphasized that it is by volume (or by number of molecules if you wish, assuming that the atmosphere is an ideal gas) because, at least in chemistry, ppm often implies "ppm by mass". --Itub (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be right here. However in literature that I usually read "ppm by mass" is rarely used. Mass fractions or ppm (by number of particles) are much more common.
- You have been misled about the meaning of ppm. It means parts per million, and is very often used in terms of mass and in terms of volume, just like "percent" can be used as "percent by mass" or "percent by volume". 1 ppm=0.0001%=0.000001, that's all there is to it. --Itub (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So I recommend you: a) to use a newer publication (Lodders et al. 2003, for example); b) to cite the values from it accuratly (i.e. ppm is ppm, mass fraction is mass fraction). Also pay attention that such articles usually give two types of abudances: in the Sun's photosphere (around 0.24) and primordial (around 0.27). If you write about abudances in the universe the latter values should be used.
6) The second paragraph in 'Occurrence and production' should be moved into the next section. And the sections should be renamed accordinly. It also states that "Helium is typically produced from oil wells". So it implies that it is produced exclusively from oil wells and nothing is produced from gas wells? Strange statement indeed.Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Why does it need to be moved there? Occurence and obtaining do not mix together? Nergaal (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Methods of production are more closely related to Applications than to natural occurance. Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both xenon and helium have those section combined together. And if an element occurs in air, and you only need to distill it, it seems logic to put the distilling part right after saying you can find it in air. Also, a compound/element is produced, and besides being used industrially, it may be used scientifically. Therefore you could also defend the argument that production should be between occurence and chemistry sections. Nergaal (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I don't insist. Ruslik (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both xenon and helium have those section combined together. And if an element occurs in air, and you only need to distill it, it seems logic to put the distilling part right after saying you can find it in air. Also, a compound/element is produced, and besides being used industrially, it may be used scientifically. Therefore you could also defend the argument that production should be between occurence and chemistry sections. Nergaal (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Methods of production are more closely related to Applications than to natural occurance. Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does it need to be moved there? Occurence and obtaining do not mix together? Nergaal (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 7)
The same section states "The low abundance of helium on Earth is caused by the total loss of primordial helium from the atmosphere; due to the small mass of the atom", but I suspect that helium was never abudant in the Earth's atmosphere in the first place. Another sentences reads "The abundance of argon, on the other hand, is increased as a result of the beta decay of potassium-40, also found in the Earth's crust". However argon has several stable isotopes, and only one of them is actually increased. This sentence is misleading.Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- How is it misleading? It seems obvious to me that by increasing the abundance of one isotope, you also increase the overall abundance of the element (of course, you also change its isotopic distribution and average atomic mass in the process). Perhaps we could mention that argon-40 is more than 99% of natural argon. --Itub (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can mislead because a casual read will think that all argon is from decay of potassium. 36 and 38 isotopes are more like other noble gases— they are primodial. This is actually the main reason why their abudances are similar to those of other NG. Ruslik (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I expanded that part a bit to mention that the argon formed is argon-40, and that it is the most abundant isotope on Earth despite not being the most abundant in the solar system. I hope that helps. --Itub (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can mislead because a casual read will think that all argon is from decay of potassium. 36 and 38 isotopes are more like other noble gases— they are primodial. This is actually the main reason why their abudances are similar to those of other NG. Ruslik (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does the statement imply that helium was abundant? I think it only implies that we would have had more now if it wasn't for the low mass of the atom. Nergaal (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I updated that sentence today. The way it was before, it suggested that there used to be primordial helium on Earth, that has since been lost. I rephrased it to "There is no primordial helium in the atmosphere; due to the small mass of the atom, helium cannot be retained by the Earth's gravitational field". --Itub (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it misleading? It seems obvious to me that by increasing the abundance of one isotope, you also increase the overall abundance of the element (of course, you also change its isotopic distribution and average atomic mass in the process). Perhaps we could mention that argon-40 is more than 99% of natural argon. --Itub (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8) In 'Compounds' subsection I read "As of 2007, almost 100 compounds of xenon bonded to other elements have been identified". However the ref cited (Grochala, 2007) says about half a thousand (see page 1632). One hundred value refers only to Ng-C, Ng-N and NG-Cl type compounds (see page 1634). The ref 7 deserves more attention in my opinion.Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- 9)
The HArF is not the only known Ar compound according the same ref 7. Other compounds include ArAgCl, ArCuCl etc.(pages 1638 and 1642).Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I cannot open the ref right now, but are you sure that those are 'true' chemical compounds? Nergaal (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not less true than HArF. They were observed in jets, while HArF at extremely low temperature. At least this is my reading of ref 7. Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- done Nergaal (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not less true than HArF. They were observed in jets, while HArF at extremely low temperature. At least this is my reading of ref 7. Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot open the ref right now, but are you sure that those are 'true' chemical compounds? Nergaal (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 10)
Kr also has more known compounds inluding Kr-Cl, Kr-Au, Kr-H, Kr-C bonds.Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- If you are talking about the same ref, I am not sure that it said those compounds are anything more than interstitial compounds. Nergaal (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not more interstitial than HArF, which is refered in this article to as real and relatively stable compound. Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, as much as I remember, the paper seemed to imply (in an image around the conclusion section) that HArF is more of a true compound than those with Kr...Cl weak-bond-like compounds. Again, I don't have the paper now to double check. Nergaal (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- done Nergaal (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, as much as I remember, the paper seemed to imply (in an image around the conclusion section) that HArF is more of a true compound than those with Kr...Cl weak-bond-like compounds. Again, I don't have the paper now to double check. Nergaal (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not more interstitial than HArF, which is refered in this article to as real and relatively stable compound. Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are talking about the same ref, I am not sure that it said those compounds are anything more than interstitial compounds. Nergaal (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11) In addition unstable (short-lived) moleculars (excimers) of NG should be mentiond as well. They are basis of some widely used lasers.Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Mentioned briefly. Nergaal (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12) This article is supposed to be scientific, therefore °F should not be used. It is preferrable to use Kelvins for the temperatures in the table. The ionisation energies would be more informative if they were expressed in electronvolts. The abudances (I already discussed them above) should also be moved to the table. While some values (like viscosity and mean free path) can be removed becauses they are not very informative.Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- eV vs kJ/mol is just a matter of preference. I included the values in the units that were used in the reference, Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 978-0-08-037941-8.. Although eV might be preferred by physicists, in my opinion kJ/mol is better for this article because it is the SI unit and is better-known. --Itub (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that viscosity and mean free path can be removed, because they are not discussed in the text, and are just two of many properties that could be included. Regarding the abundances, they used to be in the table but were removed because someone insisted that abundance is not a "physical property"! As far as I'm concerned, I prefer to have them in the table. --Itub (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can make a separate table. Ruslik (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know where did you see °F; °C might be more accessible for regular users than K; also, the table does not use SI strictly, therefore I don't really see the need to use K. Nergaal (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no °F in the table, but it is used in a couple of places in the text for parenthetical conversion. --Itub (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate those fake units that some ignorant parts of the world need to use. Anyways, I have deleted the F part since it does not add anything. Nergaal (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I converted temperatures to Kelvins in the table. Ruslik (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate those fake units that some ignorant parts of the world need to use. Anyways, I have deleted the F part since it does not add anything. Nergaal (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no °F in the table, but it is used in a couple of places in the text for parenthetical conversion. --Itub (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13) In 'Physical properties' I read " krypton is the lightest noble gas to be converted into chemical compounds.". However this contradicts 'Compounds section'—Ar was forced into a number of compounds.Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Done Nergaal (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The list of issues a bove should not be considered complete as I don't have anough time to review all used references, and the article needs copy-edit by a person not familiar with text. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll do that. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, now that I think of it, I'm not all that good at copyediting, and might cause some problems. I'll call up AndonicO instead. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, Andonic is too busy. :( I might do some more later. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to recap brefly: add
about lasers&lithography, more about Ar&Kr compounds (pending on discussion on the reference [31]), copyedit applications. Correct me if I missed something that still needs to be done. Nergaal (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Is Matrix isolation important enough to be mentioned? I think it is a very neat scientific application, and is used decently often. Nergaal (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I think it is important enough to mention. Perhaps we could have a paragraph in the applications section focusing on "scientific applications" that are interesting and useful to scientist but not necessarily "practical" or "commercial". I would also include there the use of noble gas compounds as oxidizing agents that is currently in the compounds section. --Itub (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to mention--perhaps it is a bit curious that some noble gas compounds can only be studied under matrix isolation conditions! --Itub (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is true for any highly unstable compound, and most NG compounds are not that stable. Nergaal (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a sentence, but I do not have a reference. I know for sure that cyclobutadiene was first characterized as a monomer in an argon? matrix, but this might be overly detailed for the purpose of the article. Nergaal (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a reference. I don't think we need to add specific examples. --Itub (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot open the document for several weeks. Anybody else willing to take a closer look at ref ~[31]? Nergaal (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- done now? Nergaal (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Matrix isolation important enough to be mentioned? I think it is a very neat scientific application, and is used decently often. Nergaal (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support the article now. Ruslik (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Attention needed; see my edit summaries, mainly WP:NBSP, wikilinking, there are side-by-side images scrolling off of my screen in the "Compounds" and "Applications" sections, incorrect use of quotes vs. italics, incorrect punctuation on image captions per WP:MOS#Images, and inconsistency in page numbering in citations (some use p. others don't). I suggest first fixing the items noted in my edit summaries, and then approaching someone like User:Epbr123 to do a MoS check. I'm always surprised when a nomination gets seven supports with no one apparently having checked on these issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've gotten them all. Gary King (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also attempted to link the more technical terms for people to click on when they don't understand something. I hope that helps. Gary King (talk) 03:08, 5 July 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 02:01, 5 July 2008 [32].
This article is the first of many in a series on the works of Mary Shelley (I'm hoping for a featured topic - any volunteers?). It covers several sets of biographies that she wrote for Dionysius Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopaedia (Shelley wrote for an encyclopedia, too!). The organization of this article was extremely difficult, but I hope that the article makes the set of texts as clear as possible. For a discussion on whether or not the Cabinet Cyclopaedia should have its own article, see here. I would also like to thank the GA reviewer and the peer reviewers. Awadewit (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "The Romantic writer Mary Shelley wrote most of them." → "Most of them were written by..." perhaps? Especially since they are discussed in the preceding sentences.
Gary King (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed. Awadewit (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look fine, links all check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I took part in the peer review and found the article, the likes of which I'm quite sure won't be found anywhere else, excellent. The topic is awkward in the extreme because of the partial, asymmetrical, and quasi-anonymous nature of these volumes, so I commend Awadewit for her feat of organisation. Comprehensive and fully referenced. qp10qp (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The only comments I have relate to links, otherwise the article is well sourced, written and explained. A very enjoyable article with a lot to recommend it.
- Does the Cabinet Cyclopedia not have it's own article? That seems a little unusual, I'd be interested in reading in more detail about how it was put together and more precisely what articles it consisted of.
- See the discussion here. Awadewit (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, that seems to explain it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Reverend Dr. Dionysius Lardner, a science lecturer at London University," - which London university is meant? University College, London perhaps? The University of London (where the link goes to) is a modern union of major educational institutions in London rather than a single entity.
- Hmm. I just copied that from a source. I'll have to check that out. Awadewit (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My source says "London University", which opened for instruction in 1828. According to University College London, they were established in 1826. What do you think? Is this the right one? Awadewit (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly can't give you a definitive answer, but it probably is UCL, I've seen this construction before when referring to it. However, one of the other major London universities, King's, opened in 1829, which hazes things a little. All the others seem too small or too late to be in consideration. I think at this stage the best thing to do is actually to delink it since at the moment we can't be sure exactly which university is referred to, although I'll defer to your judgement on this issue.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delinked. Awadewit (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly can't give you a definitive answer, but it probably is UCL, I've seen this construction before when referring to it. However, one of the other major London universities, King's, opened in 1829, which hazes things a little. All the others seem too small or too late to be in consideration. I think at this stage the best thing to do is actually to delink it since at the moment we can't be sure exactly which university is referred to, although I'll defer to your judgement on this issue.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As with the Mary Shelley FAC, I'd be interested in reading articles on other people involved who aren't linked (some, like David Brewer, as writers and some as subjects, such as a number of the Italians for example), what are the chances of seeing these articles in future? (not actionable, just curious)
- I've redlinked Brewster because he has an entry in the DNB. Someone familiar with Italian literature would need to decide the others. Awadewit (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tasso goes to a disambiguation page and I wasn't sure which one was meant (probably Torquato but I didn't want to guess).
- Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—A few issues I spotted:
- "An estimated four thousand copies of the first edition of the early volumes were printed, but the print run would probably have fallen to 2,500 since the sales did not pick up after 1835." The "would have" made me expect "... had the sales not picked up". Meaning unclear.
- This sentence reflects the source's speculation about what happened - the source doesn't know that the print run fell to 2,500, but the source does know that the sales did not pick up after 1835. How can I make this clearer? Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "twelve", "nineteenth". Well, I'd be happier with figures above nine, and so would MOS. But it's no deal breaker.
- I have changed all of these, except for the centuries. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "They demonstrate her knowledge of multiple languages and historical research covering several centuries"—"Multiple" is not right here—either "many", "several" or "numerous", or give the number demonstrated here.
- Changed to "several". Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To avoid another "also", consider turning this: "She was also influenced by the biographical style of her father, William Godwin." into "The biographical style of her father, William Godwin, was a significant influence on her own style", or something like it?
- Changed. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comma after "emerge".
- Added. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it in BrEng? "practised" when a verb.
- I forgot to change the article to BE - I've done what I can and asked Qp10qp to give it a once over. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check tenses: "Shelley was particularly interested in tying private, domestic history to public, political history.[47] She emphasizes ...". Past and present might both be used if logical, but avoid switching if it jolts the reader. Unsure, here.
- I believe that this is acceptable because the first sentence is about Shelley, the dead person, so it is in the past, while the rest of the paragraph is about the text, which continues to live, so that is in the present. The "literary present" is tricky sometimes. Do you think this sentence should be in the "literary present"? Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Put "only" as late in a clause as possible: "which only had a print run of several hundred copies"—only had a print run and not silk screenings or public readings: no, "which had a print run of only 700 copies". Hate the spelling-out of large numbers.
- Moved "only"; have continued to spell out hundred since it is not a specific number (not 700, "several hundred"). Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is "copyright" linked? There are a lot of links in that bit. The reader of this article should know what "plagiarism" means.
- Considering this is an article that refers to the history of these concepts, I think the links can be useful. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In AmEng and BrEng, although is considered more formal.
- Changed. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clumsy word order: "She also, while living in Harrow, refused to go"
- Fixed. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "An estimated four thousand copies of the first edition of the early volumes were printed, but the print run would probably have fallen to 2,500 since the sales did not pick up after 1835." The "would have" made me expect "... had the sales not picked up". Meaning unclear.
Well, I looked at the middle bit there. I think someone else should do the honours and perform a polishing on the text. Needs to be at a high standard for such an important literary figure. I love the topic. Well done indeed. TONY (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have asked Scartol, Jbmurray, and Ruhrfisch, but Scartol and Jbmurray are both out of town for a week or two. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ruhrfisch can get to it in a few days. Awadewit (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, as GA Reviewer. Already mentioned this at the Peer Review, and this is not a criticism just something I found quite interesting - that the analysis/reception normally present as a separate subsection in other Wikipedia articles on literary works is in this article instead worked into the various topical subsections seamlessly, which is really neat and different. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - period GrahamColmTalk 22:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I read this article a few days ago and made some minor amendments. Unlike TONY, I find the recent removal of "also"s a minor hindrance to continuity in some places; the removal of spelled-out numbers arbitrary and, while perhaps fine in a science article, hardly preferred in a humanities article; and the tense example mentioned is not jarring, as Awadewit explained above. Having yet another editor go through the text is hardly productive in light of the review the article has already had, and the couple of million other articles that could use the improvement. (Instead of making FAC a shrubbery delivery service, I, for example, just changed a few things as I read the article. Much simpler, though not as attention-grabbing. The main editor can revert as he or she sees fit.) Isolation booth (talk) 23:12, 4 July 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 23:13, 26 August 2008 [33].
- Nominator(s): sgeureka t•c
- previous FAC (03:05, 13 July 2008)
Second nom. The first FAC failed when (some legitimate) concerns came up late in the game whose fixing took some time; unfortunately, that FAC was archived as not promoted before reviewers had the time to (possibly) change their opinion. Now I've taken five weeks off to get some editorial distance. I have copyedited the article with semi-fresh eyes again, have read the comments again of the first FAC again to see if I've missed something the first time around (nope, just a tiny MOS issue...), and now I hope the article is really as good as I believe it is. Thank you for your time. – sgeureka t•c 17:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on images
Image:Lyme Park 2.jpg - I see this image has been deleted from Flickr, so there is no working source and no way to verify the license, etc. I'm not really sure what we do in these situations. I'm worried that we can no longer use this image. You might contact the user at Flickr and see if he will release it at Wikimedia Commons. I will see what else I can find out. (It is such a lovely picture!)- The purpose of FlickreviewerR and the accompanying box is to verify that the image was indeed uploaded under an appropriate license, even if it's later removed. The box is present, meaning the license was verified and the image is thus okay. --JayHenry (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked and found out this wonderful nugget of info, too. Yeah! Awadewit (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The purpose of FlickreviewerR and the accompanying box is to verify that the image was indeed uploaded under an appropriate license, even if it's later removed. The box is present, meaning the license was verified and the image is thus okay. --JayHenry (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Five positions of dancing Wilson 1811.jpg - Could we get the full publication information for Wilson's book? I noticed at the LOC that there are at least two books with this same short title.
(I'll review the rest of the article later. Looking forward to it.) Awadewit (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
I don't think the Apted Book of Country Dances was published in the eighteenth century. See Worldcat results. Also, I checked a database of all books published in the eighteenth century and I couldn't find it. Awadewit (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked the Making-of book again, which did indeed imply that the book was from the 18th century (on p. 70 "Simon [Langton] recalls how [the fifteen separate dances] were put together: 'Jane Gibson had this wonderful book from the period called The Apted Book of Country Dances, which has all these Country Dances with instructions on how to use them...'", and on p. 69 gives one used song of that book as written in 1776). However, a good fansite says the book was published by W.S. Porter in 1966 as a collection of songs by Thompson from the late 18th century. I'll fix it in a minute. – sgeureka t•c 15:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nearly there - everything looks really good, except I am a little concerned about the prose in the Plot section but not sure if anything can be done flow-wise which then impacts on brevity. I did what I thought was needed as I went along, nothing struck me that wasn't a straightforward fix (which I did). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Can you remove the optional (s) from "Language(s)" and "Composer(s)" in the infobox? It's an example of why infoboxes can be ham-fisted. Tony (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no attachment to that infobox information one way or another; I have removed that information, but will not do anything if I get reverted. Interestingly, it was you who asked for the Composer to be included in the infobox. ;-) – sgeureka t•c 06:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What, you mean the infobox won't let you use the singular? I don't believe it. Tony (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I completely misunderstood you. (I thought you wanted the whole entries removed for trivialness.) But yes, per {{Infobox Television}} there is no way to remove the "(s)". – sgeureka t•c 09:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What, you mean the infobox won't let you use the singular? I don't believe it. Tony (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no attachment to that infobox information one way or another; I have removed that information, but will not do anything if I get reverted. Interestingly, it was you who asked for the Composer to be included in the infobox. ;-) – sgeureka t•c 06:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - This article is much better than the last time I read it. I just have some nit picks, as overall it is comprehensive, well-researched, and well-written: —This is part of a comment by Awadewit (of 02:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
I know there was some discussion over whether or not we could link to YouTube - unfortunately, I do not know what was decided. Does anyone know a firm decision on that?
- AFAIK, youtube links are generally discouraged because copyright violations are rampant there and vids shouldn't be used as sources. But this is the official BBC youtube channel, and it's not used for sourcing, so the link should be fine. – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While Mr and Mrs Bennet disagree about Elizabeth's decision, her best friend Charlotte Lucas invites Mr Collins to stay at Lucas Lodge. - Do you think Jane or Charlotte is Elizabeth's best friend?
- Where I come from, family members is never referred to as friends (no matter how close you are) because blood is thicker than water. I guess I could write "good friend" for Charlotte instead to avoid interpretative claims. – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about "close friend"? Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Either would work, I guess, so I used your version. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about "close friend"? Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where I come from, family members is never referred to as friends (no matter how close you are) because blood is thicker than water. I guess I could write "good friend" for Charlotte instead to avoid interpretative claims. – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth is stunned when she learns that Charlotte Lucas has accepted a proposal from Mr Collins, but the friends soon make up. - Do you think we can say "stunned and appalled"? Such a phrase would add meaning to the second half of the sentence.
- I agree. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Firth and Ehle began a romantic relationship during the filming of the series, which only received media attention after the couple's separation. - Can we get a date for the separation?
- I never came across an exact date. The media attention was around the time the serial aired in the UK (Bridget Jones mentions the relationship on 23 October 1995), and the actors said it was over by that time, that's all I know. – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some things are a mystery. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I never came across an exact date. The media attention was around the time the serial aired in the UK (Bridget Jones mentions the relationship on 23 October 1995), and the actors said it was over by that time, that's all I know. – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Birtwistle in particular felt that a new adaptation on film would serve the drama better than the last BBC adaptation, which had been shot on videotape. - Could we explain why?
- Birtwistle in the making-of book, p. v: "Although videotape is the dominant medium for television and works for current affairs and documentaries, I don't feel it serves drama well. It always looks undernourished; it's too present, too literal. Unpoetic, if you like. We wanted scenes to have a freedom that is just impossible to achieve recording on video in the studio." (I'll try work this into the article.) – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know exactly what Birtwistle means but this is somewhat hard to put into words without sounding too technical or feelings-POVish; I added "..., the dominant medium for television and works of current affairs that may give too literal impressions. Maybe you can come up with something better than I did in the article. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about just quoting her - the undernourished, present, unpoetic section is particularly evocative. Awadewit (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know exactly what Birtwistle means but this is somewhat hard to put into words without sounding too technical or feelings-POVish; I added "..., the dominant medium for television and works of current affairs that may give too literal impressions. Maybe you can come up with something better than I did in the article. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Birtwistle in the making-of book, p. v: "Although videotape is the dominant medium for television and works for current affairs and documentaries, I don't feel it serves drama well. It always looks undernourished; it's too present, too literal. Unpoetic, if you like. We wanted scenes to have a freedom that is just impossible to achieve recording on video in the studio." (I'll try work this into the article.) – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Susannah Harker's (Jane) hair was slightly lightened as a contrast with Elizabeth's, and was arranged in a classic Greek style to highlight the character's beauty - Is there a good link for "classic Greek style"?
- Doesn't look this way. There is Classical Greece, Art in ancient Greece and Severe style, but they usually refer to sculptures. (Although Jane definately has this classical Greek hairdo as claimed in the source). – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Three days were allotted for the filming of the ball at Netherfield, which designedly had a different pace and style than the dance at Meryton - Perhaps we could say what the difference was?
- Rewrote (per source) to "Three days were allotted for the filming of the ball at Netherfield, whose pace and style designedly focused on elegance rather than the community enjoying themselves as at the dance at Meryton." – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article uses both "eighteenth century" and "18th century" - pick one style and stick with it.
- Done. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The novel's wit, which stems from Austen's lively and animated family background - This is confusing.
- Removed subsentence. It's not that important after all. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC drama makes nature an integral part of the story in the form of Old England - Is there a good link for "Old England"?
- I looked for it when I wrote the article, but didn't find a wiki article and still don't (the term was mentioned in several P&P sources though). I guess it just expresses nostalgia for 18th century England. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed a few AEisms, but you might have another look to make sure that the article is entirely in BE.
- I am not an expert when it comes to AE and BE, but I asked two British editors before the last FAC to check where I screwed up, and their concerns were addressed. – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see you fixed two AEisms that I should really have noticed before. I ran a BE spell-check program over the text again just to be sure and found one more AEism. – sgeureka t•c
Dates are not linked in the article, so they should not be linked in the notes.
- The templates auto-link the dates, and the templates are still under discussion for restructuring. I'll try to find out whether they have introduced a date-on-off-switch now. – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How annoying. Templates should be able to be easily changed! (This is why I dislike templates.) Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Nope, no on-off-switch for datelinks yet. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The templates auto-link the dates, and the templates are still under discussion for restructuring. I'll try to find out whether they have introduced a date-on-off-switch now. – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have page numbers for footnote 8, the A&E Monthly Magazine?
- (Reply to this and related refs) Unfortunately, no, and the next English-language library that may still carry these magazines for checking is 1000 kilometers away from where I live. (Nearly) all articles seem to be hosted on fansites and are googeable though (I know, unreliable, but that's all I can offer from my end other than removing these refs altogether, which I find too extreme to seriously consider). – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Way too extreme! Awadewit (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (Reply to this and related refs) Unfortunately, no, and the next English-language library that may still carry these magazines for checking is 1000 kilometers away from where I live. (Nearly) all articles seem to be hosted on fansites and are googeable though (I know, unreliable, but that's all I can offer from my end other than removing these refs altogether, which I find too extreme to seriously consider). – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have page numbers for footnote 15, the TV Times?
- Do you have a page number for footnote 23? Referring a reader to an entire book is hardly helpful.
- I copied it from the main Pride and Prejudice article. I have contacted Karenjc who added that ref to wikipedia in June, and I hope she can help. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't look like a reliable website. I'm not sure we should include it in the notes.
- (That page must have been changed recently; the web archive has the original content.) It's not being used as a source but as a convenience link for all the music pieces and dances so that they don't have to be listed in the article. The website cites its book sources. If you nevertheless favor removal, please say or do so (my ownership issues are not big enough to battle this), but I am not sure that this would make the article better. – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced that it meets the requirements for WP:SPS - "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." - I think all sources we provide readers, even if they are just convenience links, should meet the requirements of WP:RS. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought long and hard about how to reply this, but I think I better save my breath for the WP:RS page since I am getting increasingly unsure what "self-published" means (i.e. is an external re-publishing of material from reliable sources defined as self-published when no analysis happens?). I'll therefore rm the link until I am wiser. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced that it meets the requirements for WP:SPS - "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." - I think all sources we provide readers, even if they are just convenience links, should meet the requirements of WP:RS. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (That page must have been changed recently; the web archive has the original content.) It's not being used as a source but as a convenience link for all the music pieces and dances so that they don't have to be listed in the article. The website cites its book sources. If you nevertheless favor removal, please say or do so (my ownership issues are not big enough to battle this), but I am not sure that this would make the article better. – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a random film review. Does the reviewer have any credentials?
- ReelViews redirects to James Berardinelli (who did this review). According to his article, Pulitzer Prize-winning American film critic Roger Ebert called Berardinelli "the best of the Web-based critics"[5], which is quite something. – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds good. Awadewit (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ReelViews redirects to James Berardinelli (who did this review). According to his article, Pulitzer Prize-winning American film critic Roger Ebert called Berardinelli "the best of the Web-based critics"[5], which is quite something. – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 25 should be cited as published in Persuasions Online (see details on website).
- (This and all related refs) Done. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is Persuasions, not Persuasion. Awadewit (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (This and all related refs) Done. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Footnote 26 should be linked directly to the The Times, if possible, and the correct title of the article should be found.
- This looks like a print source, and it says "Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission." Googling didn't help. How shall I proceed? – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in a rush right now, but leave a note on my talk page to remind me and I'll look it up. Awadewit (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can get this at my library on microfilm, but I am away right now. It will have to wait until next weekend. Awadewit (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in a rush right now, but leave a note on my talk page to remind me and I'll look it up. Awadewit (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This looks like a print source, and it says "Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission." Googling didn't help. How shall I proceed? – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 27 should be cited as published in Persuasions (see details on website). Please check all links to the Jane Austen Society and make sure that anything published in one of their journals is properly attributed - I stopped clicking on these as I began to see a pattern.
- Do you have page numbers for footnote 45? Basically anything without a link needs a page number (I will stop listing all of the footnotes that need page numbers at this point.)
This link indicates that the article is from Telegraph Magazine - that should be included in the footnote.
- Changed to "Telegraph Magazine and re-published by The Age" – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Bibliography", University Press of Kentucky is overlinked.
- Done. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to supporting this article soon! Awadewit (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I replied to some points above and will work on the article today and tomorrow. – sgeureka t•c 08:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All points addressed here or in the article, although some issues may require more discussion. Also, thank your for your copyedit, but there were some subtle changes that the sources no longer support, so I need to check that in more depth again. – sgeureka t•c 12:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Quite a nice read; the only things I noticed have already been cleared up. Good work. NSR77 TC 23:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. An excellent read! Re footnote 26: I tried looking this up on Lexis Nexis last time this came to FAC, but they don't have archives for the Times Educational Supplement for that far back. Perhaps Sgeureka can try contacting the FoF webmaster for original publication info? Bradley0110 (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have access to the entire TES on microfilm, but not until next weekend. I will look it up. Awadewit (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to show I am still here. Some more minor things have been addressed since my last replies, and the only unresolved yet with-some-help-fixable issues from above are footnote 23 (which I'll probably replace with a totally different statement and source if User:Karenjc doesn't have the time) and footnote 26 (where I have contacted the FOF website owner if s/he's got easy access to the full publication data, but I guess it will be more likely that Awadewit gets that data faster and easier). – sgeureka t•c 15:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please check the Persuasions journal titles again - some of them should be Persuasions and some of them should be Persuasions On-line. These are actually two different journals. Awadewit (talk) 17:51, 26 August 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 02:47, 2 July 2008 [34].
- Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk)
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it deals, in what I trust is a comprehensive and balanced way, with a major though neglected contributor to polar science. I stand to be corrected of course, but after a successful GA and a thorough peer review, I think it is ready. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "the Weddell Sea – the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition (SNAE)." and "plans—a proposed transcontinental march via the South Pole—were" – I think you need to decide if you want to use em dashes throughout, or spaced en dashes. Gary King (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This was an oversight - I intended mdashes throughout, except in ranges (e.g. 1902–04) Brianboulton (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I was a peer reviewer and felt it was essentially FA then. It has been imporved since and I feel it meets all of the criteria and is a fascinating read. My only quibble is why the hyphen is in Piper Gilbert Kerr, with penguin, photo-graphed by Bruce.? Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Typo, now fixed. Brianboulton (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Interesting read, well written, great references. Dincher (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Brian, did you put this on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates? The only way I found it was backtracking through your contribs. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've no idea why it wasn't listed at FAC - I can only assume that I forgot to press the edit button (I often lose stuff that way). Anyway, it's listed now. Thanks for pointing this out. Brianboulton (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reviewed this for GA and found little to complain about then. A very good article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Otherwise sources look good. Other links checked out with the link checker tool. I'll try to get back and do a full prose review sooner or later. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- the dead link was an external link, not a source, and I've removed it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. This is an excellently written and informative biography. Two MOS issues:
- Section headings should have only the first word capitalized unless it is a proper name.
- There should be a citation immediately after a quotation, even if this means duplicating a citation used later.
Karanacs (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to the section headings, the only instance I found of false capitalization was "First Voyages", and I have dealt with that. I have also added the required citations to quoted material - thanks for pointing these out. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Nicely written, and seems to be a comprehensive biography. Well done. (I have only one comment remaining. The lead could probably be shorter, with fewer details and more general statements, but it's fine.) —SusanLesch (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've been reading on this in bits and pieces since it went up (RL has been hectic!) and have to say I like it and willingly support. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I couldn't resist a little tinkering, [35], but I am happy for any edit to be reverted. Thanks for an interesting and engaging read. GrahamColmTalk 18:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem with most of your tweaks. I've changed a few back in the Markham section, the rest read fine. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 22:41, 1 July 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 00:03, 20 August 2008 [36].
- Nominator(s): Ibaranoff24
- previous FAC (08:03, 9 August 2008)
Much work had been done during the previous nomination, and it was just beginning to gain support, but it was not promoted. A few minor changes have been made since, and I don't think there's much more that needs to be done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Support Per my vote at the last FAC, which fell mainly due to ce and MOS concerns. It is much improved since on that side, and remains strong on content. Ceoil sláinte 18:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Support: Well Done. Kensplanet (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Images and sources were reviewed in an earlier FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support pretty good now jimfbleak (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looking much better now. I'll just give a couple brief notes. Great job overall.
- World Wrestling Federation involvement: "They were also informed that their commercial would air the very next week, which had still not aired after three months of being involved with the WWF." The order could be improved. Try "They were also informed that their commercial, which had still not aired after three months of being involved with the WWE, would air the next week." Very is unneeded here.
- The Amazing Jeckel Brothers: Is the logical punctuation correct in two instances by ODB's appearance? Got to keep this clean for the kids. :-) Also check "The Lotus Pod." later. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Is ICP a "they" or an "it"? Zagalejo^^^ 08:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "It" refers to the group as a whole. "They" refers to the individual members. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Hmmm.. That's kind of a hazy distinction, no? Zagalejo^^^ 05:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The copyeditors have made many different changes to the writing style over the course of two FACs and a peer review. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Hmmm.. That's kind of a hazy distinction, no? Zagalejo^^^ 05:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "It" refers to the group as a whole. "They" refers to the individual members. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:36, 19 August 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 02:47, 2 July 2008 [37].
- Self-nominator: Tim Vickers (talk) Co-nominator: EncycloPetey
Overview of one of the three Domains of life, and a companion to the featured article on Bacteria. Of top importance to Wikipedia's coverage of biology and classified as a vital article by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support However, Cofactor and Micrometer lead to disambiguation pages. Gary King (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've disambiguated these links. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
What makes http://tolweb.org/tree/home.pages/abouttol.html a reliable source? Note, biology isn't my field, so it very well may be, I just haven't ever heard of it. (current ref 38)
- The article used on that website is one of the essays written by named, expert contributors, so I think that passes WP:V, although not all the content of the site would do so.
- Although some parts of the site are bare or poorly maintained, other parts have extensive research and references. The project is written and coordinated by leading experts in the field of systematics, with various groups of organisms overseen by their respective specialists. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article used on that website is one of the essays written by named, expert contributors, so I think that passes WP:V, although not all the content of the site would do so.
- The link checker tool is showing that the pnas.org links are down, but they are working if I click through.
- Odd.
- Does that sometimes. Figured I'd point out the oddness, but also point out that the links are working for other reviewers. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd.
Current ref 62 "Based on PDB 1FBB" is lacking publisher and last access date.
- Ref added. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All done! Don't expect me to review the prose... biology articles make my head hurt. Give me a nice ancient history article any day... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Wow, what an interesting article! Looks great Tim, but on first read through, I picked up a couple of minor things:
- In the lead, there is a sentence (below) I'm stuggling with (my poor language skills, I'm sure!). I'm not sure whether it should mean "archaea carry out photosythesis", or "no known archaea carry out photosynthesis" or "no known archaea carry out photosynthesis in addition to fixing carbon and using sunlight"
- Salt-tolerant archaea (the Halobacteria) use sunlight as a source of energy, while other species of archaea fix carbon, but no known archaea do both and carry out photosynthesis like plants and cyanobacteria.
- Reworded to "Salt-tolerant archaea (the Halobacteria) use sunlight as a source of energy, while other species of archaea fix carbon, but unlike plants and cyanobacteria, no species of archaea are known that can do both." - apparently in the specific usage photosynthesis refers only to the use of sunlight to capture carbon - so only if you do both are you technically a photosynthetic organism. It's probably clearer without mentioning this.
- Salt-tolerant archaea (the Halobacteria) use sunlight as a source of energy, while other species of archaea fix carbon, but no known archaea do both and carry out photosynthesis like plants and cyanobacteria.
- In the Origin and early evolution section, last paragraph - is the word analyzes correct? My mind wants to read analyses.
- That's me trying too hard to speak American!
- I sympathize - welcome to the league of Brits that have forgotten how to spell ;o)
- That's me trying too hard to speak American!
- The Cell membranes is a little too technical with some unexplained/unlinked terminology (acyl chains, sn-1, sn-2 etc.) Is there any way of directing the reader to explainations of these terms?
- That much detail isn't really needed. I just removed it. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- best of luck, ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 19:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - my queries were addressed in full! ~ Ciar ~ (Talk to me!) 20:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support So satisfying in every respect, not least because of all those blue archaeal genera. ;) Some technical points are listed below; well done, Tim! :) Willow (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps be more specific about the isoprene compounds that were used as chemical fossils? Readers might get confused because isoprenoids show up in almost all branches of life, e.g., squalene and farnesyl transferase. Willow (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarified and condensed. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps be more specific about the isoprene compounds that were used as chemical fossils? Readers might get confused because isoprenoids show up in almost all branches of life, e.g., squalene and farnesyl transferase. Willow (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mention the community aspects of archaea in the lead? You know, all that stuff about biofilms, cannulae, etc.? That seems important to me, that they can do even more complex things by bouncing off of one another. Willow (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanded the second paragraph of the lead. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The description of their phylogenetic tree could be made clearer? The major phyla come only at the end; we're not seeing the forest for the trees (genera). Willow (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Paragraphs re-ordered. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you say something more about the word archaebacterium mentioned in the lead? When was it introduced by whom; when did it fall from favour and why? Willow (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added an explanation of why it was coined and why it isn't used any longer. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be nice to read about the traits that bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes share? For example, is the composition of their cytosols more or less the same, e.g., similar pH, similarly reducing environment, etc.? I'm guessing so, since some of their enzymes are related and maybe would need a similar environment to function similarly? On the other hand, I think I've heard that hyperthermophilic archaea have some characteristic adaptations to their environment, so maybe there aren't many common traits. Willow (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a tricky one, since I can think of a huge lest of chaacteristics that are shared between all forms of life - DNA, protein-based enzymes, reducing cytosols etc.. but can't really see listing these in each article on specific forms of life. For instance, I wouldn't mention in an article on squirrels that tey have a DNA-based genome. However, I do agree that so much is focussed on what divides archaea from other organisms that the similarities are not emphasised. I've added an introductory papragraph to the "Cell biology" section to discuss the similarities before the article launches into the differences. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Under "Significance in technology and industry", I seem to remember hearing that hyperthermophilic archaeal proteins were good for X-ray crystallography and structural genomics, since they're more stable at room temperature? But I'm not sure if that's actually true; I'll try to find a reference. Willow (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They're also satisfyingly easy to purify - you extract your E. coli by boiling! Tim Vickers (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a sentence on structural biology to the Technology section. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: While the article hits most of the important topics which spring to mind, I'm not sure it is yet at Featured. Some examples: (1) "However, a new approach was proposed in 1965,[2] in which microbiologists examine the sequences of the genes in these organisms and use this genetic information to work out which prokaryotes are genuinely related to each other." and the following sentences seem kind of wordy. Maybe something like, "However, as molecular phylogeny data became available starting in the 1960s, it became clear that the archaea and bacteria formed two distinct lines of prokaryotes". I would trim back all the prose about now-discarded terminology, the history of molecular phylogeny, etc (especially since it appears in many parts of the article, not just one). I know you added some of that in response to feedback on this page, but perhaps there is a way to mention these things without taking so many words (or just snip out some of the more peripheral aspects). (2) Although the text "The Archaea should not be confused with the geological term Archean eon, also known as the Archeozoic era. This refers to the primordial period of earth history when prokaryotes were the only cellular organisms living on the planet" probably should not be removed entirely, it really makes for a poor lead-in to "Probable fossils of these ancient cells". (3) The whole paragraph "The classification of archaea . . . from other such groups" is belaboring points which are tangential. Some of these can be touched on, but it should be more in passing, briefer, and more in the context of what it means for the Archaea. (4) The discussion of the internal classification could be slightly expanded, with at least a few hints of why the classification was made, what distinguishes the phyla ("most Crenarchaeota lack histones" or whatever seems to make sense), and which aspects of the classification seem (relatively) well established. Now, having said all that, there's lots of informative, well-written text here. So this isn't really an Oppose even if some passages didn't read as well for me as it seems like a Featured Article should. Kingdon (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've condensed and tightened the Discovery section.
- I've cut that piece about the Archanean era. I might put it back somewhere else but it is a digression. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've moved the bit about the Archean era to a disambiguation tag at the outset, modelled after the one appearing at the top of the Archean article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a sentence on molecular phylogenetics to the classification section, since this is the basis of most of these classifications. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Oppose for now on accessibility and jargon. I was so excited to read this article because I've been a reading a popular science book about cell biology that rhapsodizes over the importance of the discovery of archaea. So, I thought - I'll learn more about them! Yeah! Unfortunately, I did not really learn that much. This article was hard to follow for the layperson. My roommate and I read it aloud during dinner, clicking on things we didn't know and trying to figure out what was being said (and he's even taken some biology classes!). I think that the article assumes a familiarity with biological terms and concepts that most people do not have - it needs to do some more explaining to the rest of us! Here are some examples:
The difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is never described. I'm not sure how common this knowledge this and the lead assumes it from the very first sentence.
- Good point, now added to the lead. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A great deal of the article is spent comparing Arachaea to the other two domains - how they are the same and how they are different. Why not just describe the Archaea? My roommate speculated that this is because we know so little about Archaea, so all we can really do at this point is compare. At any rate, the comparisons are hard to understand without a firm grounding in the other two domains.
- Let me dissect a section and show you what someone like me, a layperson interested in science but not trained in it, gets out of the material (I have inserted my thoughts in red - I hope you find them amusing in a way):
"Archaeal membranes have a distinctive composition. Like bacteria and eukaryotes, archaea possess glycerol-based phospholipids called ether lipids.(lipids are fats, right?; ether is not the outmoded aether theory and not the thing that puts to you sleep, presumably, hmmm - I wonder what it is - ok "some sort of lipid called a lipid") However, three features of archaeal lipids are highly unusual:
- The archaeal lipids are unique because the stereochemistry of the glycerol is the reverse of that found in bacterial and eukaryotic lipids - the glycerol components of these lipids are mirror images of each other - they are enantiomers. (I am going to assume "stereochemistry" is "chemistry"; what's glycerol again?; glycerols are mirrors - why is that important? I'm missing something here.) Since most synthetic enzymes (Why are we talking about synthetic enzymes? Is something here an enzyme? Why is it synthetic? I bet that doesn't mean "human-constructed" here! I am so stupid) are stereospecific for one enantiomer, this is strong evidence for a different biosynthetic pathway.(I am now totally lost)
- (Breathe, perhaps you will understand point 2) Most bacteria and eukaryotes have membranes composed mainly of glycerol-ester lipids, whereas archaea have membranes composed of glycerol-ether lipids.(ester vs. ether? why does this difference matter?) Even when bacteria have ether-linked lipids, the stereochemistry of the glycerol is the bacterial form.(What?) These differences may be an adaptation on the part of archaea to hyperthermophily. However, it is worth noting that even mesophilic archaea have ether-linked lipids.(Why is that worth noting? Does that mean it may not be an adaptation for heat loving?)Main point: Archaea have membranes composed of a certain type of lipid. This matters for some reason.
- (Third time is a charm!) Archaeal lipids are based upon the isoprenoid sidechain.(What's the isoprenoid sidechain?) Only the archaea incorporate these compounds into the straight-chain lipids in the plasma membranes. In some archaea, these isoprenoid side-chains are long enough to span the membrane, forming a monolayer for a cell membrane with glycerol phosphate moieties on both ends.(Eh? I suppose this monolayer is important somehow? Or is it the moieties, whatever those are?) This dramatic adaptation is most common in the extremely thermophilic archaea.(Oh, yes, so dramatic. It is speaking to me right now. Why thermophilic? I have no clue.)
Main point: Archaea have distinctive membrane features. I am not very clear on what those features are, though.
I know how hard it is to make something accessible when it is one's specialty. If you would like me to go over the article section-by-section on the talk page, showing you things I did not understand, I would be more than willing to do so. As you point out, this is a vital article! Awadewit (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rewritten this section, hopefully the new version won't be quite so indigestible over dinner! Tim Vickers (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think the section is much improved. However, I still think that the idea of why some of these things are important is getting lost. For example, the ester-ether distinction. Is that interesting because no other life form has that formation and we never knew life could be like that before we discovered archaea? Is it interesting because it shows us how distant the archaea really are from other life forms (they might seem like other teeny-weeny things to people like me, but we should put that out of our heads right now)? Something else entirely related to chemistry that I am missing (I'm only half-way through the MIT opencourseware biology 101 lectures, after all). Awadewit (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I think I see what you're getting at. We've approached this from an evolutionary viewpoint, but have missed out the physiological relevance of these unusual lipids. I've added some material on how these structures may help archaea live in extreme habitats. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your points about the density of scientific terminology are valid, and Tim and I (and probably others) will do what we can to make the prose more accessible. However, I'd like to address one comment you made: "A great deal of the article is spent comparing Arachaea [sic] to the other two domains - how they are the same and how they are different. Why not just describe the Archaea?"
- Simply describing features of the archaea is insufficient. Much of the article is written in a "compare and contrast" style, which is a standard means of presenting distinguishing characteristics. This style is necessary for two reasons:
- The importance of the Archaea as a separate branch of life (one of three) requires that the reasons for recognizing them as separate be explained. This separateness is noted several times at the outset of the article. Thus, simply describing them, without making comparisons and contrasts with other forms of life, would not enable a person to understand or appreciate their uniqueness. Consider that the article could say that membrane lipids of the Archaea are ether-linked. OK, so why is that important or relevant? Is that different or the same as other living things? Well, the relevant information must be presented by comparison with the other two major domains of life to provide the answer. In this case, all other life has ester-linked lipids in their membranes.
- Archaea are microscopic and beyond the experience of most people, so the additional context of comparison and contrast provides context for mentioning each feature. Diagnosis, by which I mean the recognition of a thing as opposed to other things, of the Archaea requires that one know which characteristics are unique to the thing and which are shared by other things. This then constitutes a definition of the thing. While this is not the only approach possible for presenting a definition, it is the better approach when describing something that is not only beyond the experience of most people, but beyond their ability to perceive directly.
- --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In principle, I agree with you - I use comp/cont all of the time when I teach, too. The problem is that the reader has to understand what is being compared and contrasted. So, for example, the comparison between ester and ether membranes means nothing to me. I understand that they are different, but I have no idea how. It is not an enlightening contrast. I'm afraid that to the layperson, such a difference sounds, um, rather minor. I understand that it may not be at all - I understand that there may be huge ramifications to the ester/ether distinction, but the article doesn't really explain those in terms that I can understand (and I really do want to understand). I don't come away from the article going "wow! it's amazing that archaea have ether-linked membranes! i mean, all other life forms have ester! how did that evolve? I have to go find out! This is fascinating!" Rather, I come away puzzled about why this distinction is so important. Does this help explain the problem with some of the comparisons and contrasts? Awadewit (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I misunderstand your question, then? I understood your question to be "Why are comparisons repeatedly being made in the article, instead of just describing the Archaea without making comparisons?" Was this understanding not correct? That was the question I tried to address with my response above. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That was the first part - the second part stated "At any rate, the comparisons are hard to understand without a firm grounding in the other two domains", which I have tried to expand upon here. Awadewit (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point. In the section on cell walls the old version mentioned that archaea have "S-layers" and that bacteria usually don't, but failed to say what S-layers actually were. In focusing so much on the differnces, thie article sometimes fails to explain the system where the difference is seen. "In archaea, the astebagard is synwise to the bootaleps, while in bacteria this in hubwards to the bootaleps." :) Tim Vickers (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That was the first part - the second part stated "At any rate, the comparisons are hard to understand without a firm grounding in the other two domains", which I have tried to expand upon here. Awadewit (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I misunderstand your question, then? I understood your question to be "Why are comparisons repeatedly being made in the article, instead of just describing the Archaea without making comparisons?" Was this understanding not correct? That was the question I tried to address with my response above. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In principle, I agree with you - I use comp/cont all of the time when I teach, too. The problem is that the reader has to understand what is being compared and contrasted. So, for example, the comparison between ester and ether membranes means nothing to me. I understand that they are different, but I have no idea how. It is not an enlightening contrast. I'm afraid that to the layperson, such a difference sounds, um, rather minor. I understand that it may not be at all - I understand that there may be huge ramifications to the ester/ether distinction, but the article doesn't really explain those in terms that I can understand (and I really do want to understand). I don't come away from the article going "wow! it's amazing that archaea have ether-linked membranes! i mean, all other life forms have ester! how did that evolve? I have to go find out! This is fascinating!" Rather, I come away puzzled about why this distinction is so important. Does this help explain the problem with some of the comparisons and contrasts? Awadewit (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply describing features of the archaea is insufficient. Much of the article is written in a "compare and contrast" style, which is a standard means of presenting distinguishing characteristics. This style is necessary for two reasons:
- Follow-up: The difficult sections have been edited to reduce jargon and to explain the difficult terms that remain. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a tad more work on the "Metabolism" section? Awadewit (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a tad?! Nice to know the article has improved that much in your estimation. Tim and I will work on improving the text in that section. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for keeping on going with this Awadewit! We've rewritten this section a bit more so it relies less on the daughter articles and should serve better as an independent summary. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is much clearer - a big thanks from interested lay people like myself! Awadewit (talk) 02:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for keeping on going with this Awadewit! We've rewritten this section a bit more so it relies less on the daughter articles and should serve better as an independent summary. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a tad?! Nice to know the article has improved that much in your estimation. Tim and I will work on improving the text in that section. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a tad more work on the "Metabolism" section? Awadewit (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does Awadewit's Oppose stand? Has she revisited? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have revisited and am now supporting. Awadewit (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The article is well-written, comprehensive, and (to me at least) very engaging. I suspect that some reviewers will expect this article to be easy going, given it is about bugs. They will be disappointed. Archae, like bacteria and viruses, are highly evolved and have complex structures and biochemistry. The article uses technical words because this is the only language we have to describe accurately these features. Having said that, the language is easily understood by any reader with a basic grounding in biology and chemistry, (yes, it is the ether that puts you to sleep). The nominator is to be commended for the level of accessibility achieved. I would hate to see the article turned into baby food simply to obtain FA status. GrahamColmTalk 17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is much easier to write on technical topics using technical terms, but I'm conscious that if you write very carefully it is often possible to avoid them or put them in context so that they are more easily understood. I'm working on doing that at the moment. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do I get to plug Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible here? On the whole, I think this article does a good job of walking this tightrope. In the example of the cell membranes, I like "which might contribute to the ability of some archaea to survive at extremes of temperature and in very acidic or alkaline environments" because it makes the distinction in a way which makes sense for archaea. Another tack would be something like "basic cellular structures, such as membranes, tend to vary little among organisms and the distinctive archaean membrane makes it more different from a bacterium than an animal is from a plant" (well, that isn't great wording, but something like that). I'm less keen on text like "In ester lipids this is an ester bond, which involves two oxygen atoms (labeled 6 in the Figure), whereas in ether lipids this is an ether bond, involving only one oxygen atom (labeled 2 in the Figure)." If people already know this, it is a distraction. If they don't, then trying to absorb this information at the same time that they try to figure out the significance of the two kinds of bonds for archaea is likely to produce mental overload. But anyway, I thank Awadewit (talk · contribs) for providing reactions (it is always good to hear how first-time readers react to an article, a perspective which it is hard to get if you've worked on an article, even if we/they have only read it a few times). There is only so far we can go to make the article easy for this sort of reader (given other goals, like not watering it down), but we should do what we can. Kingdon (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've simplified that description of ether/ester bonds. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do I get to plug Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible here? On the whole, I think this article does a good job of walking this tightrope. In the example of the cell membranes, I like "which might contribute to the ability of some archaea to survive at extremes of temperature and in very acidic or alkaline environments" because it makes the distinction in a way which makes sense for archaea. Another tack would be something like "basic cellular structures, such as membranes, tend to vary little among organisms and the distinctive archaean membrane makes it more different from a bacterium than an animal is from a plant" (well, that isn't great wording, but something like that). I'm less keen on text like "In ester lipids this is an ester bond, which involves two oxygen atoms (labeled 6 in the Figure), whereas in ether lipids this is an ether bond, involving only one oxygen atom (labeled 2 in the Figure)." If people already know this, it is a distraction. If they don't, then trying to absorb this information at the same time that they try to figure out the significance of the two kinds of bonds for archaea is likely to produce mental overload. But anyway, I thank Awadewit (talk · contribs) for providing reactions (it is always good to hear how first-time readers react to an article, a perspective which it is hard to get if you've worked on an article, even if we/they have only read it a few times). There is only so far we can go to make the article easy for this sort of reader (given other goals, like not watering it down), but we should do what we can. Kingdon (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, which I've been holding back because the article is still being actively improved :) Top-notch references, good use of images, excellent prose (not quite excellent a couple of days ago, but it is now)... definitely FA level in my humble opinion. I must say you've responded admirably to Awadewit's concerns: the article is much more lay-friendly than it was when I last skimmed through it, and has certainly not been turned into baby food (always a concern of mine as well, Graham :) I do have a couple of nit-picks as usual:
- In the lead: "We now know that archaea..."—It is now known, if you please :)
- Reworded
- In "Morphology": "Recently, even a species of flat, square archaea...has been discovered." When exactly? The reference is to a 2005 article.
- Not so recent, I've found the original ref and this is from 1980. Added ref and reworded.
- In "Origin and early evolution": "Indeed, the origin of Archaea appears very old indeed..." I am indeed ODing on indeeds.
- Not needed, cut.
- In "Classification": "These classification systems aim to organize archaea..."—Current classification systems, perhaps?
- Done.
- I don't suppose Tim can make a PNG version of Image:Bacteriorhodopsin.jpg... JPG really doesn't look too good to me. I'd also place the image directly below the table, right-aligned; image staggering isn't set in stone.
- Done.
- I'd spotted a somewhat confusing statement regarding phototrophic archaea, but I can't seem to find it now?
- It might be the "can capture light but can't do photosynthesis" thing? It's discussed above in Ciar's review. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway—excellent work. This FAC is also excellent evidence that articles can indeed benefit from some "de-jargoning" every now and then :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative Support—It is not a light read, but if you can get past the jargon and (in places) dense language it seems like a good article. The reader is probably going to spend a lot of time clicking links in order to understand this fully. But I didn't find any major issues with the presentation.—RJH (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Which sections did you feel had dense language? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone through again using the readability link above (those are a great addition to the FA process BTW) and straightened out and broken up some knotty sentences See diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you.—RJH (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone through again using the readability link above (those are a great addition to the FA process BTW) and straightened out and broken up some knotty sentences See diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Which sections did you feel had dense language? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Well written article on a notable and complex topic. The section on metabolism is jargon heavy, but all terms are linked and organic chemistry is very complex (at least it appears that way to me!). I will discussion on comprehensiveness etc. to others. I have made some (very) small changes, I hope these are OK. Once again, well done. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One question; is there any reason why the article remains semi-protected? -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As for the jargon, funny you should mention it on the day that Oxidative phosphorylation is on the front page ;-). (But I did find it interesting to read through Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxidative phosphorylation for comparison). Kingdon (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems User:Crum375 protected the page because of persistent anon vandalism on 2008-04-04. I do not know why he chose a protection period of three months (especially when you consider that the page never been protected previously). However, since the protection is due to expire in a few days anyway, I had not bothered to unprotect it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I enjoyed reading this article and can tell you have put a lot of hard work in it. It is the nature of the beast, however, that what follows does not enumerate all the great things you have done. Overall the article becomes far too often a compare and contrast exercise with Bacteria. I would suggest leaving most all the bits that say "similar to bacteria". However with all the pieces that say "Bacteria do/have it this way and Archaea do/have it that way." I would remove the bacteria bit and instead simply say "unique to Archaea". Also this article needs serious work on flow and cohesion with attention to the article as a whole. It seems to have had sections developed more in isolation than not. It is also a little heavy with parenthetical remarks.
- Lead:
missing summary of Genetics, Reproduction, and Technology. Too much detail with Carl Woese, 1977Looking this over again, my biggest issue with the lead is structural.
- Carl is only mentioned once and his work is a key event in the history of archaean microbiology, but I cut the date since that isn't critical. I've added some material on genetics and technology.
Discovery: Not sure if this is the vest heading title. Actually I would put call it "Classifaiction" and have the section already named that tacked on to the end of this one. All this really talks about it is the history of changes made in how these organisms are classified rather than how these organisms were "discovered".
- That's debatable, see below for discussion.
This powerful approach, known as phylogenetics, is the main method used today The first clause is too peacocky.
- Cut "powerful"
Archaea were identified as a separate group of prokaryotes in 1977 change identified to classified for better accuracy.
- Reworded to "Archaea were first classified as a separate group of prokaryotes in 1977"
He later renamed the two groups of prokaryotes Archaea and Bacteria to emphasize this, and argued that together with Eukarya they are three domains of living organisms' A little awkward. Maybe "they compose the the three domains"?
- Reworded to "To emphasize this difference, these two domains were later renamed Archaea and Bacteria."
This new appreciation of the importance and ubiquity of archaea came mostly from the use of molecular biology techniques to detect prokaryotes in samples of water or soil from their nucleic acids alone. Can we either enumerate these "molecular biology techniques" or link to somewhere that covers these techniques rather than the general field?
- Reworded to "This new appreciation of the importance and ubiquity of archaea came from using the polymerase chain reaction to detect prokaryotes in samples of water or soil from their nucleic acids alone."
Such techniques eliminate the need to culture organisms in the laboratory, which is often difficult I thin "eliminate the need" is a bit strong, considering in the lead you say this sort of detection is not good enough to properly classify archaea.
- Reworded to "This allows the detection and identification of organisms that cannot be cultured in the laboratory, which is often difficult."
- Morphology: Some images of unusual shapes would be better than the chart that does not even specify archaea. Structure here is good
- I'm afraid there are very few pictures available under a free license.
Individual archaeans range from 0.1 micrometers (μm) to over 15 μm in diameter Is the size range distinct from other single-celled organisims or generally equivalent?
- Generally equivalent (although 0.1 um is on the small side) for prokaryotes. I could add "like bacteria" here, but I've been trying to remove these!
- Origin and early evolution:
I don't know that anything in this section covers the origin of archaea, nor that the section restricted to talking of early evolution of archaea.Lack of structure is now biggest concern.
- Title renamed to "origin and evolution", since the point where the archaea originated was when they diverged from other forms of life.
- Classification: I would merge this with first section as I stated above. I still think the discussion of the classification of archaea as a domain and the classification within that domain should group together in some way. At least as sub-heading under a larger "Classification" section.
- See bottom of this review for discussion of this point. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- populations of archaea show clusters of related cells that can be seen as species and the argument that these species are points within an interconnected net of gene transfer events What this debate is actually about is incomprehensible to me.
- Simplified and clarified.
- Better, but I still wonder if "groups" can be clarified. They aren't completely arbitrary are they?
- That depends on who you ask, some argue that they are indeed arbitrary! This is at best a statistical definition of species. I've tried being a bit more specific on how these groups are being defined. - "The area is contentious; with, for example, some data suggesting that in archaea such as the genus Ferroplasma, individual cells can be grouped into populations that have highly-similar genomes and rarely transfer genes with more divergent groups of cells.[6] These groups of cells are argued to be analogous to species."
- Better, but I still wonder if "groups" can be clarified. They aren't completely arbitrary are they?
- Simplified and clarified.
- Cell structure: This is the first section with any noticeable attempt organization of the writing. Although why cell walls are more distinct from cell membranes than flagella is lost to me.
Bullets points really should be avoided when you get to multiple sentences.
- Rearranged into paragraphs
Archaea are similar to bacteria in many aspects of their cell structure, but other characteristics set the archaea apart. This has no meaning
- Reworded to "Archaea are similar to bacteria in their general cell structure, but the composition and organization of some of these structures set the archaea apart."
These molecules resemble soap molecules Why do you expect soap molecules to be a touch point for readers?
- Analogy removed.
(the phosphate "head", shown as green circles, labeled 4 and 8, in the Figure) Direct references to figure in the text body rather than the caption. Yuck!
- This was added in response to the review by Awadewit above. :) I've removed it again.
- This double sheet of phospholipids is the major structure in cell membranes You lost me right here. How do two phosopholipids become a "sheet"? How is this configured with the life inside and the world outside? Water is likely to be on both sides. There are other structures to cell membranes other than a layer of goo keeping the life inside and the world outside?
- Reworded, but this isn't the place for discussing membrane structure in detail. Hopefully the new wording should be a better summary of the article on cell membranes.
Ether bonds are more chemically-resistant then ester bonds and the downside/trade-off to ether bonds is?
- I haven't seen any discussion of a downside, so I can't really speculate on that point.
These branched chains may help prevent archaean membranes from becoming leaky at high temperatures. and the downside/trade-off is?
- Ditto, I don't think that is known.
In some archaea the typical phospholipid bilayer (labeled 9 at the right) is replaced by a single monolayer (labeled 10 at the right) Well the caption says 9 is bacteria/eukaryote model and 10 an archaea.
- Removed and reworded. Poor usage of the word "typical", reworded to "in some archaea the phospholipid bilayer is replaced by a single monolayer."
bacteria possessing cell walls made from peptidoglycan . . . this polymer differs from the peptidoglycan of bacteria since it lacks D-amino acids and N-acetylmuramic acid I followed the S-layer/chain mail description nicely. This peptidoglycan/pseudopeptodoglycan bit however lost me. What is it besides hard to spell?
- Not particularly important is what it is, I've cut this sentence.
while they are similar to bacterial flagella in that they are rotatory motors driven by a proton gradient or you could they are similar in operation (and then either offer the details or not).
- Question - I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand this comment. Are you wanting more details on how the flagella operate?
- I intended to point out that you could say this in more common terms like "they are similar in operation", rather than describing how they operate in a techincal way that some readers might not comprehend. The parenthetical is intended to say I don't have strong feels on including the details or not once a more comprehenable term like "operation" is in there.--BirgitteSB 19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reworded and expanded to "Archaea also have flagella, and these operate in a similar way to bacterial flagella - they are stiff stalks that are driven by rotatory motors at the base of the flagella. These motors are powered by the proton gradient across the membrane. "
- I intended to point out that you could say this in more common terms like "they are similar in operation", rather than describing how they operate in a techincal way that some readers might not comprehend. The parenthetical is intended to say I don't have strong feels on including the details or not once a more comprehenable term like "operation" is in there.--BirgitteSB 19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand this comment. Are you wanting more details on how the flagella operate?
- The bacterial flagellum is a modified type III secretion system, while archaeal flagella appear to have evolved from to the bacterial type IV pili. This could be explained in more meaningful terms.
- Reworded to "The two types of flagella evolved from different ancestors, the bacterial flagellum evolved from a type III secretion system, while archaeal flagella appear to have evolved from the bacterial type IV pil"
- In contrast to the bacterial flagellum, where filament proteins move up a central pore and are added to the tip of the filament, archaeal filaments appear to be synthesized by adding subunits to their base. That is a little hard to grasp, can it link somewhere or be explained in detail.
- Reworded to "In contrast to the bacterial flagellum, which is a hollow stalk and is assembled by subunits moving up the central pore and then adding onto the tip of the flagella, archaeal flagella are synthesized by adding subunits onto their base."
- Metabolism: This is the weakest section so far. Intro paragraph skips over Hererortrophs. How exactly is that image relevant to this section?
- Archaea exhibit a variety of different types of metabolism, obtaining the energy they need from many different chemical reactions As do all organisms; lacks meaning.
- Not really, most eukaryotes use a very limited set of nutrients. Reworded to "Archaea exhibit a great variety of chemical reactions in their metabolism and use many different sources of energy."
with archaea that grow on complex organic compounds (the chemoorganotrophs) Kill the parenthetical and just stick with three basic groups. It just is a confusing new term never used again and adds nothing important.
- Cut and reworded.
These similarities with other organisms probably reflect the early evolution of carbohydrate metabolism in the history of life Or else this could reflect that there are limited options for metabolizing carbohydrates efficiently
- Good point, added.
A common reaction in [methogens] . . . I don't understand why the details of this chemical reaction should be included.
- Question - Do you think it would be better with more equations, or better without this equation?
- Actually I was going for a different angle. If this chemistry is a significant point about Archaea, explain the significance explicitly and keep it. If it not or if other other chemistry has equal significance, cut it or add the others. I don't have a strong feeling about equations per se.--BirgitteSB 19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an important reaction to methanogens, but no more important to the archaea in general than sulfur reduction or ammonia oxidation. I've removed it.
- Actually I was going for a different angle. If this chemistry is a significant point about Archaea, explain the significance explicitly and keep it. If it not or if other other chemistry has equal significance, cut it or add the others. I don't have a strong feeling about equations per se.--BirgitteSB 19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Do you think it would be better with more equations, or better without this equation?
- Methanogenesis involves a range of unique coenzymes, such as coenzyme M and methanofuran Unique to Archaea or to methogens. (I feel the article is losing its focus about now)
- Reworded to "Methanogenesis involves a range of coenzymes that are unique to these archaea"
- Genetics:
Archaeal plasmids are increasingly important as genetic tools and allow the performance of genetic studies in archaea. This has lost me and it has no links.
- Cut.
As with the bacteriophages that infect bacteria, some viruses replicate within archaea Or as with all types of living organisms, archara can be infected with viruses. Similarity to bacteria is only worth noting when it is similarity to bacteria alone (or nearly so).
- Good point. Reworded to "Archaea can be infected by viruses."
Archaea are genetically distinct from other organisms As are Bacteria, Jellyfish, Giraffes, and BirgitteSB. That doesn't mean much.
- Reworded to "Archaea are genetically distinct from bacteria and eukaryotes"
Transcription and translation in archaea are more similar to those in eukaryotes than in bacteria, with archaean RNA polymerase II and ribosomes being very similar to their equivalents in eukaryotes.[77] The archaeal RNA polymerase in transcription also seems to function in a similar way to that of eukaryotes Can you not say "similar . . . to eukaryotes" so often in succession?
- Cut and reworded. "Transcription and translation in archaea are more similar to these processes in eukaryotes than in bacteria, with archaean RNA polymerase II and ribosomes being very close to their equivalents in eukaryotes. The archaeal RNA polymerase in transcription also seems to function like that of eukaryotes, with similar assemblies of proteins (the general transcription factors) directing the binding of the RNA polymerase to a gene's promoter. However, other archaean transcription factors are closer to those found in bacteria."
- Reproduction:
(they have the same karyotype) Kayotype begins "A karyotype is the characteristic chromosome complement of a eukaryote species" One of these articles is wrong.
- Reworded to "these will all have the same genetic material", they only have one chromosome anyway.
a complex cell cycle; after the cell's chromosome is replicated and the two daughter chromosomes are separated, the cell divides Seems simple compared to meiosis; what's so complex?
- True, "complex" has no real meaning here. Reworded to "Cell division is controlled in the archaea in a cell cycle"
Spores, such as the endospores made by some bacteria, are not formed in any of the known archaea Many things are not formed in archaea, why does this merit inclusion?
- Since this is defining characteristic that separates them from both bacteria and eukaryotes. I've reworded this to "Spores are made by both bacteria and eukaryotes, but are not formed in any of the known archaea."
- Some species of Haloarchaea undergo phenotypic switching and grow as several different types of cell, including thick-walled structures that are resistant to osmotic shock and allow the archaea to survive in water at low concentrations of salt, but these are not reproductive structures and may instead help them disperse to new habitats Maybe this should be in "cell structure" not "Reproduction".
- No, this is the closest they get to spores, so I think this belongs best here.
- Ecology:
You might want to particularly mention plankton here. Or else take out the image and the mention in the lead. You also might want to move "Interaction with other organisms" before "Role in chemical cycling" so you can explains termites/ruminants and methogens before mentioning them as in aside in the role on global warming.
- Added plankton in text. The section on cycling fits well with the habitats section, so I've just removed the mention of termites in this section.
the formate-consuming methanogen What does formate-consuming signify?
- Not much, cut. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hope that helps --BirgitteSB 04:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to begin implementing some of these suggestions tomorrow (It's rather late for me locally). I do want to point out two specfic points in your comments that either perhaps should not be made. First, the statements where the text says "Bacteria have"/"Archaea have" cannot be changed to "Unique to archaea" in most cases. Remember that there is a third group, the eukaryotes, and in many of these situations where the comparison was made, archaea actually share their trait with eukaryotes. In other words, revising those passages will be a bit trickier, though some may be changeable.
- Second, it is not correct to replace "...were identified" with "...were classified". Those two statements mean entirely different things. Identification is the recognition or discovery of a group; classification is the formal publication of a scientific name and description that places a group in context. The archaea were identified in 1977 as a new group, but were still classified alongside the bacteria as a kingdom. It was not until 1990 that the group was classified as a separate domain. Related to this, the two sections you've identified as pertaining to classification really do separate things. The "Discovery" section discusses the separateness of the group and its recognition as separate, so it treats the group as a cohesive whole distinct from other groups. By contrast, the "Classification" section discusses relationships within the group between different members, treating the members as units of a diverse assemblage. I fear that merging the two sections would blur this important difference in the focus of the two sections. The "Discovery" really has more in common with the "Origin and early evolution section" than with the "Classification" section. There is also the problem that the "Discovery" section is a general read, that introduces what the group is and something of its importance; it must therefore appear early in the article. The "Classification" section covers material that is more specialized, and much harder to explain to the layman, so placing it early in the article may befuddle some readers. I'm not sure that the two sections can be neatly joined because of this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First: Perhaps then compare them to eukaruote where they are not unique. Bacteria has 16 instances of the word archaea. This article use "bacteria" 50 times, and I didn't even count things like cyanobacteria.
- I agree. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Second: I am not sure when a few species among a selection of birds that were always regarded as one genus are assigned a brand new genus all there own, that those birds aren't considered to be "discoverd" at that point. But if I am wrong about this maybe you can clarify why in the article a little more so other can't think along the same lines.--BirgitteSB 12:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for clarifying your concern; obviously the article isn't making that (second) point clear. Birds are probably not a good analogy for this situation, nor is a discussion at the level of genus. Imagine rather that you suddenly discover that some of those lights in the sky are actually planets like Earth, or that you suddenly realize that some of the "rocks" around you are actually living things. This would be closer to the magnitutde of Woese's discovery, as it marked a major shift in thinking about life on Earth. What happened in the case of the Archaea was that a few species were known to exist and had previously been classified among bacteria because they were tiny and nucleus-free. Carl Woese discovered the distinctiveness of those few known species, and along with this recognition came the discovery of dozens, then hundreds, of new organisms previously unknown to exist. Even now, microbiologists will take a random sample from a random location and "shotgun" for possible DNA. This often leads to the discovery of new Archaea, which turn out to be ubiquitous on Earth. I guess another analogy would be if we had only ever seen penguins and ostriches, then someone suddenly thought to look upwards and discovered there were birds flying around in the sky. If the enormity of the discovery hasn't been made clear in the article, then we should certainly clarify this point. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First: Perhaps then compare them to eukaruote where they are not unique. Bacteria has 16 instances of the word archaea. This article use "bacteria" 50 times, and I didn't even count things like cyanobacteria.
- Thank you, Birgitte, a characteristically thorough review! Tim Vickers (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed the order of the sections, what do you think of the new arrangement? Tim Vickers (talk) 04:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Birgitte, a characteristically thorough review! Tim Vickers (talk) 13:54, 1 July 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.
References
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
BBC
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
geophysical
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Fathi, Nazila (2002-06-23). "Quake in Northern Iran Kills at Least 500". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-06-20.
- ^ Hosseini, S. (December 2002). "Aftershock Observation of the 22 June 2002 Changoureh-Avaj Earthquake (Mw 6.5), NW Iran". American Geophysical Union. Retrieved 2008-08-24.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - ^ Cite error: The named reference
USGS
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Eppley JM, Tyson GW, Getz WM, Banfield JF (2007). "Genetic exchange across a species boundary in the archaeal genus ferroplasma". Genetics. 177 (1): 407–16. doi:10.1534/genetics.107.072892. PMID 17603112.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Artaxerxes III of Persia
- 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 03:24, 10 July 2008 [38].
Respectfully nominate this article about a Pacific War Guadalcanal campaign battle for FA consideration. The article passed an A-class review with WP:MILHIST. Self-nomination. Cla68 (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
"On November 5, 7, and 8 Tokyo Express missions" → "On November 5–8, Tokyo Express missions"?I'll find some more after werewolves have stopped chasing me. Gary King (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't like having the exact date of each mission? Cla68 (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm dyslexic and didn't notice a 6 was missing. In any case, I still think a comma should be placed there. Gary King (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done [39]. Cla68 (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm dyslexic and didn't notice a 6 was missing. In any case, I still think a comma should be placed there. Gary King (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Sources look good, links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per MoS, remove the size specifications from the images. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the image sizing [40]. Cla68 (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - only two problems I can find with the prose on a scan of the lead and a quick read through of the rest.
- Redundancy: "After making
somegains during the day..." - More of the same: "At the same time,
a number ofJapanese riflemen infiltrated the"
Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the support and constructive feedback. I corrected the two sentences you mention. Cla68 (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Bordering on support, but I think some parts of the article could benefit from some judicious editing. Otherwise I only have a few concerns:
- In the first part of the article, some sentences may be excessive in length and could read better if they were sub-divided. An example is the first sentence. My opinion of course; others may see it differently.
- "the Japanese tried three separate times" --> isn't separate redundant? Perhaps not, but if so it's unclear why.
- "The US was attempting to destroy the Japanese forces on Guadalcanal and the Japanese were trying to prevent this from happening." Is it necessary to state that the Japanese goal is merely to survive here? How about, "the Japanese were trying to hold their defensive positions until reinforcements could arrive", as was stated later in the article?
- In the First Battle of Mount Austen section, the relevance of the two events to the decision to attack and secure Mount Austen is unclear. What have a raid and a skirmish to do with the need to take the Mount? The earlier discussion about Mount Austen seemed more to the point. Please clarify in the article.
- Is there a reference for the participation of troops from the British Solomon Is., as listed in the infobox?
Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I shortened several sentences in the intro [41].
- Someone removed the word "separate" from that sentence.
- I changed the sentence in the intro as you suggested [42].
- I clarified the connection between those two events and Patch's decision [43].
- I have referenced text in the article stating that British Solomon Island natives took part in the battle as supply/support personnel. Cla68 (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on images
Image:Woundet Soldier at Guadalcanal.jpg - The source link for this image is broken.
Image:GuadMapAug7.jpg - I couldn't find the map image at the specified source.
Image:Litter bearers on Guadalcanal.jpg - The source link for this image is broken.Awadewit (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will be on vacation from now until 20 July, during which I will have intermittent internet access. I will revisit this nom as often as I can. Awadewit (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Images look good to me. Awadewit (talk) 04:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support—Mostly pretty well written. An important and engaging topic. Now, there were just tons of autoformatted bright-blue dates—especially day and month alone. You have so many valuable links that I decided to remove the auto-lemon. Autoformatting is no longer encouraged (see MOSNUM). I think the result looks better and is easier to read. No one, let me assure you, minds US date formatting. And now we can have proper date ranges.
- A few instances of U dot S dot, which is strongly not my personal preference, so just check that they are required because part of official military titles (divisions, etc.)—I suspect this is the case. Well done indeed. *Plus some of your captions need the lose the final period (Injured soldiers, maps, etc) TONY (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your helpful edits to the article. I removed some periods from the image captions and went over it again to try to make sure no "U.S." remained. Cla68 (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I commented during the review of the article. It's well written, and the clear majority of the long sentences it once had have been broken up to make the reading easier. As a note, I believe Cla68 is currently on a short WikiBreak, which explains why he hasn't come back to respond to some of the comment made insofar. JonCatalán (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're correct, I was away from a computer for almost a week but I'm back now. As soon as I get caught up on some things I'll be responding to the comments posted here. Cla68 (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Meets all the criteria - more great work. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:40, 9 July 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.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Trump International Hotel and Tower (Chicago)
- 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 00:44, 4 July 2008 [47].
- Nominator: Shyamal
I'm nominating this article for featured article because of its GA status for a while, current stability in spite of high traffic and meeting the FAC criteria. Many people have helped this article and it has developed over a much longer time span than many other major animal group articles. This article has had a lot of editing for factual accuracy and style by a number of other editors notably Doug Yanega, User:Stemonitis and more recently User:GameKeeper. Shyamal (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Appears to me that the concerns in the first nomination have been addressed. Excellent article. Cla68 (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. reiterating my support again for a second time. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. (see old nom) Ruslik (talk) 07:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support.
There's still a few arkward phrases, but nothing serious enough to prevent FA.GrahamColmTalk 09:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Support I supported first time round too jimfbleak (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: Briefly stated, badly needs a copyedit, and its failure to define terms that would completely baffle laymen.
- Image:Ants in amber.jpg is so small on the page that the ants are not visible. A crop or a larger thumbnail would help.
- Taxonomy and Evolution "The specimen, trapped in amber from New Jersey, is more than 80 million years old" - is this referring to the first fossil that E. O. Wilson found? I don't think the amber is properly referred to as "from New Jersey", New Jersey didn't exist at that time. In the previous sentence "obtained" is an awkward word, I'd have said "found" or "discovered". likewise "amber fossil remains" is awkward Wouldn't it be easier to say something like "In a 1966 palaeontological dig in New Jersey, E. O. Wilson and his team discovered the first Cretaceous fossil remains of an ant trapped in amber. Dating from over 80 million years ago, this species, Sphecomyrma freyi is an evolutionary link between primitive, non-social wasps and modern ants.[11]
- I agree this should be rewritten, but the facts must be preserved. The Ant in amber was found by an amateur fossil hunter in cliffs in New Jersey, he passed it on to Wilson et al. for classification. Some details here Sphecomyrma freyi GameKeeper (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, if I was really picky, that "is an evolutionary link between primitive, non-social wasps and modern ants" is slightly wrong as well - it illustrates the evolutionary link, but evolution is a bush, and so it's far more likely that any species found was not a direct ancestor of the modern group, but a sister group. "illustrates the evolutionary link" is more accurate.
- I don't think you say clearly enough that termites are in no way related to ants. They're from a different order. The sentence explaining this also comes from out of left field.
- Distribution and diversity Use transitional phrases. Don't say "Ants are found on all continents except Antarctica. Many islands such as Greenland, Iceland, parts of Polynesia and the Hawaiian Islands lack native ant species." say "Ants are found on all continents except Antarctica, although many islands such as Greenland, Iceland, parts of Polynesia and the Hawaiian Islands lack native ant species.
- As a whole, this section is not very well written.
- Morphology The summary paragraph at the start uses a lot of specialist biological terms. It is far more useful, in a general encyclopaedia, to use layman-friendly terms at first, then go through and explain the proper terms as you go into more detail. However, this section never actually explains many of the difficult terms used in the first paragraph.
- Polymorphism Reference does not support statement: You imply that "This polymorphism in morphology and behaviour does not rely on a large or complex genome;" because one species has only one chromosome. It may well be true - in fact, it almost certainly is - but the logic is faulty: The size of the chromosomes matters: an unqualified "one pair of chromosomes" sounds small, but it may, in fact, contain more information than two pairs of much smaller chromosomes. Likewise, you need to demonstrate the jack jumper ant also exhibits substantial polymorphism - if it does not, then the whole implied connection falls apart.
- The connections were indeed a little loose, I did some further research and have reworded this and avoided the strong claims made earlier. Shyamal (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Development "Ants are holometabolous, and develop by complete metamorphosis, and pass through larval and pupal stages before they become adults." Explain your terms, this is for laymen.
- Dropped the usage of holometabolous. Shyamal (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "apocrita" not defined, and made worse by lack of capitalisation. Something along the lines of "the suborder, Apocrita" would make it clear.
- Dropped the usage of apocrita - link available via taxobox in any case. Shyamal (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Give the definition promptly. "The pupa is "exarate", that is, the appendages are free and not fused to the body as in a butterfly pupa." is far less confusing than "The pupa is "exarate" as in most other apocrita, that is, the appendages are free and not fused to the body as in a butterfly pupa."
- "Thus, ants are more K-selected than most insects." - You can't seriously expect laymen to know about r-type and K-type strategies.
- Dropped this, hopefully the strategy comparisons will be included in the insect article ! Shyamal (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "diapause". Define it.
- Bracketed. Not essential. Shyamal (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That gets us up to the start of "Behaviour and ecology", tell me when you want me to have another look. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with some of the points raised, but should the article have to stand alone without the need for readers visiting links for further information? Explanations of many of the terms would make it enormous apart from duplicating information available from the linked articles. I presume and hope that the "you" in the above refers to "we". Shyamal (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will apologise if that came out too critical - it is a pretty good article, and I think the problems are eminently fixable, but they do need dealt with. I think it's necessary to explain any terms not covered in high school, GCSE, or similar biology courses. For instance, it can be presumed that they know basic things like head, thorax, and abdomen, but "holometabolous", "metapleural glands", "mesosoma", "petiole", and "haemolymph" - here a brief description, immediately after first use of the word, would make this article much more inviting. Basically, don't write for biologists, write for intelligent laymen, and avoid at all costs any paragraph which would require a reasonably-intelligent layman to read several other articles to understand - instead, summarise for him =)
- I'd normally be happy to help, but I'm really ill at the moment and can't do much. If you give me a couple days (and still need them) then my services are at your disposal. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wishing you a speedy recovery! I can definitely do with any amount of help. While I can and will attempt a few fixes, this is going to be limited by work and travel. Shyamal (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In the UK GCSE examinations are taken by 15–16 year old children. I am happy to see terms not covered by biology courses at this level linked. Terms not taught to 19 year-olds, on those courses aimed at this age group, may require further explanation. I think it is a bit over the top to say that read[ing] several other articles is needed. More often than not on Wikipedia, an adequate definition is given in the first sentence of the article. Having said this, the nominators might want to consider deleting throw-away lines such as the one about r/K selection. Shoemaker is right about this; to me they look a bit like showing -off. GrahamColmTalk 20:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree strongly. We can presume most peopl e took a GCSE in biology, or Highschool biology, or some equivalent. We cannot, however, write this for undergraduate biologists - it is on ants. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In the UK GCSE examinations are taken by 15–16 year old children. I am happy to see terms not covered by biology courses at this level linked. Terms not taught to 19 year-olds, on those courses aimed at this age group, may require further explanation. I think it is a bit over the top to say that read[ing] several other articles is needed. More often than not on Wikipedia, an adequate definition is given in the first sentence of the article. Having said this, the nominators might want to consider deleting throw-away lines such as the one about r/K selection. Shoemaker is right about this; to me they look a bit like showing -off. GrahamColmTalk 20:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wishing you a speedy recovery! I can definitely do with any amount of help. While I can and will attempt a few fixes, this is going to be limited by work and travel. Shyamal (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have attempted some simplification, but regarding certain linked technical terms I still find it difficult to entirely explain it in the article. Shyamal (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with some of the points raised, but should the article have to stand alone without the need for readers visiting links for further information? Explanations of many of the terms would make it enormous apart from duplicating information available from the linked articles. I presume and hope that the "you" in the above refers to "we". Shyamal (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with the above reviewer that Image:Ants in amber.jpg could do with a crop. Hardly 20% of the photo is of the amber itself. A simple crop with MS Paint should do the trick. indopug (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I cropped it. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as before, the prose is far from brilliant, engaging, or professional. Here's what I can find on a casual run-through taking all of five minutes:
- As per WP:FACR the prose does not need to be brilliant, only engaging and professional. Lwnf360 (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Before, the prose was said to require another 5% of work. GrahamColmTalk 21:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually agree with that assessment, if you call writing the article work on the text. Clearly, a copyedit would be minor compared to actually writing some 80 kilobytes of text, but a copyedit it needs nonetheless. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ants are social insects of the family Formicidae and, along with the related
families ofwasps and bees, belong to the order Hymenoptera." - "family" is already stated in the description of ants, to restate it in comparing like groups is redundant. In fact, what does "related" mean, anyways, in this context? If "related" means that they belong to the same order, then it too is redundant and "Ants are social insects of the family Formicidae and, along wasps and bees, belong to the order Hymenoptera." would be even more concise. Pardon me if I'm wrong about the latter, though.
- Family is a strictly defined term in taxonomy—the wording is a correct. GrahamColmTalk 21:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The hierarchies of families and order may also be explored via the taxobox. Shyamal (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't particularly understand how that answers the question. "Family" as a descriptor for the ants already appears in the first part of the sentence, and repeating it is redundant. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what that has to do with the redundancy. I'm a layman at this subject, so could you clarify? Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dropping the families would lump wasp and bees together, which would be technically incorrect and it is worth noting that these are all sister families within the Hymenoptera. Shyamal (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would it make it seem as though the wasps and bees were one entity? Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "They are easily identified by their elbowed antennae and a distinctive node-like structure that forms a slender waist." - really? The structure "forms" a slender waste?
- It does. GrahamColmTalk 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The structure might include a slender waist, but "forms" isn't generally used in that sense. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strange as it may be, it is the waist but forms seems to be a better link verb. Shyamal (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But the structure would be more than just the waist - the waist is not the whole ant. That's why I think that includes would be a better choice. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A google search for petiole+waist / pedicel+waist confirms that this wording is widespread.Shyamal (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, really? Looking at both, it shows no results relevant to the wording at all. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redundancy: "Ant colonies also have
somefertile males called "drones" and one or more fertile females called "queens"
- "some" is clearly being used to indicate a small number. "A few" or "several" would be better, but "some" can correctly express quantity. Lwnf360 (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Some" does not indicate an approximation of the value at all in this context. This is a clear-cut case of redundancy - I'm surprised you challenged this one. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further on in the text, it is noted that drones are transitory and produced in numbers only during swarming - so dropping the some would make it look like they are as common as the workers. Shyamal (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it wouldn't. How exactly does the supremely vague word "some" make a comparison between how many workers/drones there are? The answer is that it doesn't. Dropping the some would do no such thing, and I'm not sure how what you're saying is even relevant. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The colonies are sometimes described as superorganisms because ants appear to operate as an unified entity, collectively working together to support the colony" - "a", not "an" before "unified". Also, the "the" before "colonies" is unnecessary and conflicts with the lack of a similar article before "ants".
- "Ants dominate most ecosystems, and form 15–20% of the terrestrial animal biomass." -> More concisely phrased as: "Ants dominate most ecosystems, forming 15–20% of the terrestrial animal biomass."
- I disagree, Ants dominate...forming is not correct, Ants dominate..and form is. GrahamColmTalk 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? I thought both are correct grammatically. I'll trust you on this one. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also disagree. It could be changed to "Ants dominate most ecosystems; they form..." Lwnf360 (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Their success has been attributed to their social structure, ability to modify their habitats, tap resources and defend themselves." - confusing sentence. I had to read it thrice to understand what it meant. It's also most likely grammatically incorrect. Suggest rephrasing as "Their success has been attributed to their ability to modify their habitats, tap resources, and defend themselves, as well as their social structure."
- Could be misread as meaning "defend their social structure" which would not be particularly correct. Shyamal(talk) 03:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The meaning is clear with the comma as disjunction in my modification. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ant societies have division of labour, communication between individuals and an ability to solve complex problems" - you use the serial comma elsewhere, why not here?
- "Many human cultures make use of ants in cuisine, medication and rituals." - same as above.
- "However, the ability to exploit resources brings ants into conflict with humans as they can damage crops and invade buildings." - comma needed before "as".
- "Some species, such as the red imported fire ant, are regarded as invasive species, since they can spread rapidly into new areas." -> "Species such as the red imported fire ant are regarded as..."
- "Their colours vary; most are red or black, green is less common, some tropical species have a metallic lustre." - "and" before "some".
- "Some ants such as Australia's bulldog ant however, have exceptional vision" -> "Ants such as Australia's bulldog ant, however, have exceptional vision."
- "(although some species, like army ants have wingless queens)" - comma missing.
- Have handled some of the comma issues pointed out. Shyamal (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing all these points is not enough. I only went thoroughly through the lead and skimmed random paragraphs in the main body of the text. A full copyedit would be appreciated. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a contradiction here. You say thoroughly but above you say Here's what I can find on a casual run-through taking all of five minutes: GrahamColmTalk 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I sad thoroughly through the lead, which isn't exactly a large portion of the article. I'll respond to your other responses later. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your opposition to the prose. Most of the issues you have raised are minor errors, or debatable phrasing (and several of your suggestions make matters worse, not better). You seem to misunderstand the WP:FACR. The prose does not need to be perfect (or brilliant for that matter), but only engaging and professional. The minor comma errors and the like should be fixed when noticed, but these minor errors should not prevent this article from becoming featured. Lwnf360 (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And I disagree with you and advise you to reread WP:FACR. The prose does not have to be absolutely perfect, sure, but the article is sprinkled with minor errors, which you can hardly call professional. You claim that my changes make the text worse - I see only one that did, the "dominate...forming" point. The rest you are opposed to I stand firm on. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. per previous Lwnf360 (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Support This is such a terrificly organized and engaging article - the pictures! Wow! Terrific! This article only needs a little brown star at the top for it to be improved. NancyHeise (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The dead links don't look very good. 116135 (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume you mean the red links rather than dead external links. Shyamal (talk) 08:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have removed some red-links, most of the remainder are to species and journals. Not sure about what the general view is but links to unwritten articles such as those for the journals could be removed. Shyamal (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need to remove redlinks (they encourage article building); redlinks are not a valid oppose, and they do not need to be removed. 04:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Have removed some red-links, most of the remainder are to species and journals. Not sure about what the general view is but links to unwritten articles such as those for the journals could be removed. Shyamal (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - overall excellent and very comprehensive. I've got partway through, so these are preliminary comments. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "By the Oligocene and Miocene ants had come to represent 20–40% of all insects found in major fossil deposits" - this is a very weak statment, could this be made a bit more definite?
- These estimates are from samples in amber and the variation is best retained as no further accuracy is achievable. Most importantly, even the lower estimate is significant. In the absence of accuracy, the only improvement could be to make it more vague (from a quarter to nearly half). Shyamal (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Of the species that lived in the Eocene epoch, one of approximately ten genera survive to the present. Of the genera, 56% are represented in Baltic amber fossils (early Oligocene), and 92% of the genera represented in Dominican amber fossils (apparently early Miocene) still survive today." - this seems poorly-worded. If this is indeed one out of ten, rather than one in ten, you need to reorder these sentences so you discuss the ancient diversity first, and then end by saying how many of these genera survive today.
- Will need User:GameKeeper to look at this in detail. It seems that the first part on diversity is organized by time and then the survival of genera restarts on a time scale. Shyamal (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is Distribution and diversity a subheading in taxonomy and evolution? The subjects of current distribution don't seem to be closely-related to taxonomy or evolution.
It is a function of evolutionary history, perhaps some notes linking the two are needed. Promoting it to a section should also work.Promoted section. Shyamal (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Insects also lack closed blood vessels; instead, they have a long, thin, perforated tube along the top of the body (called the "dorsal aorta") that functions like a heart, and pumps haemolymph towards the head, thus aiding the circulation of the internal fluids." If the dorsal aorta only aids the circulation of fluids, this must mean it is not the sole reason the fluids circulate and that other mechanisms are involved. It would be good to either say what these are, or replace "aids" with "causes" or "drives"
- From Borror, Triplehorn, Johnson- The movement of hemolymph is brought about by pulsations of the heart and is aided in other parts of the body, such as the base of the legs and wings, by accessory pulsatile organs. -
i am inclined to leave it in the current form.Modified. Shyamal (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "They are quick to abandon established nests at the first sign of threats." - unclear if this is ants in general, or the species mentioned in the previous sentence.
- Status? Where does the copyedit stand? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Five days with no article changes; are nominators still responding? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the readily actionable items have been handled and responded to. Shyamal (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Five days with no article changes; are nominators still responding? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I opposed the previous nom., but can't see an oppose above. I suppose the writing's OK now. TONY (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done a full copy-edit, prose looks OK to me now. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice,[48] thanks Tim! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 3 July 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.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Solar energy
- 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 05:37, 15 July 2008 [49].
- Nominator(s): ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk)
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it passes all of the FA criteria. It's well-written, well-sourced, properly formatted, and the whole she-bang. Any problems? I'll fix 'em. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm slightly skeptical about the reliability of this, this, this, this and this. Are there any other sources that could be substituted? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They definitely aren't reliable. The sources above are blogs. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a source is a blog doesn't make it inherently unreliable, MFC - see WP:SPS. However, I definitely agree that those links above aren't reliable and should be changed. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean that - there are no third party publications anyways... « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry! I forgot about using those sites. I removed them, and replaced them with equivalent refs. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- MFC: Which is exactly what I said. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 18:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean that - there are no third party publications anyways... « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a source is a blog doesn't make it inherently unreliable, MFC - see WP:SPS. However, I definitely agree that those links above aren't reliable and should be changed. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They definitely aren't reliable. The sources above are blogs. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "The third named storm of the season, Chantal developed on August 14 from a tropical wave in the tropical Atlantic Ocean." - sounds awkward and redundant.
- "It tracked rapidly westward throughout much of its duration, and after degenerating into a tropical wave the system passed through the Windward Islands." - "throughout much of its duration" sounds redundant. Why couldn't one just write "most of it's duration"? Misplaced formality, it seems.
- "Chantal reached a peak intensity with maximum sustained winds of" - could be more concise. How about "At its peak, Chantal reached maximum sustained winds of..."?
- Redundancy: "though wind shear
firstand later land interaction prevented strengthening to hurricane status each time"
Overall, MOS is very good. I might check the prose of the rest of the article later, since it's not very long. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for the comments. I removed the "third named storm of the season" bit. I don't know what is redundant about "throughout much of its duration", but I went ahead and changed "throughout" to "for". I removed "maximum sustained winds", since it's not particularly important. I also removed that redundancy. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - no more redundancy that I can find; prose looks good in general. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 01:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Shouldn't units such as "of 39 mph (63 km/h) with" be spelt out, per WP:UNITS, so that it's "of 39 miles per hour (63 km/h) with"? Gary King (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, fixed. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a few more; just search for "mph". Gary King (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, why? Did MOS change when I wasn't looking? Aren't units supposed to be spelled out only in their first instance? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 18:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears so. 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). Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But in the next sentence of the MOS... When there is consensus to do so, the main units may also be abbreviated in the main text after the first occurrence. In articles which repeatedly use the same units (3-4 times per paragraph, in some cases) it makes a lot of sense to abbreviate the units. Plasticup T/C 02:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears so. 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). Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, fixed. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "and after degenerating into a tropical wave the system passed through the Windward Islands." - could be a bit more crisp by removing "the system"...
- "prevented strengthening to hurricane status each time; despite the unfavorable conditions, the storm was consistently anticipated to attain hurricane status." - this doesn't read great... probably should say that it was anticipated, then say that it didn't actually get it.
- "In the Windward Islands, lightning from the system caused two indirect deaths in Trinidad" - don't need both "in the"s...
giggy (:O) 11:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it, thanks. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, giggy (:O) 13:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it, thanks. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
What makes http://stormcarib.com/ a reliable source?
- Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not, which is why I removed it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes, text squeeze between info box in the lead and the first image. Incorrect use of author field in cite templates. Websites need publisher, newspapers need work to be italicized, neither are authors. Inconsistency in author names; is it last name first or first name first? Please make consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The text squeeze is actually standard with the tropical cyclone project, in that the storm path map should be at the top-left of the storm history section, which is naturally to the left of the Infobox. I fixed the author fields, BTW. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you all change that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I brought up a discussion about that. Given that could take some time to get some discussion, I am going to refrain from doing anything with that for now. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to hold up this nomination over this, but it should be addressed long term. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I brought up a discussion about that. Given that could take some time to get some discussion, I am going to refrain from doing anything with that for now. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you all change that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The text squeeze is actually standard with the tropical cyclone project, in that the storm path map should be at the top-left of the storm history section, which is naturally to the left of the Infobox. I fixed the author fields, BTW. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can we get a verifiable source for Image:Chantal2001filledrainblk.gif? Kelly hi! 15:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I re-uploaded the image and filed the en.wiki one with NCT. The commons upload has all of the goodies in it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—It was significantly overlinked (see MOSNUM, which no longer encourages date autoformatting and which now prescribes rules for the raw formatting), and MOSLINK and CONTEXT, so I've reduced some of it to allow your high-value links to breathe. Making every month/day bright blue is kind of irritating when it's a date-based story. No one minds US date formatting, I can assure you. Repeat links undesirable here, I think.
- Most authorities prefer although in a formal context. I notice this in just about all hurricane FACs.
- Quite well written, but ...
- "with winds of 80 miles per hour (130 km/h) or greater forecast within a few days"—greater?
- Hint: avoid "as" unless perfectly clear whether a "while" or a "because": "Tropical Storm Chantal became disorganized as the center became ill-defined and situated to the west-southwest of the main area of convection".
- "it" in the very last clause is redundant.
- "The upper and middle level circulations"—See MOS on hanging hyphens.
I'd like to see these and other little glitches throughout cleaned up. It's very close. TONY (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot! I fixed those issues. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, well-done as usual. --Laser brain (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments, leaning toward support:[reply]- Unlinked/unexplained jargon: "closed circulation"
- Linked, since I can't think of a non-jargony way to phrase that. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "... although initially convection lacked near the center." If "lacking convection" will not change the meaning, I would recommend it. The phrase still bothers me though.. it had no convection at all?
- Rewritten. Is that better? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "One computer model predicted the depression to ..." Consider "would" instead of "to"
- Done. —Giggy 09:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "A tropical storm watch was issued for Barbados, St. Vincent, and Saint Lucia on August 15." Change to active voice and tell us who issued. --Laser brain (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Anyone is welcome to revert though. —Giggy 09:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlinked/unexplained jargon: "closed circulation"
- Comment: Very few of the citations have publication dates. Most only have publication years. I know it's a bit of a pain, but as the full dates are available they ought to be included in the citation. Plasticup T/C 02:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't too much of a pain - I got it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hard spaces added to dates. TONY (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing only image licensing: looks good. --NE2 13:30, 14 July 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.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Kalka River
- 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 02:01, 5 July 2008 [50].
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been through a number of reviews, including two peer-reviews, a GA and A-Class review, and I believe it to be upto the quality expected of a FA-Class article. Skinny87 (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Use en dashes for page ranges in the references per WP:DASH.
- Done
A few references have spaces before them, etc., when they shouldn't, per WP:FOOTNOTE. For instance, "8,000 (est.) [2]" → "8,000 (est.)[2]", "Ardennes. [9]" → "Ardennes.[9]", "Wesel. [11]" → "Wesel.[11]", and "24th [43], 21" → "24th,[43] 21" (in this last case, references go after punctuation marks).
- Cam kindly did that for me, so Done
En dash should also be used for ranges, like "was 3-4 times"
- Done as well, I believe
If you're working on Airborne Divisions, 82nd Airborne Division (United States) could always use some help; it's something I've always wanted to get to FA... :)
- I'd love to, believe me, and it's on my list. Perhaps a joint collaboration later on?
- Perhaps! Gary King (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few more minor MOS issues. For instance, "Eric Bols" and "Matthew B. Ridgway" should have spaces between them and the flag. "16, 870[1]" shouldn't have a space in the number.
- Done!
Gary King (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- A first thought: could you recreate the two maps, so they are higher quality, and preferably using SVG? They stick out rather. Best, Gwernol 18:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea how to do that, sorry. Will it fail the review? Skinny87 (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt that could fail this FAC, especially since it's not expected that everyone can do this. I do suggest that you ask an image editor to help you with this, though (although I can't think of any off the top of my head at the moment.) Gary King (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also tagged the images appropriately. Gary King (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that User:EyeSerene is capable of helping via request, as he did significant image work for me for BoVR. EnigmaMCMXC is also pretty good at that stuff. Cam (Chat) 18:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've uploaded a quick attempt at converting this to SVG at Image:OperationVarsity1945.svg. I am not anywhere close to a military expert, so please let me know if this isn't accurate - I have tried to reproduce the contents of the original, just updating to vector format and adding a little color. I'm happy to continue to improve this, if you think its helpful. Best, Gwernol 19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that User:EyeSerene is capable of helping via request, as he did significant image work for me for BoVR. EnigmaMCMXC is also pretty good at that stuff. Cam (Chat) 18:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also tagged the images appropriately. Gary King (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt that could fail this FAC, especially since it's not expected that everyone can do this. I do suggest that you ask an image editor to help you with this, though (although I can't think of any off the top of my head at the moment.) Gary King (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent)That looks absolutely smashing, thanks for the help!
- No problem. I'll do the second map tonight. Best, Gwernol 23:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
In the first quotebox, the one with the Operation Orders for the army, the source of the quote shouldn't be in brackets.
- Done!
Refs 33 & 37 need to be combined.
- Er, not sure how to do that, need to ask someone.
- I'll fix it, you just ref-name the thing and then just work it like you would a "cite book" template. Cam (Chat) 23:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the section detailing the aircraft shortages, would it be possible to work in a quote from a historian concerning the aircraft shortage problem during Varsity?
- Don't have my books on me, but I should be able to. I did pull some other quote boxes earlier from the article wen one editor commented they looked unbalanced.Skinny87 (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not like a quotebox, but like a <blockquote></blockquote> thing.
Cam (Chat) 02:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find a quote that would be long enough for a block quote. All those I've cited simply say there was a lack of aircraft, preventing the 13th from participating. Devlin says about a sentence, and even Flanagan just says 'Originally, Gen. Lewis H. Brereton, commander of the First Allied Airborne Army, had included the US 13th Airborne Division in the operation, but a lack of aircraft precluded their use.' No-one really goes into any detail. So, I don't know what to do. Skinny87 (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry about it, it's not grounds for an oppose, simply a suggestion. I'm able to take this stuff in stride. Cam (Chat) 18:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, looks pretty good. Just fix the MoS problems with the footnotes outlined above, and it should be good.
Support. Prose of the article is excellent, very well-referenced, maps are splendid SVG-rendered. Little to no objection from me. Cam (Chat) 03:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC) (DISCLOSURE: I have done significant copyediting on this article from before its GA and onward, so my position concerning this article isn't entirely neutral).[reply]
Comments
Footnote 23 the Hagerman article, the article actually appeared in the February 1998 issue of the magazine, the bibliographical reference should reflect that, I would think.
- Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added that it was in the February issue in the reference, hopefuly that's okay the way I put it. Skinny87 (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Here's a minor question: is "Drop-Zone" supposed to be capitalized (when not used as a specific title, like "Drop-Zone B") and hyphened? I've only ever seen it as "drop zone".
- Changed all instances to 'drop zone', so Done.
I would suggest changing the word "practically" in the line "but by 11:00 hours the Drop-Zone was practically clear of enemy forces" here, it just doesn't sound right to me. Maybe "...was all but completely clear of..."? If you've got a better wording, that's fine too.
- Changed it to the suggested wording.
- Other than those two relatively minor concerns, I see no other real issues with this article. The prose is very good; it's comprehensive, neutral, and well sourced. The photos are properly licensed, and the maps have been upgraded from the lower-quality versions I had originally uploaded from the US Army War College source. I would support this FAC, but I've been involved with the article for some time, even before Skinny's overhaul of the article beginning in April, and I don't feel that it would be appropriate to do so. Parsecboy (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support A very well written article that is neutral, stable, and well referenced. I think this is featured article quality and deserves the star. JonCatalán (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes, consistency in citations, some have p. for plural pages, while others have pp. Please check them all; I fixed the one I saw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've checked the article, and I think all of them have been switched. Cam (Chat) 05:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops, yes, I never saw that one. I've checked all of the others. Skinny87 (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
"Lieutenant-Colonel Otway, who wrote an official history of the British airborne forces during the Second World War, stated in the history that Operation Varsity highlighted the vulnerability of glider-borne units" First off, the second "history" is redundant, also you use Second World War here when World War II is used elsewhere, you need to remain consistent.Unlike Market-Garden, the airborne forces would only be dropped a relatively short distance behind German lines, thereby ensuring that reinforcements in the form of Allied ground forces would be able to link up with them within a short period, and not risking the same type of disaster that had befallen the British 1st Airborne Division when it had been isolated and practically annihilated by German infantry and armour at Arnhem. This sentence seems very long, can it be broken up?It was also decided by the commander of the 1st Allied Airborne Army, General Lewis Brereton who commanded all Allied airborne forces, including US XVIII Airborne Corps, that the two airborne divisions participating in Operation Varsity would be dropped simultaneously in a single "lift", instead of being dropped several hours apart, which also occurred during Operation Market-Garden. Same with that sentence.Make sure that dates are consistent within the article. Several of the 23 March are written as March 23, which is inconsistent.MOS:IMAGE recommends that lead images be no smaller than 300px.- Other than that, I added in a comma. The prose seems to be in good shape, the images are all free, evenly spaced and relevant, from the sources I have read, it seems to be comprehensive and well-referenced. So, fix my problems and I will give it another read-through. Woody (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone ahead and switched the one instance of "Second World War" to "World War II" per your suggestion, as well as split the two overly long sentences you pointed out. The dates are now formatted properly, and the infobox image has been expanded to 300px. Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, stuck my comments and Support now. Good work. Woody (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Crikey, thanks Parsecboy for doing all that Cheers! Skinny87 (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem! I'd like to see the article pass as much as you would, so I'll do as much as I can to help. Parsecboy (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Crikey, thanks Parsecboy for doing all that Cheers! Skinny87 (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, stuck my comments and Support now. Good work. Woody (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've gone ahead and switched the one instance of "Second World War" to "World War II" per your suggestion, as well as split the two overly long sentences you pointed out. The dates are now formatted properly, and the infobox image has been expanded to 300px. Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 4 July 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 02:05, 9 July 2008 [51].
I am nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it fulfils all of the featured article criteria and it has undergone a successful GA review. Eagle Owl (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I don't know why, but I thought this article was about Ellen Page. Some work should be put into that article to become featured, too; heh.
- "under 5 ft (1.5 m) tall" – "under 5 feet (1.5 m) tall" – spell out measurements, but not in the converted units
Gary King (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm worried about accuracy here; please research the Marni Nixon, Natalie Wood vocal role in West Side Story (my info could be wrong, but it is my understanding that role was not sung by Natalie Wood, so I'm concerned about how well this article is sourced and written). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This source (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/theatre/drama/story/0,,2085160,00.html) which is an interview with Elaine Paige, quotes her response to the question What got you started? as - "Singing along with Natalie Wood on the LP of West Side Story when I was 14. It occurred to me that singing on stage wouldn't be a bad thing to do." That appears to be straight from her mouth, so if there is some historical mistake, I was totally unaware because this is what this usually very reliable source stated. I don't know what I can do, as The Guardian article quotes Paige as saying Wood ... I don't think I can change her own words? I can assure you this apparent mistake is no reflection on the overall reliablility of the article - all sources are of a very high standard. Eagle Owl (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry if I overreacted (this is one of those "everyone in the musical theatre world knows it" deals, so that kind of error is surprising in an MT article). Perhaps you can 1) use the direct quote (to show it's her error, not ours), and then 2) add a parenthetical about Marni Nixon? Or, alternately, leave out any mention of Natalie Wood, and just say she was singing along with West Side Story? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I like your thinking - I've just avoided the use of a name and just stuck with "Paige listened to the LP version of West Side Story". Eagle Owl (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry if I overreacted (this is one of those "everyone in the musical theatre world knows it" deals, so that kind of error is surprising in an MT article). Perhaps you can 1) use the direct quote (to show it's her error, not ours), and then 2) add a parenthetical about Marni Nixon? Or, alternately, leave out any mention of Natalie Wood, and just say she was singing along with West Side Story? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This source (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/theatre/drama/story/0,,2085160,00.html) which is an interview with Elaine Paige, quotes her response to the question What got you started? as - "Singing along with Natalie Wood on the LP of West Side Story when I was 14. It occurred to me that singing on stage wouldn't be a bad thing to do." That appears to be straight from her mouth, so if there is some historical mistake, I was totally unaware because this is what this usually very reliable source stated. I don't know what I can do, as The Guardian article quotes Paige as saying Wood ... I don't think I can change her own words? I can assure you this apparent mistake is no reflection on the overall reliablility of the article - all sources are of a very high standard. Eagle Owl (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- http://www.lupus.org.uk/article.php?i=159 while its not exactly an unreliable source, some may question the reliance on a interview from a source not usually known for interviews. I merely point this out as an informational notation.
- Otherwise sources look great, and the links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Overall I think its close to featured article status, there has obviously been a lot of hard work done to this article. However, I think it needs a thorough copyedit before it is ready. Here are some examples if issues I found. I'd encourage you to get someone fresh to review the article:
- Lead image - I know how hard it is to get good free images of people, but is there really nothing better available of Paige?
- Opening sentence: "...is an English singer and actress, primarily in musical theatre" - this feels like a slightly convoluted way of saying this. Could it be reworded? Perhaps: "is an English singer and actress, best known for her work in musical theatre"?
- Lede, second paragraph "...which remains the biggest-selling record by a female duo in the Guinness Book of Records" - this needs to be rewritten since the Guinness Book of Records contains no female duos. You need to source this claim from the Guinness Book, rather than making it seem like they are recorded their duo in the book.
- Lede, second paragraph: "Paige made her Broadway debut in Sunset Boulevard in 1996 when she played the lead role of Norma Desmond, winning critical acclaim" reword to "Paige made her Broadway debut in Sunset Boulevard in 1996 playing the lead role of Norma Desmond, to critical acclaim"
- Lede, third paragraph: "Paige has been nominated for and won many awards for her theatre roles and has become known as the First Lady of British Musical Theatre" needs commas.
- Background section: "Paige now only stands at just under 5 feet (1.5 m) tall..." Now? Has she shrunk? Should this just say "Paige is just under 5 feet (1.5 m) tall..."
- Background section: "It was at 14 years of age that Paige listened to the..." better as "At 14, Paige listened to...". You should Wikilink LP.
- Background section: "Paige's musical ability was pushed by her school music teacher..." do you mean "encouraged" or "developed" rather than "pushed"?
- Background section: "Her father later suggested that she should go to drama school after recognizing her talent" this is a little confusing. When exactly did her father suggest she go to drama school? Can you be more accurate that "later"? Is is really necessary to say "after recognizing her talent"? This could be read as implying he initially didn't see her talent, is that true?
- Early Career section: "Paige's first professional appearance on stage was marked during the UK tour..." what does "marked" mean in this context? Should this read: "Paige's first professional appearance on stage was during the UK tour..."?
- Early Career section: "About five years previous to Paige's role in Evita, she had almost been cast as the lead in The Rocky Horror Show instead of Covington in 1973" - this sentence should probably come before the section on Evita, so they are in chronological order. The sentence should not contain both "about five years previous" and "in 1973" - use one or the other. It should say "About five years before Paige's role..." not "About five years previous to Paige's role..."
- Early career section: "Playing the role of Perón proved to be the defining moment in her evolution to the proclaimed title, the First Lady of British Musical Theatre". I'm not sure what "proclaimed title" means. Do you mean "acclaimed title"? I'd just drop that phrase altogether, since it seems like editorializing. This sentence isn't properly sourced from [52] - the source does not support the claim that her role of Peron was the defining moment for her.
- Early career section: "For her performance in Evita, which spanned for 20 months in total, from 1978 to 1980,[16] she won the Society of West End Theatre Award..." could be made simpler: "She won the Society of West End Theatre Award... for her performance in Evita". The length of the show should be mentioned elsewhere since the length is not connected to her winning the awards.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwernol (talk • contribs) 12:11, June 22, 2008
- All done. Regarding the image, you would be surprised how few images there are out there of Paige. It's only by chance that I came across that one, so I asked someone from Wikimedia to upload this for me. The image now is actually an improvement to how it originally looked as I had to crop it. Thanks for you comments, the only thing is I don't know who I can ask to copyedit the article. Eagle Owl (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you about the image, its surprisingly hard to find good, free images of living people for use on Wikipedia. Personally I think the one you have is acceptable, though a better one would be an improvement. Your first port of call for a volunteer to help with copy editing would probably be Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre. Gwernol 13:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now put in a request on the Wikiproject talk page. Thanks. Eagle Owl (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you pinged Gwernol to revisit the oppose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, message left on talk page on 26 June [53]. Eagle Owl (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you pinged Gwernol to revisit the oppose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now put in a request on the Wikiproject talk page. Thanks. Eagle Owl (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you about the image, its surprisingly hard to find good, free images of living people for use on Wikipedia. Personally I think the one you have is acceptable, though a better one would be an improvement. Your first port of call for a volunteer to help with copy editing would probably be Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre. Gwernol 13:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did some copyediting in the first few paragraphs. There is a lot of fluffy information in this article taken from interviews. For example, the article says that Dustin Hoffman asked her not to quit theatre, but the information is just something that SHE told an interviewer, so it is not reliable in an encyclopedic sense, and it is trivial and not really encylopedic information. I took out another statement that said that Paige (told somone that she) had some trouble handling her fame: did she go to rehab, etc? If not, this seems true of most celebrities. The nominators should go through the article and try for a more formal, "encyclopedic" tone. Any references that do not contribute encylopedic information, but are just lifestyle type interviews should be eliminated. Also, the list of stage performances does not exactly match the mentions of the stage performances in the narration. This must be corrected. Also, you don't need more than one source to show that Paige played a certain role in a certain show or film. Try to use only the most important, best quality references to verify each claim in the article. I'll try to come back to this article another time to continue. Good luck in your efforts to improve the article to FA quality. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your help and comments. I've gone through the article and removed over-citation and some un-needed information and I agree with everything you say, though I cannot find where the stage list does not match up with the narration. Eagle Owl (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now been through the entire article and have removed what I thought was the most fluffy trivia, as well as copy editing the prose. The article is enjoyable to read and gives a good sense of Paige. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much for your wonderfully thorough copy edit - thanks to you the prose has improved hugely! Your work on the article is very much appreciated. Thanks. Eagle Owl (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now been through the entire article and have removed what I thought was the most fluffy trivia, as well as copy editing the prose. The article is enjoyable to read and gives a good sense of Paige. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can say that I have addressed all of the queries raised. The article has had two good copy edits, so now it makes much better reading. Eagle Owl (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Very well written and extremely well referenced to reliable sources. Well done! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 14:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support with comments: This article has come a long way from when I glanced at it during its GA-nom. I quite enjoyed learning about Paige's life and career, especially since I always preferred her performance in Cats to that of Betty Buckley's. :) Some comments/suggestions pertaining to the lead:
- I think that her place of origin (Barnet, North London) should be mentioned in the lead. Perhaps as "Born in Barnet, North London, Paige attended the Aida Foster stage school..."?
- Paige has been nominated for five Laurence Olivier Awards and won many other awards for her theatre roles and has been called the First Lady of British Musical Theatre. This is a run-on sentence. How about, "In addition to being nominated for five Laurence Olivier Awards, Paige has won many other awards for her theatre roles and has been called..."?
- She has released 20 solo albums, of which eight were consecutively certified gold and another four multi-platinum, and she has been featured on seven cast albums. Paige has sung in concert across the world, and she also hosts her own show on BBC Radio 2. This is also clunky with so many "and"s. Perhaps "Paige has released 20 solo albums, of which eight were consecutively certified gold and another four multi-platinum. She has sung in concert across the world and is also featured on seven cast albums. Since 2004 she has hosted her own show on BBC Radio 2 called..."?
Great work, I honestly enjoyed reading it. I also made some minor adjustments to comma placement. María (habla conmigo) 16:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All suggested changes done. Many thanks for your time and comments. Eagle Owl (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eagle Owl, can you ping Gwernol again? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think we're there. I made a few minor prose improvements, but overall this article looks to be in good shape. Congratulations. Gwernol 11:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for your time. Eagle Owl (talk) 14:03, 8 July 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 00:49, 15 July 2008 [54].
- Self-nominator: Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has become a GA, and I believe that it passes all FA criteria. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 03:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Infobox image needs better fair use rationale.
- Lead has no mention of reception?
- "For vampires in general, it is shown that daylight is not good, but it does not cause them to burst into flames" - prose in general needs a spiff... it's OK (GA quality) but not really professional (FA quality)... Get someone who hasn't seen it to do a copyedit.
giggy (:O) 04:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have given the image a better rationale (I think), and I added some mention of reception to the lead. I will ask someone to copyedit the article soon. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 05:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone has been asked. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 05:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Gary King (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I really like the production and reception sections and the free images inside them. I copy-edited some of the article, but after reading the beginning of the plot section, I was… well, lost (hmm, that doesn't work as well here). Some tips for the future: Instead of [[flashback|flashbacks]], just use [[flashback]]s; avoid self-references ("we") and contractions and make use of the edit summary field. I am not convinced that the picture being used has the strongest fair use claim of any possible screenshot. The necklaces, the funeral, the stabbing or some other picture may be better than a close-up of the (already pictured) main character hugging someone whose face cannot be seen. And have you seen this? Excellent work, –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How about this picture? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 07:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I inserted the new picture. Better? Worse? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 08:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Better. Also, avoid weasel words. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- What makes http://moonlight-archive.com/ a reliable source?
Likewise http://www.thefutoncritic.com/home.aspx?And http://www.comingsoon.net/?Likewise http://tvbythenumbers.com/?
- Otherwise sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The comingsoon.net link was replaced with the official Comic-Com website. The tvbythenumbers link was inserted to give credibility to the ratings, as two sources are better than one. I know moonlight-archive.com isn't a reliable source, but it's an interview. Trevor Munson said those words (unfortunately to an unreliable source) but I still think it's ok to provide the source. Futon Critic, I know it isn't considered to be very reliable, but that's the only place with that kind of information. Could exceptions be made for those citations? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 14:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, WP:V isn't a guideline, it's a policy. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the TV by the Numbers reference. I still stand by my comment that the moonlight-archive.com should be allowed to stay. It is an interview, so I don't think (and this is what I think) that it really matters on which site it is posted. As for The Futon Critic references, I will try to find alternate sources. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 09:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want, please take the moonlight-archive issue to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where others can weigh in on the issue. For me, it's a matter of how reliable is the place recording the interview. How do we know they didn't edit the interview or insert some bias into it. While it doesn't appear likely in this case, it's always a concern. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Several editors have said that The Futon Critic refs (for this page) are fine. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Futon Critic I still haven't gotten an answer yet for the Moonlight Information Archive. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 15:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The official Comic Con ref is dead. Is this http://www.mania.com/official-comic-con-schedule_article_55328.html a good alternative? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 15:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It probably would work, mainly since it's not very contentious information. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent. I'll insert it right away. Corn.u.co.pia ĐЌ Disc.us.sion 02:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It probably would work, mainly since it's not very contentious information. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The official Comic Con ref is dead. Is this http://www.mania.com/official-comic-con-schedule_article_55328.html a good alternative? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 15:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeComments
Needs a fair amount of copy editing. Here are some examples from the start of the article:
- Lead image caption needs to avoid repetition of "body" in the same sentence.
- Opening sentence - no need to specify both "pilot episode" and "first season" since pilots by definition must preceed the first season.
- Lede second sentence - need to define "sire" for those not familiar with vampire lore.
- Lede third paragraph - rewrite to avoid saying "critic" three times in two sentences.
- Plot section, first paragraph - "Mick arrives at the crime scene of the murder of a young woman" is a little clumsy, something like "...arrives at the scene of the murder of.." reads better
- "Beth takes the picture, but cannot help but notice large puncture wounds on her neck" - I haven't seen this show, but are we really aware of her inner thought processes to this extent? Can she really "not help" but notice the wounds?
- "While thinking of vampire-related titles for her story" - same issue - how do we know what the character is thinking?
- "Beth runs into Mick, who she says looks very familiar, but he insists that they do not know each other" this seems like a convoluted way of expressing a simple sequence. I had to read this a couple of times to sort out who exactly said what to whom. You could split it into separate sentences to make it obvious: "Beth runs into Mick. She says he looks very familiar, but he insists that they do not know each other"
- "At BuzzWire, Beth's editor tells her that she likes the vampire angle, with Beth saying it just came to her." - sudden jump of scene within the same paragraph. the phrase "with Beth saying" is confusing - is Beth talking simultaneously with her editor? Again this sentence needs a rewrite.
- "The next morning, Beth finds the dead woman's car, with a necklace hanging from the rearview mirror." How does she find the car? Just a lucky coincidence?
- "Meanwhile, Mick goes to visit Josef, his vampire friend who is 400 years old." - what is the important information here: that Josef is Mick's friend, that Josef is a vampire, that Josef is 400 years old or that Mick visits Josef? It seems like too much information crammed into one sentence.
- "Josef seems concerned about the "vampire" murder being bad for their safety." Why the scare quotes around vampire? You haven't told us yet whether this is a vampire murder or not. Do vampires really murder their victims? Aren't they feeding? Is that the same as murder?
- "Mick goes to the morgue to get some blood and information from his friend, Guillermo (Jacob Vargas)." what does "to get some blood" imply? Is he really drinking the blood of his friend Guillermo? That's a very good friend.
- "He smells the dead girl found in the fountain, and realizes that a vampire did not kill her." Is her body in the morgue? How does he know a vampie did not kill her by smelling her blood?
- "Mick and Beck break into the dead girl's apartment and find another of the necklaces, with a vial of blood inside". Who is Beck? We haven't been introduced to this character yet. Or is this a typo for Beth? If so, why is Mick working with Beth? You say "another of the necklace" but this is the first mention of necklaces or vials of blood, so I'm confused.
- "Someone calls Beth, a person named Josh (Jordan Belfi), and Mick disappears". Re-order this sentence: Josh (Jordan Belfi) calls Beth, and Mick disappears". You also need to say why Mick leaves (or does he literally turn invisible?)
- "...her lecturer Professor Ellis (Rudolf Martin)..." only "Professor" should be wikilinked to Professor, since that article is not about the character of Professor Ellis.
These are just examples. The whole article needs a pretty thorough rewrite by someone who hasn't worked on it before. I'm afraid this isn't at featured article quality yet. Gwernol 11:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All points have been fixed. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 12:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for addressing these specific issues, Cornucopia. However, I think you need to get someone fresh to do a thorough copy edit of the article. It still suffers from prose issues and doesn't flow well for the reader. You still have lots of very short sentences in there which break up the flow and make it hard to follow the plot your writing about. The The examples above are examples, rather than an exhaustive list of the issues that need to be fixed. For now, I'm remaining opposed, though I'd be happy to reassess this after further work. Good luck, Gwernol 12:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken another look at the article. Sorry it has taken a while, I have been busy off-Wiki. The article has definitely improved - thanks for the hard work. I've found fewer issues with it, so I've removed my formal oppose, above. However I'm not ready to support it yet. There are still some prose issues I'd like to see ironed out. I've fixed a couple of obvious ones, but several need an editor who is more familiar with the show and this particular episode. Here's what I found:
- The wikilink of "sire" goes to Childe (World of Darkness). This seems problematic. The linked article is tagged as having multiple issues. The linked article deals with the term childe, not sire (though sire is mentioned as a synonym). Most importantly that article covers a different mythology from the Moonlight mythology - is the vampire legend in Moonlight really exactly the same as World of Darkness?
- In the plot section: "Beth has some one on one time with Ellis..." too informal and unspecific. Does this mean Beth talks to Ellis after the class is over? What do they talk about?
- Plot section: "Beth passes out..." its not clear to me why she passes out, since it was Mick who was stabbed
- Plot section: "Mick...lights the place on fire" you shouldn't refer to "the place" without having first told us that "the place" is. Can you change "the place" to be more specific?
- The Continuity section is misnamed, since it deals with part of the pilot, not its continuity with the rest of the series.
- Continuity section: "Vampires also have heightened senses, allowing them to hear very well, smell the past and glimpse the future" - there are no senses that can be heightened in order to allow you to glimpse the future. That ability is not a heightened sense, it is something else.
- Production section: "Trevor Munson ... spent the better part of two and a half years writing a novel around this character" should read "...writing a novel featuring the character"?
- Production section: "The script later fell into the hands of..." again suffers from being too informal and not specific enough. Can you clarify this?
- Production section: "...to turn his script into a television series" reword to "...to rewrite the script as a television series"
- Production section: "With an almost entirely different cast, a retooled, full-length pilot for television audiences was re-shot and creative control of the show changed hands". This needs to be split into two separate sentences. The information about reshooting the pilot is separate from the information about creative control changing hands. In the second sentence we need to know who gained creative control and why.
- Production section: Picture of Bruce Willis - Willis was briefly mentioned as a possible cast member for the film version of the series. It seems odd then that the only photo illustrating this section is of Willis.
- Production section: "Originally, Josef was to be portrated by Šerbedžija, who according to O'Laughlin, was twice Jason Dohring's age". Not sure about the "according to O'Laughlin" bit. Is there some doubt that Šerbedžija was twice Dohring's age? I've already fixed the spelling error in that quote.
- Production section: "it was a concern that he was more a "father figure" to Mick when Josef was much older" I just can't parse this phrase. What exactly is the studio's concern - that he would seen as a father figure because he was older? Father figures usually are older. This needs to be rewritten to more clearly express the intent.
- Reception section: "Maureen Ryan of the Chicago Tribune also praised the lead actors, saying that O’Loughlin's was "passable in the lead role", and that Myles was "reasonably good"" I wouldn't describe saying that the lead actor was "passable" counted as praise, unless you want to include this as an example of "damning with faint praise". I think you need to reword this.
- Reception section: I'm concerned that the lede does not properly reflect the reception section. Reading the lede I was left with the impression that the reviews were pretty mixed, with some pans and a few positive. After reading the reception section, its pretty clear that the pilot was almost universally loathed by the critics with only a couple of minor exceptions - and even these amount to faint praise with significant caveats. I think the lede needs to more accurately reflect this.
- Hope that is helpful. The article is much better and getting closer to the prose quality required for a Featured Article. Best, Gwernol 12:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken another look at the article. Sorry it has taken a while, I have been busy off-Wiki. The article has definitely improved - thanks for the hard work. I've found fewer issues with it, so I've removed my formal oppose, above. However I'm not ready to support it yet. There are still some prose issues I'd like to see ironed out. I've fixed a couple of obvious ones, but several need an editor who is more familiar with the show and this particular episode. Here's what I found:
- I fixed most of the points raised, though I am not sure what to do with a few. Another user requested a meaning for "sire" in the lead, though I am not sure how to insert it without making it sound akward. Do you think it would be okay if I left it as it is? I changed the "Continuity" section to "Mythology"; I couldn't think of anything else. For the sense thing, seeing the future could be related to "the sixth sense" (I realise how stupid that sounds). The source I used to verify that statement uses those exact words, so I'm not sure what to do. Maybe change it to "Vampires have heightened senses, allowing them to hear very well and smell the past. They also develop psychic powers, allowing them to glimpse the future". As for the photo of Willis, I previously had two others (which were more relevant), but they were both deleted. That was the only free image I could find. :D Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 14:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the "other user: who asked for sire to be Wikilinked was me :-) My point above was not that it was incorrect to Wikilink sire, but that the particular article you linked to doesn't seem like a good one. The right link would be (in order of preference): 1) an article about the specific meaning of "sire: in the Moonlight mythology (or a link to the appropriate section of an overall Moonlight mythology article) 2) an article about the general concept of siring (again, or to a section in a general article about vampire mythology) 3) If none of the above exist, then find an external source that explains what "sire" means in the world of Moonlight, and use that to explain the meaning. Gwernol 21:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed most of the points raised, though I am not sure what to do with a few. Another user requested a meaning for "sire" in the lead, though I am not sure how to insert it without making it sound akward. Do you think it would be okay if I left it as it is? I changed the "Continuity" section to "Mythology"; I couldn't think of anything else. For the sense thing, seeing the future could be related to "the sixth sense" (I realise how stupid that sounds). The source I used to verify that statement uses those exact words, so I'm not sure what to do. Maybe change it to "Vampires have heightened senses, allowing them to hear very well and smell the past. They also develop psychic powers, allowing them to glimpse the future". As for the photo of Willis, I previously had two others (which were more relevant), but they were both deleted. That was the only free image I could find. :D Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 14:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the link to the main Moonlight page, where I wrote a very brief description of a sire. I think the writing is a bit akward, read it and tell me what you think! Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 02:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppos-ish comment I have begun copyedititing the article, but I really find the plot summary to be too unfocused, long and unhelpful for someone (like me) who hasn't seen this programme. For example the first plot paragraph: Who are Mick and Beth etc. (private investigator, reporter, can be shorter than in the lead)? Why is it important that Beth tries to take pictures than takes pictures? Is it important that the body was found in a fountain? In the next paragraph, Beth writes an article for BuzzWire, although it has already been stated before that she "is reporting for the online newspaper BuzzWire". In general, the plot summary should be trimmed by one third down to 450 or less words, and the problem will mostly dissolve. I can't comment on the other parts of the article yet, but FA potential is there. – sgeureka t•c 09:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. I condensed the plot a bit, but it still needs work. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 13:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The plot has been cut down. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 06:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The length of the plot section seems better now. I'll reserve other comments for when I've finished reading the article. – sgeureka t•c 06:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (None of the following is meant to sound harsh, but it is my honest opinion as an FA reviewer, to help you get the article to FA quality.) The reception section appears to be a collection of every review that appeared in reliable sources, but in an unordered and unsummarized way. For example, the section mentions in several sentences how four different reviewers compared the series to Angel – why not say once that several reviewers compared it to Angel[1][2][3] and be done with it? Reception of the cast appears everywhere, and info about positive and negative reception is mixed. Many sentences begin with "S/he said". There is no real flow; it reads like a list of reviews was thrown together to appear like prose, which is good as raw data in a GA, but not thoughfully arranged reception information in FA quality. Mind you, I have seen several FA episode articles do the same, so I won't oppose, but I can't give my support either. (To get my point better across, imagine if a wiki reader cares more about (1) whether Tom Shales of The Washington Post gave a negative review, or (2) if the show was similar to Angel, had a good/terrible cast, had (no) potential, etcetera. I.e. focus on the points of reception, not on the reviewers.) – sgeureka t•c 15:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments. I will try to resturcture the section soon. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 15:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The reception section has been almost completely rehashed. Please reread it. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 17:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally wanted to wait with another comment until I have read the article very closely in full, but I just skimmed the reception section and must say, very good job. I'll give the article a good read-through and a copyedit tomorrow, and it's already looking very close to support (at least). Goodnight. :-) – sgeureka t•c 19:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice to see some positive comments ;) lol Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 02:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally wanted to wait with another comment until I have read the article very closely in full, but I just skimmed the reception section and must say, very good job. I'll give the article a good read-through and a copyedit tomorrow, and it's already looking very close to support (at least). Goodnight. :-) – sgeureka t•c 19:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've run a copyedit through the plot section for conciseness, but you should check again where I messed up in grammar (not so likely) or plot summary (more likely). I have also left two invisible comments that should be addressed because the plot summary there (or the significance of sentences) didn't make sense to me. If the Mythology really constitutes most of the introduction to this episode, the section should either be moved before the plot section or should be merged into the plot section as the first paragraph, as this explains much of the plot. My reading of the Production and Reception section will follow. – sgeureka t•c 15:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking of merging some of the mythology into the plot, which I will do in a few minutes. If you feel that it is not better, then I can change it back and put the mytho section before the plot. Oh yeah, please make sure you keep on pressing control-c on your edits, just in case there are a few edit conflicts. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 15:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yeah, should the "Mythology" section be placed as a subheading under "Plot"? Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 15:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know. I am too unfamiliar with the show, but since I am not a big fan of stubbish sections anyway, I think it could find a place elsewhere. Maybe it works in the production section as an explanation after "the original concept", but that's just an idea. – sgeureka t•c 17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I think it's nearly there, but I've done all I could. You should still try to get rid of some "saying"s in the Reception section. It is also my feeling that the Reception section could do without four or so less quotes (they are little bit overwhelming I think), but I'll leave that decision to you. – sgeureka t•c 17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, well thanks for all your help! Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 17:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support; I just did a casual read through and the prose has improved significantly since I last looked at it. Happy to support - well done! —Giggy 07:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Requirement for professional-standard formatting (overlinked), Cr. 1a.
- Overlinked. Many of your links are valuable to readers, and they're significantly diluated by the bright-blue patchwork at the moment. I delinked a few trivial ones at the top, including the date autoformatting, which, please note, is no longer encouraged (see MOSNUM). Please weed out the trivials throughout: items such as "CBS" repeated link, "eulogy", "assistant", "garlic", hello ...?
I took a spot-check on one single para in the middle.
- A certain looseness in the tone, and I see reviewers above have pointed this out. "spent the better part of two and a half years"—well, um ... how long? If WP doesn't tell you exactly, who does?
- The dreaded with as a connector (very poor) finished off by the ungrammatical noun plus -ing: "with Bruce Willis being considered".
- "The script was then shown to ..."—We know it's a sequence of events, so remove "then".
- "to executive produce the project"—nope, readers won't cope with that as a verb, despite the flexibility of English. "to be e ps on"
- And there's another "with plus noun plus -ing".
Can you find someone else to go through the whole text and polish it up, please? It's not a huge job, but needs doing so we can be proud of it. TONY (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Made a few tweaks. Seems good enough now. I think I preferred Image:Rade Serbedzija.jpg to the image of Bruce Willis. Everyone knows what BW looks like. It seems more interesting to see what Dohring's character almost looked like. There's probably some reasoning behind this I don't know about. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support. :-) I added the image of BW because the image of Rade was deleted, but now that it is back I will reinsert it. Corn.u.co.pia ♥ Disc.us.sion 04:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, 1a (prose/narrative) and 1c (sources).The prose is pretty good but there are errors and narrative problems as outlined below. The plot section needs copy-editing. Also, there are a couple questionable sources (TV Guide and TV Squad, details below).- I don't really understand the genre classification of "supernatural" in the lead. What makes a drama supernatural? In the article about the show, it is called a "paranormal romance".
- "Behind the scenes, the pilot underwent several major changes." Not a good paragraph opener. Suggests context that isn't there yet—changes from what? Describe what was changed before you say it was changed. You go on to mention an "original short presentation" that we don't know about.
- Run-on sentence in the lead: "Many critics criticized the acting and the writing, one said that it had the 'worst writing of the new season'."
- "After the dead woman's lecturer, Professor Ellis (Rudolf Martin), has given an eulogy at her funeral, a blonde girl named Chloe attacks him, slashing his neck." The phrase "dead woman's lecturer" is odd. People have dentists and gardeners, but not lecturers. I'm not certain about regional dialects, but "eulogy" normally is pronounced beginning with a "y" sound meaning it should be "a eulogy".
- "Beth tracks down Chloe, who explains the professor's vampire-worshipping blood cult and his belief in being a vampire." Meaning he believes he is a vampire, or he believes he can become a vampire?
- "Later Mick finds Chloe's dead body, and knowing Beth has gone to Ellis's class, he runs off to save her." Are we to assume Ellis has killed Chloe? Don't make readers guess at this if it was stated in the show. Ellis had a class after being slashed in the neck at a funeral? "Runs off" is inappropriate tone.
- "Ellis attacks Beth and though she escapes ..." Prefer "although" for more formal prose.
- "When she wakes up, she remembers that Mick saved her as a child and that he was stabbed by the assistant." These happened at the same time? Confusing narrative.
- "The conventions of Moonlight are based on a unique vampire mythology ..." I'm not convinced what you've listed is a "unique" mythology since I have seen these elements of vampire mythology in other fiction. Please provide a relevant quote from your sources that establishes the mythology as unique. A TV Guide episode recap is not an acceptable source for critical interpretation.
- "Joel Silver and Gerard Bocaccio came on board ..." Colloquial, please revise.
- "The project was renamed Moonlight when CBS gave it an early pick-up ..." What is "giving an early pick-up"? Explain jargon or wikilink.
- The TV Squad source is unreliable, I think. I was looking around the site for their editorial guidelines and I saw "There are no strict editorial guidelines; every blogger's opinion is his or her own." That's bad news. --Laser brain (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but can you elaborate on why TV Squad is unrealiable? Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, according to our guidline, "As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." TV Squad's own FAQ (as quoted above) states that they do don't that at all—there are no editorial guidelines. --Laser brain (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have fixed most of the raised points. I increased the lead size, what do you think? For this line: "The conventions of Moonlight are based on a unique vampire mythology", I added a reference to an interview with O'Loughlin. I think the TV Squad ref is okay, it is not sourcing anything controversial or important; it is merely sourcing an editor's point of view. Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 04:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Much improved—your use of TV Squad seems okay on second look, but I'm not convinced the particular blogger you cite is anyone special. Why should his views be cited in an encyclopedia article? Do you have any print sources citing TV Squad as a notable blog? --Laser brain (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the line that mentioned the reviewer, though I left the parts that were described by him; e.g. "Several critics compared it detrimentally with the television series Angel". Is this compromise good enough? Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 10:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the line that mentioned the reviewer, though I left the parts that were described by him; e.g. "Several critics compared it detrimentally with the television series Angel". Is this compromise good enough? Corn.u.co.pia ŢĐЌ Disc.us.sion 10:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Much improved—your use of TV Squad seems okay on second look, but I'm not convinced the particular blogger you cite is anyone special. Why should his views be cited in an encyclopedia article? Do you have any print sources citing TV Squad as a notable blog? --Laser brain (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but can you elaborate on why TV Squad is unrealiable? Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing only image licensing: looks good. --NE2 13:32, 14 July 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 19:13, 4 July 2008 [55].
I believe this article is properly sourced, uses images appropriately, and covers the subject matter fully, and is ready for FAC. JGHowes 00:17, June 21, 2008
Comments
- The ref to Seaboard-Bay Line Company CSX transportation archival records, are those non-published sources? WP:V wants "reliable, third-party, published sources"
- the new link is to what looks like an archive of a mailing list? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mailing lists usually are not considered reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- the new link is to what looks like an archive of a mailing list? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is current ref 11 a newspaper article? "Norfolk Journal 2 August 1869"
- What page is it quoted by Brown on? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 18 (USS President Warfield) is lacking a last access datePer WP:MOS the curly quotes are frowned on.
- Otherwise sources look okay, links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply:Have addressed the first three, don't see any curly quotes except for the {{cquote}} template - is this what you're referring to? JGHowes talk - 01:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is that template. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply:Further citation edits made to article. Because the quotation was more than a sentence or two, and seemed to exemplify the impression a Bay Line trip on the Chesapeake made on passengers of the era, I set it off using {{cquote}} per WP:QUOTE#How to use quotations. But if the consensus frowns on it, I'd be happy to remove the template and integrate the quote in the main body of the paragraph. JGHowes talk - 01:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you can use {{blockquote}} to set it off. The WP:MOS section dealing with this is Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply:Further citation edits made to article. Because the quotation was more than a sentence or two, and seemed to exemplify the impression a Bay Line trip on the Chesapeake made on passengers of the era, I set it off using {{cquote}} per WP:QUOTE#How to use quotations. But if the consensus frowns on it, I'd be happy to remove the template and integrate the quote in the main body of the paragraph. JGHowes talk - 01:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is that template. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply:Have addressed the first three, don't see any curly quotes except for the {{cquote}} template - is this what you're referring to? JGHowes talk - 01:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
Rename "The 1940s" to "1940s" to avoid starting it with an article, and to be uniform with the other section titles.Gary King (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Have made all changes mentioned above by Ealdgyth and Gary King (talk). Page reference added. The information from the corporate secretary of the CSX Corporation, quoting from their archives, is used as a primary source here, but in all instances it should be noted that the information is also covered by the cited reliable secondary sources.JGHowes talk - 12:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Rlevse • Talk • 21:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Nice. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, with some comments
- I personally dislike hard-coded image sizes. I would prefer to see them specified only as "thumb" so that user's thumbnail-size preferences are respected
- I don't really see the need for a direct quote in the sentence beginning "In October 1961, the company announced…".
- The article would benefit from inclusion of information on segregation (as a talk page item mentioned), but without coverage in sources, it's not something to oppose over.
- It looks like Baltimore Steam Packet Company was a defendant in a US Supreme Court case involving the sinking of a sailing ship in 1859. Have you considered adding this to the article? (Link)
- Disclaimer: I was the GA reviewer for this article, and promoted it. I have also made a few edits here and there. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Image sizes now unforced, except for 300px Lead and detailed map, per MOS:IMAGES. I've revised the 1961 announcement quotation to make it clearer to the reader that, at the time the company made the announcement, seasonal resumption of service the following year was intended. Also now added is the U.S. Supreme Court case involving the Louisiana sinking of a sailing ship in 1858, with inline cite. JGHowes talk - 22:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Very nice article overall and obviously well researched. I did find some minor things that should be looked at:
- The color of the tables is a bit eye-watering. Dark brown and yellow with light blue and then light green is rather a turn-off at least to me anyway.
- In the See also section the mention of the Adelaide should be moved up to the section on the Civil War era and I don't see the relevancy that Baltimore riot of 1861 would have to this article unless it directly involved the company.
- The External links section carries a link to a danfs article on Adelaide but if the reader were really interested in seeing more about that ship they should be directed to the WP article which can be done by moving Adelaide as described above. You could reference danfs as you did for the President Warfield. Otherwise if there are no relevant external links for this article then the section can be eliminated along with the See also section
--Brad (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: The eye-watering colors have been eliminated from the charts and the Adelaide content integrated with the article's 1860 section, eliminating separate "See also" and "EL" sections. Thanks for these suggestions, which indeed have resulted in a tighter treatment of the Civil War's impact on the subject. JGHowes talk - 00:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support That had results better than I expected. --Brad (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: The eye-watering colors have been eliminated from the charts and the Adelaide content integrated with the article's 1860 section, eliminating separate "See also" and "EL" sections. Thanks for these suggestions, which indeed have resulted in a tighter treatment of the Civil War's impact on the subject. JGHowes talk - 00:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, why is there color coding in the chart in Routes operated? I can't see any need for the color: see Wikipedia:MOS#Color coding. Ditto for the headings in the chart in Old Bay Line fleet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Sandy, personally I like a lot of color but have now rm'd color coding from chart headings JGHowes talk - 19:15, 4 July 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 02:05, 9 July 2008 [56].
- Nominator(s): User:Keilana, User:Bibliomaniac15, User:Anonymous Dissident, User:Grimhelm, User:Qst, User:AndonicO, User:J-stan, User:Zginder, User:Phoenix-wiki
This is the second Tzatziki Squad collaboration up for your scrutiny. Keilana|Parlez ici 17:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keilana 308
- AndonicO 220
- Bibliomaniac15 211
- Malleus Fatuorum 161
- Grimhelm 132
- Anonymous Dissident 122
- Qst 110
- J-stan 88
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see my username fairly high up there, but I do not consider myself to be a significant contributor to this article; I only made a few copyedits after I stumbled across this FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ; you did a fair bit of (excellent) work. · AndonicO Engage. 01:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see my username fairly high up there, but I do not consider myself to be a significant contributor to this article; I only made a few copyedits after I stumbled across this FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- <Chat moved to talk page>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Well-sourced, well-written, very comprehensive, and very interesting. Deserves to go to the main page. Congratulations! Idontknow610TM 20:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- What makes the following sources reliable?
http://www.worldtimezones.com/guides/measurements_of_time- Replaced with more reputable source. · AndonicO Engage. 22:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This one doesn't cite it's sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced with more reputable source. · AndonicO Engage. 22:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.beaglesoft.com/maintimehistory.htm#Using%20Water- this one doesn't cite its sources and is a commercial software publisher Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All replaced. · AndonicO Engage. 23:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- this one doesn't cite its sources and is a commercial software publisher Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.ubr.com/clocks/default/history-of-timekeeping/rees-s-clepsydra-1819.aspx- this one doesn't cite its sources and is a commercial software publisher Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced with the original book source. bibliomaniac15 02:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- this one doesn't cite its sources and is a commercial software publisher Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.yoshinoantiques.com/time.html- This one is a antiques dealer and doesn't cite its sources Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replaced what I could, but there were several (for the functioning of the seal incense clocks) that I couldn't find anything on, so I'm rewriting the paragraph now with other sources. I removed all links to Yoshino. · AndonicO Engage. 18:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. · AndonicO Engage. 20:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replaced what I could, but there were several (for the functioning of the seal incense clocks) that I couldn't find anything on, so I'm rewriting the paragraph now with other sources. I removed all links to Yoshino. · AndonicO Engage. 18:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This one is a antiques dealer and doesn't cite its sources Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.bandcantiques.com/items/438745/item438745store.html- This one is a antiques dealer and doesn't cite its sources Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Same as with Yoshino: removed and rewriting. · AndonicO Engage. 18:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. · AndonicO Engage. 20:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Same as with Yoshino: removed and rewriting. · AndonicO Engage. 18:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This one is a antiques dealer and doesn't cite its sources Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.ilab.org/services/catalogues.php?catnr=913&membernr=1154- This one is a book dealer and doesn't cite its sources Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced with one in Latin (only one I could find, sorry); from what I can tell, ilab was wrong. · AndonicO Engage. 19:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Better a reliable source in a non-English language than a non-reliable source in English. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced with one in Latin (only one I could find, sorry); from what I can tell, ilab was wrong. · AndonicO Engage. 19:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This one is a book dealer and doesn't cite its sources Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=clock- This one doesn't cite its sources Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We found it to be reliable with cannon; however, I've added a supporting source, Merriam-Webster's Online dictionary. · AndonicO Engage. 23:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This one doesn't cite its sources Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.stedmundsbury.gov.uk/sebc/visit/mechanicaltimekeeping.cfm- This one is a governmental body and doesn't cite its sources
- Corroborated with another reference. Keilana|Parlez ici 20:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This one is a governmental body and doesn't cite its sources
http://www.isleofalbion.co.uk/wellscathedral/- This one doesn't cite its sources Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced with a ref from the official Cathedral site. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This one doesn't cite its sources Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.articlesbase.com/accessories-articles/a-short-history-of-the-wristwatch-30209.html (lacking publisher also)- This one doesn't cite its sources and appears to be a aggregator site that just publishes articles Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This one doesn't cite its sources and appears to be a aggregator site that just publishes articles Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.beaglesoft.com/maintimehistory.htm#Quartz%20Clocks (also lacking publisher)- Commercial software publisher and doesn't cite its sources Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced. · AndonicO Engage. 23:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Commercial software publisher and doesn't cite its sources Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.awrtech.co.uk/timekeep.htm- Doesn't cite its sources Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed (it was one of 2 references). Keilana|Parlez ici 21:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't cite its sources Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.beaglesoft.com/maintimehistory.htm#Atomic%20Clocks- Commercial software publisher and doesn't cite its sources Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced, but we'll need another supporting reference, because that one says that "old atomic clocks..." making no reference to newer ones. · AndonicO Engage. 23:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm assuming you took care of this last bit, so striking. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replaced, but we'll need another supporting reference, because that one says that "old atomic clocks..." making no reference to newer ones. · AndonicO Engage. 23:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Commercial software publisher and doesn't cite its sources Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 7 is lacking a publisher (Diogrenes Laertius..)- The publisher, H. G. Bohn, is already listed. Note that this translation by C. D. Yonge is in the public domain. bibliomaniac15 18:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad, sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The publisher, H. G. Bohn, is already listed. Note that this translation by C. D. Yonge is in the public domain. bibliomaniac15 18:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this deadlinks- Fixed. · AndonicO Engage. 22:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I fail to understand how these sources are different, or in any way more unreliable, than any other sources in the article? Can you please elaborate? Thanks, Qst (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Replies interspersed above Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I fail to understand how these sources are different, or in any way more unreliable, than any other sources in the article? Can you please elaborate? Thanks, Qst (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. · AndonicO Engage. 22:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 31 is lacking a publisher (The water clock of 1088)- The publisher is already listed. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 36 Edward Chang Yung-Hsiang Lu is lacking a last access date- Done. · AndonicO Engage. 18:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 62 is lacking a publisher (Paradiso Dante)- Publisher added. Note that this translation, by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, is in the public domain. bibliomaniac15 02:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that the Catholic Encyclopedia is from 1913 and might be outdated.- It cites something that occurred in 1396, so I don't think that should be a problem, in this case. · AndonicO Engage. 09:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more a concern with the fact that newer scholarship may have superseded the Catholic Encyclopedia. But, striken. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It cites something that occurred in 1396, so I don't think that should be a problem, in this case. · AndonicO Engage. 09:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 66 (Wells Cathedral Clock, Science Museum) which Science museum?- Please check the publisher wikilinks. It refers to Science Museum (London). bibliomaniac15 18:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be nice if it stated specifically in the reference which science museum, rather than forcing the reader to click through to either link. If you're adamantly opposed to that for some reason, it's certainly not going to cause me to oppose, but it's a nice touch for the reader. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed it to make it a little more obvious. bibliomaniac15 18:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be nice if it stated specifically in the reference which science museum, rather than forcing the reader to click through to either link. If you're adamantly opposed to that for some reason, it's certainly not going to cause me to oppose, but it's a nice touch for the reader. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please check the publisher wikilinks. It refers to Science Museum (London). bibliomaniac15 18:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 75 "How Stuff Works article on pendulum clocks" the publisher is only given in the link title, it should be broken out.- Already fixed. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 87 (COSC Contole Offciel Suisse) who is COSC?- Linked in publisher. See COSC. bibliomaniac15 18:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As above, while it's not something worthy of an oppose over, it's just a courtesy to the reader to not put in abbreviations that they have to click through the links to to figure out. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the title of the site is "Contrôle Officiel Suisse des Chronomètres," the name of the organization and the publisher, I don't think it would be desirable to repeat it in the publisher. So, I think it would be better if we stuck with the abbreviation "COSC." bibliomaniac15 18:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As above, while it's not something worthy of an oppose over, it's just a courtesy to the reader to not put in abbreviations that they have to click through the links to to figure out. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Linked in publisher. See COSC. bibliomaniac15 18:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 99 (Encyclopedia Britannica Online) the publisher is in the link title and the link title doesn't give the article title being linked to.Current ref 101 (Battaglia Maurizio Introduction to GPS) is lacking a publisher- Done (now #114). · AndonicO Engage. 21:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a general concern, it's a bit odd for a generalist encyclopedia (Wikipedia) to link to another generalist encyclopedia (Encyclopedia Britannica) as a source.
- Links checked out with the link checker tool, sources look okay.
- Working through the reference stuff now. Qst (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I changed them to little "dones" after the statement so you can keep track of what you've done. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I never struck anything. Qst (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry if you thought I was being specific. That was a general "your" to whoever did so. I apologize if you were offended. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I added them (and re-added them—didn't see your message until now). I do think, however, that they should be left, because there are nine or so people helping with this article: might get confusing (maybe confirm that you reviewed the changes?). · AndonicO Engage. 23:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what's wrong with putting a line below that it's been addressed to your satisfaction or a reply, and then when I feel it's addressed it can be struck out. The system has worked pretty well for me at FAC for a while. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, feel free to unstrike (and I won't strike any more out). · AndonicO Engage. 02:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what's wrong with putting a line below that it's been addressed to your satisfaction or a reply, and then when I feel it's addressed it can be struck out. The system has worked pretty well for me at FAC for a while. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I added them (and re-added them—didn't see your message until now). I do think, however, that they should be left, because there are nine or so people helping with this article: might get confusing (maybe confirm that you reviewed the changes?). · AndonicO Engage. 23:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry if you thought I was being specific. That was a general "your" to whoever did so. I apologize if you were offended. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I never struck anything. Qst (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I changed them to little "dones" after the statement so you can keep track of what you've done. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Working through the reference stuff now. Qst (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please follow WP:TALK guidelines (and WP:FAC instructions) to correctly thread responses and avoid striking or altering other editors' comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ealdgyth, its no problem. I wasn't offended, only clarifying. :) Best, Qst (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - Gah, I really should join Tzatziki one of these days - I planned to a long time ago. Others will probably catch MOS issues so I'll focus on prose. I'm really, really picky about one MOS thing, though - why are years linked and centuries/decades not? Generally it's the other way around.
- "*The* history of timekeeping devices"? Why "the"? It sounds as if this is the only history of timekeeping devices in all... well, time. Why not "this"? Note that I might be wrong; this might be convention.
- Not sure about this - left it as "the" for a decision for the nominators. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mainly because "this" would be more direct to the article; the article itself is focusing on the entire history of timekeeping devices across the world, so "this" would sound as if it was referring to a specific area. (Note, that wasn't a good explanation, but hopefully you'll understand.) Qst (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The system developed then—which remains in use today—was sexagesimal." - the em dashes disrupt the flow of the prose; so strong a disjunction isn't needed. Commas will do.
- "They were probably first used in the Precinct of Amun-Re, however, their use continued outside of Egypt, especially in Greece." - not a complete sentence.
- "Mechanical clocks became necessary because relying on the sun had two drawbacks: sundials worked only on clear days, cast no shadow at night, and the length of hours varied depending on the season." - if one is skimming the lead, that looks like three things. Suggest rephrasing as "[...] had two drawbacks: sundials worked only on clear as they cast no shadow at night and the length of hours varied depending on the season."
- "Mechanical clocks, in all of their varieties, were the standard modern timekeeping device." - "were"?
- I believe "were" is correct. · AndonicO Engage. 23:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "From the turn of the 14th century, until the middle of the 20th, they contained various escapements, which transferred rotational energy into discrete motions." - "until the middle of the 20th" doesn't need to be preceded by a comma.
- Redundancy: "In the twentieth century,
a variety ofnew methods were invented, including early quartz oscillators, atomic clocks, and the common wristwatch." - More redundancy: "Important times and durations were broadcast by bells, rung either by hand or by some mechanical device, such as a falling weight or rotating beater." - "some" is not really needed, it could be replaced with an article like "a".
- "This has inspired several modern replicas, including some in London's Science Museum, and the Smithsonian Institution." - no comma needed before "and the Smithsonian...".
- Since this article is primarily written in American English (if I remember correctly), there are serial commas. bibliomaniac15 02:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "the comma used immediately before a grammatical conjunction (nearly always and or or; sometimes nor) that precedes the last item in a list of three or more items" - only two items in this list. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been fixed. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "the comma used immediately before a grammatical conjunction (nearly always and or or; sometimes nor) that precedes the last item in a list of three or more items" - only two items in this list. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this article is primarily written in American English (if I remember correctly), there are serial commas. bibliomaniac15 02:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still more redundancy: "The astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace, among
someother individuals, modified the dial of his pocket watch to decimal time."
Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 22:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done with everything above. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - prose looks good except for the one remaining unaddressed up above (the one biblio responded to), address Tony's issues below though. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not quiteOppose. Neutral 1a
- The prose is mostly good, but needs a careful copy-edit throughout before it reaches the required "professional" standard. I did a few spot-checks.
- I've changed a few pet-hates like
upon andin orderto. - Caption: "water thief."—The dot must come after the quotemark (MOS).
- "While the Greeks and Romans did much to advance water clock technology, shadow clocks were not abandoned."—Why the passive voice? "they did not abandon ...".
- "Others also wrote of the sundial in the mathematics and literature of the period."—"Also" is redundant and has the opposite effect to that intended (it weakens the flow).
- Unnecessary passive again: "Later, the largest sundial ever built was constructed by the Romans". And more. You need a good reason to use the passive voice, and it's much too much in evidence throughout. TONY (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the issues you've mentioned. bibliomaniac15 03:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed a few pet-hates like
Rejoinder—you may have fixed the issues I mentioned, but I made it clear they were spot-checks only. I was expecting a copy-edit throughout the article. And you haven't even fixed the overuse of the passive voice: it took four seconds for me to find "Shadow clocks were also developed during this time by other cultures, including the Greeks, Chinese, Romans and Muslims." Do you know how to change it to active? "Other cultures, including the Greeks, Chinese, Romans and Muslims, developed shadow clocks during this time". Passive is all over the place. And immediately above that:
There were also other problems, however, which were never solved. One of these was temperature, as water flows more slowly when cold, or may even freeze. Another, that the water clock did not account for the fact that the length of days and nights changes throughout the year. Because of this, the clocks' accuracy varied throughout the seasons.
Keep striving for simplicity and plainness in the prose:
However, other problems were never solved: one was temperature, since water flows more slowly when cold, or may even freeze; another was that the water clock did not account for the changing length of days and nights throughout the year, leading to variable accuracy.
Can you coopt a word-nerd or two from the edit history pages of similar articles (try FAs first)? You can tell who's a nerd from their edit summaries. Ask nicely, and you might strike a few new Wikifriends who'll be collaborators now and in the future. TONY (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll go through it one more time, once I've finished with the refs Ealdgyth pointed out above (because the content is likely to change a bit, or the wording may need to be altered). · AndonicO Engage. 14:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed all inline citations. · AndonicO Engage. 09:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eep, meant logical quotations. · AndonicO Engage. 23:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed all inline citations. · AndonicO Engage. 09:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Consistency is missing in a few places; for instance, page numbers need to either be "p 10", "p. 10", or "p.10", but not all of them.
- Fixed; all are now "p. 10" · AndonicO Engage. 09:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following reference is completely broken and shows as plain text: {{cite web|url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Clock|title=Merriam-Webster Online:
- Fixed. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all fixed; I just fixed two more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gary King (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Since I know how much of a pain it was to fix all the refs at Cannon, I'll make the appropriate changes myself. I do have some other concerns that I believe should be addressed.
- Ref 8 – no page numbers.
- Done. · AndonicO Engage. 00:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 9 – no page numbers.
- Ref 10 is a book. I've converted this to {{cite book}}. One question, how is 10a used as a reference for "Among the first confirmed shadow clocks were ancient Egyptian obelisks, first constructed around 3500 BC; the oldest existing sundial—not in the form of an obelisk—is made of green schist, and is also Egyptian"? I couldn't find anything from this reference to corroborate this statement.
- "By the 8th century bc more precise devices were in use; the earliest known sundial still preserved is an Egyptian shadow clock of green schist dating at least from this period." bibliomaniac15 17:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, is 3500 BC for the obelisks cited (all the refs are citing the sundial)? · AndonicO Engage. 18:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I meant ref 9a. Sorry for the confusion. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed: that made no sense whatsoever, and it didn't say sundials were invented in Egypt. · AndonicO Engage. 18:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed 9b, as well: also irrelevant. · AndonicO Engage. 18:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 9b was appropriate, but probably not the best choice of a source. It didn't explicitly state that the Greeks had developed a shadow sundial. You could understand that interpretation only if you knew Anaximander was Greek and that a gnomon, which he discovered, is the part of the sundial that casts a shadow. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 9b was citing: "Shadow clocks were also developed during this time by other cultures, including the Greeks, Chinese, Romans and Muslims." Greeks, yes, but Romans, Chinese, and Muslims? Not a huge loss, though, that sentence was out of place. · AndonicO Engage. 19:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I was under the impression that there were other refs for that sentence. Guess I mistook that for the three other refs that surrounded 9a. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 9b was citing: "Shadow clocks were also developed during this time by other cultures, including the Greeks, Chinese, Romans and Muslims." Greeks, yes, but Romans, Chinese, and Muslims? Not a huge loss, though, that sentence was out of place. · AndonicO Engage. 19:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 9b was appropriate, but probably not the best choice of a source. It didn't explicitly state that the Greeks had developed a shadow sundial. You could understand that interpretation only if you knew Anaximander was Greek and that a gnomon, which he discovered, is the part of the sundial that casts a shadow. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed 9b, as well: also irrelevant. · AndonicO Engage. 18:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed: that made no sense whatsoever, and it didn't say sundials were invented in Egypt. · AndonicO Engage. 18:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I meant ref 9a. Sorry for the confusion. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, is 3500 BC for the obelisks cited (all the refs are citing the sundial)? · AndonicO Engage. 18:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "By the 8th century bc more precise devices were in use; the earliest known sundial still preserved is an Egyptian shadow clock of green schist dating at least from this period." bibliomaniac15 17:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 12 – no page numbers.
- Listed page numbers for a, b, and c; I couldn't find d, and I couldn't find the words "Arab" or "engineer" in the book (using the Gbooks search function), so I removed the third instance. · AndonicO Engage. 23:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 14 – no page numbers.
- Done (apparently: refs 14-22 have page numbers). · AndonicO Engage. 23:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the ref numbers might be off by one or two (I believe a ref was added/removed after my edits). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's why I checked such a wide range. I believe more were added than removed. · AndonicO Engage. 09:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the ref numbers might be off by one or two (I believe a ref was added/removed after my edits). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done (apparently: refs 14-22 have page numbers). · AndonicO Engage. 23:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 23 – no page numbers.
- Ref 24 – no page numbers.
- Done. · AndonicO Engage. 00:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 29 – no page numbers.
- Done; was now ref 38. · AndonicO Engage. 09:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 31 – no page numbers.
- Ref 34 – what makes this reliable?
- I'm guessing that it's UNESCO; I can't find the article in their archives, though (they only go back to 1996). · AndonicO Engage. 00:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 37 – no page numbers.
- Either this was #59, or someone already fixed a lot of page numbers... Done? · AndonicO Engage. 10:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 48 – no page numbers.
- I'm running blind at this point, but the next ref without page number after the above was #61; done. · AndonicO Engage. 12:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 51 – no page numbers.
- Fixed another, presumably the old #51. · AndonicO Engage. 12:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 53 – no page numbers.
- Unreliable (a dictionary of sorts; the part that was cited was an old version of our article): removed. · AndonicO Engage. 12:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 55 – no page numbers.
- Ref 56 – no page numbers.
- Found. Done. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 64 – no page numbers.
- Did another. · AndonicO Engage. 17:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 65 – no page numbers.
- Ref 70 – what makes this reliable?
- Ref 74 – no page numbers.
- Ref 75 – no page numbers.
- Ref 88 – what makes this reliable?
- Ref 89 – no page numbers.
- Ref 90 – no page numbers.
This is it for now. I'll leave more prose-related comments in the future (maybe). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I stopped saying which refs I fixed, since it was somewhat pointless... anyway, I went through all the books, and tried to find page numbers. I found them for all, except those which weren't on Gbooks (around five or so, I think), and a PDF document at the end. · AndonicO Engage. 19:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support — Rlevse • Talk • 00:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. I don't think this article is quite there yet, and would benefit from someone going through it again. Just a few examples:
- "In the 20th century, new methods were invented, including early quartz oscillators ...". When were the later quartz oscillators invented?
- "While accurate, shadow clocks relied on the sun ...". Shouldn't that be "Although' accurate ..."?
- "The oldest-known waterclock was found in the tomb of pharaoh Amenhotep I (1525–1504 BC), proving that they were used in ancient Egypt, possibly earlier than anywhere else." This reads very awkwardly to me. Why not something like "The oldest-known waterclock was found in the tomb of pharaoh Amenhotep I (1525–1504 BC), suggesting that they were first used in ancient Egypt."?
- "... hourglasses could be reused by turning it over again." There really ought not to be simple grammatical errors at this stage.
- "... making the reading of the clock more precise and facile." Are you happy with the word "facile" here? Not sure that I am.
- "Because of this, the clocks' accuracy varied throughout the seasons." Shouldn't that be "clock's accuracy"?
- "... unlike water, this element would not freeze under normal circumstances". Makes it sound like mercury refused to freeze, rather than simply did not freeze.
- "The oldest working clock in the world is Salisbury cathedral clock, which dates from about 1386, and has most of its original parts." Leave out the part between the commas to see why this doesn't work.
- "a popular watch of most American airmen was the A-11" Wouldn't something like "the A-11 was a popular watch with most American airman" be better?
- ... it does not account for leap seconds or other corrections which are periodically employed to systems such as Universal Coordinated Time"> Should that be applied instead of employed? Or employed by?
- "When turned over, a flow of grains of sand passed from the upper one to the lower through the hole. As the downward current of sand was constant ..." Perhaps a good example of Fowler's elegant variation. Current and flow don't quite mean the same thing, so don't be afraid to repeat flow by saying "As the downward flow of sand was constant...".
- I echo Tony's point about overuse of the passive voice. Sentences like this: "The oldest documentation of the water clock is from the tomb inscription ..." make the prose feel stodgey.
--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the copyedit, Malleus. I've fixed your points except for the last one. I'll do a copyedit of the whole article and see what I can fix. bibliomaniac15 21:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I only fixed a few things I stumbled across. I'll try to take a more thorough look through the article later. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm about ready to support now if one additional thing is fixed, consistent use of metric->imperial conversions. From Early Western mechanical clocks: "box-like iron frame, measuring about 1.2 meters (3.9 ft) square". From Candle clocks: "each 12 inches (30 cm) high". From Early mechanical clocks: "Zhang implemented the changes into his clock tower, which was approximately ten meters tall, with escapements keeping the clock turning". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the one you mentioned and a couple others; I think that's it. · AndonicO Engage. 21:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the copyedit, Malleus. I've fixed your points except for the last one. I'll do a copyedit of the whole article and see what I can fix. bibliomaniac15 21:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Enough has been done to the prose to satisfy me. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per criterion three:
- Image:Susong.gif: Image asserts it is redrawn (i.e. derivative) of an original found in Joseph Needham's Science and Civilization in China - a work very much under copyright. Where is support for the claim of publication under the Free Art License ({{FAL}})?
- Image:Salisbury 02.jpg claims to be "by Jason Hopwood"; uploader, however, is "Jasenlee" (i.e. Jasen Lee). How can we confirm uploader and author are the same person or that Jason Hopwood has indeed released the image under the indicated license?
- Image:Przypkowscy Clock Museum - clocks 02.JPG: what is the copyright status of the painting? Freedom of Panorama in Poland is limited to "works that are permanently exhibited on the publicly accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens" (i.e. outside). If the painting is under copyright, this is a derivative work.
- Image:Relogio stDumont.jpg: appears to be a copyvio (see here).
- Image:ChipScaleClock2 HR.jpg needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 19:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted Susong.gif (even the source website had removed it), and removed Przypkowscy Clock Museum - clocks 02.jpg (left a note on the uploader's talk about the possible copyright violation); Relogio stDumont.jpg was deleted by another admin. For Salisbury 02.jpg, we can't confirm that Jasenlee is Jason Hopwood, however, his userpage says his name is Jason (as opposed to Jasen), so it seems to me that that implies he is Jason Hopwood. Finally for ChipScaleClock, I left a note on the user's talk page (on his home wiki). · AndonicO Engage. 22:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am the individual who took this picture and released it under a open license. How else could I confirm? --Jasenlee (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AO – I found the source for Image:ChipScaleClock2 HR.jpg, I've added it on the page. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Not the same image. · AndonicO Engage. 22:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I closer look reveals that its not the same image. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 22:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The painting is too old to be copyrighted.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What, then, is the date of first publication or the name of the author? Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion. Alternatively, the painting can be blurred. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To claim that the photograph is a "derivative work" is clearly absurd. A derivative work depends on the value in the work depicted in it. In this case, it's difficult to see how a photograph of a few clocks has derived any value from the rather out of focus and irrelevant skewed inclusion of an old painting that nobody recognises. If we're to have image lawyers making spurious objections like these, then at least they ought to make an effort to understand the laws that they are
pretendingclaiming to uphold. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Unfortunate that your knowledge of copyright is so poor as to require the need to
attackmischaracterize my concerns, among other things. I'm done here. When you're ready to discuss concerns civilly and productively, do be sure to let me know. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 00:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I have had cause in the past to point out your misunderstanding of international copyright law, or have you forgotten?[57] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you will now reconsider your suggestion that my understanding of copyright is poor? I had no intention of upsetting you by my earlier comment, simply to shake you from what appears to be a rather mechanical application of rather fuzzy laws operating in rather grey areas. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunate that your knowledge of copyright is so poor as to require the need to
- To claim that the photograph is a "derivative work" is clearly absurd. A derivative work depends on the value in the work depicted in it. In this case, it's difficult to see how a photograph of a few clocks has derived any value from the rather out of focus and irrelevant skewed inclusion of an old painting that nobody recognises. If we're to have image lawyers making spurious objections like these, then at least they ought to make an effort to understand the laws that they are
- What, then, is the date of first publication or the name of the author? Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion. Alternatively, the painting can be blurred. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 23:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted Susong.gif (even the source website had removed it), and removed Przypkowscy Clock Museum - clocks 02.jpg (left a note on the uploader's talk about the possible copyright violation); Relogio stDumont.jpg was deleted by another admin. For Salisbury 02.jpg, we can't confirm that Jasenlee is Jason Hopwood, however, his userpage says his name is Jason (as opposed to Jasen), so it seems to me that that implies he is Jason Hopwood. Finally for ChipScaleClock, I left a note on the user's talk page (on his home wiki). · AndonicO Engage. 22:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments on images:
- Image:Salisbury 02.jpg now seems to have been removed from the article, but the concerns about authorship claims from above were valid, I believe.
- Image:Przypkowscy Clock Museum - clocks 02.JPG - I would respectfully disagree with Elcobba and suggest that the inclusion of the painting is de minimis, though I agree it is borderline. (For those unfamiliar with the concept, see the proposed guideline Commons:Commons:De minimis.)
- Seems to have been removed from the article anyway, never mind.
- Image:ChipScaleClock2 HR.jpg does indeed need a verifiable source.
- All other images look good to me, copyright-wise. Kelly hi! 18:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly hi! 18:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've found the source for Image:ChipScaleClock2 HR.jpg and added it to the Commons page. It's here. bibliomaniac15 20:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, minor glitchs easily spotted. Please ask Tony1 to revisit and consider asking User:Epbr123 to run through the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Glancing quickly at the article, the last sentence evidences copyedit needs:
- In ths US, GPS is regulated by 12 satellites in 6 orbits around the Earth on a 12-hourly schedule.[129]
- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Better now? · AndonicO Engage. 17:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did someone go through the entire article? (When I can easily spot prose issues, it's not a good sign, because I'm not a wordnerd.) You've changed it to twelve hours and 6 orbits, exactly the opposite of WP:MOSNUM, so a check throughout is needed. Have you asked someone like Epbr123 to run through, as well as gotten another set of eyes on the prose, given that I easily spotted errors? There are redlinked dates in the citations; do you scroll through your entire article to check for errors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MOSNUM is in dispute on this issue (not by me); it is only stable because Noetica is on hiatus. The present division between one and two digit numbers is a rule of thumb, and one of several possible ones; it has a dozen exceptions because it is only a rule of thumb. In this case, the satellites and the orbits should both be spelled out, or both figures because they are related; and twelve should probably depend on whether the orbit is exactly half a day (spell out as count), or approximate (figure, as approximation to a continuous quantity.
- If there are two satellites in each orbit, it would add information and simplify the sentence to say so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Two unrelated 12s in the same sentence are a pity. Best to recast, but if that is unfeasible (I don't see how myself) spell one out for clarity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did someone go through the entire article? (When I can easily spot prose issues, it's not a good sign, because I'm not a wordnerd.) You've changed it to twelve hours and 6 orbits, exactly the opposite of WP:MOSNUM, so a check throughout is needed. Have you asked someone like Epbr123 to run through, as well as gotten another set of eyes on the prose, given that I easily spotted errors? There are redlinked dates in the citations; do you scroll through your entire article to check for errors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Better now? · AndonicO Engage. 17:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The writing's in better shape now, but I see little problems at random, such as:
Although similar to the candle clock, incense clocks burned evenly, and without a flame; therefore, they were more accurate, and safer for indoor use.[48] Several types of incense clock have been found, the most common being the incense stick and incense seal ones.[49][50] An incense stick clock comprised of an incense stick with calibrations;[50] most were elaborate, sometimes having threads, with weights attached, at even intervals
Which two commas to remove?
And:
- "An example of a candle clock" (caption)—which three words to remove?
- "its history in China and time of its invention remain unknown" TONY (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the commas, fixed the caption, and Malleus took care of the incense clock prose. · AndonicO Engage. 17:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Epbr123 to do a copyedit, if he can't, perhaps Tony could give it a quick polish? Keilana|Parlez ici 18:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony doesn't do polishes. He feels that his limited time is better spent by being spread over more articles than it would be if he were to focus too much on any one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And, he's pretty busy trying to copyedit guideline and policy pages, and write and copyedit the Dispatches in all his spare time. Smoothest is to have articles copyedited before approaching FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Dank55:
- "Can you coopt a word-nerd?"...Nerds are us.
- Feel free to revert any of my edits, I don't bite. Much. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 02:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer that most of the first sentence be deleted, but I don't have any particular advice on how to incorporate the title or what you want to say, so I left it. It just doesn't add much, and feels a little "book reporty" to me.
- My feeling is that we should lowercase most of the occurrences of "sun" and "moon", but this is a matter of style. The first occurrences should probably be capitalized, but North American style guides, and Wikipedia, prefer what's called the "down style" of capitalization, which means roughly, find any excuse you can to lowercase. This issue came up recently in Roman Catholic Church, where the thinking was that the faithful might be offended by "the church", so it was often left capitalized, but we don't have any faithful sun-worshippers here to offend, and TCMOS, AP Stylebook and NYTM all recommend even lowercasing such religious terms at the first opportunity where it's clear which church you're referring to. The analogy here is, as soon as you know which sun you're referring to, it's time to start lowercasing it. Having said that ... does anyone feel strongly that you need to uppercase Sun and Moon throughout? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do. It would be disrespectful not to. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted virtually no material from the lead, but I tightened it down to 2 paragraphs, which leaves room for a 3rd paragraph summarizing more from the article. WP:LEAD suggests a 3rd paragraph would be nice.
- I don't hate passive voice as much as some (*cough* Tony), but I don't like it either. However, I don't want to take the time to do the research to figure out who the subjects would be if I removed the passive voice; if you guys know, then please remove some of the passive voice that I left.
- "the first device able to measure time within the span of a day": I wasn't quite sure what this meant. (I will avoid the usual snarky copyeditor comments such as, "Is there time which is not within the span of a day?") - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I made it down to Incense clocks, but I'm out of time, sorry. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll try to change the lead a bit, per your suggestions. As for "Sun," "Moon," and "Church," I think it's best to leave them capitalized for correctness. Fixed the "span of day" sentence. · AndonicO Engage. 12:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article by Goudsmit et al in the further reading section is missing a title. Epbr123 (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's called Time; fixed. · AndonicO Engage. 13:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dank, I don't "hate" passives per se; occasionally they're suitable. But here, passives were scattered all over the place in quite unnecessary ways. TONY (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay...I don't like passive voice much, and Tony likes it a little less than I do. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Were? Have Dank's concerns been addressed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, all have been fixed so far. · AndonicO Engage. 09:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, everything has been fixed down to Incense clocks, with nice edits by Tony, Malleus and Andonic. I changed a couple of words in the lead. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Little confusing here: there are nine nominators listed, but no indication about who is going to finish up copyediting the bottom of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for the confusion. I can do some of the copyediting, but I'm not the best copyeditor around, so it won't be anywhere near perfect. I'll do what I can. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you deal with this then? "In the United States, GPS is regulated by 12 satellites ...". What does "regulated" mean in this context? How is it "regulated" elsewhere? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the source, the United States maintains 24 satellites (the Navstar system) that circle the Earth every 12 hours. I'm not sure where this came from. Also from the source, the E.U. is working on its own GPS system, as is China. I'll fix the article. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added more from the source about GLONASS, the EU, and the Beidou navigation system. That should do it for international GPS systems. bibliomaniac15 02:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the source, the United States maintains 24 satellites (the Navstar system) that circle the Earth every 12 hours. I'm not sure where this came from. Also from the source, the E.U. is working on its own GPS system, as is China. I'll fix the article. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you deal with this then? "In the United States, GPS is regulated by 12 satellites ...". What does "regulated" mean in this context? How is it "regulated" elsewhere? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies for the confusion. I can do some of the copyediting, but I'm not the best copyeditor around, so it won't be anywhere near perfect. I'll do what I can. Keilana|Parlez ici 00:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Little confusing here: there are nine nominators listed, but no indication about who is going to finish up copyediting the bottom of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, everything has been fixed down to Incense clocks, with nice edits by Tony, Malleus and Andonic. I changed a couple of words in the lead. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, all have been fixed so far. · AndonicO Engage. 09:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's one awkward turn of phrase here: "Sundials came into their present form during the Renaissance, with the acceptance of heliocentrism and equal hours, as well as applications of trigonometry; they were built in large numbers in many locations." I can't get it to make more sense/be more fluid; would anyone else like to have a go? Keilana|Parlez ici 03:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've rewritten that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Aveni, Anthony F" reference refers to page 92, but the accessible pages at that link stopped just before that. I wanted to look at it to figure out what to do with this: "It is possible, however, that [the Greeks'] search for increased precision was not due to their interest in science, but rather their desire to imitate nature and the heavens, which formed the basis of their religion." I'm not a classicist, but my sense was that saying that it might be one but not the other doesn't paint the right picture; these two motivations were entertwined for the Greeks of that time. That is, science was to a large degree the pursuit of a way to understand nature and bring man in line with nature, especially for the Stoics. Thoughts? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd, it was on googlebooks before; anyway, that's exactly what he suggested, with different wording of course (the author was proposing this view, not saying it was a fact). If you think it's out of place or doesn't make sense, then feel free to remove it, since it'll never be known for certain what their motivations were. · AndonicO Engage. 11:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have asked a couple of classicists. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can see page 92 here. Imitating nature seems to be a reasonable inerpretation, but I'm less convinced about it being the basis of their religion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an interesting point. He cites "science historian Derek Price", but again, I can't pull up the page that the reference is on. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The way I found it was to follow the link from the article, and then do a search on "Greek". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing a search for "Price", I found this:page 346. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Malleus. Okay, it's Derek deSolla Price, Science Since Babylon, 1975, p. 53. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aveni seems to be talking about precision, not accuracy - i.e. sundials need not have hour marks to be intellectually satisfying. This makes a lot more sense than what the article says: accuracy would be part of ritual correctness. (And the argument is weak anyway; these are Hellenistic constructions, when the Greek religion was beginning to fade.) The sentence as phrased begs several questions, chiefly whether the Greeks would have had any problem pursuing religion and science simultaneously; I think we can do without it. Possibly a footnote, indicating a source readers may wish to follow? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also a fan of footnotes for that kind of comment, and that sounds like a good solution to me, unless one of the editors has some direction they want to go with this. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I left the reference (it cited the other sentence, as well), but removed the questionable precision/religion sentence. · AndonicO Engage. 11:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also a fan of footnotes for that kind of comment, and that sounds like a good solution to me, unless one of the editors has some direction they want to go with this. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aveni seems to be talking about precision, not accuracy - i.e. sundials need not have hour marks to be intellectually satisfying. This makes a lot more sense than what the article says: accuracy would be part of ritual correctness. (And the argument is weak anyway; these are Hellenistic constructions, when the Greek religion was beginning to fade.) The sentence as phrased begs several questions, chiefly whether the Greeks would have had any problem pursuing religion and science simultaneously; I think we can do without it. Possibly a footnote, indicating a source readers may wish to follow? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Odd, it was on googlebooks before; anyway, that's exactly what he suggested, with different wording of course (the author was proposing this view, not saying it was a fact). If you think it's out of place or doesn't make sense, then feel free to remove it, since it'll never be known for certain what their motivations were. · AndonicO Engage. 11:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In History_of_timekeeping_devices#Modern_sundials, the paragraph starting "Water clocks were used..." is out of place, and repeats information from the section above, but I didn't want to just yank it because it's got 2 references; perhaps the information and references should be merged into the proper sections. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed the wording and moved the paragraph to Early Western mechanical clocks. · AndonicO Engage. 11:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There was a paragraph in the Modern sundials section on hourglasses that included information from the 1500's, so I changed the 3-heading to 1 AD – 1600 AD, and gave the hourglass information its own 4-heading. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wanted to move "The hourglass was also used in China, but its history there is unknown" out of the Incense clocks section, but when I searched for "hourglass" in the reference, I get no hits. Can anyone find "hourglass" in that reference? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- page 186, where it's called a sand-clock. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've moved that sentence now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Several things in the second paragraph of Clocks are contradicted earlier on the page. For instance, mechanical clocks didn't "spread quickly" to the West, or at least, not quickly after they were first built in China. The fourth paragraph seems misplaced. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the fourth paragraph (everything seems to already have been in the article, and it was unsourced), going to work on the rest now. · AndonicO Engage. 11:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed sentence to: "However, mechanical clocks were not widely used in the West until the 14th century." · AndonicO Engage. 11:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the fourth paragraph (everything seems to already have been in the article, and it was unsourced), going to work on the rest now. · AndonicO Engage. 11:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The information from the two different sections on Wallingford's clock should be combined (3 different sections if you include the sentence from Modern sundials). I'd be fine with a short mention in one section (either one) and the bulk of the material in the other section. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The last paragraph in Early Western mechanical clocks needs a rewrite. (It's too much for me to figure out, and I have to move on.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed it slightly and reordered the sentences to give what seems to me to be a better descriptive sequence. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that's much better, but I still don't know what a "secular clock" is. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one for the nominators to address I think. My work is about done here. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to: "During the Middle Ages, clocks were primarily used for religious purposes; the first employed for secular timekeeping emerged around the 15th century." · AndonicO Engage. 11:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one for the nominators to address I think. My work is about done here. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that's much better, but I still don't know what a "secular clock" is. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've changed it slightly and reordered the sentences to give what seems to me to be a better descriptive sequence. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, Malleus was working backwards from the end and it looks like he made it to Pendulum clocks, so I'll stop at the end of Early Western mechanical clocks. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm about done now I think. Nice work btw, you've improved the prose very significantly I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fantastic. I really like feedback, especially that feedback :) I checked your diffs too and I was happy with everything. I left a question on your userpage. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm about done now I think. Nice work btw, you've improved the prose very significantly I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. OK, I'm done with the copyediting now. So far as I can see there are just a few content-related issues left for the nominators to sort out from Dank55's comments above. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to both of you. :) · AndonicO Engage. 11:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The only remaining issue from Dan is the two paragraphs on Richard of Wallingford; I'm trying to address that now. · AndonicO Engage. 11:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merged them, and also moved down a few sections from #Early devices to #Modern devices. · AndonicO Engage. 11:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The only remaining issue from Dan is the two paragraphs on Richard of Wallingford; I'm trying to address that now. · AndonicO Engage. 11:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to both of you. :) · AndonicO Engage. 11:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose now looks good; reading your changes quickly, everything looked good except for one sentence, which I fixed. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, thanks. · AndonicO Engage. 09:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Asking for opinions. It would be nice to find ways to encourage more and better copyediting at FAC and GAN. Bronze stars on userpages appear to be reserved (in practice) to noms and co-noms of FAs. How about the userbox that says "This user has written or significantly contributed to X Featured Articles on Wikipedia"? Would it be false advertising for a copyeditor to up this count by one, if they provide a link to diffs and comments that indicated that their copyedit contributed largely to the article passing? This might make copyediting "sexier". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider you and Malleus to have "significantly contributed"; why not use the already-existing one? · AndonicO Engage. 17:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is getting interesting. I'll move my discussion to the talk page; please join me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I consider you and Malleus to have "significantly contributed"; why not use the already-existing one? · AndonicO Engage. 17:11, 8 July 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 15:02, 16 July 2008 [58].
This is a self-nom, article is over a year old but has recently been improved and passed GA. It has also been peer reviewed. I believe that it meets all of the featured article criteria, but I am looking forward to responding to your comments. JRP (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Various nitpicks
The Gray book, Forty-five years under the flag, Chadwick and Arctic Experiences all have ISBN numbers which should be in.
- All of these books were published prior to 1966 and the editions I have don't have ISBN numbers. Is there a reliable way to find the number? I tried an Amazon search, but, for example, their page on the Gray book doesn't list an ISBN. JRP (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This page does though. Maybe because its an import? The others seem to have isbn's where they've been more recently republished. You get the amazon list up then go for any recent publication. Fainites barley 21:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found all the ISBNs I can. (Yours and one other.) I've added them to the page. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Found one more - stuck it in. Fainites barley 19:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these books were published prior to 1966 and the editions I have don't have ISBN numbers. Is there a reliable way to find the number? I tried an Amazon search, but, for example, their page on the Gray book doesn't list an ISBN. JRP (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion of "retrieved on's" for books and articles that are not web-sources seems rather odd - or is this some policy I don't know about?
- Something I was told to do either during a peer review of another article or a GA/FA when the copy you use is on Google Books. I can easily remove those. JRP (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't remove them right now if somebody more knowledgable than I says its OK. I just haven't come across it before and find them rather distracting. You could ask SandyGeorgia. Fainites barley 21:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed. I can add them again later, but I don't really like them anyway. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have a URL, you should have the accessdate. If you got info from googlebooks, you should provide the link and the date. If you got info from a hard print source, there is no URL, there is no accessdate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Something I was told to do either during a peer review of another article or a GA/FA when the copy you use is on Google Books. I can easily remove those. JRP (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you put the whole reference in "references" you don't need to repeat the whole thing every time for each page number in "notes".
- Pruned. Done. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ref. 53 seems to be 3 refs and no. 47 is 2.
- I think this is okay, but if you want me to break them up I will. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Never seen it before I must say. Ask Ealdgyth
- Fixed. I can move the refs closers to where they are referencing (the individual countries in both cases), if you like but I don't like having refs in the middle of a sentence if I can help it...JRP (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can combine refs into one ref tag, although that means you can't easily use the named ref tags. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, modestly, Tourette syndrome pioneered combined ref tags, and they are fine :-) But for formatting purposes, I suggest setting them up as in Tourette syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like this [59] Fainites barley 19:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect to Sandy (and I have tons of respect here), I ask that I not have to format the links in this way. They look attractive, but I don't want to fake a bulleted list using asterisks. If The mediawiki software doesn't support having a real (but non-indented) b-list, I'd rather wait until it does than create a list in this way. I'll be happy to keep the links separate (which seems fine for most FAs), separate them with semicolons (as the FA article Edwin Taylor Pollock, promoted a year ago) does, or separate them with BRs. Just please don't ask me to fake formatting in the text! JRP (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So as to skirt around this issue, I have broken up all multiple citations in a row following the guidance in WP:REFPUNC (and elsewhere) that I can do references after commas. With that guidance, I've moved all refs to be closest to the element that they are citing and there are no longer any multiples in a row. This should make everyone happy, I hope... JRP (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like this [59] Fainites barley 19:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, modestly, Tourette syndrome pioneered combined ref tags, and they are fine :-) But for formatting purposes, I suggest setting them up as in Tourette syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can combine refs into one ref tag, although that means you can't easily use the named ref tags. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. I can move the refs closers to where they are referencing (the individual countries in both cases), if you like but I don't like having refs in the middle of a sentence if I can help it...JRP (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Never seen it before I must say. Ask Ealdgyth
- I think this is okay, but if you want me to break them up I will. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do none of the newspaper articles have named authors?
- Any that had named authors, I included the name. The vast majority don't have a by-line with the article. JRP (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence Though his search for the Polaris was unsuccessful, several years later, Sebree was sent to the Arctic again, this time to rescue Adolphus Greely and the survivors of the Lady Franklin Bay expedition. is possibly a little clumsy. The second clause seems out of place. It also implies that he was personally responsible for the lack of success and therefore his subsequent selection for a second mission was surprising.
- Fixed. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tried a slight change if thats OK. Fainites barley 20:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Charles Francis Hall) doesn't need parentheses. A comma would be preferable.
- Fixed. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you have two "first commands"?
- Fixed. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another slight change - too many "first"ses. Fainites barley 20:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After the Chilean Civil War, anti-American sentiment was strong in the country due anger over the United States granting asylum to the supporters of deposed President José Manuel Balmaceda - not clear which country (even though its obvious if you think about it).
- Fixed. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An inquiry was made by the Chilean authorities, and charges were made against several locals. Too many mades. How about charges were laid or brought.
- Fixed. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence Because of the legal issues, the Buffalo was unable to leave until December and then proceeded immediately to Mare Island Naval Shipyard where the United States Navy held its own investigation, also finding the crew of the Baltimore not responsible for the riot may be better split in two.
- Fixed. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...for three years, from 1893 to 1896.[1] In that year... Not a good combination. Three years is redundant - and which is "that year"?
- Fixed. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In a sign of this ambiguity, Sebree was detached from command of the Abarenda in March 1902 to give him additional time as commandant and "governor". Is "in a sign" correct here?
- What do you suggest I change it to? JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know because I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mean because of or as a consequence of or despite this ambiguity? Fainites barley 20:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More or less, mean neither. Sebree was officially governor according to the Deed of Succession (or rather, his predecessor was, so he was by extension) BUT the US government and Navy didn't recognize this. Or rather, they did recognize this in some ways, such as the orders that Sebree responded to and the removal of his command of the Abarenda to give him more time to "govern", but it wasn't official that was the reason. (Officially, he was responsible only for the naval station.) A bit of a wink going on here, but I don't want to say that the in the article because I don't want to make a conclusion that my secondary sources don't. And he was given command of the Wheeling again a bit later, so it didn't really stick. I'll try and be more clear on this as I revise, but I want to think on it for a bit. JRP (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a sign? Fainites barley 18:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've completely reworded. I could be just an idiosyncrasy of my particular regional dialect, but "in" and "as" a sign mean something very slightly different to me. So, to make us both happy, I've completely reworded that section and I think this makes it clearer. Please let me know. JRP (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Fine now. Fainites barley 20:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've completely reworded. I could be just an idiosyncrasy of my particular regional dialect, but "in" and "as" a sign mean something very slightly different to me. So, to make us both happy, I've completely reworded that section and I think this makes it clearer. Please let me know. JRP (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a sign? Fainites barley 18:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More or less, mean neither. Sebree was officially governor according to the Deed of Succession (or rather, his predecessor was, so he was by extension) BUT the US government and Navy didn't recognize this. Or rather, they did recognize this in some ways, such as the orders that Sebree responded to and the removal of his command of the Abarenda to give him more time to "govern", but it wasn't official that was the reason. (Officially, he was responsible only for the naval station.) A bit of a wink going on here, but I don't want to say that the in the article because I don't want to make a conclusion that my secondary sources don't. And he was given command of the Wheeling again a bit later, so it didn't really stick. I'll try and be more clear on this as I revise, but I want to think on it for a bit. JRP (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know because I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mean because of or as a consequence of or despite this ambiguity? Fainites barley 20:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you suggest I change it to? JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
asking that if a civil administration were to be created in the territory that the government not give a trader the position - too many "thats"?
- Also an overall view that there are too many commas and those not necessarily in the right places.
- Copy-editing that I and others have done on this article have removed a small number of questionable commas, but I don't have an easy diff to show you. Can you point out other commas which should be removed? I don't want to over-punctuate. JRP (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I saw a few people have had a go at the commas. I've had a bit of a go myself. Fainites barley 10:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Copy-editing that I and others have done on this article have removed a small number of questionable commas, but I don't have an easy diff to show you. Can you point out other commas which should be removed? I don't want to over-punctuate. JRP (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about the map and last twp pictures going left - right - left?
- Done, but I can't have images just under headings per WP:MOS, so I'm not sure I like how it looks this way. Let me know how you feel. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- looks better I think - on my slightly wide screen anyway! It differs on different computer screens. (not the left and right but how the text fits round it).Fainites barley 20:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, but I can't have images just under headings per WP:MOS, so I'm not sure I like how it looks this way. Let me know how you feel. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Blimey! Was Kitchener really ever called ""world's greatest general"? How times change.
- Amazingly, yes. He wouldn't become an embarrassment for a couple of years yet. JRP (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you need me to put the citation for this with the quoted text, or is at the end of the sentence fine? The trick is that the same source is used for the quote as the rest of the sentence, so it would be the same citation twice in a row over a very small text space. Please let me know. JRP (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Amazingly, yes. He wouldn't become an embarrassment for a couple of years yet. JRP (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fainites barley 19:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed this line anyway, while doing other copyedits. On a careful review of sources, the "world's greatest general" line, while repeated without a source in several articles about the banquet (implying editorial authority), it was specifically pulled from Governor Gillett's speech that night and therefore should be properly attributed. But, in trying to figure out how to mark up the text to do that attribution, I decided that it's just easier without it. JRP (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've included a few responses inline. I'll get to addressing your points in the article later on this evening. JRP (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. Please let me know if you see additional problems. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This first sentence He is best remembered for his two expeditions into the Arctic Ocean, and for being the second acting governor of American Samoa as well as, later, commander-in-chief of the Pacific Fleet.
How about "He is best remembered for his two expeditions into the Arctic Ocean, for being the second acting governor of American Samoa and, later, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet." Fainites barley 20:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine. I've made that change as you suggest. JRP (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this "scandalous conduct tending to the destruction of good morales", really "morales" and not morals? Or maybe morale but not morales. or is this another Americanism I'm not familiar with?
- You are correct. The title of the article suggested it should be 'morales', but the quote in the article itself is 'morals'. I've corrected it and moved a citation to be with the quotation for clarity. JRP (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this bit In 1916, Sebree reported that the United States Navy was behind the world's other major navies. A single dreadnought, he claimed, could ravage the entire Pacific Fleet. According to the dreadnought article the US laid down dreadnoughts in 1906 - or did Sebree not notice in his dotage?Fainites barley 20:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He was specifically remarking on the lack of them in the Pacific Fleet and not the US fleet as a whole. I'll research that time period more closely and see if I can phrase that differently so that it's more clear what he was responding to. JRP (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've clarified the text. He was responding to a policy where the Pacific Fleet did not have dreadnoughts, but the Atlantic fleet did. I've made a change-- is it clearer now? JRP (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He was specifically remarking on the lack of them in the Pacific Fleet and not the US fleet as a whole. I'll research that time period more closely and see if I can phrase that differently so that it's more clear what he was responding to. JRP (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Acting Governor" is rendered five different ways in the article: Acting Governor, acting-Governor, Acting-governor, Acting-Governor, and acting-governor. —Kevin Myers 22:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll knock it down to two ways, a title and a noun form. I've placed a note on WP:MOS to get their advice on which of the variants it should be. Thanks, I hadn't realized how inconsistent it was.JRP (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Please let me know if you see other issues. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Found and fixed two more cases which I missed. Should be all done. JRP (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Please let me know if you see other issues. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll knock it down to two ways, a title and a noun form. I've placed a note on WP:MOS to get their advice on which of the variants it should be. Thanks, I hadn't realized how inconsistent it was.JRP (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
Use en dashes for year ranges, etc. (like "1863-1910") per WP:DASH.Gary King (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can only find one case where I was not doing that (in the infobox, per your example). Can you see any others? I've corrected that one. Please let me know if you see additional problems with the article. JRP (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
- They shouldn't be mixed per Wikipedia:CITE#Citation_styles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and fixed. Don't even know how that crept in. JRP (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes http://www.multied.com/Navy/Steamer/tigressIII.html a reliable source?
- Links checked out with the link checker tool, sources look okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The multied.com page is just a reproduction of the DANFS entry for the third USS Tigress; suggest replacing the cite with the official Navy page at http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/t5/tigress-iii.htm. Maralia (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Link verified and replaced with Danfs one. (I didn't find that one before. Thanks!) JRP (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The multied.com page is just a reproduction of the DANFS entry for the third USS Tigress; suggest replacing the cite with the official Navy page at http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/t5/tigress-iii.htm. Maralia (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak oppose. This is an interesting article, and it seems quite comprehensive. However, I think the prose needs just a bit more tweaking. There are awkward sentence constructs, passive voice, and repetitve phrasing. I've highlighted a few examples of these below. I would also recommend a comma audit - I think there are some unnecessary commas thrown in and a few places that the commas were ommitted and shouldn't have been.
- As was noted at the time, this rescue mission was the first official United States military expedition to the Arctic - is the "as was noted at the time" really necessary? It either was or was not the first official US military expedition.
- Fixed. I've removed the clause, as you suggest. JRP (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An important episode in Sebree's early career was his participation in the second Polaris rescue mission. - This sentence feels out of place to me. I have not thought of a better transition sentence yet, but I think this needs to be rewritten.
- This sentence sounds awkward to me. After the Chilean Civil War, anti-American sentiment was strong in Chile due to anger over the United States granting asylum to the supporters of deposed President José Manuel Balmaceda.
- I've reworded. How does it look now? JRP (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've noticed several instances where passive voice is used when active voice would be better.
- Watch for issues with repetitve phrasing. For example, the Buffalo was unable to leave until December. Once they were permitted to leave, the crew was ... could be the Buffalo did not receive permission to depart until December. The crew was then ..."
- Fixes that instance. I'll look for others. JRP (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the name of Sebree's wife known? (or the date of their marriage?) Did they have more than 1 child and only 1 survived?
- Her name was Anne B. Sebree. I can't find her maiden name or the date of their wedding. I'll search around. She was almost 20 years his junior, so they must have been married sometime in the middle of his career... JRP (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the names of Sebree's parents known?
- Yes and I have included a little bit more information about his father in the first paragraph. (And a bit more is known about his brother in secondary sources, which I did not include.) Consulting primary sources (genealogy databases), I have his mother's name, their wedding date, etc. but I will not be including them in this article since no secondary source that I have been able to find mentions them. JRP (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'm sorry, but I'm swamped in RL right now and probably won't be able to take another look at this article. If Malleus and Dan are satisfied with the prose after their copyedits, please disregard my oppose. Karanacs (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Interesting article! I have a few questions:
- An important episode in Sebree's early career was his participation in the second Polaris rescue mission. - Why was it important? I think this topic sentence needs to be a bit more explicit.
- I've reworded. I'm not sure how to explain this better. The Polaris mission, although unsuccessful, was what put him on as the XO in the Greely relief mission more than a decade later. That put Sebree in a good relationship with Capt. Schley, plus gave him a fair amount of fame, both of which were boosts to his career. We can't know if he would have had a different trajectory without this event, but it did set the dominoes in motion. JRP (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Though the Navy's search for the Polaris was unsuccessful - The lead states that the search for the Polaris was unsuccessful, but the article indicates that the Navy found evidence of the men and discovered that they were rescued by a Scottish ship. Is this considered unsuccessful? I thought "unsuccessful" meant that the men died or that the Navy never found anything.
- Reworded. I hope it's better. The lead is always difficult for me. JRP (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is not much on Sebree's personal life. When did Sebree marry? We only find out about his son in the last line - is there any more to say about his family relationships?
- I have this information in primary sources only. His biographies are military ones and so skim or completely omit personal information. (Even his obit barely mentioned a family.) I've added a little bit since you made these comments from secondary sources, but I have yet to find a good source for more. JRP (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm wondering what other reviewers think - is this article original research? Looking at the footnotes, I was struck by the number of contemporary sources, such as newspaper articles, and I thought that perhaps the article was actually a work of synthesis. I am curious how others interpret our policy on these matters.
- This is harder to respond to. WP:NOR applies to unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This article does not include unpublished facts and I have gone out of my way to not include any, even when I have found details from genealogy databases, etc. which would have been nice to include. (Like unpublished information on Sebree's family.) I have used primary sources only as a means to ensure the accuracy of my secondary sources. I also have worked hard to not advance any position and to be as unbiased as possible, using multiple sources (some not included as references) to avoid bias.
- Any synthesis that is done is just putting facts in order. The skeleton of the article comes from his obituaries and some biographies written for newspapers during his career (promotions, retirement), plus Government of American Samoa website and Record of Living Officers. The events described in those are filled in using other newspaper articles and books, sometimes pertaining to Sebree and sometimes not. Each of the events described have been separately researched to the best of my ability-- using secondary and tertiary sources-- so that I can provide context for Sebree's role in the events only. (But that does bump up the number of citations in the article.) I believe that there are only a handful of events later in his life which I went to newspapers directly for the first word and by then it was because he was major news and Commanders-in-chief have plenty of prose written about them in many sources. Synthesis, if that's even the right word for what I've done, is still allowed by WP:NOR as long as it doesn't advance a position.
- As far as I can tell from the guidelines, there are no restrictions on using contemporary secondary sources versus modern ones. I suspect the line would be difficult to draw anyway. (And while there may be more modern sources to draw on than what I used, it's a lot easier to find older ones for these figures because out-of-copyright books are more often indexed and searchable.)
- I hope this answers your concern. I welcome comments from other editors however. JRP (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did some light copyediting as I was reading (removing commas, etc.). Awadewit (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will be on vacation from now until 20 July, during which I will have intermittent internet access. I will revisit this nom as often as I can. Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please let me know if anyone is reading these comments. I am checking back about once a day! Awadewit (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm. Actually, they were sort of lost in the shuffle. I'm sorry. I'll try and respond to these all later on this evening. JRP (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please let me know if anyone is reading these comments. I am checking back about once a day! Awadewit (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Oppose'—1a.
- Is "then" necessary in the second sentence?
- Fixed. I've removed it, per your suggestion, but now I am concerned that it's unclear that these postings did not happen simultaneously. But, if that's the way you want it... JRP (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "serving as" ... "served in".
- Fixed. I've reworded, but it's difficult to find a better word for this. JRP (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "United States Navy's first mission"—the first two words are entirely in the reader's mind by now, and to repeat them ad infinitum slows it down. "the Navy's"
- Fixed. I've also made the change as you suggest in a few other areas of the text. JRP (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Although is more formal.
- Fixed in several places. JRP (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comma before "which successfully" (it's not a subset of all such expeditions: you're referring to this one alone).
- Fixed. JRP (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Several years later"—See MOSNUM on vague chronology.
- Fixed. (And found two more cases in the text which are fixed also.) JRP (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- for only a year.
- Fixed. JRP (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Infobox: en dash unspaced for range.
- Fixed. JRP (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this came out of only two paras, it indicates that fresh eyes are necessary to audit the prose throughout. An hour at least by a good copy-editor. You know how to locate the right person? TONY (talk) 12:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll put out a call for a copy-editor, but you know how difficult that can be these days. Since you have a very good eye for this, I would appreciate any additional comments that you have on other areas of the prose that need improvement. In the meantime, I've corrected the several issues that you mention above. JRP (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be hard, but you need to forge collaborations with word-nerds who are interested in this type of topic. Research edit history pages of similar articles; copy-editors are obvious from their edit summaries. TONY (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Malleus Fatuorum has agreed to take a look at this for me and I have notes out to one or two more copyeditors that I have contributed on my previous FAs or recent MILHIST FAs. JRP (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be hard, but you need to forge collaborations with word-nerds who are interested in this type of topic. Research edit history pages of similar articles; copy-editors are obvious from their edit summaries. TONY (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update 7/11: Tony, since you last reviewed this article it has received some copyediting (some minor, some significant) from User:Hmains, User:Laser brain, User:Mattisse, User:Dank55, User:Malleus Fatuorum, and User:Fainites. (And several more that had contributed copyediting before your comment on the 4th.) Can you please take a look at the article now and see if your concerns have been addressed? Dank55's work I think deserves particular mention and I think that his style of fixes are related to the issues that you described. Thanks for your assistance in evaluating this FA candidate. JRP (talk) 04:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - can we have a more specific source for Image:Admiral Sebree and Pacific Fleet Staff on the Tennessee.jpg? Kelly hi! 15:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The most specific source I can cite is "United States Navy", but I have updated the image on the commons to include the specific year the picture was taken (before, I just used the years that Sebree was on the Tennessee) and additional information relating to its call number at the U.S. Naval Historical Center, as well as an image to the USNHC's website where this image can be located online. Is this acceptable? JRP (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good. I formatted the additional details into the template, and expanded the description from the source. Kelly hi! 22:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The most specific source I can cite is "United States Navy", but I have updated the image on the commons to include the specific year the picture was taken (before, I just used the years that Sebree was on the Tennessee) and additional information relating to its call number at the U.S. Naval Historical Center, as well as an image to the USNHC's website where this image can be located online. Is this acceptable? JRP (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyediting. JRP asked me to have a look. See my last comment at WT:FAC; I like the idea of making copyediting "sexier", in order to increase the number of copyeditors, and one way might be to let copyeditors up the count in that "significantly contributed to X FAs" userbox whenever we/they do significantly contribute. I'm not looking for co-nom status of course but I'd appreciate being considered to be a "significant contributor", if my work merits that. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- < Conversation moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Uriel Sebree#Copyeditor recognition> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "in what was the navy's first mission": changed to "in the navy's first mission". This sounds a bit like "in what became the navy's first mission"; if you're saying that the mission one was thing and then became something else, then "in what became" would be better. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
- It was the Navy's first mission to the Arctic, according to contemporary sources. (And I don't have any modern sources which dispute that.) If we get very specific with definitions, the "Arctic" is larger than the "Arctic Ocean", and the expedition only traveled as far north as the Nares Strait which links Baffin Bay with the Arctic Ocean. So, you can read it as either "It was the Navy's first mission to the Arctic Ocean, but they didn't need to make it that far." or ignore that clause. I think this is academic because contemporary sources didn't dwell on whether they made it to the "Arctic Ocean" or not and the exact borders as defined then (given the unexplored nature of the territory) may have been different than the definitions today. That's why I phrased the line that way, but I have no problem with changing it if it's a difficult read. You're the expert here. JRP (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "prominent citizens of Howard County" (your quotes): I'm not sure if this means you're quoting a passage, or if these are "scare quotes". (That was an example of "scare quotes", btw.) I searched in ref 1 for "prominent" and didn't find it, and I can't search the next ref. If it's a quote, I'd prefer the proper reference be at the end of that sentence, or at the end of that quote. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
- I've adjusted the text to reflect that the quote came from the Jefferson County Tribune. (My source is the Atlanta Constitution, which reprinted the article, because the JCT doesn't seem to have any archives that I have access to and isn't even mentioned in Wikipedia.) The article itself relates a story from Sebree's career which isn't notable enough to bring up elsewhere (Sebree discovered a former slave that he had known in his childhood who had escaped and somehow returned to Africa), but it includes a biographical overview that is better than from other secondary sources which comment only on his military career. JRP (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "...the remaining crew members split up as some abandoned their ship to the pack ice and others made their own way south." I'm not following; didn't they all abandon the ship? Were they walking? Were the first ones not "making their own way"? I read the reference pp. 162-165 [note:hyphens are perfectly okay on talk pages but this would be an en-dash in an article], and didn't see anything, but page 164 wasn't scanned in. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
- The book is somewhat hard to follow. Capt. Hall dies on 162. On p. 198 is when the Polaris crew is split up with 19 crewmen on an ice berg and the remaining in the ship when the berg they were anchored to broke off. They are rescued by the Tigress p. 326. The fate of the Polaris during that period starts on p. 398. The Polaris crew is rescued on p. 405. I see that I didn't cite all of that, and I will adjust the citations as you suggest. (Btw, Polaris expedition is a much more succinct description.) JRP (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Shortly thereafter Sebree was made an instructor...": The infobox says that didn't happen until 1884. If he was hired in 1882 but didn't start teaching until 1884, I think I would put this sentence after the sentence that refers to 1883. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
- I removed that clause. In truth, he was an instructor both times and just that stint wasn't reflected in the infobox. (It wasn't listed in his Navy bio and he appears to have served in that position less than two months.) Since it was so brief and didn't add anything of note, I think we're fine just removing it. (Which I did.) JRP (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your style is a little more comma-heavy than average for WP (unless someone else was doing the commas), but that's okay. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
- I tend to use the serial comma, but other examples may be errors and I appreciate any help you can provide in ferreting them out. JRP (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Oregon and Washington Territory": I changed to "Territories", since those were two territories in the 1880s, but feel free to revert if some other meaning of "territory" was implied. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
- Ick. My source said "Oregon Territory", but I realize now that was a mistake. Oregon was made a state in 1859, but Washington wasn't until 1889. I've corrected the prose to now link to the state of Oregon and the territory of Washington. JRP (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'll finish up tomorrow morning. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
- Thanks for all the work that you've done so far. It's fantastic and I appreciate it. JRP (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The rule for a year or two has been to put an en-dash in "Spanish–American", although you'll get resistance in some quarters. The rule is that hyphens mean that you're talking about a single entity, a "Spanish-American" (someone who has immigrated, perhaps?); an en-dash means "between" or "or". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't take a position on "small public uproar", but I don't think it will fly: was it small, or was it an uproar? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you suggest another phrasing? It was "small" because there we no public protests. Mostly, it was well-covered in the domestic media the unfairness of the situation. I don't know if I'd say "public outpouring of support" because there might be a POV issue with the source, so I'm trying to use neutral words. Certainly, the caused enough of a stir that the military had to respond to it directly (though not in the hoped-for way), which was somewhat unusual I think for the time period. JRP (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, your comments above look good, and I like all the changes you made. I'm done. Commas need to be inserted in the middle of auto-formatted dates (that is, January 1 1900 should have a comma in the middle), so that when this text is copied elsewhere, it keeps a comma.
- I don't really understand this requirement (why doesn't it get the comma if mediawiki adds it?), but fixed anyway. JRP (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An excellent discussion on this is at WT:Manual_of_Style_(dates and_numbers)/Archive 100#Section_break_2. (Now that's what a copyeditor is for :) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really understand this requirement (why doesn't it get the comma if mediawiki adds it?), but fixed anyway. JRP (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- < Conversation moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Uriel Sebree#Copyeditor recognition> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, thanks for your prompt attention to my comments. --Laser brain (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments Overall a nice article and well-written. I noticed some minor issues such as commas needed so I just fixed them. There is some wordiness that I tried outlining below:[reply]- What's the difference between "... would eventually become a lawyer." and "... became a lawyer."?
- (Note: Laser is an excellent writer and prolific FA copyeditor, and generally, he's one of the guys whose comments I don't need to respond to, but I'm trying to build a relationship here of copyeditor/writer, which involves standing up both for my copyediting and for the writer! P.S. As I starting writing my comments, I realized that I really enjoy dealing with a good copyeditor, so I guess I'm trying to build a collegial relationship with Laser as well!) I thought about that and decided to leave it, on the grounds that changing to "he became a lawyer" would make that the one sentence in the article whose verb tense doesn't match the generally "paratactic" flow of the article: "This happened, and this happened, and this happened...", meaning "next". The readers have to switch the way they read the article to understand that "became" doesn't mean "and then he became..., and then..." here. However, I often see that "became" language in just that way in bios; the bottom line is that I'm happy with it either way. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 10:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Sebree was not held directly responsible for the collision itself, as he was below deck at the time, but he did not do enough to determine whether or not the other ship was damaged before sailing away." Things like "itself" and "or not" can be eliminated.
- I won't generally change "whether or not" to "whether" since the first is so ubiquitous in English, but I do buy the idea that "whether" is better in an encyclopedia. But concerning "itself", the sentence was better with it. Good writing follows the "principle of least astonishment", and in that one word "itself", the readers are alerted before they get any farther that while Sebree didn't get into trouble for that, he did get into trouble for something else. It's not a bad sentence when you remove "itself", but it requires the readers to backtrack after they understand the change in tone. Joe has good expository writing instincts. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "This contributed to growing anti-American tensions in Chile." Avoid beginning sentences with "This ..." in vague reference to a previous idea. This what?
- Good advice, but on the other hand, I would have written "which" instead of "this"; I don't think Joe was unclear here, I just agree with Laser that it's good to take a second look whenever you're tempted to use "this" in this way. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "On October 9, 1901, Sebree received orders to travel to American Samoa to take command of the USS Abarenda and to be commandant of the United States Naval Station Tutuila. He was simultaneously promoted to captain." Why not just "... and promoted to captain."?
- "During this controversy, Sebree himself remained silent on the issue ..." What is the word "himself" doing? --Laser brain (talk) 06:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Laser is right, it's better without "himself"...but not because such sentences are always better without "himself", which is what you'll hear from some at FAC. The purpose of "himself" would ideally be to alert the reader that after a long string of "X did this, Y did that", you're transitioning to a paragraph that's all about what Sebree did...except you're not in this case.
- I didn't make changes based on my responses to Laser; I'm not reviewing this article, and I'm happy to leave these things up to Joe. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the difference between "... would eventually become a lawyer." and "... became a lawyer."?
- All items have been fixed, as you suggest. However, the line about being promoted to captain has been adjusted to reflect that the promotion actually came three days after the change in assignment. "Simultaneously" was an exaggeration and I agree that if it was simultaneous, it should have been in one sentence. But two separate sets of orders over three days probably should be in two separate sentences. Please let me know if you don't agree with this change.
- Also, please let me know if you have any other comments. Your suggestions are appreciated. JRP (talk) 06:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My comments were resolved some time ago but I've watched the copyediting with interest. Its transformed it from a competent article into one thats a real pleasure to read. (No insult intended JRP - you know what I mean). Suppose instead of calling yourself a significant contributor Dan you listed them in a form that more clearly acknowledges your particular skill? Must be a suitable phrase that recognises this art? "Finishing"? "Polishing"? "A to FA in the tap of a key". Fainites barley 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- < Conversation moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Uriel Sebree#Copyeditor recognition> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If Dank33's !vote should be excluded, then that's Sandy's decision, but I wouldn't protest it. If this article doesn't make it before Sandy inevitably loses patience, I'll survive, work to improve it, and submit it again in a month or two after I've had a chance to work on something else. No hard feelings. JRP (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't lost patience, JrP :-) I am, however, moving all of this off-topic discussion to talk, since it seems that Awadewit's earlier on-topic commentary got lost in the shuffle. Let's keep this page focused on the article, pls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If Dank33's !vote should be excluded, then that's Sandy's decision, but I wouldn't protest it. If this article doesn't make it before Sandy inevitably loses patience, I'll survive, work to improve it, and submit it again in a month or two after I've had a chance to work on something else. No hard feelings. JRP (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- < Conversation moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Uriel Sebree#Copyeditor recognition> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - just dropping by with a few comments.
- First, it'd be nice if the lede could be three paragraphs. On that note, it would be nice if there was a better opening sentence. Was there anything special the person did that could be mentioned? Also, is this phrase appropriate; He is best remembered? Personally, I would remove the "best remembered", take one of those things and stick it as the first sentence, and write out plainly what else he was remembered for. But that is a bit of a change, and it's up to you.
- I'll try and make this change shortly, but it will wait until I've had more sleep. JRP (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One minor thing - do you have the name of his mother?
- I have it, but only in a geneology database which isn't a secondary source. Since I never found it in a biography of him (most biographical sketches of him centered on his military career), I have decided not to include it due to WP:NOR. JRP (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In Early Life and Career, be careful when mentioning his family, as in the second sentence it is not clear who "he" is (brother or Uriel?) - His brother, Frank P. Sebree, became a lawyer. He entered the United States Naval Academy on July 3, 1863, during the American Civil War. After his graduation in 1867, his first assignment was on board the USS Canandaigua.
- Fixed. JRP (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any more in his early life? He seems to have been promoted pretty quickly, though it doesn't say what he did, or how good of a job he did. At the other extreme, there seems to be a bit too much about the Polaris expedition. I can see keeping the section long, but at least have more mention for what he actually did, and not just what happened on the expedition.
- Not much more about his early life or the Polaris expedition, but I'll search around. Early life is difficult since he didn't have a contemporary biographer and he grew up in Missouri just prior to the Civil War. I'm not even sure why he joined the Union Navy, rather than the Confederacy. But after that, the record is terse until his more notable achievements. (And, as you point out, his major action on the Polaris expedition was to be present and to do his duties-- but this gave him value for the Greely expedition later.) I'll see what I can do to improve this. JRP (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First, it'd be nice if the lede could be three paragraphs. On that note, it would be nice if there was a better opening sentence. Was there anything special the person did that could be mentioned? Also, is this phrase appropriate; He is best remembered? Personally, I would remove the "best remembered", take one of those things and stick it as the first sentence, and write out plainly what else he was remembered for. But that is a bit of a change, and it's up to you.
- Reviewing only image licensing: looks good. --NE2 13:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, with the disclaimer that I did a thorough copyedit, and I don't do images or endsections. Some of the people who commented haven't had a chance to give a second look, so I came back and gave it a read-through, and I think it's easily FA material, despite my inherent COI as a copyeditor. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sorry, I've been a bit tardy in getting to this. I don't think the article's quite ready yet. For instance, on a quick look through I found this: "a small group of explorers were stranded on the now-crippled Polaris ...". A few others:
- "A bunch of kittens were playing in the grass" is perfectly okay; it depends completely on the collective noun in AmEng. "Group" can take singular or plural, and is often a judgment call. "were" is fine here. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
- But I fixed it anyway. I agree with MF. JRP (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "A bunch of kittens were playing in the grass" is perfectly okay; it depends completely on the collective noun in AmEng. "Group" can take singular or plural, and is often a judgment call. "were" is fine here. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
- "Sebree was subsequently transferred to the USS Powhatan, although not as the ship's commanding officer". It's kind of unsatisfactory to be told what he wasn't. Was he the ship's cook then?
- Agreed that it would be better to know; is that information available? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
- Not in a secondary source that I have found. What I have merely states whether we was in command or not. In this case, he was in command of the Pinta, he screwed up, and then he didn't get his own command again for 13 years. I included "although not as the ship's commanding officer" to put it in contrast to the Pinta, Gedney and Silliman which he had recently commanded. It can be omitted if you feel that is better. JRP (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed that it would be better to know; is that information available? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
- "... to finally discover Greely's surviving camp" I know what this means, but it isn't camps that survive.
- changed to "the survivors of Greely's camp", which is better, but camps, colonies and outposts can indeed "survive"; it means they still exist. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "... locals were charged in the incident but ultimately acquitted". They were charged in the incident?
- Sadly, yes, this is now fine in AmEng. This construction started many years ago as "He was charged in the murder of...", and then over time, the press started confusing a charge of murder with a murder, and decided they didn't even want to express certainty about the charge, so it has morphed in news accounts into "He was charged in the incident." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
- Pardon for being a damn Yank, but I don't even know what the proper preposition should be here. Charged on the incident? I hate feeling like I can't speak my own language. JRP (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, yes, this is now fine in AmEng. This construction started many years ago as "He was charged in the murder of...", and then over time, the press started confusing a charge of murder with a murder, and decided they didn't even want to express certainty about the charge, so it has morphed in news accounts into "He was charged in the incident." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
- "... locals were charged in the incident but ultimately acquitted". They were charged in the incident?
- "... Sebree was transferred back to the Academy from 1893 to 1896." His transfer took three years?
- How would you say this, Malleus? I see a tradeoff between strict accuracy and extra verbiage here, although it wouldn't bother me to add a few words. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
- Changed to transferred back to the Academy and taught there from 1893 to 1896, for clarity. JRP (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How would you say this, Malleus? I see a tradeoff between strict accuracy and extra verbiage here, although it wouldn't bother me to add a few words. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
- "... Sebree was transferred back to the Academy from 1893 to 1896." His transfer took three years?
- "Two years after the war he was transferred back to the Twelfth Lighthouse District" Back? When was he there before?
- JRP? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
- It's in there: After his return from the expedition Sebree taught at the Naval Academy for a year before being transferred as the lighthouse inspector. It's also in the infobox. (The prose could be clarified that United States Lighthouse Board is an organization that inspectors, and others, work for... if you see that as necessary.) JRP (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- JRP? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
- "Two years after the war he was transferred back to the Twelfth Lighthouse District" Back? When was he there before?
- "This so-called "Pathfinder Squadron" would travel from New York to California" Would travel?
- "a steam pipe burst, instantly killing two officers and wounding ten others" So there were 12 officers standing around this steam pipe?
- Good catch; changed to "ten men". "others" is ubiquitous in TV news meaning "people" and it's common in newspapers, but it's not common enough for Wikipedia, yet, I agree, because of the ambiguity. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
- I don't like men here. It implies enlisted men, when given in contrast to officers, and I'm not certain that's factually the case. How about "and wounding ten more"? JRP (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, you're right, "men" used like that would mean "not officers". "others" would be better than "more" IMO, but there are other options. Malleus? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reverted the change until better prose can be thought up. JRP (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, you're right, "men" used like that would mean "not officers". "others" would be better than "more" IMO, but there are other options. Malleus? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't like men here. It implies enlisted men, when given in contrast to officers, and I'm not certain that's factually the case. How about "and wounding ten more"? JRP (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch; changed to "ten men". "others" is ubiquitous in TV news meaning "people" and it's common in newspapers, but it's not common enough for Wikipedia, yet, I agree, because of the ambiguity. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
- "a steam pipe burst, instantly killing two officers and wounding ten others" So there were 12 officers standing around this steam pipe?
- "a farewell banquet which featured British Field Marshal Herbert Kitchener" Seems strange to talk about a banquet featuring a guest.
- I wondered about that too, but it certainly happens. Do the sources support that the guest was "featured" in some way, JRP? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. The article only uses the term "distinguished guest", but "the banquet hall was draped in the flags of the armies and navies of England", Kitchener was the second to speak (after the Governor of California), and the several press reports were mostly about Kitchener rather than Sebree. But I can soften the language if you like. which included ... as a distinguished guest JRP (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wondered about that too, but it certainly happens. Do the sources support that the guest was "featured" in some way, JRP? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "a farewell banquet which featured British Field Marshal Herbert Kitchener" Seems strange to talk about a banquet featuring a guest.
--Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Your banquet needs you!" How about "guest of honour" ? Fainites barley 06:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree and have made the relevant changes. JRP (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Your banquet needs you!" How about "guest of honour" ? Fainites barley 06:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My, you should all be proud of this article now. Congratulations. Please note that I've removed the date autoformatting, which is no longer encouraged by MOSNUM. I think you'll like the greater emphasis it gives your high-value links. TONY (talk) 13:38, 16 July 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.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nguyen Van Nhung
- 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 19:13, 4 July 2008 [60].
Self-nomination: I'm nominating this article for featured article because I just put a lot more information in, and feel it is ready (and want to know how to make it ready if it isn't). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments...ok...let's have a look-see..... (I'll add comments below, and may change some obvious no-brainers. Advise or correct if I inadvertently change meaning). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd move all the alternate scientific names in the lead to the taxonomy section. They clutter a nice lead and are not essential, except maybe what it was first described as.- I thought they were fine before they were bolded, but now its true they "clutter". They're removed.Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd put the 3rd sentence of the lead as the 2nd, and place the material about lack of pigment after' that for natural flow (i.e. here's this pretty moth, but it ain't pigment which makes it colourful)- Done. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lead should be two paras. I will look for some more info to add.- Added life cycle info to lead. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is it, with Urania, sister-taxa to the most basal diurnal uraniine genus Alcides.- erm, something get left out here? I can't follow it.- Changed to "The genus is, with Urania, sister taxa to the most basal diurnal uraniine genus Alcides." Clearer I think. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ..is produced by the alliance of two optic phenomena: - 'alliance' makes me think of battles. I know what you mean I am trying to think of an alternative.
- How about 'union'? I know it also has a political connotation, I don't care which it is, as long as the meaning is there. (For finding synonyms you can try wiktionary, e.g. wikt:alliance). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. alliance → conjunction. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is if the insects possess polarization and color vision. - a bit abrupt, presumably you mean 'This is dependent on the insects possessing polarization and color vision, which is currently unknown (?).'- Yes, that's what I meant. Changed. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
as revealed by its aposematic colours, - the colours don't reveal its toxic but warn...I guess- You guess right. Changed. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be Omphalea oppositifolia, rather than Omphalea oppositifilia?- Yes, well seen. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to continue later from Distribution and habitat Nectar sources. Ok, there's something to go on with anyway. Fairly straightforward fixes. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - a very informative and well-illustrated article. And wonderful to see more representation from the smaller majority
sole herbivore ... - seems a little too strong a claim given that HOSTS database lists Omphalea feeding lepidoptera - Alcides zodiaca, Lyssa menoetius and Urania boisduvalii (from other places)- Well, the sentence does say "It is the sole herbivore (...) in its native Madagascar;" Do you think it should be made clearer that this refers only to Madagascar? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, are you sure there are no leafhoppers, thrips, beetles and suchlike that feed on various other parts of the plant? Shyamal (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean, no
tI'm not sure. One sentence in the source is "In the absence of other obvious specialist herbivores on these plants (Omphalea)". I thinks the key to make it true is the "specialist". Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean, no
- Hmmm, are you sure there are no leafhoppers, thrips, beetles and suchlike that feed on various other parts of the plant? Shyamal (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the sentence does say "It is the sole herbivore (...) in its native Madagascar;" Do you think it should be made clearer that this refers only to Madagascar? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has five pairs of prolegs on the segments 3 to 6 and 10, with its six legs it has a total of sixteen. - I think legs should be specifically declared as thoracic or true legs and the summation leads to "sixteen" what? - summation is perhaps not really needed.- True, they can always use their abacus to figure it out. It'd be sixteen appendages I think. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once out of the pupal exuvia - exuvium ?- The exuvia article says both are correct. What's the difference? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exuvium is singular - exuvia is plural. It appears here that it is about one pupa. Shyamal (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: I am not so sure - appears User:Dyanega has recently been discussing this here [61]... Shyamal (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The exuvia article says both are correct. What's the difference? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The wings are deployed in about ten minutes, - hardened ? avoids a second deployed- Changed to "The wings are deployed in about ten minutes, by pumping haemolymph into the wing veins. The moth then beats them a few times, waits forty-five minutes to let them harden, then beats them lightly again. The moth finally takes flight one hour and a half to two hours later." I think it clarifies. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image Image:Chrysiridia madagascarensis.JPG is rather sadly cropped.
More later. Shyamal (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User:IvanTortuga put a new one in. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 00:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Current ref 9 "Tait, Malcolm" is lacking a formatted website title, it just has a number right now.- Corrected. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current refs 13 and 14 are lacking publishers (Oberthur and Webber)- Corrected. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 10 Griveaud is lacking a publisher. Might also warn folks that's a BIG file they are going to be downloading.- I mentioned in the "|format=" that the file is 3.87 Mbit. I couldn't find the publisher, [62] it isn't in the site I took the document from. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. the link does not bring to the intended location, place "the invertebrates ET griveaud" in the search box and you should get the document. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I put s.n. to replace it. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref 18 is lacking a publisher- Corrected. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise sources look good. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New one - cite error in big red letters now. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Corrected. (I forgot a ref name...). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 14:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I think the lead could do with another paragraph perhaps, to better summarize information in the article that has not been mentioned in the lead yet.
- Added life cycle info to lead. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Spell out units of measurement in full per WP:UNITS, so "7 to 9 cm (3 to 3½ in)," becomes "7 to 9 centimetres (3 to 3½ in)," and so on.
- Changed good faith edit by User:Casliber. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gary King (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I added "Although the intended etymology of the specific epithet was not specified by the author Dru Drury,[13] it may be from the Latin Montes Rhipheaus, the Ural Mountains.[14]" This is borderline to original research, do you think the phrasing is clear enough on the fact that the real etymology is unknown and that this is an educated guess? (A well educated guess I think). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 22:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW - Rhipi refers to a fan ([63]) - See Rhipiphoridae - bearing fan (the antenna), Rhipidura (=Fan+tail) etc. Shyamal (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Another possibility is Ripheus, I really don't know. Misspellings point in both directions. And "Rhipheus + a = Rhiphaeus" but "Ripheus + h = Rhipheus"... Do you think removing the whole thing is better? Or just to say the intended etymology isn't known. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 02:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the possible etymologies as a footnote, and left the fact that the intended etymology wasn't specified in the main text. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Another possibility is Ripheus, I really don't know. Misspellings point in both directions. And "Rhipheus + a = Rhiphaeus" but "Ripheus + h = Rhipheus"... Do you think removing the whole thing is better? Or just to say the intended etymology isn't known. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 02:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments SPECIFIC POINTS DONE Prose tends to jump awkwardly from full-on bio-speak to much less formal registers. Some examples:
- "The Madagascan sunset moth, or simply sunset moth (Chrysiridia rhipheus) is a diurnal SPELL IT OUT? moth of the Uraniidae family. It is considered to be one of the most impressive and beautiful Lepidoptera,[1] [for this reason] AND [it] has gained an international reputation ODD TERM - BEST DROPPED HERE, is much sought by collectors,[2] and is featured in most coffee table books on the Lepidoptera.[3] It is very colourful, but "THOUGH" BETTER the iridescent parts of the wings do not have pigment; the colours originate from refraction instead.[4]" Size should be worked in in the lead, which generally should be expanded.
- By spell it out do you mean 'add pronunciation'? Wikt:reputation doesn't give synonyms for the word. Do you have any suggestions? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I meant explain it, or use "day-flying" or whatever you have lower down. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I see. (Done, diurnal → day-flying). I also changed the sentence to remove "reputation" (with "famous worldwide"). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I expanded the lead with size and taxonomy. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 21:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I meant explain it, or use "day-flying" or whatever you have lower down. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By spell it out do you mean 'add pronunciation'? Wikt:reputation doesn't give synonyms for the word. Do you have any suggestions? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The moth is present all year long in most parts of Madagascar, but highest populations are found from March to August, while the lowest are from October to December. " should be "the" highest poulations, another awkward "but". Better something like: "The moth is present all year long in most parts of Madagascar, with populations highest from March to August, and lowest from October to December."
- I put the sentence you suggested. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Description para 2 begins with "It"
- It → The Lepidopteran. For variety. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "the alliance of two optic phenomena" combination, conjunction, joint effect of ...
- alliance → conjunction. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Although the biological function of this polarization-dependent change in colour has not been studied, it may work as a visual signal among the species. This is dependent on the insects possessing polarization and colour vision, which is currently unknown"
"polarization-dependent" is ugly, and you've just said it, but not explained what it means. An explanation should be added, and the rest would be better something like: Although the biological function of this change in colour has not been studied, it may work as a visual signal to others of the species. This would require polarization and colour vision [BOTH? OR JUST ONE] abilities in the species, which have not been demonstrated.
- Seeing this is the second comment on the paragraph, I rewrote it. The ugly "polarization-dependent" is gone, and I think it explains better. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 18:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The caterpillars spin silk from their mouth with an ‘∞’ motion as they walk" - ???
- Added "of the head" : "The caterpillars spin silk from their mouth with an ‘∞’ motion of the head as they walk". Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relationship with humans - better section name needed.
- Renamed to "In culture". Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 15:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The spectacular moth is featured in most coffee table books on the Lepidoptera,[10] and has an international reputation.[9] It is considered to be one of the most impressive and beautiful Lepidoptera,[8] rivalling almost any of the butterflies in brilliance of colouring and form.[18] For these reasons it is much sought by collectors.[9] It is collected in the wild, and raised commercially for the international butterfly trade. Only one of the four species of host plants, Omphalea oppositifolia, is used to raise the moth commercially. Using mainly wild collected plants, but also cultivated at a small scale.[21]
- It was known by Victorians who used its wings to make jewellery.[24]"
- one sentence para, repeats wording in lead, etc. better something like:
This spectacular moth is considered one of the most impressive and beautiful Lepidoptera,[8] rivalling almost any of the butterflies in brilliance of colouring and form.[18] It is featured in most coffee table books on the Lepidoptera,[10][9] and is much sought by collectors.[9] It is collected in the wild, and raised commercially for the international butterfly trade; in the 19th century its wings were used in the West to make jewellery.[24] Only one of the four species of host plants, Omphalea oppositifolia, is used to raise the moth commercially, mainly using plants collected in the wild, but also some cultivated for the purpose.[21]
- Reworded 'In culture' section with most of your proposition. But I put "its wings were used to make jewellery in the Victorian era.[24]" instead of "in the 19th century its wings were used in the West to make jewellery.[24]" As I feel Victorian has to be there, else "the West" extends the meaning to the whole Western world, which isn't as precise. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it says how long they live I missed it.
- It is in fact not included. I haven't found the answer. It might be in the R. Catala reference, as I haven't read all 262 pages, but it might not be there either. Another information I haven't put is the time spent in the egg... Catala explicitly says he doesn't have the information. I know of no source giving either the lifespan of the adult or the time in the egg. I am trying to contact David C. Lees (one of the authors in the references), I'll ask if he has sources for those questions if I get his email. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 21:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, fair enough - maybe no one has hung around to watch! Obviously nice to include if yiou get the info. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I got David Lees' answer and he said that in fact the lifespan of the adult is "presumably not known", and would require large scale mark-release studies to determine. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 20:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, fair enough - maybe no one has hung around to watch! Obviously nice to include if yiou get the info. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I've expanded the lead as suggested. Is the size about right now? Per Wikipedia:Lead#Length:
- < 15,000 characters → one or two paragraphs
- around 32 kilobytes → two or three paragraphs
- > 30,000 characters → three or four paragraphs
The article is 31kb, but about 11874 letters. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 22:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The size itself is fine, imo, but the silk safety rope stuff is unusual (no?) & worth mentioning. The lead is supposed (say some sages) to leave no surprises to come. I still don't quite grasp the importance of Polarization on the scales, & when i followed the link saw the nastiest lead para I've ever seen on WP (for scientific incomprehensibility). There must be a more appropriate article to link to somewhere, and a further sentence of explanation here would be good. Other than that, I think the article needs a quick prose polish all through, then I'm ready to support. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the polarization article isn't clear... the Readability for Polarization says reader age is sometimes 23 and grade 18. Actually I don't grasp it that well either. You are right on the fact it should be clearer (both the section and the article actually), so I'll go learn on polarization (by reading related articles to the one I cited), and I'll rewrite the paragraph after I understand more. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What I understand now is: Polarization is basically the 'shape' of light, we see it's 'size' (wavelength) but not the way this wave travels (the shape, or polarization). Since light can travel in a line (not polarized), in a circle (circular polarization) or in an ellipse or oval (elliptical polarization). We as humans don't see that, many insects do. For example this helps some butterflies see their polarized mate in the unpolarized forest (nice article in Nature). In this case the light is reflected, changes a bit in wavelength (colour change), but I think not in polarization. No one has ever studied the biological reason for this change. What we know is the reflected polarized light has the potential to carry more or better visual information to other moths. I am relatively certain of this, but I'd really feel better if I had a proofreader with knowledge in optics before I incorporate that to the article. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 20:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the polarization article isn't clear... the Readability for Polarization says reader age is sometimes 23 and grade 18. Actually I don't grasp it that well either. You are right on the fact it should be clearer (both the section and the article actually), so I'll go learn on polarization (by reading related articles to the one I cited), and I'll rewrite the paragraph after I understand more. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the silk use by caterpillars to the lead. The "safety-rope" is kind of unusual, but also found in other moths. The instances I've read more about were to get away from ants (in Lees and Smith, 1991, I think). But silk so the caterpillar won't fall is also found in tent caterpillars, and probably many more moth species. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved to Support after a further tidy of the prose. Johnbod (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose 95% of the way. "ssp." should be in italics? Footnote 1 spelt out in superscript? Can't it be signified by just a number? TONY (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed "Footnote I" → "1". It was the full word to accentuate the difference with the references, but the lack of brackets does that now. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 13:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support much improved. Well done. No, 'spp.' (for species plural) and 'ssp.' (for subspecies) are not in italics. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments This is an interesting article, but I think the writing needs a little polishing.
- The lead is choppy - sentences do not flow from one topic to the next in an elegant or logical manner.
Once the inaccuracy in Drury’s specimen was found, the moth was placed in the genus Urania, until 1823 when the German entomologist Jacob Hübner placed it in a new genus: Chrysiridia. - Why did Hubner place it in a new genus?- Like any genus it could be for a number of things, including but not limited to monophyly, reasonable compactness, and distinctness in regards of evolutionarily relevant criteria (see Genus#One attempt to define a genus).
In this caseI think the latter would be case, as the moth is confined to Madagascar, but to add this would be original research. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 19:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Could we mention that we don't really know for sure in the article? Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are good chances the information exists, that's why I'd prefer to leave it to that for now. I haven't been able to find an accessible copy (or a German translator) of Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge (1823) by Jacob Hübner, the info should ([64]) be on page 289. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 00:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have time to do the translation now, but I might be able to do it in a few weeks, when I return from Wikimania. Leave a note with the link on my talk page. Awadewit (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, once I get it I'll let you know. But what I meant is I have neither the text nor the translator (the link says the info is on page 289 in the book, the info isn't on page 289 of the link). I'm trying to get a photocopy of the page through my university library. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 02:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see. Never mind then. Awadewit (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, once I get it I'll let you know. But what I meant is I have neither the text nor the translator (the link says the info is on page 289 in the book, the info isn't on page 289 of the link). I'm trying to get a photocopy of the page through my university library. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 02:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have time to do the translation now, but I might be able to do it in a few weeks, when I return from Wikimania. Leave a note with the link on my talk page. Awadewit (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are good chances the information exists, that's why I'd prefer to leave it to that for now. I haven't been able to find an accessible copy (or a German translator) of Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge (1823) by Jacob Hübner, the info should ([64]) be on page 289. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 00:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could we mention that we don't really know for sure in the article? Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Like any genus it could be for a number of things, including but not limited to monophyly, reasonable compactness, and distinctness in regards of evolutionarily relevant criteria (see Genus#One attempt to define a genus).
The intended etymology of the specific epithet was not specified by the author Dru Drury. - Is this sentence necessary?- It provides information that isn’t given by any other sentence. I think it is also relevant and interesting. My opinion is that, yes, it is necessary. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 20:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought this information was implied by the other sentences that explained the renaming by other people - what did I miss? Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you missed, but the text has to be corrected so others won't miss it either! What I tried to convey in the sentence is something like this: We don't know what rhipheus stands for, and that is because Dru Drury didn't say why he gave that name. This has very little to do with the other people renaming the moth. The whole sentence could be placed in the footnote, and the "1" placed after "Papilio rhipheus.[1]" Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 00:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that meaning is conveyed by the sentence - could you rewrite it? That is an interesting fact! Awadewit (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed and moved the sentence. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that meaning is conveyed by the sentence - could you rewrite it? That is an interesting fact! Awadewit (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you missed, but the text has to be corrected so others won't miss it either! What I tried to convey in the sentence is something like this: We don't know what rhipheus stands for, and that is because Dru Drury didn't say why he gave that name. This has very little to do with the other people renaming the moth. The whole sentence could be placed in the footnote, and the "1" placed after "Papilio rhipheus.[1]" Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 00:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought this information was implied by the other sentences that explained the renaming by other people - what did I miss? Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It provides information that isn’t given by any other sentence. I think it is also relevant and interesting. My opinion is that, yes, it is necessary. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 20:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The moth also has also been described under other names, including U. crameri by Maassen in 1879 and U. ripheus var. madagascariensis by Lesson in 1831. - Why?- Each synonym probably has it's own reason, put part of the reason is the first specimen described by Drury. Some thought it was another species, while others said it was the same as the complete specimen described later (Rhipheus dasycephalus and Leilus orientalis, the first for a butterfly and the second for a moth). C. riphearia is a misspelling. The other I'm not certain. Question: Do you think this should be specified (that some stem from the fact the first description was of a specimen with clubbed antennae and no tails)? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 21:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would specify this, yes, since the confusion over the species is a crucial part of the taxonomical history. Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I specified the two names. But not the misspelling, as I'm not sure of the sentence "Chrysiridia riphearia Hübner, [1823]; Verz. bek. Schmett.(repl. Papilio rhipheus Stoll, 1782) (19): 289, , TL: India [= Error]". I think the "repl." may mean its a replicate, and the "[= Error]" is maybe referring to the "TL:(type location) India" (in [65]). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would specify this, yes, since the confusion over the species is a crucial part of the taxonomical history. Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Each synonym probably has it's own reason, put part of the reason is the first specimen described by Drury. Some thought it was another species, while others said it was the same as the complete specimen described later (Rhipheus dasycephalus and Leilus orientalis, the first for a butterfly and the second for a moth). C. riphearia is a misspelling. The other I'm not certain. Question: Do you think this should be specified (that some stem from the fact the first description was of a specimen with clubbed antennae and no tails)? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 21:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The genus is, with Urania, sister taxa to the most basal diurnal uraniine genus Alcides. - I don't understand this sentence - "sister to the most basal diurnal"? Can something be the most basal?- See below. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 21:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All three genera feed on Omphalea, but Alcides also feeds on Endospermum. - Is the "Taxonomy" section the right place for this sentence?- Since basal is relative, yes, something can be most basal. Since it wasn’t clear I’ve rewritten the subsection: “The genus Chrysiridia is entirely African and the only other species in the genus is the East African C. croesus. Chrysiridia is one of three diurnal uraniine genera. The other two genera are Urania, its sister taxa, and Alcides, the most basal. In the group, the use of Endospermum is an ancestral state (a plesiomorphy). The more basal Alcides feeds on Endospermum and Omphalea, while Urania and Chrysiridia only feed on Omphalea.[15]” The “basal” and “sister taxa” refer to part of the cladogram in Uraniinae phylogeny that looks like this:
(Endospermum and Omphalea) |
| ||||||||||||
- I copyedited the article a bit as I was reading, but it really needs a good once-over by an uninvolved editor.
- Image:Chrysiridia Cigarette card.jpg - This image is up for deletion. You should take a look at that. Awadewit (talk) 15:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI largely support this candidate, but I have some sentences I would like to see improved:- "The iridescent parts of the wings do not have pigment" do other moths have pigment?
- Most yes. A thumb rule I have come up with is "Is it shiny?" if yes then it probably has no pigment, if no then there probably is pigment. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The western species are largely protected" it is not obvious what protected means
- Changed to "The western species are largely in protected areas." Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- " The species from the genus contain polyhydroxy alkaloids potentially sequestered" potentially? can you be more specific?
- I'd prefer not, since it would be bridging the is-ought gap: The source didn't study the sunset moth but related species. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Btw a cladogram with C. rhipeus and the 5 or so closest related species would be nice. Narayanese (talk) 19:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I made two cladograms (see them in my sandbox), the one with species gives little relevant information not said in the text or the Uraniinae page, and the one with genera would be better in the Uraniinae then in this one. What do you think? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 18:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The iridescent parts of the wings do not have pigment" do other moths have pigment?
- Support Narayanese (talk) 06:32, 4 July 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 22:28, 2 September 2008 [66].
- Nominator: Efe (talk)
- previous FAC (00:44, 4 July 2008)
This is the third time. I almost got this to FA but there were three opposes that I failed to address as quickly as it should. I believe all comments have been given attention and there has been a pre-FAC feedback that helped this one to reach some level of readyness. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Images/Nonfree content
- Image:Deja Vu.jpg- thorough fair use rationale, source and license present
- Image:DejaVuSample.ogg- thorough fair use rationale, source and license present
- Image:Beyonce-Deja Vu in Sweden.jpg- free image, source and license present
- Image:Dejavu-video2.jpg- non-free with proper rationale, although I think it might be a bit weak. "intended to represent the nature of the single"... but does it significantly aid understanding of the topic? Generally I would say no, but it does have a tie-in by illustrating the sexual themes commented upon in the article body. I'm iffy about inclusion, but if others agree it can be kept, I would make the rationale more explicit for purpose- something like "illustrates sexual content commented upon by reviewers and which provoked a fan response, commented upon in the article".
- --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Efe (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think there are issues with Image:Dejavu-video2.jpg, I would certainly imagine the text would justify a screenshot, I dont think this is very clear what is going on, and it is quite dark. I havent seen the video, but is there a better shot? Fasach Nua (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In some sources, the scene is where the "unacceptable interaction" best shown. Its Knowles detaching Jay-Z's belt and seems "about to give a fellatio". Which part is wrong? The caption or the fair use? --Efe (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would maybe increase the image quality, I think the caption and FU rationale are probably okay Fasach Nua (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. I'll try uploading clearer one. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a screencapture off Beyonce's official site and uploaded a new version which is a tad less grainy and pixelated than the previous iteration. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Any more concerns? --Efe (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a screencapture off Beyonce's official site and uploaded a new version which is a tad less grainy and pixelated than the previous iteration. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. I'll try uploading clearer one. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would maybe increase the image quality, I think the caption and FU rationale are probably okay Fasach Nua (talk) 10:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In some sources, the scene is where the "unacceptable interaction" best shown. Its Knowles detaching Jay-Z's belt and seems "about to give a fellatio". Which part is wrong? The caption or the fair use? --Efe (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think there are issues with Image:Dejavu-video2.jpg, I would certainly imagine the text would justify a screenshot, I dont think this is very clear what is going on, and it is quite dark. I havent seen the video, but is there a better shot? Fasach Nua (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Efe (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in addendum to David's comment, Image:Dejavu-video2.jpg contains what I think is an unacceptable trademark (the MTV symbol). We are not giving free advertising to MTV — please get a video still without the symbol. --Laser brain (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed watermark. --Efe (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- ""Déjà Vu" is influenced by late-'70s funk elements,[6] soul and hip hop genres.[7]" - Isn't this merely the opinion of the reviewers in question? Unless the songwriters confirm the influences, then this is speculation, and should be written as being merely their opinion.—This is part of a comment by LuciferMorgan (of 22:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
- Yes. Knowles mentioned the influences of this song and many reviewers were the same. --Efe (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "It is hook-laden, similar in this respect to Knowles' 2003 single "Crazy in Love" from her debut album Dangerously in Love.[10]" - This is a comparison, so someone has arrived at an actual conclusion. Can you please clarify in the article whom has drawn that comparison? Whether something is similar isn't factual, and opinions differ from person to person.—This is part of a comment by LuciferMorgan (of 22:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)), which was interrupted by the following: [reply]
- The writer is not disclosed, an AP. Is this a big issue? "Crazy in Love" is hook-laden (see the article). --Efe (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not referring to the term "hook-laden" in any instance. I am referring to two songs being compared to one another, and yes, this is an issue, or else I would not have raised it. I am vehemently against music articles misleading readers, and so is FA criteria. LuciferMorgan (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any idea how to rephrase it without tending to be POVic or ORish? --Efe (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not referring to the term "hook-laden" in any instance. I am referring to two songs being compared to one another, and yes, this is an issue, or else I would not have raised it. I am vehemently against music articles misleading readers, and so is FA criteria. LuciferMorgan (talk) 01:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the article, and I can't seem to find anything that is an issue. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Meets all criteria: well written, succinct, informative. Good job. Orane (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support if IPs can support. Nice coverage. I would still make a few edits: the bass player is mentioned under the name John Webb and then under the name Jon Jon Webb; that certainly needs to be clarified somehow. More optional stuff: the last caption perhaps needs a little work, and the use of the phrase blow job seems incongruously informal given the tone of the article (perhaps "oral sex"?) 86.44.27.122 (talk) 03:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. The former is correct if based on the source. The latter is taken from the liner notes of B'Day. I will change it to John Webb since the source was an interview with him. Same through with blow job. Seems informal. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for an article that has come along way since the first version I reviewed in the Spring. An incredible amount of time, effort and dedication has gone into this piece. I am not a fan of most popular culture articles, and I find them difficult to judge (unless the prose is poor). In this case I'm sticking my neck out and supporting because I think the readers who Google this subject will not be disappointed with Wikipedia. Graham Colm Talk 16:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Unlink common terms like "American"
- "was already completed" – why the "already"? It seems out of place to me.
- "One month over" – one month over what?
- All done. Please check. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gary King (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Like Graham, I rarely even read pop music/games articles, but I found this engaging, apparently comprehensive (I'm no expert) and without significant issues. jimfbleak (talk) 06:08, 2 September 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.
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cold War
- 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 02:24, 3 July 2008 [67].
- Nominator(s): Vintagekits and Risker
Self-nominator : I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've been working on this article for a couple of years now and feel that it meets all featured article criteria. It is well written, complete with images, and very well cited. Hopefully you all agree and we can add another FA to the lot! Its my first ever FA nom so User:Risker has been steering it through the riggers of the FA challenge, especially with respect to getting the referencing up to the required level. I am hoping to have it the FA on 21st of June which is Michael's birthday and the date of his next and probably last ever fight. thanks--Vintagekits (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Because I wasn't terribly familiar with what would be considered a reliable source for an article on a boxer, I asked Ealdgyth to do a pre-FAC check. The results of her review are on the article's talk page. There are "reliability" rationales written up for most of the sites she queried; a few have been eliminated as a result of the copy-edit and her check, and a few more mainstream media sources added. Risker (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- "in knockouts.[1][3]His" – a space is missing
- "round. [3]" – remove extra space
- Why is "Family and youth" made up of small, stubby paragraphs?
- "head.[13][6][14]" – place refs in ascending order
- "Year". [2][16][18]" – remove extra space
- There are actually a few times when there are spaces before references. Remove those spaces per WP:FOOTNOTE.
Gary King (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All addressed, I believe, including some rearranging of the "Family and youth" section. Thanks, Gary. Risker (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no requirement in any guideline for citations to be placed in ascending order; some editors may choose to place the citations in the order of the most relevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- I queried http://www.britishboxing.net/ and got a reply of "is owned by Boxing Media Ltd. Writers are credited, and the site has a policy to address questions of accuracy." Who is Boxing Media Ltd? Do they publish other stuff? I don't recognize the company right off the bat.
- http://www.secondsout.com/UK/news.cfm?ccs=228&cs=17005 appears to be a doubled up reference, is it needed? Looks borderline reliable.
- Otherwise sources look okay. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both websites are listed by a Daily Telegraph journalist as being in the top ten websites for boxing information, here. --Vintagekits (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks borderline acceptable to me. I'll leave this out for others to see (since a lot of folks aren't boxing fans and won't know the sites that well). Like Risker said, I checked over the sites before it was nominated, and the replies are on the talk page. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Both websites are listed by a Daily Telegraph journalist as being in the top ten websites for boxing information, here. --Vintagekits (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neutral Support. Not a bad article by any means, but with serious prose and structural problems that undermine it. I have laid these out below, but be aware that there are only representative problems and the whole article needs to be thoroughly reviewed against these suggestions. Once done, I would be happy to review again.
The lead is difficult to read because it is broken into a number of very short paragraphs. Try merging these paragraphs together to reduce their number to three or four at the most and then copyedit it to reduce the information to the most important facts. Don't try to tell his life story in the lead, just give an overview of the article accessible to a reader with no background information. For this reason, it is not necessary (although I personally don't object one way or another) to have sources in the lead as anything stated there should be presented in greater detail below and thus will be sourced in the body of the article.
- Lead is much improved, although as mentioned above the sources are not strictly necessary. The third paragraph is a bit of a mess chronologically and many of the sentences don't really seem to lead on from one another, try connecting them a bit better, "Of his 17 fights between February 2001 and March 2008, 16 ended in knockouts." shoudl really come at the end of the paragraph--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Prose has major problems. I have listed some of them below, but be aware that these are representative problems rather than a complete listing, and if you miss some other reviewers will swoop on them. Go over the article thoroughly to make sure these are dealt with throughout and look at User:Tony1 for his excellent essays on how to improve prose.
- "and continues to live in that city." - This is an example of redundancy - you don't need to say "in that city" as this is clearly only to avoid saying Manchester twice in one sentence. Try simplifying the prose, such as "He moved to Manchester, England with his family at age nine, where he still lives."
- "and was the first Irish boxer" - missing word, should be "and he was"
- "The first cracks in Gomez's career" - Unless cracks is a technical boxing term, this is a cliche which should be avoided at all costs.
- "On 21 June 2008, Gomez is due to fight in what is seen as possibly his last" - his last what? I know it means fight/bout/match etc. but it should say so explicitly for clarity's sake.
- "From birth, his upbringing was both turbulent and uncertain." - Cliche and doesn't gel with surrounding sentences. This might be as simple as the insertion of a semi-colon.
- "Gomez had hit one of the men," - "the men" doesn't read right, because you haven't explicitly mentioned any men. Try "an assailant" or similar instead.
- "After an initially shaky beginning in the professional ranks" - Redundancy, "initially" and "beginning" mean the same thing in this context.
- "then went on a" - too simplistic, think of a better way to say it. (i.e. "then began a")
- "Gomez handled Jickells" - handled has more than one meaning and is a little colloquial, try using defeated instead.
- "crushing left hook" - unless crushing is a technical term (in which case link it), lose it as it is opinion.
- "John Munroe, who was sitting ringside, was called over by Ian Darke, at Gomez's request to verify his theory. This turned in to a war of words" - war of words is bad cliche, but the problem here is that the uninitiated have no idea who Munroe (or later Warren) are. Introduce them with their job title (i.e. coach John Munroe) and link them if possible. In fact, that whole sentence is so confusing I can't work out what it is trying to say.
- "Although Bognar was shaken Gomez was unable to make his power count." - Short simplistic sentence crying out for a second clause.
- "Gomez wanted to rematch against Bognar, and five months later in July 2001, the pair had a rematch" - rematch twice in one sentence?
- "in what turned out to be a short and explosive encounter" - Prose is clumsy, and there's that word explosive again.
- "to put Bognar down" - like a dog? If its not a technical term, avoid it.
- link KO the first time it is used.
- "Lear inflicted damage to the nose of Gomez, whose nose began to bleed heavily from the sixth round" - many things wrong here.
- "At the end of the eight round" - eighth? check spellings throughout.
- "and the manner in which the fight ended," - having asked for more clauses, here there are too many. Try incorporating the first two.
- "In what was becoming a predictable pattern in Gomez's career" - unecessary opinion.
- "A war of words" - again, unless its a technical term, this is a cliche.
- "Behind the scenes, however, all was not well in the Arthur camp." - cliche
- I'm going to stop the prose review here. There are plenty of other serious prose problems both before and after the cut off point, but this illustrates the biggest problems ou should watch out for when copyediting and gives you pointers right through the text.
- "has often been involved in controversial and explosive fights, with 16 of his 17 fights between February 2001 and March 2008 ending in knockouts." - I don't know a huge amount about boxing, but this sentence seems to indicate that any fight which ends in a knockout is therefore controversial and explosive, which I'm pretty sure isn't true. I think I know what the article is trying to say, but the sentences needs to be revised for clarity.
- The whole third paragraph of the lead seems to be something of a prose list, i.e. a disconnected listing of interesting things, rather than a coherent narrative that connects key facts and events. This is one of the issues that I think needs addressing per my first comment above.
- The fifth, sixth and seventh paragraphs of the lead go into surprising detail about specific fights. This should be reserved for lower down the article, keeping the lead a brief summary.
- "The Armstrong family - Linking to Armstrong has no value unless it is a specific link to that particular family (i.e. like Kennedy family).
- If his name was Armstrong, why is he now Gomez? This has to be explained much earlier, and Armstrong used when referring to him before the date he became Gomez.
- "His mother had taught him to shoplift as a child and he was involved in petty crime throughout his youth in Manchester." - This is probably sourced by the refs at the end of the paragraph, but just to avoid any BLP problems about a potentially controversial claim, I would give this its own citation.
- "Gomez lives with his childhood sweetheart Alison and their three children in Manchester.[10]" - This is in the wrong place. In fact, throughout the article discussions of his family life and ring persona etc. are rather randomly interspersed with his biography. The article needs reorganisation to give the biographical parts better narrative flow. I suggest moving the other discussions to sections of their own. In addition, there should be no parargraphs this small. Paragraphs should be as long as they need to be, but are rarely less than three sentences. Small paragraphs break flow and look very untidy.
- Unless his ring persona was devised in 1995 (in which case you should say so), that section is in the wrong place.
- "all-out action style" - Is this a technical term? If so, link it, if not, find something that it can link to to explain what it means exactly.
- "In 2007, a film of his life entitled The Michael Gomez Story" - why is this in Background? It belong much, much further down the page.
- "Jody Latham, who also plays Lip Gallagher on Shameless and the part of Gomez's best friend and fellow boxer Michael Jennings is played by Emmerdale's Kelvin Fletcher" - Unless the characters they play on those shows has anything to do with their roles in the 2007 film, they should not be mentioned. Simply give the actors names and leave it at that.
- Don't begin a section with "Soon after, Gomez relinquished" - Sections should grammatically stand alone, so say soon after what, or just remove the first two words.
- "However, others pointed to his well publicised troubles out of the ring." - Who, how and why just for starters.
- "Reports also circulated that Gomez was having trouble in his private life and that he had been stabbed in a street fight" - Is this a different stabbing to the one above?
- "perceived as having been through" - by who; name them or their publications.
- "The match was turning into a" - tense slips out of alignment here.
- "Joe Calzaghe pulled out of his arranged fight" - so what? He isn't mentioned earlier as being involved.
- "After the McDonagh fight Gomez had retired from boxing" - tense
- "Following two comeback fights against journeyman opposition" - overlinking, this is at least the fourth time you've linked journeyman.
"threatened to steamroller" - is this a technical term?"Soon after referee Mickey Vann stopped the fight" - In whose favour?
- In this case you need to say to whom the fight was awarded.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This extensive list of problems does not, I'm afraid, come close to dealing with all of the article's problems, which are rooted in its prose and unclear structure. I suggest at least three thorough copyedits by three seperate editors and a restructuring to ensure that the first half of the article has a clear narrative. I think the sourcing is good and I like the images, and with some work this article could come a lot closer to FA standard.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thinking about it, if you want I can give the article a thorough copyedit myself later this week. I'll have to take an axe to certain parts, and I don't know much about boxing so someone will have to check I've not messed up any technical stuff, but if you're interested I'd be willing later in the week (a bit busy the next couple of days). I don't know if he's still around, but I know you were friends with User:One Night In Hackney who is an excellent prose writer, so if he is still here see if you can get him to take a look as well.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, Jackyd101. I agree with much of what you are saying, particularly with respect to the flow and organization. I'll point out that one of the reasons the article is well sourced is that pretty well every descriptive statement comes right out of a reference source; hence, explosive punches and fights, and crushing left hooks and threatened steamrollering. "He threw an explosive punch" is much better prose than "His punch was described as explosive by Joe Blogg, boxing expert." The second sentence tells us more about the reporter than the subject. Referees stop fights, but not in favour of one boxer or the other; that is the decision of the judges. Gomez has been with his childhood sweetheart for about as long as he has been boxing, and they had their first two children before he started his professional career so, chronologically, that sentence is probably in the right place. The article is a BLP of a person who has lived a life full of extraordinary situations (both negative and positive), and my initial focus was on ensuring the claims were thoroughly but not excessively sourced (I reduced the references by about 40%); by the time I'd done that, I suspect my eyes had glazed over and I missed many of the points you have made. I am all in favour of other eyes and copy editors working on this article; as with all articles, however, it must remain true to its reference material, which in the case of this particular sport, tends to be quite descriptive and to use terminology that might otherwise appear hyperbolic. I don't think ONiH is around any longer (at least not officially), but perhaps Vintagekits has a way to inquire directly. I do encourage you to take a crack at it, and I'll give it another pass tonight or tomorrow as well. Risker (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your point about this article sounding like the references it comes from, but Wikipedia is not part of the sports press and as a result Wikipedia articles need to phrase things differently based on encyclopedic prose. This means that subjective adjectives such as "crushing" should only be used when part of a direct quote or when crushing is a technical term - this does not mean that the article should be boring, such is the fine line on which brilliant prose rests. If you plan to keep the whole article chronological (which is fine), then you have to better integrate details of his personal life into the article. At the moment they seem tacked on. The only BLP I saw as potentially being a problem was that thing about his mother teaching him to shoplift - thats pretty controversial and so should be directly sourced.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'll have to delay my proposed copyedit to the article, I'm going to be much busier than expected this week. If its still under review here in a weeks time I might be more able to help. I will continue to monitor the article however and if it improves I will be happy to strike through comments and reconsider my !vote. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another thing, "Gomez lives with his childhood sweetheart Alison and their three children in Manchester" - it quoted him in the paper as referring to his "wife and three kids" this morning. If he is married that should be clarified.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh really? I have actually been trying to confirm that, the best I had was an interview in November where he called her his fiancee. Is there a link you could provide?
- Another thing, "Gomez lives with his childhood sweetheart Alison and their three children in Manchester" - it quoted him in the paper as referring to his "wife and three kids" this morning. If he is married that should be clarified.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I'll have to delay my proposed copyedit to the article, I'm going to be much busier than expected this week. If its still under review here in a weeks time I might be more able to help. I will continue to monitor the article however and if it improves I will be happy to strike through comments and reconsider my !vote. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your point about this article sounding like the references it comes from, but Wikipedia is not part of the sports press and as a result Wikipedia articles need to phrase things differently based on encyclopedic prose. This means that subjective adjectives such as "crushing" should only be used when part of a direct quote or when crushing is a technical term - this does not mean that the article should be boring, such is the fine line on which brilliant prose rests. If you plan to keep the whole article chronological (which is fine), then you have to better integrate details of his personal life into the article. At the moment they seem tacked on. The only BLP I saw as potentially being a problem was that thing about his mother teaching him to shoplift - thats pretty controversial and so should be directly sourced.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, Jackyd101. I agree with much of what you are saying, particularly with respect to the flow and organization. I'll point out that one of the reasons the article is well sourced is that pretty well every descriptive statement comes right out of a reference source; hence, explosive punches and fights, and crushing left hooks and threatened steamrollering. "He threw an explosive punch" is much better prose than "His punch was described as explosive by Joe Blogg, boxing expert." The second sentence tells us more about the reporter than the subject. Referees stop fights, but not in favour of one boxer or the other; that is the decision of the judges. Gomez has been with his childhood sweetheart for about as long as he has been boxing, and they had their first two children before he started his professional career so, chronologically, that sentence is probably in the right place. The article is a BLP of a person who has lived a life full of extraordinary situations (both negative and positive), and my initial focus was on ensuring the claims were thoroughly but not excessively sourced (I reduced the references by about 40%); by the time I'd done that, I suspect my eyes had glazed over and I missed many of the points you have made. I am all in favour of other eyes and copy editors working on this article; as with all articles, however, it must remain true to its reference material, which in the case of this particular sport, tends to be quite descriptive and to use terminology that might otherwise appear hyperbolic. I don't think ONiH is around any longer (at least not officially), but perhaps Vintagekits has a way to inquire directly. I do encourage you to take a crack at it, and I'll give it another pass tonight or tomorrow as well. Risker (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thinking about it, if you want I can give the article a thorough copyedit myself later this week. I'll have to take an axe to certain parts, and I don't know much about boxing so someone will have to check I've not messed up any technical stuff, but if you're interested I'd be willing later in the week (a bit busy the next couple of days). I don't know if he's still around, but I know you were friends with User:One Night In Hackney who is an excellent prose writer, so if he is still here see if you can get him to take a look as well.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(deindent) Can't find a link, but the ref would be: Davies, Gareth A. (June 18, 2008). "Kahn contest 'surprises' Gomez". Daily Telegraph Sport, p. 19. He is quoted as saying at the end of the article "... I've got a beautiful wife and three kids." That should be good enough I think. I see you have made big changes to the article, it looks much more impressive. Unfortunately I will be in Dublin until Sunday and am unlikely to have access to a computer. I will however make time re-review the article once I return.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would this be the one? Amir Khan contest 'surprises' Michael Gomez Giants2008 (talk) 03:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thats it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New comments from Jackyd101
I have completed a copyedit and re-review. I see most of the comments above have been dealt with but for simplicity's sake I have decided to strike them all out and start again below. This new, shorter list covers the problems that the article has, some that were covered above and haven't been adequately addressed and some new ones. I have also done a prose copyedit on the article and it has improved since I last read it but I would recommend further copyedits if they can be obtained. Congratulations on the many improvements in the article and I am much closer to supporting than previously. Well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Gomez won seven straight fights before fighting for his first title belt" - Is there an alternative to one of the "fights/fighting" here?
- changed second usage to "challenging for his first title belt"
- "was also named "Young Boxer of the Year"" - by whom?
- The award is given out at the annual luncheon of the British Boxing Board of Control; however, I cannot find a full list of winners to link to this. Gomez winning the award is mentioned in several sources, including some that aren't used in the article like a 2000 BBC report; it seems the British media regularly refer to the various awards handed out by the BBBC (boxer of the year, overseas boxer of the year, contest of the year, etc) but don't identify who gives it out - perhaps someone more knowledgeable about British boxing can help here. I'll give Vintagekits a poke.
"In the ninth round Gomez was stopped after referee Dave Paris" - presumably the fight was stopped, not Gomez specifically.
- good catch, reworded the sentence
"The relationship between Arthur and Gomez would continue to fester, when Gomez attended Arthur's next fight against Ugandan Michael Kizza in Meadowbank, Scotland." How does this indicate their festering relationship? Did Gomez shout rude things at him during the fight or something?
- Apparently it is some form of boxing etiquette that is over my head; I've reworked the paragraph to eliminate the emotional level.
- "the highly anticipated domestic clash became a war and from round one was a savage brawl" - if war is a boxing term then link it, if not find a better one. Also link brawl to the boxing term.
- "brawl" is linked earlier (on "brawling") but I will link it again. I can't find a WP link for "war" but the expression seems to be very common, so I might be able to find it in an online boxing dictionary. Will check, or reword if I can't find it.
"threatened to steamroller Johanneson" - steamroller is still there. This is not an enecylopedic term and needs to be changed.
- replaced with "overpower"
- The article still goes from the Johanneson fight being stopped straight to Gomez demanding a rematch. Explain that he lost the fight and why, mentioning this business in the following paragraph about Gomez dropping his hands.
- "Gomez demanded a rematch and said that Vann had stopped the fight early." - Gomez wasn't complaining that it had been stopped early, but that the referee's actions had (in his opinion) caused him to lose. This should be clarified.
- For the above two comments - I've merged the two paragraphs and restructured what was in the last paragraph to juxtapose Gomez's discussion of the referee's actions with the sentence about the referee stopping the fight.
- This is better, but I still don't think it is fully clear what the implications of the referee stopping the fight were to a person (like me) who is not knowledgeable about boxing. It could use a sentence explaining that this decision caused Gomez to loose the fight.
- "Gomez lives with his wife Alison and their three children in Manchester." - This is in the wrong place, I suggest moving it back up to where his wife is mentioned earlier (as his "lifeliong companion").
- Hmm...tough call. It refers to his present situation, and you'd expressed concerns about it being up in the "family and youth" section before because it broke the timeline (which I thought was a good point on your part). It seems to flow better there, right after he is quoted about how boxing has brought him his wife and family; sort of a way to wrap up where his years in the ring have led him.
- You are right, this should stay where it is. I would however mention when Alison first appears that she is not just his lifelong companion but also specifically his wife.
- The stuff about the film made in 2007 comes after his fight against Kahn in 2008. Obviously this is chronologically incorrect and I suggest moving it to the relevant point in his career.
It's placed at the end because the release of the film is reportedly scheduled for November 2008, which would make it the next (verifiable) significant event in his career, and is comparable with discussions of unreleased films/television programmes in articles about other sportsmen (and actors, for that matter).
- You are correct, my mistake.
- Summarizing, the following have yet to be addressed:
- Seeking some form of confirmation of exactly who names the Young Boxer of the Year
- See if an appropriate online boxing dictionary defines "war" and if not, reword that sentence
Thanks for your copy edit and your comments, I'll try to get this wrapped up in the next day or so. Risker (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicely done. I've left some comments above and struckout stuff I'm happy with. Good job, the article looks a lot better.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the only thing remaining in the above list is the "Young Boxer of the Year" thing. Any luck on finding out which body gave him this award?--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's taken a lot of reading of boxing articles (I may never recover!) but I have found that it was handed out by the British Boxing Writers' Club in both 1995[68] and 2007[69], but nothing specifically for his year. I think it is probably reasonable to assume it was given out by that organization when Gomez won it. My inclination is to add this organisation's name to the article, and place the links in this paragraph into a comment on the talk page of the article. Comments? Would that work for everyone? Risker (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems reasonable to me. --Laser brain (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Me too. Congratulations, it took a long time to go through all of my comments above, but in the end you have earned my support. Nice job.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your feedback. I've added it to the article with the comment on the talk page. Risker (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Me too. Congratulations, it took a long time to go through all of my comments above, but in the end you have earned my support. Nice job.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems reasonable to me. --Laser brain (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's taken a lot of reading of boxing articles (I may never recover!) but I have found that it was handed out by the British Boxing Writers' Club in both 1995[68] and 2007[69], but nothing specifically for his year. I think it is probably reasonable to assume it was given out by that organization when Gomez won it. My inclination is to add this organisation's name to the article, and place the links in this paragraph into a comment on the talk page of the article. Comments? Would that work for everyone? Risker (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the only thing remaining in the above list is the "Young Boxer of the Year" thing. Any luck on finding out which body gave him this award?--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicely done. I've left some comments above and struckout stuff I'm happy with. Good job, the article looks a lot better.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I will not nitpick that much, however there are a few things that might need tweaking:
- In the "Ring persona" subsection there is this statement: "a reference to his Mexican-sounding chosen name", this should be changed to "a reference to his Hispanic-sounding chosen name"; Gomez is actually a very common surname, it is seen throughout Latin America and Spain, it is not more "Mexican-sounding" than "Rodriguez" or "Rivera".
- I get a felling that the article may overuse the term "belt", this seems particulary notable in the "Early professional career" section, remember that boxers actually fight for the championship that the belt represents, not the belt itself.
- As far as the references go, I would like more newspaper footnotes but most of the pages used are familiar to me, so I'm not going to push that.
That should do it for now, I may provide further comments once these are attended. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have watched this article grow over a long time; it is the result of long and laborious hard work. It now meets all FA criteria. Probably, the most complete biography of the subject available in print or on the internet. Wikipedia is fortunate to have it. If I have one minor quibble - it's that I would like to see a concluding paragraph outlining his achievements, contributions to the sport and hopes for the future. In my opinion the page does not need further copy editing; I look forward to seeing it on the main page. Giano (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Giano's going to be mad at me, but I don't believe this is ready. I second Jackyd31's concerns about the lead and prose, and add these.
Background, Family and youth: Are links for wheel and lamp post necessary? And why is youth linked?North Manchester link goes to North Manchester, Indiana.Trouble outside of the ring: Why is pavement linked? Don't even get me started on heart.Early professional career: Gomez as a single name doesn't need a link. Jackyd31 complained about an Armstrong link, and this is another example of that.- Move to super featherweight: "walking away with the title on a points victory over 12 rounds." Try mentioned what type of decision it was. These little details are important for any quality article.
In the next sentence, it says that Gomez was undefeated. Clarify that it was during that year, because you don't want confusion with his early-career defeats."and a successful defence" is incorrect grammar, since three opponents are named.Intercontinental or Inter-Continental? Both are used.Bognar fights: "suffering from flu" Should a or the be added?Does Wikipedia have a seperate link for flash knockdown? Jargon such as this should be linked if possible, although I don't see a page here.
I also noticed some peacock and POV words, so this is far from a full list. The most important thing is to get some writing help, hopefully in time to benefit this candidacy. Giants2008 (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to all for the copy-edit feedback; I have been working on revising the article in accordance with the many recommendations you have made, and plan to have it out of my userspace and into the article before I go to bed tonight. After I have posted it, I will ask those of you who made comments to please review the (hopefully) improved article. Risker (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The article has now undergone a significant rewrite to address the issues that were highlighted by several reviewers, and I will contact those who had concerns or opposes to ask them to take a second look. I will note that there will probably need to be some content added on Sunday or Monday, as Gomez will be in a major boxing match Saturday night. Risker (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support: I've done minor grammatical tweaks, and I've trimmed a few "purple" passages. I hope my translations from sportswriter to English were accurate, and I hope the author(s) will correct me if they were not. The minor grammatical rough spots I found were mostly due to the evil of footnote codes (people end up with comma splices when they have to type in ref=thisthisthattheother and then close; by that point, they can't remember whether they had an independent or dependent clause back there). I'm not a general fan of living person biographies as FA's, but that doesn't hinder my saying that this fits the criteria. Also, as a complete aside, I wonder if this fellow wasn't the model for "Micky" in Snatch (film): he, too, is a feather weight brawler, and the timing fits pretty well. Just a thought. Geogre (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is the guy that inspired the character.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Heads up - video is NSFW and you may need to cover the ears of any nearby youngsters. :-) Risker (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is the guy that inspired the character.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After the extensive re-write, I've returned for a second look. Here are more comments.
Ireland is linked in the lead, but England isn't. Either link both or neither.
- Done
Is "knock-out" correct. I only ask because knockout is used as one word before this part.
- Done
- I still think the lead could be improved. The third paragraph is longer than the rest of the lead combined, and the fourth paragraph is a single sentence. I recommend splitting the third paragraph and merging the single sentence into the resulting fourth paragraph.
- Fourth para has been extended with an additional sentence on the result of the fight
- Background, Family and youth: Is Alison's maiden name known?
- It isn't mentioned in any of the references; her given name is mentioned in only two.
Early professional career: "He chose the his ring name".
- Oops. Corrected.
Still see "Gomez defeated Jickells with ease", which may be POV to some.
- Reworded.
- Move to super featherweight: I still would like to know if the Manjarrez fight ended in a unanimous decision.
- Can't find the information in any of the reference sources, and have done an online search for anything else, without result. After doing some reading on quite a few fights involving a range of boxers, it seems that news reports tend not to include detailed information on whether the judges' decisions were split or unanimous unless there is a controversy,.
"with another run of six wins and successful defence of the British super featherweight title against Dean Pithie, Carl Greaves and Ian McLeod." Successful defence looks awkward to me, although this could be the British English. Should defence be made plural?
- changed to "with another run of six wins, and successfully defended his British super featherweight title..." to improve comprehensibility
"Gomez's trainer Brian Hughes retired Gomez" Redundant. I would go with "Gomez's trainer Brian Hughes retired his fighter". Also, Hughes' first name should probably be removed from the next paragraph.
- Done
"and was convicted of four drink-drive offenses." Is "drink-drive" correct in British English? Perhaps pipe a link to Driving under the influence.
- Added the piped link to Drunk driving (United Kingdom), either term is used in British English and I'm inclined to leave it.
Looks much better, and I dropped my oppose above. Still needs some work, but the re-write has improved it. Giants2008 (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comments, all addressed. Risker (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Alex Arthur fight: The is normally not used as the first word of a section header. This should be titled Alex Arthur fight.
- Fixed
Hyphen for "highest profile"?
- According to my grammar book, it is correct ("two or more words modifying a substantive and used as a single adjective" - McGraw Hill Handbook of English, 4th ed.)
"Gomez proved his critics wrong when on he arrived at the fight".
- Fixed
Paragraph five of the section is strangely ordered. The two previous knockdowns should probably go before the KO itself.
- Reworked the paragraph
WBU world title: "in his next two fights over" Picky, but I think "over" should be "against"
- Yes, I agree. Fixed.
The quote from Gomez here needs an inline citation.
- Removed, it wasn't in the references and the one place where I found it wasn't a reliable source
"defense.[28][29]Alvarez" needs a space after references.
- Fixed
"Gomez beat the count" I'm concerned about count being jargon. Do we have a link that illustrates a referee's 10 count?
- Wikilinked to Professional boxing#Scoring
"with Gomez leading according to pundits" Which pundits?
- The pundits from the three reference sources at the end of the paragraph.
Return to the ring: Third paragraph is one sentence. I recommend combining this with a surrounding paragraph.
- Combined as suggested.
- Combined as suggested.
Giants2008 (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Giants2008, edits made.
Still in Return to the ring: Comma after "promised to knock each other out". While on the subject, why are there so many pre-fight predictions and general bragging from all sides? It's not like this is something unusual for boxing; comments like these are made before virtually every big fight. I could understand this treatment for Muhammad Ali but not so much in this case.
- Fixed the sentence. As to the number of predictions for this fight particularly, one has to expxlain why this was reportedly a "highly anticipated fight" (according to the reference sources).
Don't needs Carl Johanneson's first name twice in this section.
- It was actually there three times, the first time in reference to CJs' fight with someone else (left in place), the second time as part of a list of potential fighters (left in place because the other fighters had their full names, for ease of reading), and the third one removed.
Vital question: Why did Mickey Vann call the fight? Was Gomez considered to be unsteady on his feet or taking punishment? I don't trust having Gomez's opinion alone because no fighter thinks they should be stopped by a referee no matter how hurt he/she is.
- Added "unsteady on his feet" as it is described by one of the reference sources.
Amir Khan fight: Refs 52 and 53 have an extra space after punctuation.
- Corrected
"and cut Gomez above the eye before the round ended." Which eye? Surely this will be in the post-match report.
- Left eye, added
In the second paragraph, something is wrong with the last two sentences. It looks like this is supposed to be two quotes, but only one is given. Why would Khan admit he has a glass jaw? Also, why is certainly needed in the last sentence if not part of a quote?
- Ah yes, a little bit of drive-by IP editing that I'd missed. Quote corrected, and the rest of the (unreliably sourced) addition removed.
Shouldn't the pre-fight predictions and quotes by Gomez be moved to the start of the paragraph? It works much better there.
- Ordinarily, I would agree with you. In this case, the one thing that was consistent in all of Gomez's pre-fight interviews was his discussion about his family; it doesn't take much reading between the lines to see this was intended as his last fight. Hence the placement of this section after the fight itself, so that it can lead into the "what's next" of the film. It also allowed a more logical placement of the statement about his family, which would have been as out of place in a paragraph before the fight—it's a relevant fact but needs an anchor.
Is Gomez's quote about the film cited later in the paragraph?
- Yes, one of the later references is where he says it, but I have added a ref for the quote as well.
The final part is a little rough as of this review, but that is predictable after the recent changes. I still don't like the lead and think that part of the third paragraph should be combined with the fourth paragraph to improve balance. That's all from me.Giants2008 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks for all of your comments, Giants2008. I've responded to your above points, and have played around with the lede as well. Risker (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The lede and final section of the article have been updated to reflect the outcome of the Khan fight. All of the references used are mainstream media, so should not be a concern. Risker (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on images
- Image:Allan Stevenson - Gomez.jpg - The image description for this does not state who is releasing the copyright under the GFDL-CC license. I presume it is the uploader, but this needs to be verified and stated on the article description page. Could someone contact the uploader, please? Awadewit (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've emailed the uploader. Thanks. Risker (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support My son is an amateur boxer (teenager leagues) so I get an education from him on the sport all the time. This article is well written, comprehensive and well sourced. Great job! Just a note - the sentence preceeding reference number 53 does not seem to have the quotation marks in the right place. The reference cited only seems to quote part of that sentence, not the entire thing.NancyHeise (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments regarding images:
- See MOS:FLAG#Help_the_reader_rather_than_decorate - is the Irish flag in the infobox really necessary?
- Image:Allan Stevenson - Gomez.jpg - the license being used is a "self" variant (i.e. {{self}}) and, indeed, states "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses". Typically this is sufficient demonstration that the uploader is indeed the author/copyright holder - especially when there is accompanying camera meta data (as there is here). A full information template and/or an explicit statement, however, would be preferable (WP:IUP is currently only really satisfied in spirit). ЭLСОВВОLД talk 13:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Flag icon removed. As noted above, I have emailed Vintagekits about the photos; he's a little preoccupied right now dealing with an arbitration enforcement issue, but he is aware this needs to be addressed. Thanks. Risker (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, looks good now. --Laser brain (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, it's almost there, but some attention is needed to MOS, consistency, and polish.[reply]
- "He was forced to change his name by the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBC)" He had to legally change his name, or is more of a "stage name" used only in his career? Please clarify in the prose.
- Good question, I don't think it has ever been addressed in any of the reference sources. I will check with Vintagekits, I hope he knows.
- "... and he also suffered a reversal to Danny Ruegg." Unsure what this means.
- Removed this phrase, it isn't needed and could be confusing to readers.
- "During 1999, Gomez won four title belts, was undefeated during the year ..." No need for two "durings".
- Reworded.
- You don't capitalize some terms consistently.. "WBO Inter-Continental Super Featherweight" and then "WBO Inter-Continental super featherweight"
- "... but Bognar recovered from this knockdown and kept Gomez from closing in with his southpaw jab." Confusing.. could be either person's southpaw jab.
- Reworked the sentence
- "Gomez sought a rematch against Bognar, and five months later in July 2001 the pair met again, this time in Manchester, resulting in a quick victory for Gomez." A quick victory is a fourth-round KO after being knocked down himself?
- Removed the word "quick"
- You alternately use the possessives "Gomez's" and "Gomez'". The former is correct, please check throughout.
- Fixed
- You have an unspaced em dash in one place and spaced one in another place.. please make consistent and use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes for pauses in text.
- I went through the article twice, and had someone with fresh eyes read through it, and neither of us could find spaced en dashes (although I know at one point another editor went through and put several in). Could you please point out where you saw them, and I would be happy to change them to the unspaced em dash format.
- I fixed it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through the article twice, and had someone with fresh eyes read through it, and neither of us could find spaced en dashes (although I know at one point another editor went through and put several in). Could you please point out where you saw them, and I would be happy to change them to the unspaced em dash format.
- Attention needed to logical punctuation of quotations. If the quote is a full sentence, the period needs to be inside the end quote. --Laser brain (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Quotes have been revised, with a couple of sentences reworked to put the quotes at the end. It's not entirely clear to me how logical punctuation deals with the quoting of a full sentence in the middle of another sentence, and this isn't the place to have that discussion.
- Responded to everything I could, but need to follow up on the legal name vs. ring name issue. Thanks. Risker (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Risker, since the nom is MIA, can you ping Laser and Giants for a new look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do, Sandy. I see LaserBrain showed up of his own volition. Risker (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I left my final round of comments above. Giants2008 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With the nom MIA, who's doing these changes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note here that the nom is currently indefinitely blocked. --Laser brain (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Risker has done all of the recent work here. If he isn't going to handle these I may take care of them myself. Giants2008 (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll keep going on this. The "indef" is indefinite in the true sense of the word, the current debate is whether or not it will be time served or extended, but I will leave that to other admins to sort out. In the interim, I have been in contact with Vintagekits and have straightened out a few things. In particular, the rights for the images is currently working its way through the OTRS permissions line-up; it may take a few days because it is moving through a circuitous route due to some email problems, but it is coming. I'll get to the rest of the suggestions shortly; just a little occupied right now. Thanks. Risker (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And Giants2008's latest comments are addressed. As well, I have reworked the sentence that referred to a fight as a "war". On reviewing the references, it's pretty clear that he still uses the surname Armstrong, so there is no reason to believe it was a legal name change; I've thus reworked the sentence about him assuming the Gomez surname to indicate it is a professional name. The rights tags on the images are borderline per El Cobbola, but information is en route to OTRS permissions. I think I have covered everything from all the various comments. Risker (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Risker has done all of the recent work here. If he isn't going to handle these I may take care of them myself. Giants2008 (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note here that the nom is currently indefinitely blocked. --Laser brain (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With the nom MIA, who's doing these changes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I left my final round of comments above. Giants2008 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do, Sandy. I see LaserBrain showed up of his own volition. Risker (talk) 03:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Risker, since the nom is MIA, can you ping Laser and Giants for a new look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - When this first came here I didn't think it had a chance. A lot of work has been put in to keep this going, and I commend Risker for not giving up on this. I do believe this meets standards now. Giants2008 (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your kind words, Giants2008. They are very much appreciated. Risker (talk) 18:54, 2 July 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.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Tait
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Griveaud
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Smith
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Prum
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).