Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FAC process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to a nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. Please do not split FA candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings). An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time; however, they may have two nominations active if they are a conominator 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 its nominators may nominate or conominate any article for 2 weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions. The FA director, Raul654—or one of his delegates, SandyGeorgia and Karanacs—determines 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 director or his delegate determines whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director or his delegate: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn. 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. 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 {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{ArticleHistory}}. Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Shortcut: WP:FAC Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured sounds Featured portals Featured topics Featured article tools: Featured article criteria Featured article candidates Featured article review Today's featured article This month's queue Main page requests Today's featured article statistics Featured article log Featured article statistics Former featured articles

Nomination procedure Toolbox disambig links edit count external links alt text Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria. Place {{subst:FAC}} on the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. Supporting and opposing To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternately, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider. Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

[edit] Nominations

[edit] Pig-faced women

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 15:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... there is currently no Featured Article which includes the sentence "Once shaved, the drunken bear would be fitted with padded artificial breasts, and dressed in women's clothing and a wig", and I hope to rectify that situation.

This is the story of how garbled half-recollections of an obscure and long-forgotten morality tale ultimately led to thousands of people who should have known better becoming convinced that human-pig chimeras were roaming the streets of major European cities. Yes, it's all true. – iridescent 15:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Brief note: I'm sure ending on a pull quote probably breaks some part of the MOS, but I think it has much more impact to end on "as he did so, the figure slowly faded away and vanished", without in any way breaking the narrative or informativeness of the article. – iridescent 15:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 15:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

More comments:

• "On being told by her husband that the choice was hers"—do you mean "When her husband told her that the choice was hers"?

• Yes—the two wordings are equivalent. I personally prefer "On being told…", but can certainly change it if people prefer the alternative. – iridescent 16:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, the current form is a dangling modifier, and sounds ungrammatical to me. Ucucha 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Reworded; I've no strong opinion on that one. – iridescent 17:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• The link to Volkskunde does not lead to a journal, but redirects to German folklore (the redirect is dubious; "volkskunde" means "ethnology" in Dutch and German)

• Removed the link altogether; I doubt we'll have an article on the journal any time soon. – iridescent 16:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Piping "Margaret of Henneberg" to House of Henneberg seems dubious, especially as the target doesn't mention the legend.

• I was assuming that if I didn't, someone would just add it later, and the fictional character was presumably intended to represent a member of this family. If anyone has strong opinions, feel free to take the link out. – iridescent 16:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "There is at present a report,in London"—is the unspaced comma in the original? Also: "We ourselves, unwittingly put"; "in whon", "desparate"; a spaced question mark in the letter by "M. A."

• Fixed. The spaced question mark is in the original, but I've removed it—I've tried to keep to original spelling in quotes, but I don't think that particular one has any advantage to being kept. – iridescent 16:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• File:Black bear large.jpg needs a verifiable source (i.e., to the image as it appears on the source site). Related to this, are you sure the bears used were American black bears? I would perhaps rather expect Asian black bears (Ursus thibetanus). Ucucha 16:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd fairly certain they were American black bears. Asian black bears are more aggressive, and would have been far scarcer than American black bears in England and Ireland in this period—there was (and still is) a fairly steady trade in bears from Canada to Britain for the fur trade. – iridescent 16:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• But note Asian black bear#Tameability and trainability. I don't think we can assume one way or the other without sources making the distinction. Ucucha 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Although the sources just say "black bear" or "bear", I think it's vanishingly unlikely anyone would have been importing Asian bears to England other than the occasional specimen for zoos. I can take out the link and just go with "bear", but I'd really rather keep the image; the similarity of an upright bear and a human is counter-intuitive, and the image makes it clearer. If it's kept, the U. americanus image appears to have come from here, according to its Commons page (you have to type "black bear" in the search box to bring it up). It's already used on the FL List of mammals of Florida as well as Bear itself, so I assume someone's checked out the legitimacy—it certainly appears to be a genuine federal government work. – iridescent 17:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• How about this as a compromise? It doesn't really matter to the reader what kind of bear it was, and the caption hopefully makes it clear that the image is of a representative bear's posture, rather than that this particular bear was used? – iridescent 17:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• That looks fine to me. Asian black bears were often used in entertainment, so I don't think it is very unlikely. As for the image, I noticed that link, but I don't think a link to a homepage suffices; you'll need a link to the actual image. (And I'm sure you know that an image having been around for a while and appearing in an odd FA or FL doesn't guarantee that it is in order.) Ucucha 17:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed, I think. I've never understood PD-gov, and what is and isn't covered; I assume Elcobbola or Jappalang will shout if it's not correct. We have surprisingly few pictures of bears standing upright. – iridescent 18:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• This seems good now; the linked page explicitly says it's PD. I took the opportunity to upload a higher-resolution version. Ucucha 18:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I found this source (quoting The History of Doctor Steevens' Hospital, Dublin, 1720–1920 [1924] by T. Percy Kirkpatrick), which claims that the story of Steevens being pig-faced only gained currency after her death, contrary to our article's claim that it started during her lifetime. Ucucha 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm fairly certain that will be wrong. It's well documented that Griselda took to sitting in public view to refute the "pig" rumour, and commissioned a portrait despite her reclusiveness, specifically for that reason. – iridescent 18:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• How is it well-documented? Bondeson does not give a source; what makes you think Kirkpatrick's book is unreliable? Ucucha 19:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• By the way, that source seems to have some good discussion of the subject in general; trouble is it is in Irish. Ucucha 19:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "On her approach to womanhood (she) had the misery to find that public rumour had bestowed upon her a pig's face", "The legend of the "pig-faced lady " grew up in Madame Steevens' own lifetime", "A lady of such retired habits that the popular opinion was that she had a pig's face", "She herself lived in rooms to the left of the entrance, constantly sitting in full view of passers-by to disprove the story that she had a pig's snout", "Some stories suggested that she hid her pig's face behind a curtain; others that she sat in full public view in order to show that her face was perfectly normal", "His sister, Grizel, known as Madame Steevens - an eccentric lady who through frequent wearing of a veil gave credence to the rumour that a gypsy's curse had transformed her face into a pig's - took charge of the building". – iridescent 19:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yet all those are from long after her own time; Kirkpatrick says though the story later became prevalent, there was no actual evidence that it existed during her lifetime, and none of those appear to give that evidence. (I can e-mail you the article, which in addition to the Irish text contains a number of long and interesting quotations on pig-faced people, if you wish.) Ucucha 19:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd say that with at least seven "began in her lifetime" sources (including two university presses plus Robert Chambers) and only one "began after her lifetime", we're into WP:VNT territory. It's not down to us to decide what's true, it's to report what other people have said. – iridescent 19:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Not all of these are quite explicit that the rumor arose during her lifetime, and I would view Kirkpatrick—as far as I can see, a historian who actually reviewed the issue, not a popular writer who just repeats an interesting story—as more reliable than most other sources. Ucucha 20:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Not buying it. I could see stretching to an "although Kirkpatrick (1924) states that the rumour did not begin to circulate until after her death", but I don't see how we can rewrite a section against a pretty overwhelming consensus among sources, based on a single author writing 180 years after her death. – iridescent 20:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• This seems precisely the kind of situation where people parroting each other create their own truth, even when actual historians know better. We should use the most reliable sources, not just count who says what. Kirkpatrick states explicitly that there are no records of the rumor from Steevens's lifetime, and given that he wrote a book on the hospital's history, he surely must have had some familiarity with those records. Another history doesn't even bother to mention the rumor, and neither does the (brief) DNB entry for the Steevenses. Ucucha 20:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• This suggests Martin Parker wrote A Certaine Relation. Ucucha 18:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I can't access the article; what exactly does it say? I'd be surprised if someone has a source for ACR; it's definitely unattributed in the original other than a printer's name, and none of the catalog entries at Worldcat give an author. Was it definitely A Certaine Relation that it says he wrote, and not one of the ballads mentioned in footnote 1? The section of the article I can see describes him as a ballad-monger, and ACR certainly isn't a ballad; it's a single huge poster-size sheet covered in densely-written prose. – iridescent 18:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• p. 457: "If one were anxious to injure Parker's reputation, one could advance strong evidence to show that he soon outdid himself by writing anonymously a prose tract called A certaine Relation of the Hog-faced Gentlewoman called Mistris Tannakin Skinker, who was borne at Wirkham." Ucucha 18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Unless there's something to say where that attribution's from, I'm not certain it's appropriate to use it—not sure what others think. – iridescent 18:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• You may wish to cite Wilde's original article, which is here. Ucucha 18:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• That one talks of him going to a peep-show, rather than his being shown the trough in 1832. I've looked for the original, but can't find it. – iridescent 18:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, it doesn't seem implausible that that is the original source—it goes from a peep-show with a representation of Griselda eeting from a silver trough, to Bondeson claiming that many thought the trough had been Griselda's, to this article saying it was alleged to have been Griselda's. Ucucha 19:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Now, this is an article I don't mind reading, and one I'd love to see promoted.

• The "standard elements" section really doesn't agree with the explanation in the lead, and doesn't explicitly give dates- is that what was believed from the seventeeth century right up to the twentieth? In all those locations?

• Aside from the single instance of the "Jewish convert" version, yes. The lead (briefly) covers the evolution of the story; "Standard element" summarizes those parts which didn't change. – iridescent 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Did Dickens believe in pig-faced ladies, then?

• Hard to say; he believed that the legend had been around for a long time, and wrote to that effect, but nowhere does he say if he actually believes it. (It's unlikely he did, although most of the other "prodigies" he mentions, such as the "piebald negro" and the "lobster-handed child" are verifiably genuine.) The "in every age" quote used comes from this article. He seems to have had something of a fascination with PFWs; they turn up in quite a few of his works (see [1]). – iridescent 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't mean to patronise, but are you sure you mean Holland? Holland and the Netherlands are not the same thing, the Netherlands are just sometimes incorrectly (or, I would call it incorrectly) referred to as Holland. To complicate things a little (and I admit I had to check our articles to get all of these), throughout this period, you could reasonably be referring to a period where the Netherlands were under Spanish rule, the Dutch Republic, the (short lived) Batavian Republic, the (equally short lived) Kingdom of Holland, a period as part of the French Empire, the United Kingdom of the Netherlands and, finally, the country we currently know as the Netherlands. I appreciate that's not what this article is about, but a little clarification would be good.

• I mean Holland, not the Netherlands or any of its successor/predecessor states—more specifically, the Amsterdam area onl. A Certaine Relation talks of "the lands of the Hollander", not "the Netherlands", and the Dutch versions of the story all appear to be set in or around Amsterdam. – iridescent 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Gotcha, thanks. J Milburn (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "a Dutch print about" An old master print? A woodcut? What, precisely?

• For the period in question, all European prints are technically "Old master prints", whatever the printing method used. I have no intention of using the term, since 95% of readers haven't a specialist knowledge of archival jargon and understand something different by "old master"—there's too much chance they'll think Rembrandt or Hals painted her, or something along those lines. – iridescent 17:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Of course, I was merely suggesting a link to provide some context- when someone reads a "print", they may imagine something more like a newspaper. J Milburn (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Linking "Margaret of Henneberg" to the house is a little deceptive- I was expecting an article on the pig herself :P

• See my reply to Ucucha above. As that's 2 people who've raised a concern about that link, I'll remove it. – iridescent 17:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "During Mrs Skinker's" You previously referred to her merely as "Skinker", which is probably a little more encyclopedic.

• "Skinker" refers to Tannakin (the PFW); "Mrs Skinker" to Parnel, her mother. I didn't really want to keep writing the names in full, but can do if you think it's confusing.

• Oh you're right. We have some guidance in the MOS on that issue here- perhaps go along with how they recommend you do it. J Milburn (talk) 18:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Reworded the Skinker family in first-name terms per the MOS, although to my eyes it looks odd (in this 17th century context, it would be deeply disrespectful). I have kept a couple of occurences of "Griselda Steevens" in full even though it technically violates MOS, as I think it reads more clearly that way. – iridescent 18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Again, you're right. I don't think I would have a strong objection to this breaking the MoS. It would be more appropriate to the subject matter. J Milburn (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll finish the article in a little while, I have to head off for a few minutes. J Milburn (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, continuing to read-

• The Griselda Steevens section, again, has some family naming stuff- refer to the MOS link above. It looks fine how you've done it, to me, but we may as well go along with the MOS.
• Not sure about the category on pig-faced women- this is the only article in the category, and the image pages could very easily end up speedy-deleted as the images are hosted on Commons. If they should be categorised, it should probably be on Commons.

• When the category was set up, this was going to be a series of short articles rather than one long one. I've no objection if anyone wants to delete it. I'll strongly and noisily object if anyone tries to move the images to Commons and delete the local copies. The lead image is almost certainly not PD in Commons terms; more importantly, this is the kind of article Reddit picks up, and if they move to Commons (where we can't protect them if need be), we'll be spending all day reverting pictures of friends/enemies/Sarah Palin from it. – iridescent 19:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Would it also not fit in Category:French legendary creatures? How about something like Category:Sideshow performers?

• I thought no; aside from that hoax, it doesn't seem to have caught on in France in the same way as in London, Dublin and Amsterdam. Not sure what others think. Feel free to add categories; I'm aware that my attitude to categorization is narrower than most people's. – iridescent 19:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess you know, but that article is beautifully researched and fantastically well written. I literally laughed out loud on several occasions, yet everything included was highly relevant, and written in the right tone. It doesn't follow a very standard format, but this is hardly a standard topic! This really has the umph that it'd be nice if all featured articles had. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Although you can't see it in the history (it was cut-and-pasted from a sandbox) this actually took more time than even monstrosities like Brill Tramway (made more difficult by the fact that nobody's put A Certaine Relation online). In a neat bit of synchronicity, I've just discovered that Ulysses includes the line "Forget not Madam Grissel Steevens nor the suine scions of the house of Lambert", which brings the last few weeks back to where they began in a neat circle. – iridescent 19:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Nitpicks only:-

• Bibliography: for consistency, "Hyder E. Rollins, ed" should be formatted: "Rollins, Hyder E., ed."
• Likewise, "John Wilson"
• Another consistency point: refs 47-49 show publisher details in parentheses, whereas 13 doesn't.

Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed Rollins. John Wilson is the name of a publishing house, not an author. The difference in punctuation is owing to ref 13 being {{cite book}} while refs 47-49 are {{cite journal}}; any change would mean amending citation/core, which I'm not going to touch. (We have no policy, AFAIK, on the correct way to cite a chapbook.) – iridescent 19:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Related to this nomination, I have nominated one of the pictures for featured status at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Pig Faced Lady of Manchester Square and the Spanish Mule of Madrid. J Milburn (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Limbo (video game)

Nominator(s): MASEM (t) 00:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsure of his sister's fate, a boy enters the unknown For a video game which this was really the only text that was given to the player outside of menu screens, and could be completed in 3 hours, Limbo generated a surprising amount of buzz that larger productions would only love to see. I will note that the GA reviewer, J Milburn, is seeing if we can free up the game screen images directly with the developers but I do not see that as a potential problem for FA promotion of this article; if it happens, great, otherwise, the images are rationaled for NFC use. I do expect this game to acquire some end-of-year nods but the reception section is set up to handle the influx if necessary. MASEM (t) 00:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - no dab links or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I think this would make a great featured article. The little changes you've made in the last few days (splitting the sections, moving some of the plot stuff, things like that) have made a real improvement. Just some random all-over-the-place comments-

• "Prior to its release, Limbo was awarded both the "Technical Excellence" and "Excellence in Visual Art" titles at the Independent Games Festival at the 2010 Game Developers Conference.[46]" Very short paragraph- you could perhaps expand it by saying other nominations, or a quote, or something. I strongly agree that Limbo will no doubt get more awards yet, but, for now at least...
• "that can otherwise has been seen in previous platformers." That sounds like Wikipedia is endorsing that view- perhaps something like "which he claims can otherwise be seen in previous platformers."
• Are Category:Microsoft games, Category:Xbox 360 games and Category:Xbox 360 Live Arcade games not all redundant to each other? Would the last not be the only one needed?
• Could we get that lovely tagline in somewhere? I see we already have. Annoying the infobox doesn't have room for it."
• "of The Globe and Mail summarized his" If you're sticking with British English, summarise is normally spelt with an s over here.
• "from repeating trying dead-end solutions" repeatedly trying?
• "fewer than five deaths." Isn't it actually five or fewer, or fewer than six?
• "one achievements challenges" Spare s?
• "that disappeared once the player has crossed it" Tense mess up. Present disappear would be better. Alternative, have disappeared, but the passive voice usually isn't a good thing. (Additionally, perhaps refer to them as "who"?)

A few little bits to be getting on with- good luck! J Milburn (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

All the small language pieces have been changed. I completely forgot to check how the game did at E3 and was able to add more to the awards "paragraph" so that it's better now. As for the categories, that issue comes up every so often at the VG project, but per the most recent discussion [2] and explained through WP:DUPCAT. I do note that Category:Microsoft Games is not in the same "hierarchy" as the other three because MS neither makes all games for the Xbox 360, nor only makes games only for the Xbox 360. --MASEM (t) 15:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Ref 3: "Rock Paper Shotgun" is a blog. What makes it reliable? (Also 34)
• Ref 28: "MTV" should not be italicised. Likewise 30 & 49 (G4TV)
• Ref 29 (Cinema Blend): I'm a little concerned by the message carried by this source: "Don't take us too seriously". Doesn't this suggest unreliability?
• Ref 38: The format should be adjusted to conform with that used for the other references. If the source is in German, this should be stated.

Otherwise sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Rock Paper Shotgun is a blog run by four UK journalists with existing background as video game reporters prior to that. The specific person in both sources, Kieron Gillen has an established background in this field, so he has strong reliability. Ref 3 is an interview with one of the game's developers; Ref 34 is more a re-reporting of information from other, less reliable blogs to summarize an event.

Cinema Blend's reviews are generally considered expert; the article used here - a pre-review of sorts - is only to support the list of games that Limbo has been compared to. I believe I can replace it with the A.V. Club review (I have to double check which game is cited by which article), and will do that if there's a problem, but I don't see a pressing need right now. (I'm not opposed to fixing it though, don't get me wrong).

The CNet Germany ref is made up from the same cite web template. There is no author listed on the article, so the cite web drops to that format (same as, say, Ref #23 (Edge) and #31 (Toronto Sun).

All other changes fixed. --MASEM (t) 18:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• {{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Petitcodiac River

Nominator(s): _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Petitcodiac River is located in south-east New Brunswick, Canada, and was once home to one of the largest tidal bores in the world (from one to two metres high). The area around it was inhabited solely by the Mi'kmaq people before 1698, when Acadians from Pont Royal, Nova Scotia arrived to claim it. The river also went through the Great Upheaval, various industrial booms, and is currently the subject of a controversy regarding the construction of a causeway in 1968 (which is currently in the midst of being removed). I've nominated this article after an extensive revamp, and now believe it to be fit for an FAC. Thank you in advance for your time to review this. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 16:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment the lead is a bit on the extreme side, and really per WP:LEADCITE you shouldn't really have to cite much, if anything, in it. Ryan Norton 19:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Same concern (WP:LEADCITE) was brought up in the peer review, but I didn't understand the rule (I've read it anew, and I think I understand the concept). Right now I'm busy reformatting references, but I have a few ideas on what to shred from the lead. I'll get to the citation removal when I get the chance as well. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 20:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Removed all refs in lead, but I was unable to remove very much of the prose. Also tried to merge the second and third paragraph, but to no avail. Changed every (read: every) ref with the Cite template, and anchored Harvnb cites as well. Fun way to spend eight hours _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 04:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I feel you, it is a pain sometimes. Looks a lot better now. Just a quick note: your article is tagged with the "Articles with improperly formatted cite map templates" category, so I'm guessing one or more of your "cite map" instances are "incorrect". Ryan Norton 05:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I fixed that. Ucucha 06:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I appreciate that. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 15:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Another note: the licensing on File:Petitcodiac-river-map-closeup.png seems ambigious, all other images are free and check out. Basically is it in public domain in the US or does it need a fair use rationale? Ryan Norton 23:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Aha. All images are using the same template, but the other images are on Commons. Explains the two different templates. I'll see if I can fix that. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks - good luck on the rest of your FAC! Ryan Norton 04:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Ambondro mahabo

Nominator(s): Ucucha 15:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is about a 170-million-year-old broken piece of jaw. It is a highly interesting piece of jaw, because the teeth are the oldest with the modern grinding-and-shearing mammalian tooth pattern, and its 1999 discovery set the stage for one of the major controversies of mammalian paleontology. I hope I covered that controversy neutrally and comprehensively. The article benefited from a thorough GA review by Sasata and André Wyss was kind enough to donate an image. Ucucha 15:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - no dab links or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments & support - High quality as usual and a bit challenging due to technical terms but intriguing to follow. Some comments:
  • "The scientific name derives from the village of Ambondromahabo, close to which the fossil was found. It was found in the Bathonian" - Is a rewording possible here?
    • Reworded.
  • "It is in the collection of the University of Antananarivo as specimen UA 10602" - A   maybe in UA 10602? It breaks in my settings.
    • Done.
  • I couldn't fully understand the dental technical terms until I saw the picture in [Rougier et al., 2007, p.13] additional explanatory text would certainly not help as the terms are too many but such a labeled picture certainly would --Egmontaz♤ ^talk 07:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
    • You're probably right; unfortunately, we don't have occlusal views of australosphenidan teeth on Wikipedia (which is what we'll need for this), and rice rat teeth are too different. I've tried drawing a diagram myself, but it's worthless. Still thinking of a way to solve this. Ucucha 09:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Blue-faced Honeyeater

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is of an equivalent standard to many other bird FAs. It had a thorough GA review and some copyediting from others along the way. I promise to address issues quickly (unless I am asleep). Have at it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support, with one minor comment:
  • "The study concluded that conserved patches of woodland should be larger than 20 ha (44 acres) to preserve diversity of the two aggressive species were present"—not quite clear; should the "of" have been an "if"? Even then, this can probably be worded better.

Yes, it should be 'if' - I stared at it trying to think of a rewrite.....I could try "The study concluded that conserved patches of woodland containing the two aggressive species should be larger than 20 ha (44 acres) to preserve diversity", but I don't feel that is necessarily an improvement. If you do then change away, I am open to ideas. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is actually better; it puts the patches and the species a little closer together. Ucucha 06:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Also no dabs or dead externals. Ucucha 15:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support with one minor comment "Anoncotaenia globata (a worldwide species not otherwise recorded from Australia) was isolated from a Blue-faced Honeyeater collected in North Queensland in 1916.[36] The habroneme nematode Cyrnea (Procyrnea) spirali has also been isolated from this among other honeyeater species.[37] The nasal mite Ptilonyssus philemoni" you may want to fill the redlinks, and it's a bit hard to read without following the links. Thanks Secret ^account 17:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking about doing that - there is a stack of taxons to de-redlink in tapeworm and nematode classification..thx btw. :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Rather a silly little thing, but I don't like the external links section with no links- perhaps you could keep the Commons box, but add an external link to WikiSpecies with a bullet? Altertnatively, are there any nice bird databases you could link to? J Milburn (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No no, a good idea. I added a couple of links which add something. I will look later for the wikispecies linking template, but anyone else reading this is welcome to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Ref 1: language?

Latin" Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Refs 3 & 4 lack page refs; are these brief publications? Also, 3 lacks publisher location

yes they are bird lists and brief. added locations Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 9: is a more specific pub. location possible?

added Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 12: What is the journal, who is the publisher?

oops, missed that - it's Emu. I haven't been adding the published to Journals, but it's Birds Australia Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 13: Again, no journal name or publisher is provided. Is this part of the answer?

oops, missed that - it's Emu again. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural)

Nominator(s): Ωphois 20:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is up to FA standards. Ωphois 20:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 24 (Supernatural creator..) Eclipse magazine should be italicized as it is earlier in the refs. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
  • Fixed. This has precedence in FA's such as 200 (Stargate SG-1) and Fresh Blood (Supernatural). Ωphois 00:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, Eclipse Magazine is a source for reviews for Rotten Tomatoes. To be one, it must follow guidelines listed here. One such rule is "Publications must also show a consistent standard of professionalism, writing quality, and editorial integrity across all reviews and articles", which I feel makes it a reliable source. Ωphois 01:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Current ref 16 .. you have the link to the webarchive version only (which wouldn't load for me) need the "original" also. Likewise, what makes this a reliable source?
  • The archived version sometimes takes a while to load, and unfortunately the original is dead. The site has been used as a source for BuddyTV articles here and here. The article's author, Cynthia Boris, has also written an article for Nurseweek here. Ωphois 00:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Leaving these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 05:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Quick Comment: Episode listed as the 95th greatest television episode of all time by TV Guide magazine in the June 15, 2009 issue. Section can be read here. Should probably be added to the "Reception" section for this article. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 21:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks, but forums cannot be used as reliable sources. I can't find this in anything other than forums. Ωphois 01:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Mesopropithecus

Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 19:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets the FAC criteria. I have covered all of the literature that I have found for this genus (and all 3 species). – VisionHolder « talk » 19:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. This is another fine lemur article; I've seen it develop and believe it meets the FA criteria. Ucucha 19:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - no dablinks or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Fix typo "KcKenna"

  Good catch! Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ref 5: please state language if this source is in French. Likewise ref 16.

  Another good catch. Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Borror 1960: books published in 1960 don't have ISBNs. If this is a subsequent edition please give the later date. You can add a note ("originally published in 1960").

  According to the book's copyright page (which can be viewed on Amazon.com), this is technically a "1st edition". It makes no mention of a printing number. There is a "renewed copyright" of 1988. Should I use that? Otherwise, I'm not sure where to place "originally published in 1960" using {{cite book}}. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  On the basis of the given information I imagine this is a 1988 reprintof the 1960 book. I usually place "originally published" notes outside the template - see, e.g. Tosca. Brianboulton (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  I've added the note, and I changed the "year" to 1988. If this is acceptable, then I may change the ref name as well. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a read through, see what I can see.

• "Mesopropithecus was" As there are several species in the genus, shouldn't that be "were"?

  Mesopropithecus is a genus, so: "the genus was..." When I mention Mesopropithecus, I'm referring to a single genus. That's how I see it. Do you agree? – VisionHolder « talk » 02:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Category:Extinct species by human activities?

  I didn't know this category existed. It's not very well populated, and looks like it was created about a year ago. I guess the question is whether I should include each subfossil lemur genus/species in this category (individually), or simply add Category:Subfossil lemurs to the category and leave it at that. (Note: I did go ahead and add Category:Subfossil lemurs as a subcategory since that seems appropriate.) – VisionHolder « talk » 02:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally really nice. Not really my subject area, but looks like a great little article. A good length, a good level of detail, interesting subject matter, well written, carefully sourced. Nice work on the illustrations, too. J Milburn (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! I'm glad you found it interested, despite not being your subject area. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Menominee Tribe v. United States

Nominator(s): GregJackP (talk)

I am nominating this article for featured article, as I believe that it meets the criteria. It is currently a good article, is stable, and is written in accordance with WP:MOSLAW and WP:SCOTUS criteria, especially in regards to the Bluebook reference style (which is slightly different from other reference styles). The case is a leading case in Native American (Indian) law as regards treaty rights. GregJackP Boomer! 18:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 18:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• None of your "Notes" are sourced, some of them are opinion (commonly) and need some sort of sourcing.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Question - I initially tried to incorporate references within the footnotes, but I couldn't get it to work - is there a way to do it that I'm not aware of? I will be happy to add those. GregJackP Boomer! 14:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Check out Go Man Go and how they are done there. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Done GregJackP Boomer! 00:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Rather than describing the two Treaties that came to be known as The Treaty of Washington in a footnote, would it not be better to create the Treaty of Washington article, and sort all of that out over there, with sources and links to each individual treaty? Also, please review WP:PUNC for logical punctuation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Done - Treaty of Washington article, but it will take a day or so. GregJackP Boomer! 00:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• I don't understand what you mean on the logical punctuation comment. Please excuse me on this, I'm quite willing to fix it, but this is the first article I've brought to FAC, so I'm sure that I will have missed some points here and there. GregJackP Boomer! 14:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• WP:PUNC deals with whether the punctuation is part of the original quote and should be included inside or outside of the quotation marks ... it can be tricky, and often requires access to the sources ... if you still don't understand it after reading that page, don't sweat it, as it is not something that will hold up a FAC, but something you should attempt to understand. By the way CJLippert (talk · contribs) is an editor you might want to ping for review of this article (just keep the request neutral to avoid WP:CANVASS). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Done GregJackP Boomer! 19:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -

I just read through the articles and found several problems (some are problems with the article, others are link (or lack there of)). So, here are my beefs with the current article or the current links

1. The 1831 treaty preserved usufruct, not granted because the right was not taken away and then given back.
2. The tribe was located in both Michigan and Wisconsin since time immemorial, though the current tribe is found only in Wisconsin. Some of the Menomini bands of the past were absorbed by the neighbouring Ojibwe while other bands were amalgamated into a single band that forms the current Menomini tribe.
3. Since there were three different Treaties of Washington plus a Supplement, all in 1831, and through Treaty of Washington (1831) article was created, but focusing only on the Menomini Treaty and its Supplement, it and other treaties, if there were multiple ones signed in the same year by a tribe or tribes, placing a clarifier by citing the US Statutes at Large would greatly help. In the case of the Menomini Treaty and its Supplement, the citations would be 7 Stat. 342 and 7 Stat. 346, respectively. Similarly, as some of the links to the treaties are currently still a "red link", the in-line US Statutes at Large link would help the reader go directly to the source.N.B.: there is the template {{USStat|V|P}} that would make this a breeze.
4. With the Treaty of Washington (1831) article, I wonder if it should be renamed as Treaty of Washington, with the Menominee (1831)? Or else, if one is really careful, the non-Menomini treaties could be inserted and appropriate section breaks would be needed. In that treaty article, showing Royce Areas 158~162 in eastern Wisconsin would be helpful.
5. Minnesota is pretty big. Clarifying the location of Royce Area 269/321 would help. BTW, there is an appropriate image already available currently found in the Treaty of Fond du Lac, under the 1847 Treaty of Fond du Lac, showing the location of the Royce Area 269 that the Pillager Chippewa ceded to the US for the purposes of establishing a Menomini Indian Reservation. There isn't an image currently available on Wikipedia showing the same area as Royce Area 321 as Menomini land cession.
6. On Dakota/Ojibwe with the notes: the specific parties involved were the Santee (Dakota Sioux) and the Pillagers (Ojibwe/Chippewa). The term "Dakota" can be used instead of "Sioux" but the converse does not hold, just as "Santee" can be used for "Dakota" but the converse does not hold. The reason is that there are "two" very different "Dakota" (Santee-Sisseton and Yankton-Yanktonai)(and if you want to really split hairs, the "two" becomes six), and together with the Lakota, they collectively form "Sioux". In addition, through "Ojibwe" and "Chippewa" are interchangeable terms, both the Ho-chunks and the Menomini didn't have problems with the Mississippi Chippewa but with the Pillager Chippewa. If you're going to bother putting in notes, the notes should be concise and serve to clarify this without rambling (like the way I am at the moment).
7. The transition from the mid-19th Century to the mid-20th Century is a bit too abrupt. Not sure how to bridge it, especially when the pertinent facts-at-hand occur in these two periods as well.
8. Link to the Indian termination policy, may be valuable as there is a section in that article already regarding the Menomini. This should also clarify it was the mid- to late-1940s, and not just the 1940s. In addition, House concurrent resolution 108 of 1953 should be mentioned regarding the termination policy.

As for the last half of the article covering the Opinion of the Court and Subsequent developments, I don't see any problems there. CJLippert (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and addressing your points:

1. Done - changed to "retained" hunting and fishing rights.
2. Done - reworked. I knew better, part of my family went with the Menominee, the other part are with the Grand Traverse Band.
3. Comment/Question - The USStat template is used in the references, are you recommending that I add an in-line one also? I'm more than willing to do so, but am curious if that wouldn't be redundant.
4. Done - renamed to Treaty of Washington, with Menominee (1831).
5. Done - added image.
6. Question - I am familiar with the Sioux, their divisions and bands (not so much for the Ojibwe), but wasn't sure how much detail I should go into. I didn't feel that it was really that relevant to the article, but am willing to add more.
7. Comment - I don't know if the intervening period is that relevant to the case - the treaties were included due to the treaty interpretation present in the case. I'm open to adding it though.
8. Comment - not clear on what you are asking/saying. It is already wikilinked at the start of the Tribal termination section.

Again, thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 03:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Winter Olympic Games

Nominator(s): H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because in the previous FAC nomination the article received a degree of support but was not promoted due to a legitimate object for content reasons. I've addressed the content concerns raised and gave the article some time to breathe. I'd like to renominate it for FA consideration with the hope that it is worthy of the star. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links (one actually returns a 404, but nevertheless works). Ucucha 16:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I see some sourcing and organizational issues.

• • I find this sentence a bit confusing: "The Games were held every four years from 1924 until 1940 when they were interrupted by World War II. The Winter and Summer Games resumed in 1948 and were held in the same year until 1992, when the Games were placed on separate four-year cycles."

• I made some wording changes but again, it isn't pretty. Let me know what you think. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• • The images on the page might be visually improved if they alternated sides, and if people were facing the text.

• Fixed, I was laboring under an older rule that no images could be left aligned under third tier headings. Upon review it appears that rule has been eliminated. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Is it necessary to mention every Olympic Games in the history section? It seems odd that each Games is given equal treatment, rather than focusing on important moments. For example the boycotted 1980 Games. Why does that paragraph only mention boycott "rumors", rather than the actual boycott? If the history section is going to discuss all games, would it be possible to integrate the "List of games" at the bottom into this section? I'm uncertain how this section is subdivided. I would like to see more discussion of trends during different time periods, like the number of athletes, participating countries, or number of sports.

• There was significant debate as to whether the history section required a synopsis of each Games. See here and here for thoughts that trend towards keeping the history as is.
• I've added info on the 1980 boycott.
• I'm reticent to move the list up to this section. I think that would break up the prose and signficantly impact the readability of the article. I'd like to hear what others think of this idea.
• I've sprinkled participation statistics into the history section at five different Games to show progression. More could be added if deemed necessary. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 22:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• • This is unsourced: "Brundage's concerns proved prophetic. The IOC has charged more for television broadcast rights at each successive Games.", as is this: "The more television companies have paid to televise the Games, the greater their persuasive power with the IOC."

• This has been sourced. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 21:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Why is the 1992 switch to occurring in off-years to the summer Olympics discussed under the "commercialization" section rather than the "history"? I think it should be moved, but I can see that the motivations for the switch were commercial.

• There are two sentences in the history section about this switch. I intentionally kept the information here brief so as not to duplicate information found later. It is further discussed in the commercialization section because as you point out, many of the motives for the change were financial. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• • This is unsourced: "The process for awarding host city honours came under intense scrutiny after Salt Lake City had been awarded the right to host the 2002 Games. Soon after the host city had been announced it was discovered that the organisers had engaged in an elaborate bribery scheme to curry favour with IOC officials"

• This has been referenced. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 21:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• • This is unsourced, and the first two sentences are out of place: "Hosting an Olympic Winter Games leaves a significant mark on the community after the Games are finished. This impact is felt for years afterwards. Until recently the cost of hosting the Games was assumed by the host nation."

• I wasn't happy with the writing in this paragraph so I made some changes and added another source. I hope it is more cohesive and topical now. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 21:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Unsourced: "The organisers claimed that the cost of extending bullet train service from Tokyo to Nagano was responsible for the huge price tag"

• This has been referenced. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 21:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Discontinued sports and Demonstration events are both presented in list form where it would probably be better to convert them to prose. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 19:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Done H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, I appreciate your efforts to critique the article. I've worked through your suggestions and would like to know your thoughts at this point. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 22:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• http://www.aroundtherings.com/articles/view.aspx?id=34535 what makes this reliable?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I removed the link and switched it to a more reliable source. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 02:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• What source? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Here's the replacement source: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/SPORT/10/16/winter.olympics.2018.ioc/index.html from CNN. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 15:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment – Good to see such a comprehesive article - detailing each games. Aaroncrick ^TALK 03:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments There are some issues in the refs. Mixture of NJ, New Jersey, UK and expansions. I think they should be expanded as it shouldn'e be assumed etc. Also in the links, there is a style of only shorthanding "Jones (2004)" etc and then plugging the page number off the end of the tag; except in some cases, the book title is listed seperately in repeats. Also there are cases where the book is linked to, but no page given, eg several of the 27s linking to "Judd 2008" don't have a page hanging off the end YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Aquaria (video game)

Nominator(s): PresN 20:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

My second indie video game FAC after Flower (video game), I think this article is ready for prime time. It's been GA'd and PR'd, and I've given it a good copyedit (and read it through backwards). Have at it! --PresN 20:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support I love this game and the article seems good overall. I have a few suggestions.

Could we get more pictures? Maybe a picture of the creators or a picture from the Independent Games Festival or another gameplay image? Since the game is now open source, I'm not sure what the freeness status of game images is. I see two images were reduced to one in GA review, but personally I think more images would improve it.

This statement could use a citation: "As the game opens, Naija has lost almost all her memories, and is unaware of the world outside of her home as she "lives as a simple creature"."

It's a little bit odd that the talk page is empty, but I guess it doesn't really matter.

Overall the content is solid and comprehensive. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 05:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support!
• The game images are still not free; the code is open source but the art/music is copyrighted. To add another picture I'd need to have a specific subject that needs to be shown, and I can't think of any.

• Could a picture of another form or one featuring Li be used? ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 19:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• The ref for the quote was a few sentences later; I've copied it back to the quote as well.
• Well, the last comment on the page was January 2009. --PresN 15:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • A bit of passive voice in the lead: "gameplay is focused", "Songs sung by Naija"

• Fixed.

• • "a perceived lack of variety of objectives" could be considered POV, could also use a reword to avoid repeating "of"

• Fixed.

• • The gameplay section mentions an Xbox 360 controller, but Xbox isn't listed as an available platform...

• It's not. You can plug in an Xbox 360 controller into a pc, it's just a usb cable. Tried to clarify.

• • "which Naija can interact with directly or indirectly", indirectly how? If she can interact both ways, is it necessary to mention it at all? Perhaps remove this bit and combine the remaining sentence with the next one and only mention interaction starting with the next paragraph.

• Fixed.

• • Maybe other reviewers will disagree with me, but do you have to list all the forms? I suggest picking a handful of forms that are varied and interesting to the reader and leave the rest unsaid. The gameplay section is generally an overview and you don't need to get into nitty-gritty detail about every feature of the game. It'll also let you combine that paragraph with the previous one.

• Eh, I'm not too opposed to this, but I'd like another opinion before I cut it out.

• • "unlike forms can also learn them", not sure what you're trying to say here. This last gameplay paragraph is a little choppy.

• I just meant that in contrast to forms, which you cannot use until you "learn" them, even if you sing the right song, you can make recipes by blindly combining ingredients without first "learning" them. Fixed, and tried to clean up the paragraph.

• • "and in most of them... accompanied by cutscenes", so what?

• Heh, cut a bit.

• • "After being confronted... explore the world around her", too many ideas going on at once. Try to split into two sentences to cut down on # of commas.

• Ah, run-on sentences full of commas, my personal weakness.

• • Lots of "whiles" in the first paragraph of development, consider rewording

• Fixed.

• • "only limiting factor is physical limitations" reword to avoid repetition of "limit"

• Fixed.

• • "quibbles", POV word choice, it implies these reviewers' criticisms are nit-picky and unimportant (even if one reviewer admits it)

• Fixed.

• No judgment until nominator responds. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Responded and addressed your issues with the article. --PresN 16:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Looks good. I made a few more minor changes, but other than that, Support. Seems like an interesting game, maybe I'll play it eventually. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODMxOQ what makes this reliable?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review, source has been replaced with a ref to Holowka's Infinite Ammo blog post that announced the code release. --PresN 01:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Don Valley Parkway

Nominator(s): ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it had most of the minor kinks ironed out by the time the last nomination ran its course. A lack of reviewers led to no promotion. I'm hoping for a better turn-out this time around.

I believe this article presents a better embodiment of information than any other single source available on this highway. It meets all the FA criteria and is an interesting read even to those who don't really care about roads at all. To residents of Toronto, it provides an in-depth examination of an otherwise overlooked part of the city's infrastructure.

Cheers, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: in full disclosure, I've helped with some copy editing during and since the last nomination. Having said that, there are no disambiguation links, and no dead external links.
• Image review: all images are Creative Commons or public domain. There were no outstanding issues on images from the last FAC. Imzadi 1979 → 17:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese battleship Haruna

Nominator(s): Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 05:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Haruna was - along with her sisters of the Kongo class battlecruisers - one of the workhorses of the Japanese battleships during WWII. She was everywhere - escorting carriers, bombarding airfields, deploying to counter American carrier raids, fighting escort carriers and destroyers - before she was sunk by air attack in the last days of the war.

This article has been in the works for quite a long time, with the first round of major changes occurring as far back as February 2009. The article passed its GAN in February 2009, its MilHist ACR in March 2009. The article has also undergone two extensive copyedits; the first by User:Bellhalla in April 2009, and the second by User:Dank over the last month. After a long period of tweaking, polishing, fixing and modifying, I feel that the article is close to FA Standards. I look forward to working with the reviewers; thank-you in advance. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 05:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image review: I saw that most of the photos are credited to a Shizuo Fukui, and because he has been dead at least 50 years the photos are public domain under Japanese copyright law. Given the conditions, I can assume that is true, but do you have a source that gives the year he died? That would clear up any ambiguity for me.

I'm afraid I can't be of much help with the image sourcing, as I'm not the original uploader of most of them (Cla68 did most of them). However, I have left a message on User:Cla68's talkpage about the issue. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 23:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Link checking: There are no disambiguations links present in the article, and all external links work. Imzadi 1979 → 07:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Infobox should specify that most stats are as of her second reconstruction.

Alternately, one could just add some of the stats in. I'll add a note. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• The range of the main guns was increased with each reconstruction; it is not clear in the text that the range given is as of the second reconstruction.

I've added a bit to the effect that that was their maximum range. The maximum range didn't decrease when the elevation increased. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure I'd bother with the non-notable captains, but hey, it's not my article.

I've debated that w/ myself several times. I've removed a couple of them, but I've kept others. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Link to capital ship. Why is pagoda mast captialized? More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. Decapped. Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 04:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I actually haven't had time to copyedit this one, but I did make extensive comments which may or may not be helpful at the A-class review for the sister ship Kirishima. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Albert Stanley, 1st Baron Ashfield

Nominator(s): DavidCane (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Another in my series on the early history of London's transport system. An exceptional administrator, Stanley was running the Detroit tramway system at the age of 20, the New Jersey tramway system at 32 and most of London's railways, buses and trams by 38. From 1916 to 1919, he was a member of the British cabinet as President of the Board of Trade. In the 1920s he was the driving force behind the creation of London Transport and led it through its "golden era". For something to do in his spare time he was a director of the Midland Bank and ICI. DavidCane (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - one double redirect (Baron Ashfield), no dablinks, no dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Removed. It used to point to a summary article on the Barony but it has recently been turned into a redirect.--DavidCane (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• No publisher for the Spanish American War Centennial site. (http://www.spanamwar.com/yosemitecrew.htm) and what makes this a reliable source?
  • It's there to link to additional information. I've found the book that the website references online, so I've linked to that, although his mini-biography there is a bit inaccurate about his knighthood, which was not a baronetcy. I've moved the Centennial website to the External links.--DavidCane (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• What makes http://thepeerage.com/p7739.htm#i77386 a reliable source? (Hint... it's not.)
  • Just there to provide the date of the wedding and confirm the name of his second daughter. Barker, Who Was Who and the Times Obituary say that the marriage took place in 1904 and that he had two daughters but are not explicit on the date of the marriage and the daughters' names. I've found a Court Circular in a 1923 copy of the Times that gives both of their names, which can be used instead.--DavidCane (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Likewise http://openplaques.org/plaques/360?
  • The English Heritage citation provides a reliable ref. This was added by another user, but as it provides a link to a photograph of the plaque and a location map, I left it in. I've moved it to external links. --DavidCane (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—the lead seems far too short for an article of this size. Ucucha 07:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I knew there was something I'd forgotten to do. It's always the lead. I have expanded.--DavidCane (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Sarcoscypha coccinea

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sarcoscypha coccinea is a small bright red cup-fungus that is commonly covered in mushroom field guides, and, as a type species, is arguably the most important of its genus. I have worked the past few days to bring up the comprehensiveness to a level comparable to other fungal FAs, and have tweaked and copyedited to the point where I think the article is ready for review by the community. Thanks for reading. (This is a Wikicup nomination) Sasata (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: All images check out as Creative Commons or public domain. There are no disambiguation links, and all external links are working. Imzadi 1979 → 18:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Have we discussed The North American Cup-Fungi (Operculates) being self-published before? Is the guy an expert?

• We haven't discussed Fred Jay Seaver before. He was a PhD & Sc.D., curator of the New York Botanical Garden, chief editor of the (arguably) premier mycological journal Mycologia, and renown as an expert of the Discomycetes (cup-fungi), because of his numerous related publications in addition to the publication of the book we're discussing. I'm confident he meets the criteria for a reliable self-published source. Sasata (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Likewise what makes http://www.gbif-mycology.de/HostedSites/Baral/Sarcoscypha.htm a reliable source?

• H.O. Baral did his PhD dissertation on the Sarcoscypha genus, and published a lengthy article on the same in the German journal Zeitschrift für Mykologie a year later. His website gives much of the information contained in this article, but updated with more recent literature. I think he also passes the bar for a SPS. Sasata (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• This one I'll leave out for others, but I lean reliable, especially as it's a fungus we're discussing. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for checking. Sasata (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments: Another excellent article fungus article. My only quibble has to do with the distribution. (Yes, we've been here before, and I'm sorry to bring it up.) Once I read the lead and saw the wide distribution, I immediately wanted to know if it was an introduced species. When you talk about the phylogeny, it appears that the species may have evolved in Europe, but no mention is made of why it's found on every continent but Antarctica. The discussion of differences in the North American population implies we may be talking about different species. Has no one speculated in the literature about this? – VisionHolder « talk » 00:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Harrington discusses this briefly in her 1998 paper, and suggests that since all Sarcoscypha species form a clade that is sister to the tropical species S. javensis, the genus had a tropical origin. S. occidentalis has the widest distribution of all species, but there was nothing particularly specifically notable about the biogeography of S. coccinea that I saw warranted a mention. I will definitely discuss these matters in the genus article (it's on my "list"). Sasata (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Given how much research still needs to be done in this field, I can understand that. (We've only begun to scratch the surface.) Changing to support. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks VH!. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at this this morning while I was playing with the fungi portal.

• "which both the fungus derives both its common and species names are derived" :)

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd kind of like to see bullets in the synonym list, I think...

• I'm not totally averse to the idea, except its inconsistent with the way I've done things so far. The disadvantage I see is that adding a bullet point pushes the synonym a few spaces to the right, and increase the chance that some names (which should be given with their authorities) will then wrap to the next line. This is where having a WP:Fungi-specific MOS would come in handy. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• There's nothing wrong with how you've done it; it's just not how I would have done it. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Sarcoscypha coccinea was given its current name by Jean Baptiste Émil Lambotte in 1889.[1]" Perhaps merge that to the paragraph before?

• Ok, paragraphs merged. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Have you made redirects for all those synonyms? That would be a nice touch. I know for a fact I've searched for names that are no longer accepted...

• I think further discussion is required with the Fungi project (perhaps even WP:TOL) before I start the precedent of making redirects for synonyms. Synonyms really need to be indicated with their authorities, and there are various taxonomical nuances which have to be considered. I'm sure Circéus would have an opinion about this. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I know other projects do this, and I have seen other editors do it. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• For starters I'd say that whether or not it's done should not, I think, have any incidence on the FAC process. Whether it should be done as a matter of fact? In the current state of affair my intuition pushes me firmly on the "unsettled outside specific projects", if that (I don't think any project actually has it as an official guideline). In general, I disagree with the "authority" bit: only specialist uses author citations in a way that even approaches reliability and regularity. I'd say a pragmatic approach (redirects for the major synonyms) is best. Other synonyms (which may or may not have been created) can be found easily by text search.
  For comparison, the issue is also thoroughly unsettled on Wikispecies, but there I suspect the limited number of regular editor is also a major factor. Circéus (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I could give some examples where not including the authority could lead to confusion, and might necessitate setting up dab pages, but agree that if the synonyms are mentioned in the text, a text search will allow the reader to find them. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Clements and Shear" Who are they? If we don't have a link, could we have the full names? I guess the same applies to the names before, but I know we've had this conversation before... Take it or leave it :)

• I've now linked and redlinked the mycologists (Thanks "heavens" for Fungal Valhalla; someday Wiki will have articles for all those names!))

• Could we perhaps have the recognised subspecies added to that Phylogeny graph thing (which I am really not qualified to understand :P) Actually- I see there are a few subspecies and the anamorph. It'd probably get a little crowded if everything was added.

• I can only add to the cladogram what was given in the publication. A more complete version can be seen at the genus article. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, point taken. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "curliness"- now there's a word it's nice to see in a serious article!

• Curliness is as serious a word as plectaniaxanthin. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "or even white (as in the variety album)." This isn't mentioned in the taxonomy section?

• Yes, there is a slight repetition of info... but it's only a few words, and to me it seems that the info is appropriate in both spots. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• My point is that there isn't a repetition of info- that's the only place the variety is mentioned. The variety mentioned in the taxonomy section is S. coccinea var. albida- they the same thing? Why the two different names? J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, my mistake, I didn't even notice the spelling was different. Now fixed. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Sarcoscypha coccinea is one of several fungi whose fruit bodies have been noted to make a "puffing" sound—an audible manifestation of spore-discharge that occurs under certain conditions where thousands of asci simultaneously explode to release a cloud of spores." Our first fungal featured sound?

• Hmmm, I should pack my microphone next time I go mushroom hunting? Do you think I could get a featured sound for "pfff" ? :) Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "coalesce" is a rather technical term- a link to Coalescence (chemistry) (if that's the right meaning)?

• Yes, it's correct; linked. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Is it normal for anamorphs to be in a different genus to the normal versions? That just seems weird to me... (Not an issue with the article, you've explained it very well, I'm just intrigued)

• It is odd, but that's how they did things for decades before they were able to use molecular phylogenetics to link the identity of anamorph and teleomorph. There is currently debate in the mycological community about whether this practice should be scrapped (something I think will happen eventually as the old school diehards pass on to their next lives). Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "the Rose family, Beech, Hazel, Willow, Elm, and in the Mediterranean, on Oak." Something not quite right about this- perhaps another comma after "and"?

• Done. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "One field guide calls the fungus "a welcome sight after a long, desperate winter and ... the harbinger of a new year of mushrooming."[42]" Another wonderful little titbit. This really is an interesting article to read!

• I aim to please. And I think you meant tidbit, unless the small red circular fungus evoked a Freudian slip. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "are Red listed in Europe" You're kind of inventing a verb there- perhaps "are on the IUCN Red List in Europe"?

• "Red Listed" is being used this way as a verb now in the literature (see also our own article Red-listed). I've changed the link from Red list to Red-listed. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Makes sense. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Does it work, medicinally? Or was it just superstition?

• Only the Oneida and Iroquois can give you the answer you seek. I unfortunately have to rely on the limited info the sources give me. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "the sun's rays" Sun is a proper noun, according to our article

• Changed. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't really see how the first paragraph of "Bioactive compounds" constitutes a "use". It's useful to the article, but I can't help feeling it belongs elsewhere.

• I see what you're saying. Any suggestions? I could rename "Bioactive compounds" to "Chemistry" and make it a section, and also maybe remove the "Edibility" subheader from the uses section while I'm at it. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• That could work- alternatively, you could slip the explanation of why it's red in the description section. "Why is Sarcoscypha coccinea red?" is hardly up there with "why is the sky blue?", but it has its place, especially with the suggestion about it being a slight evolutionary advantage. J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I doubt there's much more to say, so no big deal if you don't know, but is the lectin commercially produced? Sold? Used in any labs? Or did someone just find it, mention it in a paper then forget about it?

• The latter. It's one of those bits of pure research that might be useful someday to a biochemist who needs an alternative way to selectively bind lactose using a chromatography column or something. Sasata (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• It just feels a shame to end the article with a comparatively uninteresting/unimportant fact, when there is such lovely stuff in the uses section. Perhaps you could have three subsections- edibility, medicinal uses and other uses, something like that... Does it mention in the source why it was used as a table decoration? Because it's pretty? Its colour? Because they're all crazy over there? Something like that? If there was a little more on that, you could offset the stuffy science with some quaint human interest under an "other uses" title. (Your way also works, I'm just throwing another idea into the mix.) J Milburn (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Have rearranged the sections and headers/subheaders a bit so it doesn't end with the boring fact. Would love to include more human interest stuff about the fungus... but it just isn't out there. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably one of your best- I really enjoyed reading it, and it's clear a lot of expertise and research has gone into the article. I have no doubt you'll be able to deal with my suggestions as appropriate as usual. J Milburn (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] USS Massachusetts (BB-2)

Nominator(s): Yoenit (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I am attempting to create a featured topic about the US first battleship class. Massachusetts was the US's second "real" battleship and received neither the attention of USS Indiana (BB-1), nor the glory of USS Oregon (BB-3), making her probably most notable for her bad luck. Many thanks to everybody who reviews (or otherwise improves) the article.Yoenit (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: No dead external links, no dab links. Assuming good faith on the Jacobsen painting, both images are in the public domain. Imzadi 1979 → 09:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Out of curiosity, why would you need to assume good faith on the Jacobsen painting? Yoenit (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • US copyright law works off date of publication, not date of creation. If the painting was not first published in a book or first displayed someplace until after 1923, it could still be under copyright, even though the creator has been dead long enough. The source of the image does not list a date for the painting, but we're probably safe, even if I'm a little cautious in my image checking. Imzadi 1979 → 07:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments leaning support

• I know nothing about MILHIST standard practices—is the redlink at 3-inch/50 caliber correct (it may be)?

Hi Iridescent, thanks for reviewing. The thinking is that "3-inch (76 mm)/50 caliber" doesn't look right to anybody; people who are familiar with guns know these as 3-inch guns, not 76 mm guns, in any country, and the "(76 mm)/55" part has to look strange to people who aren't familiar with guns, as if we're dividing 76 by 50. We're not united on how to handle this ... and if you have a good idea, please tell me ... I like to link it. We have a semi-recent change to WP:MOSNUM that says that we don't put a converted unit inside the link, on the theory that you can find the conversion if you follow the link. But not in this case, not yet. - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• What does "reduced commission" mean?

It is basically reserve status, which was not officially adapted until 1912. Officially in commission, but probably just moored somewhere with a skeleton crew on board. Yoenit (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Why is there a "see also" to Battleship Illinois (replica) but not to other ships of this type?

The other battleships of the class are linked in the text and in the template at the bottom of the page. "See also" is for connected articles which are not linked elsewhere. Yoenit (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• The lead says "She was intended and used for coastal defense, since her decks were not safe from high waves on the open ocean", but the description of her service history doesn't seem to bear this out—from the body text, there seem to be far more offensive operations and bombardments than defensive operations. Is this intentional, as to me (a complete outsider) it appears a bit contradictory? – iridescent 19:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

She was designed for coast defense, but not really used in that capacity. Will change the sentence to reflect that. Yoenit (talk) 10:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources look good. The names of a couple of the co-authors need arranging properly: " Schley, Winfield S." not "Winfield S., Schley" and "Scheina, Robert L." not " Robert L., Scheina". Otherwise no issues, Brianboulton (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, done. - Dank (push to talk) 00:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] University of Texas at Dallas

Nominator(s): Oldag07 (talk), Stan9999

I am nominating this for featured article because it has gone through enormous improvements over the last several months, and all concerns from past peer reviews have been met. Oldag07 (talk) 22:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - no dablinks, but the following external links returned errors: [3], [4], [5]. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Stan and I fixed all links. Oldag07 (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• The two external links to arwu.org (http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010_4.jsp and http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010_4.jsp) don't work for me. Ucucha 06:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• They resolve for me at this time. I believe the site may be timing out due to a traffic issue caused by their new 2010 rankings.Stan9999 (talk) 12:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Working now. Ucucha 18:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• comment the newspapers/mags in the rankings section and refs need to be italicised, many of the areas have "m2" without superscripting, and some hyphens in numbers in the rankings need to be turned into ndashes. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe I fixed these to specification. Although there was a lot of cite web templates used where cite news templates should have been used. fixed that too. Oldag07 (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This probably stems from copying and pasting data, not realizing it does not contain format-independent characters viz. m₂/m². ―cobaltcigs 08:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: The building photos are in the public domain. Other photos are works of NASA or the US Air Force and also in the public domain. The seal, logo and athletics logo have fair-use rationales. I will let others decide how appropriate all three are, but the FURs appear to meet policy guidelines. Imzadi 1979 → 06:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - While it is a good start, I think this nomination is premature. The last peer reviewer promoted this article to C-class just four days ago and recommended GAN as the next step. I have to agree. I share the reviewer's concerns about the lead and overall quality of prose. But my primary concern is the very heavy reliance on school websites as sources. Surely reliable third-party sources could be found for more of this article. I would kindly suggest withdrawal, more work on referencing and prose, and a pass through GA before relisting here. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Good points all around. The reliance university articles have on university websites seems to be a common concern. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that this is a very young school with only a division 3 athletics program. I would appreciate more opinions on this page before closing this nomination. Thanks Oldag07 (talk) 22:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• UT or University of Texas? Better to use the second, and be consistent.

• See comments on "idiosyncratic capitalization of the definite article" below. It is very common to call this school "UTD". Less so "UT Dallas", but it is still pretty common. There is a need for consistency, but there is also a need to use different names for the same thing over and over. At a glance, "UT" is used just as much as "OSU" is used in Ohio State University and "UT" is used for the University of Texas at Dallas. Oldag07 (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• The Cecil and Ida Green ref (current ref 9) is actually a book, so should be formatted as such.

• Corrected.Stan9999 (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• What is ALTA? UTIMCO? ASCE? CSISS? Please spell out abbreviations used in the references.

• ALTA is not an abbreviation but the name of the org. Corrected the rest.Stan9999 (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.altalang.com/beyond-words/2009/09/23/top-10-us-translation-schools/
  • http://www.nsti.org/Nanotech2009/showbio.html?id=116
  • http://www.stateuniversity.com/rank/sat_75pctl_rank/2#122

• Removed questionable references.Stan9999 (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper. You also need to be consistent in this... you've got some instances of Bloomberg Business Week italicized and most not.

• In process of correcting these references.Stan9999 (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• You cannot say to see another wikipedia article for references, you need them here in this article. (Current ref 35)

• Corrected.Stan9999 (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Current ref 47 (Kiplinger Top 100) is borked somehow.

• Seems ok, resolves correctly.Stan9999 (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Current ref 104 (Construction goes up) lacks a publisher

• CorrectedStan9999 (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• A concern is that large chunks of this are referenced to either sources from UT Dallas itself of to the websites of the particular organizations/companies that are being described. This is primary sourcing, not secondary sourcing, and surely there are published works on this that can be consulted. If nothing else, the various university sites aren't going to cover any controversies that might have arrisen.

• I noted there are around 40 outside sources referenced . UTD doesn't have the extensive rich history as some of the older universities, major long standing sports programs, extensive list of notable people and has only been admitting freshmen for 20 years. Due to the short period of existence outside published works are hard to come by.Stan9999 (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A couple of notes:

• I figured I’d link to the astronaut guy’s article in the photo caption lest readers assume he’s utterly non-notable.
• Cleaned up some really weird table markup, but then I consider HTML Tidy more a safety-net than a hammock. Unpopular view, I know.
• We sure don’t need a dozen section links to the same article.
• I’m not sure whether we should respect their idiosyncratic capitalization of the definite article.
  • There was a big debate (two sections) on this page on that issue. The compromise was to respect the university's naming conventions throughout the article. However, we would keep the "The" out of the title of the wikipedia article. Still more input on that debate would be appreciated. Oldag07 (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Article teems with glowing praise. Nothing about crime on campus [6] [7] [8], budget cut protests [9], etc. You know, something to re-assure readers this isn’t a paid advertisement.
  • Agree with the statement. However, note that the budget cut protests occurred at the University of Texas at Austin, quite a different place. Admittedly it did say that the costs were higher at UTD. I am not sure if the crime rate notably high on campus. None of the university FA's I have read, mention those stats. Still, I will look for more stuff to try to give the page a more NPOV. Oldag07 (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Waterview attracted a certain amount of controversy, being dubbed "the Dorm from Hell" in an April 2005 article in the Dallas Observer" was noted. I am unable to find anything else like that.Stan9999 (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Student demographic table is flawed in that it uses mutually non-exclusive terms. Also, I’m sure you mean “Anglo” as a euphemism for White American of any ancestry but that’s a misnomer many would find offensive.
  • Removed Student demographic table.Stan9999 (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• {{Reflist|group=Note}} was empty, so I removed the section containing it. You’ll want to re-insert it if you plan to use that ref group.
• ==External links==, when present, are always the last section.
  • Unable to find any external links in the body of the article, perhaps I missed something?Stan9999 (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

―cobaltcigs 08:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant the section called “==External links==” which I moved to the end but which previously was positioned much higher. ―cobaltcigs 19:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• I misread, thanks.Stan9999 (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose—Poorly written.

1. I am inclined not to go along with some pretentious insistence by a university, and even more by a "system", on the upper-case "The". This has come up before at the MoS. I see there's no "The" sticking out in "the Graduate Research Centre", etc.
2. "With a number of interdisciplinary degree programs and over 50 research centers and institutes its curriculum is designed to allow study that crosses traditional disciplinary lines and students participate in collaborative research labs." This is a clumsy and over-long sentence. "More than" would be nice. A comma after "institutes" to avoid the jostling of two nouns in a longish sentence. The last clause doesn't flow from the previous clauses.
3. Where there's more than one "and" in a sentence, and one is ranked more highly in a structural sense, a comma after it would be good: activity", and the
4. "High research activity" is pretty awful out of context, anyway ... is it cloud research? Better a "high" level of research activity.

• The classification "High research activity" is given by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. I added some of the areas of research.Stan9999 (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Comma after "commencement" and after "alumni".
2. Remove "located".
3. "acres" is an epithet qualifying "industrial park", not a noun itself, and should be singular. Remove "located" again.
4. Bad sentence: "Almost 600,000-square-foot (56,000 m2) of new facilities have been added from 2007 to the summer of 2010 with another 280,000-square-foot (26,000 m2) planned to be completed by 2012." No hyphens. Here, "feet" is the noun, so plural. "planned for completion".

• I believe I have corrected most of the points. Thanks for your help!Stan9999 (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

On this basis, the whole article need urgent attention by unfamiliar copy-editors. Tony (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• I keep hammering away at this article. Reviews by unfamiliar copy-editors would be greatly appreciated.Stan9999 (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actively search for them: creates linkages with others who can be future collaborators. Try looking through the edit-summaries of the history pages of similar FAs and GAs to identify the word people. Tony (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Eshmun Temple

Nominator(s): Eli+ 16:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because i believe it meets the FA criteria. The article went from being a minor stub to a thoroughly referenced collection of valuable information. thank you for taking the time to review this entry.Eli+ 16:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 16:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: all images are in the public domain, or licensed under free licenses. Imzadi 1979 → 06:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Some of the information given as footnotes needs to be cited to sources. For example, what is the source of the description shown as Note 7? What is the source of the translation in Note 9
• Nitpicks:-
  • Is ref 4 in French?
  • Ref 9: Books on Demand is a vanity publisher. Should be noted "self-published".
  • Publisher locations should be given consistently - all or none.
  • "pp." should be used for page ranges. "p." for single pages

Otherwise sources all look OK Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by nominator reference issues are fixed, references to notes added Eli+ 09:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments - beginning a read-through now. I'll make straighforward copyedits as I go. Please forgive me and revert any which accidentally change the meaning. I will jot questions below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd move the last sentence of the Historical background section to the Construction section as it fits in better in the latter section. It cannot easily be appended to the previous paragraph in the former section.

haphazardly... - do you mean "by chance" here?

not a deal-breaker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Citrus groves, known as Bustan el-Sheikh - I italicised this as this is the correct use not quotes for foreign terms - you may want to put the arabic letters here too? Not essential but I think it is a nice touch.

Might be a good idea to link hydraulic but question is where to...

Overall, I am leaning to support in terms of prose now - I think it is a well-rounded article, but I have no idea whether it is fully comprehensive. It appears so but I am not familiar with the subject matter so will await someone with more background expertise in the area. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments

• The intro mentions Eshmunazar II, the Achaemenid Era, Bodashtart and Yatan Milk but without dates. They could all do with a rough date range in brackets.
• "Ydll" spring - is this the name of the spring? If so, this could be made a little clearer (perhaps by removing the quotes?)

Maybe your explanation below could be put into a footnote in the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• ...especially those inscribed with ancient texts... - perhaps "ancient texts" could be wikilinked to something relevant, maybe the script they were written in or something?
• (Eshmun section) "...Eshmun was the Phoenician god of healing..." then "...he is one of the most important divinities...". Is or was? Is Eshmun still worshipped in any form? If not then this should be past tense.
• "The myth of Eshmun was related by Damascius and Photius": Perhaps a brief description of each e.g. "by the 5th-6th century CE Athenian philospher Damascius" or something better.
• The wikilink to Asclepius should perhaps be moved. At the moment "Asclepius River" links to the article on the Greek deity. This should be de-linked (or linked to an appropriate river article) and the link moved to the first mention of the god in the Eshmun section.

I've added in a couple of wikilinks. I've gone through the first couple of sections and I'll carry on from Historical background later. So far it looks like a nice article and all my comments above are just nitpicking.

Simon Burchell (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by nominator ^^ that's what i call reading between the lines, thanks mates :)

1. I purposefully kept the quotes when referring to the YDLL spring, some sources write it as Yidlal, others omit the vowels; you see, the Phoenicians did not write their vowels so 'Idll could be interpreted as Yidlal, Yodlal, Yadlal, Yidlel, Yedlel, Yedlil, Yedlol, and the list goes on; the word has no equivalent in modern semitic languages (hebrew is usually the reference). i preferred keeping the word in its original written form (YDLL), that's why i kept the quotes.
2. i linked "ancient texts" to Phoenician alphabet even though inscriptions in Greek, Roman as well as other now defunct languages were found on site because the Phoenician texts hold much more scientific and historical value.
3. other issues>> FIXED, thanks Eli+ 16:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• More comments

• Wiktionary links should not be inserted as hyperlinks (i.e. as external links, e.g. [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/instate instated] ), rather as wikilinks [[wiktionary:instate|instated]]. I've fixed this in the article but haven't checked if there are any more.
• Many of the inline citations interrupt the flow of reading and should be placed after punctuation rather than in the middle of sentences. See Wikipedia:Mos#Punctuation_and_inline_citations. This is the only real problem I have with the article and needs to be sorted.
• I linked Ionic to Ionia, I assume this is where was meant but please check that I got it right.
• "The extramural Eshmun Temple was associated with lustral cult and healing" - something isn't right here, maybe "the lustral cult".
• "The notoriety of the sanctuary was far reaching" - Notoriety or fame? The article doesn't give the impression of a notorious site.

I've made some minor changes to the article - please check that I haven't changed the meaning of anything or linked to the wrong place.

Simon Burchell (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by nominator Ol Klear, kept the notes though, cannot move these without having them look out of context Eli+ 20:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Thanks for the changes, I still think "Ydll" could use a footnote with your explanation (see my comment above). Nice article, best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment by nominator i will try to append the YDLL thingy in a footnote once i get home, i added a footnote about the YDLL inscription, I;m not quite happy with the wording though, could someone please c/e it ? Simon, Ionic link is ok, i don't know how i missed so many links. I'm truly grateful for your help and guidance; thank you all for your time. Eli+ 21:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem - glad to be of help. I've rephrase the footnote. Best regards, and good luck with the nomination, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Sedin

Nominator(s): Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This article was up for FAC a couple months ago, but was not passed due to a lack of review. It is extremely similar, in many parts almost identical, to Henrik Sedin's article, which was passed as a FA about a month prior to Daniel's first FAC. My hope is that the article gets more attention this time around. It is an extensive article that covers virtually every aspect of his career. Thanks in advance to any reviewer who takes the time to have a look! Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, but dead external links to http://www.nbcolympics.com/athletes/athlete=2559/bio/index.html, http://www.vancouversun.com/Sports/Canucks+Daniel+Sedin+second+star+week/1444934/story.html, http://www.faceoff.com/hockey/teams/vancouver-canucks/story.html?id=2403303&add_feed_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.faceoff.com%2Fscripts%2FSP6Atom.aspx%3Fid%3D894638, and http://www.theprovince.com/Sports/Sedins+asking+million+each+year+deal/1709132/story.html. Ucucha 06:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Dead links have been changed, article is well written and fully encompassing, and all prior concerns from previous FAC have been addressed.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: would the above supporter please sign? For me, the 1st, 3rd and 4th of the above links work, the 2nd and 5th go to Page not found. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • There were only four, but they've all been fixed now. Some of the dead links didn't lead to a "Page not found"-type message; instead, they redirected to a homepage. Ucucha 15:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I could not find any more dead links to fix either. Thanks to Mo rock...Monstrous to taking care of that. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - Support: Good read, just a few minor things and then a support.
  • Under "Vancouver Canucks" - "He suffered the injury after being hit by a slapshot by teammate Alex Edler." Can one of those 'by's be changed, maybe 'from teammate Alex Edler'.
  • "All three goals were assisted by his brother, helping Henrik pass Alexander Ovechkin for the Art Ross Trophy" - clicking will tell you that the Ross is for the league's top scorer, but maybe a mention in the text would make this page itself more clear.
  • "Meeting the Chicago Blackhawks the following round, his production decreased to four points as the Canucks were eliminated in six games" - Possibly 'Against the Chicago....' rather than 'Meeting'.
  • Awards - some of these aren't mentioned in the text with a reference (that I could find), so a reference in the table would be good. Canada Hky (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Done. Thanks for your suggestions. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The note about the drafts lacks a source. P. S. Burton (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Weird, I could have sworn I had one on there earlier. At any rate, I've added a reference and put it adjacent to the note. I don't know if this is the correct format for referencing a note though. If not, let me know. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Check out Go Man Go and how they are done there. P. S. Burton (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sweet, thanks. That's been taken care of. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: images are all licensed under free licenses. Imzadi 1979 → 06:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• The long footnote is uncited. Such text is subject to the same rules as the article's main prose and must be sourced. You might also consider whether a general reader can be reasonably expected to understand this: "...; acquired the Tampa Bay Lightning's first overall pick for the fourth, 75th and 88th overall picks; and acquired the Atlanta Thrashers' second overall pick for the first overall pick and a conditional third-round choice in 2000." This is presumably a desciption of some sort of trading or dealing, but it needs a great deal of clarification.
  • I tried clarifying the note as best I could, but the nature of the series of trades described is quite confusing in itself, so I did the best I could. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 51: What is the nature of this source. If online, why no link? If a print source, in what form? If "NHL" is National Hockey League, it should be spelt out as per other refs to this source.
  • This was taken care of by Mo Rock. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 81: Is Covers.com an appropriate source for the cited information?
  • When Henrik Sedin's article went through FAC, this same issue came up, however it was eventually deemd acceptable. There's an about page on the Covers website mentioning that the Covers Media Group has been referenced by such reliable publications as USA Today, New York Times, etc). If that doesn't suffice though, there is another reference for that same sentence in the article, so I believe I could just remove the Covers one.
• I have not checked out the Swedish language sources.
  • I have checked the Swedish language source. It is the official page of the Swedish Elite League. P. S. Burton (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments Generally a good read. I'm not a hockey person at all, but I followed most of this apart from a few things I've noted. Just a few other minor things so far.

• "The Sedins were considered top prospects for the 1999 NHL Entry Draft. Rated as the top European prospects,": Repetition of prospects, could be rephrased.
• "two options to circumvent the usual NHL draft process, allowing them to play together..." As phrased, it reads a little like there is a rule which specifically forbids draft picks playing together, but as I understand from the rest of the article, it is just that the same team would not have consecutive picks. It may be better to rephrase this to explain that they were unlikely to be picked due to the the usual drafting process. Or something similar.
• Further to Brianbolton above, it is confusing to read the note, but I suspect you've done all you can. However, it must still have a reference.
• "second in team": Is this a hockey expression, or should there be "the" in there?
• "The two brothers played on a line" and later "Canucks' third line": Sorry, don't understand!
• "against Dan Cloutier against the Tampa Bay Lightning": Against...against needs improving. And presumably Cloutier was in goal?
• "on a pass from the corner boards to the slot, the goal tied the game at 5–5 with 1:13 left to go in a 6–5 regulation win" First sentence which lost me. Slot? Regulation win presumably is a win in regulation time. And the time needs minutes after it.
• "He became the first rookie to reach 20 goals on the season when he scored on March 21, 2001, in a 1–1 tie against the Columbus Blue Jackets.": Repetition of rookie from prev sentence and does this mean first rookie ever or just in that season? And the next sentence is a little clumsy and could perhaps be merged with this one.
• "Canucks were swept": A bit jargony but I'm not too bothered.
• Maybe say who votes on the Calder Memorial trophy: i.e. coaches, journalists, fans...
• "In his proceding second NHL season..." Proceding? I think "following" or just leave the word out.
• Possibly I'm missing something, but I can't see any refs for his stats in the season. E.g. "With 23 assists, he had 32 points overall. The following season in 2002–03, Daniel continued his point-scoring pace with 14 goals and 17 assists" seems uncited.
• "The trio were dubbed the "Mattress Line" (two twins and a King) and formed the Canucks' second scoring unit": Dubbed by who? And what is a second scoring unit?
• Minor detail, and feel free to ignore it: I'm just curious. In hockey, I assume players are awarded points in the rankings for assists.
• "His breakout season was sparked..." What is a breakout season, it seems jargony and "sparked" seems a little too informal.
• "the Sedins' ascent as leaders on the team": Should it be ascent to?
• "He paced the team...": Jargon?
• " four overtime goals..." Would "four goals in overtime" read better?
• Could a word or two more be added to mention the team's performance in each season?
• "as he missed the playoffs with the Canucks...": He personally missed them but the team made them, or the team missed them?
• NHL's First and Second Star of the Week: Link?

More to follow. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Addressed all the above issues as best I could. I could not find a reference for exactly who came up with the Mattress Line nickname. As these things usually go, it was either a broadcaster or someone in the media, but if it's a big deal to have it in there without a reference of such, it could be easily removed. In regards to citing season stats, I haven't actually found it in common practice to do so. I've passed a couple other NHL players' articles into FA and neither required reference for stats. However, this can also be taken care of if it seems to be a big issue. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

More comments

• "third in tournament-scoring behind Henrik and Milan Kraft": Sounds clumsy. What about simply "third highest scorer in the tournament behind..."
• "At the World Championships, Daniel and Henrik both recorded five points as the youngest players on the squad": Perhaps reinforce that this is the senior championship. And "as" does not make sense: the two elements are not dependent. Their scores are not connected to their age. What about "At the senior/mens World Championship, Daniel and Henrik were the youngest players on the squad and recorded five points."
• "Sweden again did not medal...": I don't consider medal a verb; I would much prefer "achive a medal" or "manage a medal", but I won't insist.
• Playing style: All good, but any comments on their effectiveness, judgements, opinions, etc. And anything about why he is a good goal-scorer, or how he is able to do it?
• The career statistics section has no ref, which I understand is standard in hockey articles. However, I think it needs a ref just to prove that you haven't made it up (which I'm sure you didn't!)

I don't see any major problems here, although I think parts may need a copy-edit. I understood most of it, which impressed me as I know very little about the sport, and it was readable. Some of the season summaries dragged, but I think that is unavoidable and not a huge problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• All above issues addressed with the exception of playing style. I will work on finding something for that. Thanks! Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Harbingers

Nominator(s): d'oh! _talk 01:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because after a copyedit and a bit of a expansion since the last FAC, I feel this article meets the FA criteria. d'oh! _talk 01:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.boardgamegeek.com/
  • http://www.marrowproductions.com/wof
• Footnote 6 - "The Gatekeeper..." the "original" link doesn't work any longer, might as well remove it.
• I have a concern about the number of sources consulted here. What I'm seeing is that there was an article in this horror fanzine Bloodsongs and that's pretty much the only major discussion of the game outside the game booklet/game website.Is there nothing else? I did a google news search and turned up nothing at all.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right BGG is not a reliable source as its a wiki too I believe, but the reviews on BGG was used to show the reception of the game by gamers. WOF was the biggest fan website for the game on its release as such the creators did a few interviews with them. Only the interviews was used in the article. For footnote 6, the dead link was removed. I do have other sources for this game, like an article in the Business Review Weekly, which back ups most the other sources, but didn't add much more other than one piece of information, which is why it was largely left out. I also just added info from an article in the The New York Times. 15 years has past since this game was released, so sources was a bit hard to come by. Thanks for the comments. d'oh! _talk 15:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

WOF and BGG still won't work as sources, however, as you need to show a reputation for fact checking, etc. Right now the vast majority of the article is sourced to primary sources - the game itself. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

WOF and BGG has both been removed. The use of primary sources doesn't appear to be a issue in other FA articles, but if its is a issue I will try and address that issue. d'oh! _talk 04:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, that particular FA was promoted 2 and a half years ago. I'll leave the last issue out for other reviewers to consider. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Paul E. Patton

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

First governor of Kentucky to serve two consecutive terms since 1804. This is the second FA nomination for this article; the first closed with no consensus (a few comments but no !votes either way). Hoping for a more active nomination this time around. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - no dablinks or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• The method of formatting online references is inconvenient to the user, who has to look in two places to find the cited source. It would be easier if the link to the source was within the reference itself; thus ref 1 becomes "Kentucky Governor Paul E. Patton". National Governors Association. http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=7a66ae3effb81010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD&vgnextchannel=e449a0ca9e3f1010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD. Retrieved 2010-02-03. , ref 4 becomes "Paul E. Patton". Hall of Distinction. University of Kentucky College of Engineering. http://www.engr.uky.edu/alumni/hod/patton.php. Retrieved 2010-02-03. , and so on for the remaining online citations which are 6, 7, 9, 19, 22, 54, 70, 71, and 72. These can then be withdrawn from the bibliography.
• Ref 51 is to a court case, but the information you give is cryptic. Use the "cite court" template in WP:Citation templates to give a more informative output.

Otherwise sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll meet you halfway on the linking issue. I've added the links in the footnotes, but I'd like to keep them in the bibliography just to give folks an idea of the breadth and types of sources used. Regarding the court case, I hope I have used the template correctly. I'm definitely out of my element with that. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image check: The portrait is public domain, the photograph has a free license. Imzadi 1979 → 06:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Meckiff

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ian Meckiff is a retired Australian cricketer from the 1950s and 1960s. He was a fast bowler, and there were persistent allegations that his bowling technique was illegal (throwing (cricket)) in a similar way to racewalkers having two feet off the ground, bent knees and so forth. This caused rather a diplomatic incident as in those umpires were not from neutral countries/clubs, but were always provided by the hosts, and it was regarded as rather undiplomatic for a host to sanction a visiting player, and difficult for a host umpire to handicap his own team. So there was a lot of maneuvring of alterations to the throwing law and parochial media wars and allegations. Finally in 1963, he was brought back into the Australian team after strong form for his state side, and was immediately sanctioned by Australian umpire Col Egar in the first 5 (and only) minutes of his performance, and then he retired. This provoked death threats against the umpire and angry crowd demonstrations, as well as conspiracy allegations, as the chief selector of the Australian team Don Bradman had privately told others of his suspicions that Meckiff was illegal, but picked him in the team anyway. Soon there was a great hullabaloo in the press over whether he was guilty and whether he was a scapegoat in a "public execution" by the umpire to prove that Australia was serious about stopping illegal bowling actions. This article was kindly copyedited by Brianboulton. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - no dablinks or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Ref 47: Why is the Hopps book & citations not formatted like the other books?
• Ref 71: Fiddian is not defined
• Ref 103: Why is the Tibballs book & citations not formatted like the other books?

Otherwise sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Given the amount of detail in this article and comment on his performances, is it necessary to go into such detail about the early matches in his career? It detracts a little from the flow in my view.

I pruned the not so important batting bits. The debut is described a bit, as are the showpiece matches: the tie against NSW and the sselection trial, which are important YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• It isn't obvious from the early career section why he made such an impression that he was picked for a semi-representative side and a representative tour. Is there anything that could be added to explain this in terms other than figures? If it doesn't exist, fine, but an average of 23 in a first season doesn't account for such an early pick usually. Selectorial desperation?

Well they decided that Lindwall was over the hill, Miller retired, Archer's knee went completely, and Crawford's wife left him and he played only one match for the season. Nothing was said explicitly in detail about every newbie, the newspapers were shorter in those days, but three of the incumbents were totally unavailable, he also did well against NSW and they were the strongest, so maybe that was weighted more YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Under some pressure": Could this be clarified? From others or himself? Because he was a controversial pick or because of the selectors' policy?

The selectors' new wave YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• "but Meckiff was impressive, taking 5/125 in the hosts' first innings": Does this need a ref?

changed YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Is it worth mentioning that Johnny Wardle had just been sacked by Yorkshire, otherwise he would have been on the tour himself.

No, unless one thinks it was supposed to have made him more bitter; he was also being ghosted and told to troll, more or less YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Former England spinner Ian Peebles asserted that the Victorian threw "the greater number of balls they deliver"" Does the quote ("they") refer to more than one bowler?

Yes. done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Would the sections on English and Australian press reaction be better combined rather than split by the 3rd and 5th Test parts?

done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Meckiff reported that from the Melbourne Test onwards, his son was verbally abused by classmates, while his parents were persistently told that their son bowled illegally." This sentence is slightly confusing due to the use of "son" twice to mean two different people.

tweaked YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Is it worth mentioning Tony Lock's dubious action as well, given the controversy at the time over him? And he had to alter his action.

More to follow. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Further comments

• "Over the next two years, sceptics and sporting opponents mostly regarded his action as fair, and said so in public." Any examples?

Unfortunately no, per the same reasoning below about his new action being irrelevant YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Although you have linked "called", I'm not sure anyone reading it who is unfamiliar would understand, particularly as "called" is used in other contexts.

elaborated YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• "He then missed the drawn Third Test in Karach" Is there a known reason?

Well he completed the previous match's bowling, and Lindwall was swapped in per the scorecard, but the newspaper archive's daily reports of that Test didn't even mention the swap at all, and on its very short match eve preview said that Australia's XI was being finalised, but did not mention that Meckiff was injured. Maybe he was dropped as his first two Tests were ordinary, maybe be got sick or injured on the morning, as many got sick on that tour YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• "...as Benaud's men..." Worth mentioning at the start of this section that Benaud was still captain? Or too fussy?

I don't think we need to bother YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Meckiff returned to Australia in time to play his only Sheffield Shield match for the 1959–60 season, taking the only ten-wicket match haul of his career." Too many onlys?

done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Benaud fell on the second ball of the final over attempting a hook" Reads a bit like he fell over playing the shot!

done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Critics claimed that his new bowling action adopted in 1959–60 had made him legitimate but reduced his pace and effectiveness." Any idea who? (And something similar was said of Tony Lock)

No, Whimpress just says that the correlation/causality was given and referred to the subcontinent tour, but per above the newspaper rreports only had ten-sentence daily reports of data with no analysis :( So I don't know where his data is coming from YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Nitpick: Is the section on the tied test too long, given his limited involvement in the game? Feel free to ignore this.

I don't think so, as I've gone through about 4 history books and all of them decide to give it about a triple weighting compared to other Tests. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Any reaction to his being called in 62/63? Surely it created a stir. Also, any reason for change after his "clean" seasons?

Surpisingly no. I checked the main Victorian newspaper archive and it just had one sentence on both occasions, just stating it, as thought it was just a rrandom catch or six :O.... weird YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Test Match: Fantastic! I had no idea it was so dramatic. Did Benaud ever comment later in any of his millions of books?

Benaud's keeping mum about the conspiracy, and isn't saying anything except the usual PR/PC stuff that no dirty tricks were used, ie what is already in the article. Maybe they hace some secret diary/tape that will be revealed once everyone's dead YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Anything about his personal life?

Unfortunately his autobiog was written when he was a very young man, so no more detail will be found except in the skinny snippets in some contemporary's autobiog that I've already scraped YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think "taking" (i.e. wickets) is a little overused, especially in the subcontinent section.

Varied YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• I seem to remember Meckiff attending the Test when Muralitharan was called, and I think Wisden said he was so bothered by what happened, he had to leave. Worth adding?

My book here says that Meckiff thought the public execution was distasteful, but I also found a newspaper article that Meckiff says that hhe thinks Murali is dubious, and his views are rather complex, so I'm not sure this can be explained in a compact way and lengthening the article by 3-4 sentences, which would raise eyebrows about weight YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Great article, very interesting and engaging! I think some of the scores sections drag a little when compared to the controversial sections, but this is probably unavoidable. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Support: All good now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Suggestion To aid the reader with all the harvard refs it might be good idea to use the harvnb template and related. Albert_Bridge, London is a good example. Ryan Norton 19:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not as I don't think it adds anything worthwhile and just makes the page article. There are only a few books and it hardly takes anything all to just look at the list for 5 books without the need for link to the book directly within the page YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Nikita Filatov

Nominator(s): Canada Hky (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is finally there. I got some excellent feedback during the last run at FAC, which I really appreciated. The main issues from the last nomination concerned the lack of information about his playing style (addressed with the addition of a new section), and two references to Yahoo! blogs (both removed, and the material covered with other sources). The article has also been updated briefly with news about the upcoming season and Filatov's arrival in North America, but I think it still meets the stability requirements. Canada Hky (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - no dablinks or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - The caption for the image in the medal record (it simply states, "Nikita Filatov") is kind of strange to me; it's clear from the context that it's Filatov (who else could it possibly be?). I'd prefer to see no caption, or if one must exist, the context of the event he's playing in. I'm not quite clear on infobox image guidelines. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 07:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Adjusted the caption in the medal box to specify the event and award. Previously, there was no caption, so I think it defaulted to the player name, and I am not sure how to force it to not have a caption. Canada Hky (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • If needed, the image could be removed from the medal box entirely, as well. Canada Hky (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: The sources were okayed at the previous FAC. There have been a few changes, but no problems, all still OK Brianboulton (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Supported on last nomination, stand by that now. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support article is well written and all encompassing. All prior concerns from previous nomination have been addressed.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments I have a few problems with this article. It seems to contain a lot of hockey jargon which makes it hard for the general reader to understand and the prose is choppy. I've read as far as the end of "Professional" so far.

• "Nikita Vasilyevich Filatov (Russian: Никита Васильевич Филатов; born May 25, 1990) is a Russian professional ice hockey winger currently playing for CSKA Moscow of the Kontinental Hockey League (KHL), on loan from the Columbus Blue Jackets of the National Hockey League (NHL).": This is a really long opening sentence, lots in it; could it be broken up a little?
  • Adjusted, he is in Columbus for the 10/11 season, so I removed the part about being loaned to CSKA.
• "He was the top-ranked European skater by the NHL Central Scouting Bureau and was selected sixth overall by the Blue Jackets in the 2008 NHL Entry Draft." Why is this important? A word about who selected him would be good here. And "top-ranked skater by" sounds clumsy; what about "The NHL Central Scouting Bureau ranked him as the top European skater". And as a non-hockey person, "selected sixth overall by the Blue Jackets in the 2008 NHL Entry Draft" means nothing. Sixth out of how many? Selected for what? From who? The main section on this does not make it any clearer: "top-ranked European skater by the NHL's Central Scouting Bureau in both their mid-term and final rankings" does not really explain what is going on. And "selected by the Sudbury Wolves of the Ontario Hockey League": selected how? To play for them?
  • I have clarified the sentence about central scouting. I am not sure how to address the other concerns. I don't think it is being too technical or exclusionary with the way the draft info is presented. I don't really want to go into an explanation of how teams use drafts to ration talent coming into the leagues. I didn't add in how many players were selected in the draft, as that information isn't commonly included in hockey articles, but is readily available from the 2008 NHL Entry Draft page which is WL'd.

I think the problem is that these parts come in a section which is (understandably) stats heavy and so make it very dry. Such info may not be commonly included, but I think even one explanatory sentence on drafting would help the general reader (like me), asell as giving some context for this being (presumably) a notable achievement. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Tried to clarify the drafting process, without getting too wordy, let me know what you think.

Fine now. I've copy-edited a little to clear one or two things up and to make the prose flow a little. If I've made any mistakes, simply revert them. The drafting process is clear enough now without going into too much detail. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• The lead seems short and does not really give a summary of his career.
  • Fixed the lead to add a bit more detail of last season.
• "Farm team": Could it be linked, or better yet, expanded.
  • Removed, as it didn't fit with the common usage of the term in hockey hockey parlance.
• What is an "entry level contract"?
  • Standard hockey terminology for a player's first hockey contract, set out by the collective bargaining agreement. I think the term explains itself.

I don't agree that it explains itself, and I'm still not entirely clear. Presumably it is based on a certain wage which increases, as implied by the next sentence. Could a sentence not be added which would clarify and imporove the flow to the next sentence about his salary? --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't find a good way to explain it, nor could I find another article with it explained well, so I removed the 'entry-level' portion.

• "2008 Canadian Hockey League (CHL) Import Draft" What is this?
  • Added a WL.
• Does General Manager really need abbreviating to GM? Is this a hockey convention?
  • Fairly common sports vernacular, its spelled out on the first occurrence, but it could be switched if it is an issue, I feel it makes the article flow a bit better.

I think that's my point. Should an encyclopedia use sports vernacular? --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as a problem, but it was easy enough to remove, and I did so.

• The prose is bumpy. Lots of sentences start with "Filatov", "he" (21 sentences up to the "International play" section begin with these words) or a season ("During XXXX", "After XXXX").
  • Its somewhat the nature of the beast when writing about a single subject, but I will take a run through and try to clear some of these up.
    • Tried to clean this up a bit, let me know what you think.

Seems better now, and I've tried to copy-edit the prose a little to make it flow. The later sections seem fine. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I found it very hard to follow this; I think more concessions to the general reader need to be made. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Tried to make this a bit more user-friendly, let me know if there are any further suggestions. Canada Hky (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

More comments

• You have used scratched and wikilinked it; the dictionary link does not really make clear the meaning. I imagine it is a regularly used term i hockey, but the general reader may be confused. I would prefer a more formal choice of word in a FA which clarified: did the coach ignore him, did he not make it onto the pitch. Simply "the coach left him out of..." would work better.
  • Clarified - was not dressed for the game as a coach's decision. Canada Hky (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• "unhappy with his ice time" Very slangy; "playing time", "time on the field", even "time on the ice" would be preferable.
  • Fixed Canada Hky (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• I've tried to link the sentences with the coaching staff improving his defence to returning him to Russia. The chronology needs sorting out: did they try to improve his play, decide it wasn't working and let him go back, or tell him to go back and improve his defensive play?
  • I'll need to work on this section a bit. Basically, he's an offensive player, the coaches wanted him to play at least passably defensively. If he wasn't playing well defensively, he wasn't getting much playing time from the coaches. If he wasn't getting much playing time, he wasn't happy. When he wasn't happy, he wanted to go home. It will need to be changed a little bit from how you phrased it, because it kind of involves three parties (player, coaches, GM), and when shortened it makes it sound as if the coaches said it wasn't working and let him go, which isn't quite what happened. I'll work on getting this fixed up. Canada Hky (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Your explanation here sounds good. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• The quote from the regulations about newcomer need an attribution.
  • Is this referring to the "Best Newcomer" award, and the definition in parentheses? Its not so much a quote as the league's definition of the award, and is from the same source at the end of the sentence. I can fix it up a bit, but I just want to make sure I am fixing up the right thing.Canada Hky (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If the attribution is at the end of the sentence, that's fine, but I think the text should show it too: i.e. "according to the league's definition".

Added "defined by the KHL as" to the paranthetical statement.Canada Hky (talk) 22:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• What comments did he make to the Russian media which annoyed people so much?
  • I haven't been able to find a direct quotes in English from a reliable site, the best I have been able to find is from that cited source saying he was 'dismissive' of the Blue Jackets.Canada Hky (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case, maybe make the section about people being annoyed a bit less prominent. The reader may be left wanting to know exactly what he said as it sounds quite controversial as phrased now.--Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Left in the part about his teammates being annoyed by his departure (which is supported by the cite) and removed the part about his statements and claiming to be misquoted.Canada Hky (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• The last part of the Professional section seems to be unduly concentrating on current events rather than reporting what was happening. This slightly concerns me about 1e, changing significantly from day to day. This was raised at the previous FAC, and this is obviously going to change fairly soon when the current season unfolds. One solution may be to shorten the part about his uncertain future, but I'm not too sure. It seems premature to have a FA about a 20 year old who has the vast majority of his career in front of him. Are there any equivalent sporting FAs?
  • The discussion about stability was covered somewhat in the last FA. I don't think it is possible to say if stability will be an issue, because it involves a lot of projecting. Really, for anyone who is still alive - things can change quickly. Filatov isn't involved in anything that would reasonably suggest that this article is going to be unstable from day-to-day, and I think that's all that can be said about most living people. It was a bit of a tumultuous season last year, but still not an unstable article. Canada Hky (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My main concern is that if he played for another 10 years, for example, that is an awful lot of content to add. If it is a FA now, is there a guarantee that the future updates will be up to scratch? It is slightly different for others: a sportsman at or near the end of his career is most likely to live a quiet life of retirement and do little else of note. Filatov could potentially have a lot more happen to him. I'm not saying that this means it can't be a FA or that I oppose, I'm kind of thinking out loud!

I understand the thought process, I just think its reasonable that this article won't grow at a pace that outstrips the ability of editors to keep it at a high standard. I think its easier to keep an article to high standards than to get an article there. The framework is in place, and a lot of the content is established. There are not any hockey FAs of players this young, but Henrik Sedin and Roberto Luongo could arguably be predicted to have their careers (and articles) expand at a quicker pace (they are established players in a bigger hockey market) than Filatov. As to whether there is a lot of content to add, that isn't necessarily a given. Both sides are saying the right things about the upcoming season, but things could fall apart and Filatov could become a journeyman (a journeyman with a well-written Wikipedia entry, but a journeyman nonetheless). Also, I think I clarified a bit of the problem with a lean to recentism, with the removal of some of the material about potential conflicts with teammates. Canada Hky (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• ""the next best thing to Steven Stamkos." A bit of context here: a word on who Stamkos is? (I know he's linked, but it makes it easier for the reader)
  • Clarified that Stamkos was the consensus top prospect for the draft. Canada Hky (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Off the ice, Filatov trains outside of a traditional setting, spending time outside running in sand and lifting trees and boulders." Could this be re-phrased? Not sure about "traditional setting".
  • Clarified Canada Hky (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• If possible, is there any more about his personal life, particularly before his hockey career? E.g. education.
• Playing style: A little brief, is there any more? I know almost nothing about hockey, but could comments be made about his technique? Also, there is very little in the whole article about the effectiveness of his performances, with the notable exception of the international section. We are given the goals and assists, but any media/coach comments on his success: e.g. a report saying he was really good/bad/indifferent? How good was he expected to be.

My main concern at the moment is 1e. I'm happy with the jargon and access for the general reader now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] School for Creative and Performing Arts

Nominator(s): Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I bring you another school from off the beaten path. This one has it all: Sex scandals. Arson. Swimming pools, movie stars, and MTV. Behind the drama is a pioneer in school integration and arts education, which I think makes an interesting read and I hope makes a worthy Featured Article. With many thanks to Ruhrfisch for the peer review and Dabomb87 for the MOS review. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If the people listed under Alumni are indeed notable, they should be red-linked (WP:RED); if they're not, I'm unclear why they are listed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they should. I've red-linked them. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - no dablinks or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Actually, http://www.cdab.org/members.asp?SCHOOL_ID=1397 won't load for me. Ucucha 06:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  It works fine for me. Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  And for me on another computer. Ucucha 10:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments: Minor fixes:-

• Ref 2 "Vaccariello, 1993", Ref 56 "Vaccariello & Pyle, 1993". Assuming these are the same source, consistency of format required.
• Refs 5 & 6: not sure about the formatting here. I think there is a "cite case" template, which provides a standard format for legal citations.
• Ref 8 (Jacobs and Felix): why has this been formatted deifferently from Ref 9 (Griffin)? Both refer to chapters from the Levine and Havighurst book.
• Ref 10: Link The Cincinnati Post. Look for other required linkings
• Ref 81 has "retrieved", the standard is "Retrieved" (cap) - check for others.
• Refs 96, 109: Include Cromwell and North in the citation, for clarity
• Ref 127: Cincinnati Magazine should be italicised

Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have addressed all of these issues now. Thanks. Refs 5, 6, and 100 use the cite court template. It seems a bit flaky to me, but I am not sure how to format these by hand. Is there a better template? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have tinkered with the cite court citations and made them a bit more informative. The WP:Citation templates page isn't much help, but you could use the Roe v Wade example to see if you can improve further. Brianboulton (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I see the problems now. I tweaked them a bit more and I think they are now all as they should be. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Good: all sources problems now resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Support As noted above, I peer reviewed this and almost all of my points were addressed then. I find the article meets the FAC criteria. My only remaining question (which does not detract from my support) is whether it would be useful to give either the year of graduation or the years of attendance for notable alumni. I think this would help provide some context for the reader, and have seen the year used in a similar way in FAs like Ohio Wesleyan University. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ruhrfisch. I agree that the years of attendance/graduation would be helpful, if available. Unfortunately, that information cannot be reliably sourced for most of the notable alumni. That they did attend/graduate is well-documented. When they did so seldom is. Even the school does not include years in their public alumni lists. Feeling that it was best to be consistent and include it for either all or none, in this case, I had to choose none. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

As I well know, sometimes information is just not available, so I struck my quibble. Thanks for the explanation, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image check: Save the logo at the top of the page, all images have free licenses. The logo has a FUR that appears to meet policy. I will defer to others on that point, I will also defer to others over any personality rights issues with the two celebrity portraits. Imzadi 1979 → 06:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Cyclone Emma

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Cyclone Emma was one of several storms during the 2005-06 Australian region cyclone season to have its name retired. Although it was the weakest of these storms, torrential rain produced by Emma resulted in some of the most significant flooding in Western Australia's history. The Murchison River, normally 500 metres in width swelled to 20 kilometres at the height of the floods. I believe I've covered as much of the event as possible and as such I'm nominating it for Featured Article status. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - no dablinks or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Did a run-through for orthodox Br/Aus Eng, etc, did some CE, fixed or provided some links and name typos. The sentence about the 60 firefighters and 18 volunteers raised eyebrows as rural/bush firefighters are usually firefighters. The 60 were SES not firefighters, aand the 18 were a mixture of volunteer squads (that were trained, not just random helping hands) and some more volunteers as well YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• 11 is a footnote, not a reference.
• As a point of interest, can you say who "Gary Padgett" is? There appear to be no credentials on his website.

Otherwise, all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Author's Farce

Nominator(s): ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 20:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Third time's a charm, or something like that. Relevant info is on previous nominations. Requests for comment have been solicited and hopefully addressed. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 20:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 20:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• No citations to Ingrassia 1998 or Kinservik. If not cited sources, these should be listed as "Further reading"
• Ref 3: "p." not "pp."
• The references list "Fielding 1967" and "Fielding 2004". The former is an edition of the play, to which a single quote from the play is cited. That's fair enough. But the numerous citations to "Fielding 2004" are of information that does not appear to come from Fielding, but rather from the compilers of Plays Vol. I of which Thomas Lockwood is given as the editor. You also have 3 citations to "Lockwood 2004" (6, 48 and 61). Is this the same book as Plays Vol. I? If so, I suggest that as Lockwood appears to have the prime responsibility for the cited Fielding 2004 material, the form of these citations is changed to Lockwood, and the reference is listed as "Lockwood, Thomas (ed.): Henry Fielding: Plays Vol. 1 (1728–1731) etc.

Otherwise sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry this took so long; it's been done. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 17:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Kent, Ohio

Nominator(s): JonRidinger (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this again for featured article because it was previously nominated and already had quite a bit of support in promotion as well as extensive review and changes after some 6 weeks in FAC. The main oppose was a result of an image copyright question which has been completely resolved. JonRidinger (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, but a couple of external links have gone dead:

• http://dept.kent.edu/museum/collection/coll.html
• http://www.kentstatesports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=1420541&DB_OEM_ID=11400
• http://www.kentstatesports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=11400&ATCLID=1406167
• http://www.kentstatesports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?&DB_OEM_ID=11400&ATCLID=3669324&SPID=4468&SPSID=47670
• http://www.achrhealth.org/portage_health/
• http://www.kentstatesports.com//pdf5/629104.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=11400

• Ucucha 16:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

All of the sources related to Kent State simply needed updated links as the University once again changed the addresses of their pages. On two, I replaced them with new sources as the new athletics site does not seem to have an archive of those articles. On the PDF source (media guide), I simply removed the link because it is still a published source; it is just no longer online. The ACHRHealth site appears to be totally gone so I simply replaced it with an alternate news source. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; all resolved now. Ucucha 17:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha, I suspect you mean citations, not External links? IF kentstatesports were listed four times in External links, that would be a different problem. ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. All of the links he mentioned were citation links. There are only five links total in the actual External links section, none of which are related to Kent State sports.  :) --JonRidinger (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) "External links" can mean different things: links that go to external sites, or links listed under "External links". I mean the former. Ucucha 17:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: The sources were reviewed in detail at the last FAC, and little has changed - a couple of citations added, the odd ref replaced. There is still some inconsistent formatting of retrieval dates (see, e.g., refs 1 & 2). Otherwise sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

That comes from the fact that refs 1 & 2 were actually templates {{GR|2}} and {{GR|3}} so I can't format the dates the way the rest of them are because there is nothing there to edit. I replaced both of them with a source later in the article that had the same info present and in the process discovered that one of the codes was incorrect.

General comment: You need to provide a source for the present-day value of $2,000 in 1798. Your figure of $26,000 looks low; Measuringworth.com gives a 2009 equivalent of $36,000 on a purchasing power basis, and very much more ($400,000-odd) on an equivalent wage basis. I have to say, however, that I am becoming increasingly sceptical of the value of these equivalences. Money is spent today in a completely different way from 200 years ago, so these comparisons don't really enlighten us. Brianboulton (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The figure of $26,000 comes from the conversion template (Template:Inflation) it is part of (not my own calculation or any other editor's), which actually uses 1800 as the "original" year, hence the "approximately" being used. The $2,000 figure itself is sourced and I've never seen a source for the result of conversion template. If you are thinking the result of the template is inaccurate, I would definitely bring that to the attention of those that oversee that template. Also, if you feel it falls under "too much detail" I can definitely just remove the entire statement on the cost as it is already in the History of Kent, Ohio article. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a footnote template for the inflation template called {{Inflation-fn}}. It outputs the full source information used to make the conversions. Imzadi 1979 → 12:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to keep the conversion in, I suggest you cite it as advised, above. The fact that different authorities produce widely different conversions makes me all the more dubious about the value of including this information, but it's your call. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I just took it out; it's not critical to understanding the subject and isn't even the most important fact in its own sentence. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I looked at the media section, since that is what I know, and I seen one problem. WJMP is refered to as a "low-power, daytime-only station". The "low-power" part should probably be taken out as it kinda refers to Low-power broadcasting, which there is Low-power AM stations, that broadcast a couple milliwatts and cover a block or two under Part 15 of the FCC rules. It isn't uncommon to see daytime-only stations broadcasting only 1,000 watts. All else, in that section at least, looks fine.

One other area that I seen that could use some tinkering, is the infobox. You have listed that Kent residents are called Kentites, that could also be added to the infobox. Add the below...

|population_blank1_title  = [[Demonym]]
|population_blank1        = Kentite

....that would add it to the infobox just fine. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed "low-power" from the sentence about WJMP. As for the demonym parameter, I'll go ahead and add it, but am not excited about it. I am fully aware that some articles use it but also know it isn't a standard on the template itself. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a necessary entry in the infobox, just something that other pages have. So that is completely up to you on that one. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Per changes made in this FAC and changes made in the previous one, I again voice my Support for this article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch - I went through an extensive review of this in the previous FAC and supported it there. I find it meets the FAC criteria, but do have a few questions / suggestions from rereading the article, and made a few copyedits (please revert if needed).

• Needs a ref The canal officially opened in 1840, but would only operate into the 1860s. By 1870 the canal was completely shut down.
  • I added a source but am thinking it might be in the Grismer source just before it. I am out of town so am unable to check it to make sure.
• I would link Ohio Army National Guard in History
  • Agreed...did it
• What is the source of the ward map? Is the original map from the city of Kent free? Is it from the Census Bureau or another free source?
  • No copyright source info is stated on the city's original map. In any case, the changes I have made (colors, road name markings, state route shields, labels, and updates of the boundaries) constitute a different work. I also have the map from the Census Bureau which is free
    • My understanding is that modern copyright law does not require a notice, but I could be wrong. I will leave this for the image reviewer to resolve. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• The caption Bridge of the Portage Hike and Bike Trail where it crosses State Route 261 could be simplified to something like Portage Hike and Bike Trail bridge over State Route 261
  • I like it...changed

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --JonRidinger (talk) 04:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Struck all but the map issue as I think an image reviewer needs to look at that. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if that map is copyrighted (which I have a hard time believing it is since there are multiple maps of the city available) the changes made constitute a derivative work. I just don't want to see the same thing happen as did on the city seal, which effectively stalled and then killed the previous FAC. And for what? --JonRidinger (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is what I would do - ask an expert image reviewer like Elcobbola or Jappalang to look at the map. If it is fine, no worries. If it is not free, pull it. EIther get OTRS permission from the city for the base map, or eventually add a new map based on a free Census map. If worse came to worse and a replacement image were needed, could you get a photo of Kent's city hall to use in place of the map? Don't let this be a dealbreaker. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I asked another editor who helped with the city seal issue, but will ask those as well. If it's going to be an issue, I'll just take it out for now and replace it later. The reason I don't want to a new map right now is that chances are I'll have to make a new one soon anyway once the census reports come out and they likely redraw the ward boundaries. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There is some general agreement that data is not copyrightable (thus if a map is drawn based on precise measurements of road topologies or created from a database of numbers/co-ordinates, the lines of the map cannot be copyrighted). If the map is created because someone "thinks this is where a feature should be" or if they flourish it with artistic elements (irrelevant in this case where the base map is of bare lines), copyrights can be awarded. I would prefer a base map where it is clear that it is either public domain or based off "hard" data. You can try accessing OpenStreetMap to get Creative-Commons-licensed road maps of the region. Jappalang (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally agree with Jappalang. Data (e.g. coordinates) are not generally eligible for copyright as they are not works of original authorship. The compilation and original presentation/organization thereof, however, does generally constitute a work of authorship eligible for copyright. In this case, the uploaded version appears to be a derivative - having merely added labels and filled in color to the source image, as opposed to creating a new work based only on underlying data. Utilizing a free (PD or compatibly licensed) base map would be recommended Эlcobbola _talk 15:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Well, in that case, even though I can all but guarantee it isn't copyrighted, I'll remove it for the time being. I already have the 2010 BAS maps from the Census Bureau I can use instead, though I can also just get an OTRS ticket too. Thanks for your comments and time. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments - A strong article overall. Several issues to address:

• The lead should be expanded with more attention to relative emphasis. Sports, media, and infrastructure, for example, are not mentioned at all. (And why is Franklin Mills bolded in the middle of the lead?)
  • Franklin Mills is bolded in the lead because it is a redirect Franklin Mills, Ohio and was the name of the town for almost 60 years (so it is mentioned in history and even some notable natives articles). I added some mention of sports, media, and education. Some of the infastructure is already mentioned as part of transportation. The rest of it is nothing significant or unique (water system, trash collection, etc.)

The lead still does not reflect the relative weight of the article. For example, why does Economy merit four paragraphs in the article and only a sentence in the lead? And I don't see the demographics reflected at all. The lead should adequately summarize the article for someone who might read not further. This one does not do that.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I added a mention of the demographics that are somewhat unique to Kent (but standard for college towns). The economy mention was once larger, but a reviewer in the previous FAC (which was less than a month ago) felt that most of it was hardly unique or worth mentioning in the lead (like that retail is now a main sector of the economy "show me a town that retail isn't" was what he said). Most of what is mentioned in the early part of the economy is actually history. The main aspects of what is unique about this city's economy are definitely mentioned already in the lead (Kent State University and the Davey Tree Expert Company). The lead I initially used as a model for this was the lead of Hillsboro, Oregon. Ann Arbor, Michigan is another FA that I looked at as a model.

I don't know what you mean about Franklin Mills being a redirect. If you meant to link it, you didn't. It should not be bold. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Franklin Mills, Ohio redirects to Kent, Ohio, so it is an alternate (in this case former) name. It is very common to bold additional names of a subject whether they be nicknames, regional variations, or historical names. Cities are no different.

* In the lead: "..the village became the home of the Atlantic and Great Western Railroad maintenance shops, which led to the village being renamed Kent in 1864 after railroad owner Marvin Kent." Does not read well. Should be two sentences.

• • Reworded into two sentences

* Also in the lead: "Kent is known as "The Tree City" as the home of the Davey Tree Expert Company..." Also does not read well. Might be better as "Kent, the home of the Davey Tree Expert Company, is known as the "Tree City".

• • Reworded to "As the the home of the Davey Tree Expert Company, Kent is known as "The Tree City" while residents are referred to as "Kentites"."
• A lot of link cleanup is needed. Overlinking and other issues include: Northeast Ohio (linked twice), college town, German, White, married couples, Kent State University (twice), theater, Kent State shootings (twice), gristmill (first use not linked). There are many others.
  • This was dealt with twice in the first FAC. The guidelines from MOS (WP:REPEATLINK) specify that links can be made in the intro and usually again later in the article, as well as additional times if there is significant space between them. For instance, the links to the Kent State shootings are in the intro, the history section, and then not again until several sections later in culture. This is not in opposition to the MOS at all. Having been to articles that have too few wikilinks, it's always been frustrating when I have to go and find in the article where the term was I want to click on. Are there any instances where wikilinks are too close together (like in the same section of neighboring sections?)? I removed the link to theatre and added a link to gristmill.

I did not participate in the first FAC, but I the article is still badly overlinked. Many of the examples I gave you should not be linked at all, and in my view the repeated links are unnecessary and distracting. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I took out a few additional ones that were too close together. Having more than one of the same term when they are spread out, however, is not a case of overlinking per WP:REPEATLINK. It didn't seem inappropriate for the use of the ethnic/racial wikilinks since those actually come from the original demographics template and are commonly linked on all city demographic sections including ones that were recently passed by FAC. Since they are using terms from the Census Bureau it would make sense to link to them.

• The external links should be pared down per WP:EL
  • What specific ones are in violation of EL? I went through that policy multiple times when deciding which to include as well as the guidelines at WP:USCITY. Each one has a direct purpose. About the only one I could see removing is the KentOhio.net since it isn't an "official" source. In terms of providing additional relevant information, they all meet that. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I would delete all but the official link, actually. I am not sure why the rest cannot be worked into the article as sources. I would say the same for the See also sources. My real question is why can these sources not be integrated into the article? That would be preferable. For example: Does the Kent City Manager's blog belong in an encyclopedia article? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia asked the same question about See also but did not reply to my reply in the first FAC. Basically, the See also are NRHP sites in Kent. Adding them into the article would require additional information in the history section and the history section is already long enough IMO (the article even with a separate History of Kent, Ohio article is 96 kb). They both fit the MOS requirements for See also sections as they are both directly related but not worked into the article. As for the links, WP:USCITY#External links states: "A link to some of the official websites should be provided here, such as the official city government, or the convention and visitors bureau." City FA articles, including recently promoted ones, commonly have such links. As for the city manager's blog, I included it because it's not his personal blog. He posts items that are directly related to the city itself including economic development, road closures, construction updates, plans, etc. In other words, a resource for someone who wants to know further about the subject of the article. That it's done in blog format is simply the format he chose. I removed the KentOhio.net and the Historical Society links. Since there is a History of Kent, Ohio article, the historical society can be linked there appropriately. The remaining links are appropriate in what I understand from both the guidelines for city articles and WP:EL. Also, for your reference here is the link to the first FAC, which happened not even a month ago. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Support. I supported last time, and it has improved since then. I'd still like to see a little about religious beliefs/institutions. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wrote a religion section using available sources, but there are no specific numbers indicating actual percentages of people who go/don't go to a particular religious service or identify with a movement. The Glenmary Study is actually county-level data so I can't really use it in this article. What it turned into is a list and there really isn't anything notable about the various religious groups in the city. Have a look at what I put together and see what you think. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Judd School

Nominator(s): Tom (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

After over a month of improving this article, and several days pondering this nomination, I've finally bitten the bullet, as I can't see how this article could be further improved. Its incredibly comprehensive; if there is a source that covers the topic that I haven't used then I'd genuinely love to see it. From nothing more than a stub, this article has been completely rewritten and is now a detailed article about The Judd School, which is a grammar school in Tonbridge, Kent. Its had a pre-FAC sources and image review, with all problems resolved. I'm confident it meets all the criteria, and I hope you agree. Thanks, Tom Tom (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments: The external links all check out. There are 5 disambiguation links that need to be fixed:

• Annexe (which redirects to Annex)
• Cross country
• Gymnasium
• Prospectus
• St Albans School (which redirects to St. Albans School)

The image licenses all check out as Creative Commons. Imzadi 1979 → 15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all fixed. Tom (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments - Oppose Sources Comment: The article relies very heavily on a single source, namely, Taylor, Geoffrey (1988). The Judd School: 1888–1988. Tonbridge: Impress Print Consultancy Ltd. Is this book self-published? The name of the publisher suggests a vanity press. Can you clarify? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea if it was self published. I don't have the book anymore (I borrowed it from a library) but I can go back and check, but how would I know? I should point out this is the only source that covers the topic in detail, which is why the article relies on it so. Tom (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A bit of background to the book. I was a student during the centenary year and the book was written by the then deputy headmaster (who was also a history teacher, and had been for long enough to appear in some fairly historic photos in the book itself!) and sold mainly through the school as one of many fund-raising souvenirs. Whether or not it was self-published or published within a fairly tight-knit group of local organisations (more likely small local companies offered to print and publish it at low cost to benefit the school's fundraising), I have no doubt it is a very reliable source. Halsteadk (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I must oppose on requirement 1(c). Even if we treat the Taylor book as self-published by the school (and thus reliable as a source on itself), an article cannot be primarily based on such sources, which this one is. The same source is also used here for claims not directly about the school itself (like the 1869 Endowed Schools Act, among others) and for extraordinary claims about the school (like its reputation with leading universities, among others), which also run up against WP:SELFPUB. While I appreciate that it is often difficult with school articles, surely many of these claims could be substantiated by other sources not published by the school. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Replying to comments left here:

It is obvious that a lot of work went into this and it is in many ways very well done. I also understand the difficulty of finding reliable sources about schools, and self-published sources are unavoidable to some extent. But this article is based overwhelmingly on the one book and pages from the school website. That would likely be an issue even if the book were unquestionably reliable. Here, it is questionable given that it is self-published. If self-published by the school, it may be reliable as a source on itself. If self-published by the author, it may not be reliable for this purpose at all. I believe the oppose is actionable, since other, reliable, sources could be used instead. I welcome the opinions of more expert source reviewers, who I expect will comment shortly, and will strike my oppose if a good argument can be made for this source to be used in this way.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's going to be hard to find a more reliable or comprehensive source on the history of the school up to 1988, but in terms of reputation with universities it is at best well out of date (and clearly too close to home on that sort of aspect). I would also suggest that with a very active "old boys" network, the book would have been quickly discredited had it been inaccurate - and the author continued to teach at the school for a number of years after it was written! Halsteadk (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are some additional comments. Sorry it took so long to get to these:

• It will be helpful for non-British readers to indicate the approximate ages of the Forms mentioned throughout. For example, Sixth Form (approximately age 18). You might link to the terms, as well.

Linked term sixth form. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ages should be included and local terms explained at first occurrence. See WP:WPSCH/AG for guidance on avoiding ambiguity around local terms. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done! Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Terms like secondary and grammar school also mean different things in different places. Brief explanations and/or links will help.

Linked. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

They should also be explained, as above. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done! Tom (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• What is specialism? British usage, I assume? I have never heard that term before.

The specialism is the subject the school is a specialist in. Specialist Music College is now linked. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Since it is a local usage, please explain it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

All it means is the school receives extra funding to develop this subject. I've clarified.Tom (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I take it the Graduate Schools Examination is not the same as GCSE. Can you describe it briefly?

I assume you mean the General Schools Examination? I can't describe it, because the source doesn't. Everything the source says about it is already in the article. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And there is no way to find out? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, unfortunately not. I have looked, but I'm really not sure what he was talking about when he mentioned this, so I've removed it for clarity. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• What is the Education Act of 1919? What does grant-earning status mean?

Linked. Grant-earning means it earns grants, I've clarified. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is still not clear. How are the grants earned? Does this just mean it is publically funded? Maybe just say that. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I've clarified. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• "an expressway" for the most gifted students". "imaginative timetables". Whose quotes are these?

They are Taylor's. The citation for all quotes is at the end of the sentence per WP:CITE. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Then they should in most cases be attributed to Taylor in the text. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CITE clearly says either mid sentence OR at the end of the sentence. I much prefer the latter, and it is at least consistent throughout the article. Can we agree to disagree on this point? Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* Evacuated and bombing raids are overlinked.

Done Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• What is a voluntarily aided grammar school?

Linked. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC).

Again, please explain.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarified, I think. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Can you briefly expand on the Comprehensive System?

I've linked it, to expand I think would be overkill, since the school isn't part of the system. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are not going to explain it, why mention it? A brief explanation should not be difficult. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, done. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* The Headmasters table looks great, but it is not necessary. None of these folks seem notable in their own right. It should be deleted.

Removed. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Many students come from affluent backgrounds and very few require free school meals; the number of students with disabilities, learning difficulties and special educational need is well below the national average. The majority of students go on to higher education at the end of Year 13". Can you provide more precise figures for these claims?

Unfortunately not. Ofsted makes this assertion, and doesn't provide any further details. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this information available nowhere else? The school? The government? These kinds of statistics are generally published. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I've looked on all the government websites. The school does not reveal such information (only to Ofsted, who obviously choose not to publish stats, merely a summary).Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• The bullet list of houses should be deleted and included as prose, if at all.

The MoS says lists are acceptable. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Lists like this should be stated in prose. Please see WP:EMBED for guidance. The use of color is also discouraged. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• All quoted material should be in double quotes. All the single quotes (unless quotes within quotes) need to be changed.

All quotes are in double quotes. The single quotes I've used to distinguish terms, like 'Lawton's' (the name of the building). What should I use for this purpose, if not single quotes? Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You should use double quotes for this purpose. Please see WP:MOS#Quotation marks.

Done, think I got them all. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Can you briefly describe the Eleven Plus?

I've linked it, plus it is briefly described. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

All it says it that it is an exam for 11 and 12 years olds. Is there nothing more to say? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It says in the preceding sentence that it is an entrance exam, that is really all there is to say. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• A government inspection in 1952 reported "real brilliance in teaching". Cite the quote. I will stop pointing these out, but there are uncited quotes throughout.

As above, citations are at the end of the sentence. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you are quoting the report but you are citing Taylor. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have access to the report, so I've removed this sentence. I'm not sure if he was actually quoting the report, so its also NPOV. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• the act granted the government the power to raise the age to 16. The link in this passage is unintuitive.

Do you think it should be unlinked? Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Or the sentence clarified to it is clearer to what the link will point. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Unlinked.Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

* "as soon as the Minister is satisfied that it has become practicable" cite the quote.

Cited at end of sentence. This is from the Act itself. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• GCSE, O-Level, A-Level and other terms are unfamiliar to American readers. It would help to explain them briefly.

I've linked them.Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As above, please explain. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Explained all. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• OVerlinking: Christian Faith, GCSE and O-Level (not first use), P.E. (and spell it out), asphalt, nets, Army,

Done.Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* Spell out PSHE.

Done. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* setting occurs in mathematics. What does this mean?

Clarified. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

* It seems like the Extra-curricular activities should immediately follow the Curriculum. Can the Property section come sooner?

You're right; I've moved property to after extra-curricular. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• The notable alumni should be listed in prose, not as bullets.

Again, lists are acceptable in MoS. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

And again, prose is preferred, especially in an FA. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done! Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments, I've addressed the majority of them. Thanks also for copyediting! Much appreciated. Tom (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Phew! Think I've dealt with anything now, let me know if there is anything else and thanks, again, for comments. Tom (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Further sources comment: This is a difficult issue. Unfortunately, no British school has yet been the subject of a Wikipedia FA, so we don't have a direct comparison for guidance. School histories in the UK tend to be written by past or present history masters, or by others with close affiliations to the school. They are not written by objective historians, except perhaps in cases of "great schools" that are national institutions. Their publication tends to be funded either by subscription or by donations from local businesses that wish the school well. I have before me my own school history, which fits that template exactly. It's a beautiful job; the writers had access to a wealth of material that anyone outside the school is unlikely to have found. I'm sure the same applies to Taylor's history of the Judd School. The FA criteria require that articles are comprehensive; the required degree of comprehensiveness can only be achieved by leaning heavily on a school history and its rich sources. In the case of this article, about 140 of a total of 225 citations, just over 60%, are to the Taylor book. There is scope for reducing this; alternative sources should be found, especially for information not specifically related to the school, and the proportion of Taylor citations could fall to around 50% which, from my point of view, would be entirely acceptable.

I have checked out the other references and they are generally OK. Around 30 are to school publications or websites, but these provide factual information. Brianboulton (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As always, thanks for your views Brian. I will attempt to find other references this evening, and I will attempt to venture to the libraries again tomorrow and have another dig, but I'm confident no further print sources exist that cover the topic. Its also worth noting that there is an appendix in the back of the Taylor book, which includes the school foundation document, and old government inspections. I was unaware that this was the first British school FAC, but I really do hope I can resolve this issue to the satisfaction of all reviewers. Tom (talk) 18:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that Royal National College for the Blind was promoted to FA today, which might offer some guidance or point of reference. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The RNC doesn't seem to have a recently published history equating to the Taylor book, but as a national institution it has a much higher profile than a local school's, and gets a lot of attention in the local and national press. Brianboulton (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment – the point (well-made) about the source needs to be addressed in general for schools. My own school had a very similar tome published for its centenary and it had not occurred to me that any doubts would be raised about it being used as a source. Most of the material is not controversial and the author will have used a vast variety of sources to compile the book (school magazines, previous school histories, local newspaper archives, interviews with ex-pupils, teachers etc). Such a book is almost certain to be self-published as its market is very specific; and it will be many decades before there is another one. Occuli (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this question applies to schools more generally. Some American schools publish similar volumes, particularly old and/or private schools. The quality varies, but some are quite scholarly and excellent. Without prejudice to this article, I would be interested in the discussion, but am unsure what the right venue might be. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Update regards sources - Right, I have added four additional sources, and referenced whatever possible to alternative sources. I am absolutely confident a) that there are no further sources on the school and b) that everything that is referenced to Taylor cannot be referenced to an alternative source. I hope that this goes some way to satisfying everyone, and I further hope that this issue is resolved so that this can be the first of many british school FAs. Thanks, Tom (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I find the sourcing to be much more balanced now and applaud the effort to find more a more varied sources. The history after 1939 still relies heavily on Taylor, as do several other sections, like Extracurricular activities (which is a little surprising). On the whole, however, taking the Taylor book as a reliable self-published source on itself, I tend to agree with Brianboulton that the balance is okay. I would like to hear the opinions of other reviewers on the question. I am striking my oppose and will plan post some additional comments that I hope will improve the article shortly. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for striking the oppose. I'll look forward to your further comments. Just a quick note regards the Extracurricular activities section, the reason it uses Taylor a lot is because I thought it prudent to cover the history of extracurricular activities, as opposed to simply what is offered at the school at present. For example, the section covers association football, which is not an organised sport at the school today. Tom (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose—Overlinked. Why is "Kent" as well as the more specific "Tonbridge" linked? Higher educations? Tradesmen? Fur trade? Swimming pool? Curriculum? Gymnasium? Please go through it and unlink the dictionary terms. Tony (talk) 07:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Tom (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. "Specialist College for Music with English and Science with Mathematics". Can it be sentence case? Generally, subjects are with lower case; but "Art and Crafts department building" should have a D for the title of the section, yes? I see "economics and business departments" ... you could go either way, upper- or lower-cases, but consistency is required. I'm not sure about with with in the infobox. What does it mean? And further down an ampersand is used ... MoS says to avoid if possible.

With Arts and Crafts, I just copied the source. With the specialist status, I copied the website. I've now removed all caps and it is now consistent.

"11 to 18", but en dashes just above?

"turnover of staff: 43 ..."—colon, not semicolon, probably.

Comma after first "Starling".

"followed by the £1.4 million music centre"—might be good in the school newsletter, but here, "a".

"a third of which was made up of public representatives nominated by"—"a third of them public representatives nominated by"—are you on the look-out for excessive wording? An unfamiliar editor stands a better chance.

All others done. I've tried to go through it with a fine tooth-comb, but its difficult when you've read it so many times. Malleus gave it a good copyedit, but there will always be things that get missed. Thanks for your comments Tony, I'll take another good look but please let me know if you see anything else. Tom (talk) 00:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's just from a sample in the middle. The prose does need tweaking. Tony (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you got one or two word-nerd collaborators for next time? It's so valuable to bring in unfamiliar editors at the mature stages. Tony (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Erm not really, I generally turn to Malleus for advice on prose though. You're so right about the need for unfamiliar editors, and thanks for your help, which I'd love to use again in the future if you have the time. Tom (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'm still going through it and have found very few grammatical issues (those I've found I've corrected, and they were insufficient for me to oppose). I'm leaning towards supporting, however, I do have a concern with regards to the readability. While I have no problems reading it myself, there does seem to be a bit of an overuse of commas semicolons. While their uses are legal, this can make readability more difficult for some readers. I recognize that this isn't Simple Wikipedia, but still I think it would be beneficial to re-evaluate some of these uses of semicolons and remove them where they aren't necessary. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking a look, and for your help copyediting. I've had a look through at all the uses of such punctuation and have revised quite a few. I hope you feel it has been sufficiently improved. Tom (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for any confusion, though I think you figured out what I meant. I meant to say there was an overuse of semicolons, not commas. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 13:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The article has many small problems. Some of these can be fixed by further proofing and by the kind of prose tightening suggested above by Tony1. Others have to do with jargon or bits of local history and geography probably familiar to readers in the U.K. but not so familiar to foreigners. Here is a short list of some of the things that popped out at me on a read-through; I'm sure a line-by-line review would find more.

Lead

"Judd pupils generally take ten GCSEs in Year 11, and a choice of four or five A-levels in the sixth form. Its 2007 Ofsted inspection graded The Judd School... ". - If GCSE and Ofsted aren't spelled out as well as abbreviated on first use, many readers will not know what they mean. I don't think the links are sufficient by themselves. Perhaps "Judd pupils generally take ten General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) tests in Year Eleven, and they have a choice of four or five A-levels in the sixth form. An Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills (Ofsted) inspection in 2007 graded The Judd School... "? The edu-speak makes us grateful for abbreviations, but still it's nice to know what they stand for.

Done, thanks! Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"the lower school is all boys" - This fact doesn't appear in the main text (unless I'm not seeing it). Shouldn't it be included in the Lower school subsection? Seems important and not obvious.

Done! Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"As mathematics is automatically included under a science specialism, English joined music under the first specialism." - How are the two events related? Was English automatically included with music, or did it join music for some reason related to the science specialism?

Think I've clarified.Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Second World War: 1939–1945

"The outbreak of the Second World War on 3 September 1939 delayed the commencement of the Autumn Term until trenches could be dug. As a result, 369 students of the Westminster City School were evacuated to The Judd School." - It's not clear to an outsider whether this means trenches at the school or trenches elsewhere. It's not clear what the trenches had to do with the evacuation of the Westminster students. Weren't the students evacuated to avoid being bombed? How far apart are the schools? Why would The Judd School be considered safer? Readers can click on the Tonbridge link and the Westminster link and figure this out, but it would be better to say directly that Westminster was in London, a target, and that Tonbridge was 30 miles (48 km) or so outside the city and not considered a target (I guess).

Excellent point, I've clarified. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Post-war years: 1945–1986

"he increased the number of female staff from zero to seven during his tenure" - Women were on the staff in 1917, then disappear, then return after 1970. Curious. Would a little more background be helpful or interesting? I assume the first lot lost their jobs soon after the end of World War I, but that's only a guess.

I'd love a little more background info too, but unfortunately haven't been able to find any. I would assume also that they lost their jobs when the men returned from World War I, but I suppose to put that in would be original research. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent years: 1986–present

"Masters also organised the building of the school's all-weather pitch," - Should "pitch" be linked to pitch (sports field)?

Done. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Governance

"As governors, major decisions were made by the Court of The Skinners' Company... " - What is the meaning of "Court of The Skinners Company"? In what sense is it a court? A court of law?

I've removed Court of to clarify. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"As governors, major decisions... " - Governors aren't major decisions.

Done. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Subsequently a fee of one guinea was... " - Explain or link guinea? Express also as pounds?

Done. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"In December 1944, after applying for voluntary aided status, the school was required to adopt new Articles of Government on 31 December; it became the first school in the country to be awarded this dual control." - What dual control? In what sense is "voluntary aided status" a kind of dual control?

Done. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"The Kent Education Committee funded free dinners... " - Free dinners for whom?

Done. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"two LEA governors" - What does LEA mean?

Done! Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

School structure

Would the bulleted list be better as a straight prose sentence? Are the house colours important, or is this unnecessary detail?

Done, with colours removed. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"which was a successful private school on Hadlow Road run by Mr T. E Grice" - Delete "Mr." Ditto for the other "Mr"s in the article; i.e., "T.E. Grice" and simply "Grice" thereafter.

Done, except I've kept the Mr for those whose first initials or names I havent got. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Lower school

"The lower school currently has an annual intake of around 125 boys at the beginning of Year 7." - In many places the article uses "current", "present", "today", "at present", and "now" to mean something like "at the moment of this writing". Generally it's better to avoid ambiguity by saying something like, "In 2009, the lower school's annual intake was 125 boys at the beginning of Year 7."

I've changed all instances that are liable to change. Other that are long term, like rugby is a popular sport, I haven't bothered because it doesn't read as well. Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Extra-curricular activities

"School clubs and societies include: Art Workshop, Bridge Club, Chess Club, Christian Union, Computer Workshop, Debating Society, Design and Technology Clinic, Film Club, French Club, Garden Club, Greek Club, Junior Running Club, Musical Activities, Politics Society, Theatre Club, Voluntary Service Unit, Warhammer Club, Young Engineers’ Club and Young Enterprise." - Rather than using so many capital letters, would "School clubs and societies include an art workshop, bridge club, chess club, Christian union... " be better"? Could the sentence be compressed? Is it necessary to list them all?

Trimmed! Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sport

"in Year 7 there are even ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘F’ rugby fixtures" - Should "fixtures" be linked or explained?

Changed to matches. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"There is also a programme of interform competitions" - What is an interform competition?

Changed to inter-house. Tom (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeoman's fields

"a 200m running track" - Spell out "m" and hypenate?

Done.Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The site consists of 6.8 acres of level" - Metric conversion 6.8 acres (2.8 ha)?

Done. Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"The 'Yeoman's fields' site: - Wikipedia uses double quotes, rather than single; i.e., "Yeoman's fields". Ditto for other similar instances in the article.

Done. Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Notable alumni

WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists suggests turning lists like this into straight prose when feasible. It would not be hard to group the warriors in one paragraph, the artists in another, and so on, adding a bit of detail to make nice rounded sentences.

Done. Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review Finetooth. I think I've dealt with all of your points, but let me know if there is anything I've missed. Regards, Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• 'elementary'—MoS says double quote-marks. Tony (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks again Tony. Tom (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Older nominations

[edit] German Type UB I submarine

Nominator(s): White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 17:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because in the past few months, Myself and to a lesser extent, Ceranthor have been improving this article from the state that it was left in once User:Bellhalla left Wikipedia back in December of last year. When I found this article, no one was working on it but it remained in very good shape. I decided to further work on it by taking it through a Peer Review and promoting the remaining U-boats from this class to GA status, thus making this article the centerpiece of a Good Topic. Ceranthor may make a few passing comments and help out here and there on the FAC but he has declined my offer to have him co-nom this FAC with me. As for the article itself, the German Type UB I submarines were a series of very small U-boats that three of the four Central powers operated in the First World War. Both German, Austria-Hungary, and Bulgaria used them and it was a Type UB I submarine that became Bulgaria's first true U-boat. These small vessels patrolled the coast of Belgium, France and the Netherlands as part of the Flanders Flotilla, the Adriatic sea, The Baltic sea as part of the Baltic Flotilla, and the area around Ottoman Turkey as part of the Constantinople Flotilla. Any comments would be much appreciated. This is my first true FAC that I myself am undergoing. I was a co-nom in the FAC for the Austro-Hungarian Battleship SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand yet it failed. This time around, I will be addressing most of the comments and I hope to promote this article to FA status.White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 17:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes http://www.hicon.pl/~pothkan/hhwn/index.html a reliable source?
  • Removed and replaced.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 23:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    • What did you replace it with? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Likewise http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/?
• Likewise http://www.gwpda.org/naval/ahsubs.htm? And do they have premission to host this?
  • This is a RS as it is just text from the "Austro-Hungarian Warships In Photographs, Vol. 2. 1896-1918". One of the authors of the book wrote this so yes permission is given based on that fact!--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 17:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm still not convinced that hosting it there is reliable though. I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The clarification needed tag should be addressed. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed. I've converted it to Long Tones like the tag said.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 18:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Just to clarify, links (disambiguation and external) check out. ceranthor 19:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: best of luck with your first solo FAC, WS, I'll keep it watchlisted and jump in if it looks like I can help. - Dank (push to talk) 19:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Much appreciated. I'll be sure to call you if I need your help :)--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 22:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do. - Dank (push to talk) 22:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Support - I feel my concerns have been adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Comments - a neat article, and I wish you luck in getting it to FA status. Below are some suggestions/questions for further improvement. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• The wording about displacement in the lead is unclear. Based on the infobox alone, I would assume that 127 tonnes at the surface and increases to a total of 142 tonnes when completely submerged. However, wording in the lead suggests that displacement varies due to "small size variations between boats". Which interpretation is correct? Can you change the wording/infobox to erase potential confusion?
  • I've reworded it. Feel free to check and make sure that it is no longer confusing.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 23:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Avoid linking the same term more than once, especially in close proximity
  • Done.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 23:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Mostly. I'm not sure of the protocol for the "translations": must you link German language every time you translate the name of something into German? If no rule (MoS or unwritten) mandates it, I would recommend paring those links. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I've removed the translations that are repetitive.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 01:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• "The group is sometimes known as the UB-1 class after SM UB-1, the class leader. In the Austro-Hungarian Navy, it was called the U-10 class." - the group or the class leader was called the U-10? I assume the former, but in that case it would seem logical to have the term bolded. Also, in a later note you say that the Austro-Hungarian Navy called it the "U-10-class" - which is correct?
  • I'm not quite sure what you mean here....--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 23:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Logically, it seems that "The group known as the UB-1 class" was known in Austria-Hungary as the "U-10 class". Grammatically, however, the sentence would indicate that "SM UB-1, the class leader" was known in Austria-Hungary as the "U-10 class". If the former is correct (as I suspect it is): since "UB-1 class" is bolded, then "U-10 class" would logically also be bolded. As for the final comment, the later note includes a hyphen not present in the phrase quoted here. Hope that clarifies my comment. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Oh. Thanks, I've made that bold now :)--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 01:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• "The German Imperial Navy ordered an additional pair later to replace two boats sold to Austria-Hungary, which ordered a further three in April 1915" - wording is slightly awkward. Also, do you have a date for the German additional order?
  • Reworded to make more sense. As for the other question, no, I'm afraid not.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 00:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• "The total number of UB I boats constructed was twenty" - suggest rewording as "A total of twenty UB I boats were constructed" or similar
  • Reworded to say what you suggested :)--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 00:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• "German home waters" -> "German waters" or "Germany's home waters"
  • Reworded to say "German waters".--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 00:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• "boats from the two manufacturers" - you have not yet mentioned two manufacturers, so this statement is somewhat confusing. The entire sentence could be reworded and potentially split into two for clarity
• "via" is common enough in English that it need not be italicized
  • Removed.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 00:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Is the design correctly called Type UB I or simply UB I? You use both in the text
  • I've made it consistent. It's now "Type UB I".--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 23:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Given the slightly different designs, some of the technical figures should vary slightly between manufacturers (you specifically mention a different displacement when submerged in article text). Which design is reflected in the infobox figures?
  • Not everything was different between the two and if you look at the infobox, you'll see that what was different is already mentioned. (U-1 to U-whatever) and then the other set of numbers for the other U-boats.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 23:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Not quite. The text says that the two "differed slightly in displacement submerged", but only one number is present in the infobox (I think it's for Germaniawerft?)
      • I've fixed that and added both numbers (they were only off by 1 ton!) into the infobox.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 15:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Germaniawerft boats seem to have had fewer large vents" - why is this "seem to have had"? Is the design inconsistent even among boats produced by the same manufacturer?
  • Removed.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 23:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• German Imperial Navy or Imperial German Navy? Be consistent
  • German Imperial Navy, fixed.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 23:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Germany felt treaty-bound to support the Austrians" - maybe, except Germany's ally was Austria-Hungary, not the entity now known as Austria
  • Re-worded to say "austro-Hungarians".--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 23:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • File:SM U-10 (Austria-Hungary).jpg - Dead source. 1915 is a creation date. License depends upon date of author death. Who is the author? When did s/he die?
  • File:SM UB-2 and SM UB-16 in Flanders.jpg - Purpose as is does not appear to be a significant contribution to our understanding. However, given that the current infobox image has a unsupported license, this would be appropriate re-purposed in the dual roles (NFCC#3A) of primary visual identification and illustration of "One of the minor differences" - assuming no free version exists.
    • I'm guessing that what you were saying is that while it cannot be used under fair use in it's current state, it can as an infobox image. Right?--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 00:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
      • It's not quite as simple as that, but I suppose that has the same end result. Because of the unsupported license on File:SM U-10 (Austria-Hungary).jpg, I'm operating under the assumption that free images are not available (and am thus treating that image as non-free). So then we have three non-free images with these purposes: 1) visual identification, 2) visualization of a manufacturing difference and 3) visualization of rail design. I don't believe that the last two pass NFCC#8. However, because visual identification passes, I'm recommending using File:SM UB-2 and SM UB-16 in Flanders.jpg as the visual identification (i.e. removing this) because it will then be fulfilling two purposes, albeit one that's not necessary. Эlcobbola _talk 15:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I've replaced the lead image and removed the remaining images in the article text. Are there still any problems with the remaining image?--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 13:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Nope, image issues are resolved. Эlcobbola _talk 14:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • File:Sections of SM UB-13 on train.jpg - Decorative (NFCC#8). That "the boats of this class were designed to be shipped by rail in sections" is not something that requires visualization to understand. An image of sections on a rail line only serves to identify the design was successful in that regard (something a reliable source could do), not to illustrate meaningfully aspects of the actual design. Now moot, but image is not low resolution (NFCC#3B). Эlcobbola _talk 20:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments. This seems generally OK on first pass, but I think a few things need fixing:

• "The process of shipping the submarines by rail involved breaking the submarine down into what was essentially a knock down kit."

• "The boats were equipped with compensating tanks designed to flood and offset the loss of the C/06 torpedo's 1,700-pound (770 kg) weight, but this did not always function properly ...".

• I'm not quite sure what you meant by bolding them....--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 01:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Randomly butting in here - I'm 99.9% sure Malleus means your tenses don't match. "compensating tanks" is plural, "this" is singular. Same with the "submarines" vs. "the submarine" comment above. Dana boomer (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oh. I've got it now. Malleus, I've fixed both of these issues.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 02:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Over the Type UB Is' first year of service ...". Surely the type is singular?

• I've made it singular I think. Can you check back to make sure that I did it properly?--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 01:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• "After Italy had entered World War I ...". Called it the First World War earlier in the article.

• Fixed all mentions of "World War I to "First World War"in the text and notes.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 02:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• "During their trials, the Type UB Is were found to be too small and too slow, and had a reputation for being underpowered". They had a reputation for being underpowered during their trials?

• Yes, I believe so. However, it's not like the bad reputation was lost once they were put into action.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 02:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 00:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. All my issues have been addressed satisfactorily. Malleus Fatuorum 17:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. There does not appear to be any issues left.--Twilight Helryx 21:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Please resolve the questions about reliable sources raised by Ealdgyth, or ask supporters to explain why they think these sources are reliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to get to them as soon as I can. I'll also be looking for replacement sources to them.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I can't find anything at http://uboat.net/about/crew.htm that speaks to reliability, editorial oversight, and factchecking-- it looks like a home-spun site, but is frequently cited here. Perhaps Ealdgyth has something about this site in her notes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• If I may please draw your attention towards User:Bellhalla/uboat.net reliability I feel that you'll accept the site as reliable. Uboat.net has been accepted as a RS by WP:SHIPS and if you want further conformation, just feel free to ask there :)--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Sandy - see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Military history of Australia during World War II/archive1 which is where it is discussed. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's unclear to me why "German" is in the article name; isn't that redundant (as shown by the first line of the article, which doesn't have that name bolded? See WP:LEAD). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• This article is merely following the consistency of the other U-boat related articles that belonged to the Kriegsmarine. There was the German Type UB III submarine, the German Type VII submarine, the German Type IXA submarine and so on and so forth. Perhaps the idea of putting "German" in front of it came from a WP:MIL or WP:SHIPS discussion that I don't know of but I'd rather not change the naming of this article without widespread support to do so.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 15:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Why is "Type UB I" not hyphenated, but every other use of UB-number of boat is? Also, please review WP:NBSP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think that I added the dash/space to every mention of "Type UB I" in the text, but not the references.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 16:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Now you've puzzled me as well; I thought SandyG was asking why isn't it "Type UB-1"? I notice as well that at least two of your sources[10][11] don't hyphenate either the type name or the boat names. Malleus Fatuorum 16:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Wait, so what am I supposed to do here? I'm equally confused...--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 23:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think all you're expected to do is to answer SandyG's question. The reason that the type name (Type UB 1) isn't hyphenated is that it might cause confusion with the submarine UB-1, or some such. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Liberty Bell

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... It's a little shorter than the Statue, but so's the article if you'll forgive the crack. Hoped to do this article a while back, but a new book came out on the bell enabling this one to finally get done. It was a fun one to do, and I spent four years at college in Philly so I probably saw the bell every now and then. Hope you like it. There was a nom of this article about two years ago by a drive by, but it was withdrawn when Sandy informed them it wasn't appropriate, if anyone wants I will be happy to pull up the text as it is now deleted.Wehwalt (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals.
• Pet Peeve alert - CT, not Ct for Connecticut.
• You use the Liberty Bell Museum website as a ref, so it shouldn't be in the external links.
• Might cull a few more ELs out also, its a bit .. farmy.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 17:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comments—
• All pictures need Alt text
• Ref #4: Needs a space between the p. and 7
• Ref #5: I don't think it should read www.whitechapelbellfoundry.co.uk. Although it is a website, the work is actually by Whitechapel or better Whitechapel Bell Factory
• Ref #7: The em-dash should be used instead of the en-dash here. (see Template:Cite book
• Ref #11: Two p's instead of one.
• Ref #33: Two p's instead of one.
• Ref #50: Only one p.
• Ref #51: Only one p.

CrowzRSA 00:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • File:Libertybell alone small.jpg - No attribution at the source; where can we verify federal authorship? Source parent explicitly says "For many of the images on GPO's Web sites, GPO has purchased the right to use the image. GPO is licensed to use these images on a non-exclusive and non-transferable basis. All other rights to the image, including those without limitation, copyright, and all other rights, are retained by the owner of the images. These images are not in the public domain."
  • File:Liberty Bell 150th Anniversary 1926 Issue-2c.jpg - Derivative work. What is the copyright status of the stamp?
  • File:IkeBicentBack.jpg - Non-2D work. Who created the photo/scan? Ca85? PyroGamer? An external source? What is its license?
  • File:Chiefbell.jpg - I'm not comfortable with the publication "rationale". I probably won't oppose over this issue alone, but more substantial support really ought to be used. 1) No date is given (bell traveled in 1915; this is not a statement of when the complied album was created and distributed); 2) No information on customers or scope of the albums (if albums were compiled for, say organizers of trip, organizers of the Panama-Pacific International Exposition, etc. -- as opposed to being for the general public -- it would be considered a limited publication, which is the same as no publication). Эlcobbola _talk 21:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

On the last, did you look at the source page? It said the albums were for sale. I will try to find out more about the date though. Regarding the coin, I think we need to settle here, does a scan of a US coin, which is of course PD in most cases, create a new copyright? I would like some resolution here because my next FAC contains several coin images (Shield nickel, if you are interested). That is actually why I chose this article to put up next. I will deal with the other issues later. I agree with you on the GPO. I will look for the best PD image I can find ... I could stop in Philly tomorrow and take my own, but the Liberty Bell is a mob scene in the summer. Sigh.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. It says " to create, for profit, photo albums"; that merely means he was paid to create them. It doesn't address the scope of the assignment. Publication must be distribution to the public, not a "closed" group. We're allowed to take images of 2D works without regard to the creator of the scan or photograph because of Bridgeman v. Corel - a case which does not apply to 3D works (3D works have shadows, angles, textures, etc. not present in 2D works that are sufficient to pass the threshold of originality and thus to provide copyright protection to the creator of derivatives). Releases are indeed required from coin photographers (see File:Pdc 24586.jpg, File:Mithradatesi.jpg, etc.) See also the derivative work case book for some general concepts (e.g. frames are 3D and, thus, cannot be included in uploads of 2D works if not PD themselves). Shield nickel is full of copyvios. Эlcobbola _talk 21:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I may have one of those coins laying around - I can get a scan and release it, but it may be awhile once I can. Connormah 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Image issues resolved. Эlcobbola _talk 13:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. You may be interested to know that I went to the Library/Archive at Independence National Historic Park today and spoke with the archivist and with the curator. The curator knew the most about this book, apparently INHP has two copies but the archivist couldn't lay her hands on a copy for me to look at. The curator told me that these were never sold to the public, but were given to officials such as the Mayor of Philadelphia, and at one time there were a fair number of copies floating around. He also was much struck by the photo in question (and two more showing the same individual) and went to Montana to see what he could find out about Chief Little Bear (this was in the 80s). He found no record of Chief Little Bear with the Blackfeet, no one who recognized the guy, and the prevailing opinion when they looked at the photo is that the guy pictured was not Blackfeet, but Sioux. So not only is it clearly not free use, but there are serious issues with that photograph and probably an interesting story lost in the mists of time. Anyhoo, I did take several pictures of pictures from their archives and will upload them and leave you a note when they are ready. They are all ironclad PD, rest assured. Stay tuned.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Comments - nice article, just a few little things to take care of and it'll have my full support. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• File:Liberty Bell, Independence Hall.jpg is missing a description
• Check licensing for stamp image - pd-self is likely not the correct tag
• Second paragraph seems contradictory - it cracked when first rung in Philadelphia, or it cracked in at some unknown time (potentially 1835)? I think you're referring to two separate cracks, but this should be made clearer
• "The bell has been widely featured...in commerce" - you're referring to commercial usages? Is there a clearer way to phrase this?
• I realize I'm probably the only person to care about this, but...does the circumference figure take into account the crack?

Just as a note (I will address all concerns later), because it does not affect the circumference. The crack did not expand the width of the bell. Yes, the crack is wide near the base, but that is because metal was filed away in an attempt to "repair" the bell.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay, that's interesting. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Why is [sic] used for "Pensylvania" but not "Phila"?

One is a variant spelling (it is not an error; you use sic for unexpected, variant spellings), while Phila is an abbreviation.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I see...struck comment. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• "would be used to good account" - what does this mean?
• Abolitionism is linked twice in the last paragraph of "Early history" due to a redirect
• "Instead, a 13,000 pounds (5,900 kg) replica (1,000 pounds for each of the original states) of the Liberty Bell was cast" - somewhat awkwardly phrased. Also, "13,000 pounds replica" sounds wrong to my ear - perhaps "13,000-pound replica"?
• "The metal used included four melted-down cannons, one used by each side in the American Revolutionary War, and one used by each side in the Civil War" - replace first comma with colon?
• "Large crowds mobbed the bell at each stop, which had been restored to its yoke" - phrasing suggests that it is the stop and not the bell restored to its yoke
• "In Biloxi, Mississippi, the former President of the Confederate States of America, Jefferson Davis came to the bell, and delivered a speech paying homage to it, and urging national unity" - commas could be moved around to improve clarity and flow

• Better, but repeats "to the bell"

• Be careful in using "more" - how do you know that no one who saw the bell on its journey west neither saw/kissed it at the fair nor saw it on its return journey?
• "The foundry played along" - how can we be sure of the foundry's motivations here?
• "Archaeologists discovered evidence that the construction site included an area that was once the site of a structure used by George Washington, while living in Philadelphia as president, to house his slaves" - awkward phrasing, and repetitive use of "site"

• Better, but could we switch the last two fragments around - "house his slaves" before "in Philadelphia"?

• "The Justice Bell toured extensively to publicize the cause, and after the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, granting women the vote, was brought" - awkward phrasing
• Liberty Bell March is in article text and should not be in See also
• Be consistent in using hyphens vs dashes in retrieval dates
• Combine identical refs - I see 21 and 22, but there may be others
• Be consistent in whether shortened refs end with a period or not
• Be consistent in whether weblinks to print sources include retrieval dates or not
• Ref 6472: need publisher location
• Shouldn't link to official site in both infobox and External links

I am too tired to deal with Nikkimaria's concerns and the concerns of Elcobbola which I have not already addressed tonight, I will work on them late tomorrow. Thank you both for your comments, and you, Elcobbola for continuing me on this course of education on image policy.

I have addressed Elcobbola's image concerns, and withdrawn the 1915 image while seeking the information required.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support

Nicely done work by Wehwalt, two comments though

• "but returned to Philadelphia somewhat the worse for wear" - can you reword it, I can't understand what it's meant.
• Philosophical Hall is a red link can you create an article for it.

Thanks Secret ^account 17:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those. I have, with mild regret, changed "worse for wear". The regret is because I thought it was a good shorthand way of expressing minor damage, but the FAC reviewers are the preview audience for this article and I respect that. I will work up a quick article on Philosophical Hall and pick up a DYK while I am at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Philosophical Hall is now a blue link. I've also nommed it for DYK.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] SMS Westfalen

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC), - Dank (push to talk) 12:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Westfalen was one of Germany's first dreadnought battleships; the ship served the majority of World War I in the main battle fleet in the North Sea, though it did participate in expeditions into the Baltic. Last month (July) the article passed both a Good Article nomination and a joint WP:SHIPS/WP:MILHIST A-class review. It is also part of Nassau class battleships, a current Good Topic. I feel the article is close to FA standards, and the editors who review the article will help me ensure the article is of the highest quality. I look forward to working with those who take the time to examine this article. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 12:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• "Hore, p. 67" isn't in the references

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Oops. Added. - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no external links. Ucucha 14:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - no image issues as of this (current) version. Эlcobbola _talk 21:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • In the infobox "Boats and landing craft carried: 10" is formatted awkwardly. Not your fault of course, but perhaps move it to notes instead so it doesn't look so out of place?
  • "However, the Weser River was lower at this time of year" needs rephrasing

Not sure ... I added "before she could be moved", does that help? - Dank (push to talk) 11:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope. The river itself is not lower, the water level is. If you use lower you also need something to compare it with, like "lower than normal". I adjusted the sentence to "the water level in Weser River was low at this time of year". Yoenit (talk) 11:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• • "fully laden" is this an obscure term or a typo? regular term I just never heard of before it seems.
  • "The first operation was conducted primarily by Rear Admiral Franz von Hipper's battlecruisers; the ships bombarded the English coastal towns of Scarborough, Hartlepool, and Whitby on 15–16 December 1914." This sentence seems to suggest Westfalen did not participate in the raid? Then why include it in the article?
    • The battleships didn't directly bombard the coast, but they sailed in support of the battlecruisers. That's where they ran into the British ships in the night. Parsecboy (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Adjusted the sentence to reflect this. Yoenit (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "The first attempt on 8 August was unsuccessful, as it had taken too long to clear the Russian minefields to allow the minelayer Deutschland to lay a minefield of her own." Why would not having a minefield prevent the fleet from entering the Gulf?

PSB, I could be wrong but I think he's asking for this sentence to continue, "... her own, before ..." - Dank (push to talk) 11:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean here Dank. I am not trying to get the sentence to continue, I am just curious why failing to lay a German minefield would cause a German attack on a Russian area to fail. Did they perhaps fail to clear the Russian minefield in time (as the article suggests in the paragraph below)? Yoenit (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

PSB? - Dank (push to talk) 12:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

After reading the battle article I understand what happened. I have changed the sentence, leaving out the part of laying own minefields as I will just get people confused (it sure happened to me). Yoenit (talk) 12:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• • "The single hit from a destroyer had killed two men and wounded eight." This seems out of place, with not integrate it with the earlier sentence about the hit? Yoenit (talk) 09:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Moved. - Dank (push to talk) 11:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

support Comments have been adressed. Yoenit (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• A plan diagram would help to clarify the "unusual hexagonal configuration".
• Links needed for destroyer and battlecruiser.

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• What damaged the ship's boilers in 1918?

All Staff says is, "During the advance she suffered boiler damage that reduced her speed to 16 knots." - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• What time zone is used in the article?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Damn. Done. (Btw, the last time I reminded you about this, that was for the benefit of some future copyeditor :) - Dank (push to talk) 03:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] HMS Indefatigable (1909)

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it recently passed a MilHist ACR and has subsequently been tweaked by myself and several others. A participant in the failed hunt for the German battlecruiser Goeben in the Mediterranean at the start of World War I, Indefatigable became the first of three British battlecruisers to be destroyed by magazine explosions during the Battle of Jutland in 1916, the largest naval battle of the war.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• What makes http://www.peakfinder.com/peakfinder.asp?Peakname=Mount+Indefatigable a reliable source?
  • Replaced.
• Likewise http://www.gwpda.org/naval/jut07wrk.htm?
  • It has multiple sources, all referenced on the page, and is not a self-published website.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, but why is it not self-published? What sort of fact checking does it do? Does it have a reputation for being reliable among other reliable sources? Is it cited by lots of historians/etc? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Look on the home page; it says GWPDA, inc or somesuch. I don't know that I've ever seen it referenced by any authors. It mostly seems to be reprinting data from various books as well as articles by various people, some by well-known historians like Edwin Sieche; others I've never heard of, but I'm not a specialist in WWI naval history (Just the ships, ma'am, just the ships).--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Understood that it's easier to get a hold of the material if some guy reproduces it on the web, but from what I'm hearing so far, SV, it doesn't sound like an RS. Have we used this source before? Maybe the case has been made somewhere. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I picked this source specifically because it referenced printed articles rather than just some dive company's site. I can probably replace the link with the latter if that's honestly considered to be an improvement.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
            • It's been deleted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
              • Works for me ... the deleted material hasn't been considered essential in other ship FACs, and it reads smoothly without it, too. - Dank (push to talk) 21:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha, per WP:MOS, "Minus signs: Do not use a hyphen (-) as a minus sign (−), except in code (see below); the correct character for general use is U+2212 MINUS SIGN (entered as &minus;​)." You changed one of the minus signs; can I change it back? - Dank (push to talk) 11:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 01:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • File:Invincible&IndefatigableSketch.jpg - Brassey's Naval Annual is a UK publication. UK works have copyright terms based on life of the author, not publication. Who is the author? When did s/he die? (This is merely a long-term stability issue, as PD status in the US is supported. Moving to en.wiki would resolve the issue.)
    • The book does not credit any artist so it was probably someone on staff. Your question cannot be answered.
      • Depending on Jappalang's answer on the Rivadavia-class battleship FAC (still waiting for one, he hasn't edited since the 9th...), we may be able to tag this as UK-unknown. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
        • See [12]. Which references [13] which states that commissioned or freelance work belongs to the artist unless otherwise agreed and that work done as a condition for employment belongs to the employer. So, without an attribution, I'm inclined to think that this is out of copyright in the UK as it was likely done by a staff artist.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • File:Jutland1916.jpg - No author attributed at the source. Where can we verify federal authorship?
    • I've seen the book that the scan comes from. See [14]
  • File:HMS Indefatigable (1909).jpg and File:HMS Indefatigable sinking.jpg - licenses address copyright status in country of origin only. What is their status in the US? Эlcobbola _talk 15:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Beats me. I'm no expert on US copyright of Imperial War Museum photos, but I'm not sure that US copyright even applies.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Crown copyright applies worldwide, similar to works of the U.S. government being PD. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
        • That's not correct. US federal works never have a copyright in the first place (i.e. there is nothing to expire), whereas Crown works have a copyright that evenutally expires. Depending on when a given (Crown) copyright expired, it may or may not be public domain in the United States. Whether the entity holding the copyright was governmental or private is considered if the work was administered by the Alien Property Custodian (see, for example, restoration in accordance with the URAA). Эlcobbola _talk 14:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Hmm, not quite what I meant, but my post was unclear. What I am saying is that the Crown copyrights on these images have expired worldwide because they were taken before 1 June 1957. I don't see why these images would be a problem when the British government—the possible copyright holder—has stated that they consider these copyrights to be PD worldwide. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments

1. Imagines need ALT Text adding
   • Alt text is no longer a requirement.
     • Per Wikipedia:Alternative text for images wiki has to accomodate for everyone.

   Not taking a position, just pointing out that that page was demoted from guideline status in March. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

   • • • Indeed, but it's not a FAC requirement, merely recommended.
         • I was unaware that it had been demoted in March however it is being recommended to make the article more accessbile.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
2. External links need to use correct template
   • There is no required format for external links, AFAIK.
     • As far as my understanding goes all external links are suppose to use the following template: Template:Cite web
       • Those are for cites, not general links. See WP:EL.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
         • Fair enough.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
3. As far as am aware the infobox fails 1.c of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria
   • Most things except the armor are cited in the design and description section. I'll add cites for everything that is not.
     • Will relook at this later.
4. Article should use British English over American English per WP:ENGVAR i.e. First World War not World War I
   • The article does use British English, but I've changed the usage. Do you have some sort of cite saying that First World War is British English? I've always treated them as equivalent and note that Burt, an English author, uses WWI in his title.
     • Various official publications by the British government and the imperial dominions such as the official histories.
       • I've used "First World War" etc. in my American English articles without a complaint... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
         • Addressed, cheers :). (Ed thats coz your a dopey Yank ;) only joking!)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
5. Pretty sure imagines should not be under section titles, and at any rate the first image causes the text to display somewhat weird – at least here on the work’s monitor.
   • Not a whole lot of other places to put them. Especially the Jutland map.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
   • Not entirely happy about this (considering the grief ive had in the past about imagines :p) but looking at the article a second time round does seem there located in the best possible places.

• I have only been able to read though half the article thus far but cannot find any other issues; text, grammar and sources seem fine. However would oppose on the above grounds at the moment (although they are quick fixes). I will try and read through the rest over the weekend or next week when time allows. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't answer most of these Sturmvogel, since they involve British English, reference formatting, and images. On the infobox ... almost none of the ship FAs put the references in the infobox; are you saying the material isn't cited in the text? - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• The term “half-sister” is used in relation to an HMAS ship and the HMS New Zealand however the term does not seem to be explained; the article it links to talks about sister ships – a term am familiar with - but doesnt mention a "half-sister"; so what is one?

Thanks for catching that. We (at SHIPS) disagree among ourselves on how to handle this. My position is that if you link a term, then the term should be explained by the linked article. - Dank (push to talk) 15:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I added an explanation of half-sister to the sister ship article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Having finished reading through the article it is clearly well sourced and written, there doesn’t appear to be anything that jumps out other than the few little things I mentioned above. More of a general question than a comment in regards to the article, I am aware that there are competing theories over the reason why some of the ships went down at Jutland but am unsure if these cover the Indy; can you confirm?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The real controversy is over the cause of the HMS Invincible's loss since she was only clearly seen to have been hit in the turret. See that article's talk page for some heated discussion of the reasons for her loss. The causes of the losses of HMS Queen Mary and Indefatigable are far less controversial since both ships were seen to take hits on their hulls that presumably penetrated to their magazines.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Saxaul Sparrow

Nominator(s): —innotata 19:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This article appears to meet the featured article criteria: Perhaps the text could be improved a bit, but I've decided that more improvements can be best addressed here now—comments on writing would be especially appreciated. This is a comprehensive account of its subject, though it probably could have a bit more if I knew Russian and could get at certain works in that language. —innotata 19:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Image Review

• All appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment -"It forages in trees and on the ground, feeding mostly on seeds, but also eating insects in the nest and while breeding. While it is not breeding it forms wandering flocks, but it is less social than other sparrows while breeding, often nesting in isolated pairs." I think something is wrong here.P. S. Burton (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• To add to that, I think that much of the introduction should be reworded. Snowman (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • I've made one dig at the lead, and will try to continue to improve it when I get time. Any thoughts on how it could be reworded? —innotata 21:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - This is mostly personal preference, but it may be useful to mention the bird's distribution in the first paragraph. —out^offocus 21:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Makes sense here. Added. —innotata 21:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support - all my issues addressed - really good read, just a few things. Canada Hky (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • In the "behaviour" section "It is shy in many areas, and spends much time hidden in foliage, but it is reported to be confiding in Mongolia." --> is there a better word than "confiding" in this sentence? As is, I don't really understand what it is trying to say.
    • A small group of breeding birds in Mongolia were not shy, coming close to humans. Altered a bit.
  • Possibly a dumb question, but if Stepanyan is not yet notable enough for an article (presumably), does he really need to be WL'd?
    • Stepanyan was the author of the Conspectus of the ornithological fauna of the USSR, among other books, so he probably is notable. I've added him to WikiProject Birds requested articles page. Thanks for commenting. —innotata 15:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Support (moral or otherwise) Nothing jumps out at me WRT prose or comprehensiveness. I am a wikiproject birds editor but I'll be as impartial as possible Some minor style issues (I'd maybe not split distribution and habitat in separate sections as it leads to some repetition and choppiness, and generally put taxonomy before description but I wouldn't hold it as a deal-breaker) :) Jotting notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Females have less bold plumage.. - sounds odd to me, I was thinking of something like "more subdued plumage" (i.e. frame as positive not a negative comparative) - but not a deal-breaker.

I'm not sure this should be changed. Neither is a very good wording, but less bold seems somewhat clearer in the current context. —innotata 21:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] William de Corbeil

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC) & User:Malleus Fatuorum

I am nominating this for featured article because it's complete (baring Wehwalt finding some obscure newspaper article!) and doesn't have any fair use images. Oh, and it's also a comprehensive look at one of the more obscure but interesting archbishops of England. He was a compromise candidate, not really a monk but not a fully "normal" clergyman either. He built the tower at Rochester Castle, and supervised the finishing of Canterbury Cathedral. He spent most of his episcopate in a dispute with the archbishop of York and thus spent all his time running back and forth to Rome. It's been copyedited quite extensively by Malleus, who is definitely a co-nom on this. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 13:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• CommentSupport Parrot of Doom 07:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• What is a "witness list"? Parrot of Doom 14:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • the list of witness to a charter or other legal document. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I appreciate not everything can be explained to the layman, but it might be helpful to mention that. Otherwise the article reads ok to me, apart from some repetition of William's keep in that section. Parrot of Doom 14:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I've clarified this in the text. (In this particular case it's the list of those witnessing the translation of Cuthbert's bones...) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• No citations to Hollister, C. W. (1975). "The Anglo-Norman Succession Debate of 1126". Transfer to Further reading
  • Actually I've just removed. It's peripheral to the subject, so since I obviously didn't use it, I removed it. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Use of "et al" for multiple authorships should be consistent through the references list
  • I'm not seeing any inconsistency. The Hollister Henry I ... Frost isn't an author, she just edited the work after Hollister died unexpectedly. She's not a "coauthor". Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Refs 5 and 6 could be combined
  • I could, but the reason they are separate is that it's two different paragraphs. The one that references two pages, splits across the pages, the other is quite distinct from the first one. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Not fully understood, But I'm sure that makes sense. Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 15 refers to English Church rather than The English Church
  • fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• I am not sure why refs 17 and 18 are presented in this way. I use this form when the quotation originates from another published source and is being quoted second-hand. That does not seem to be the case here.
  • acutally it's being quoted second hand AND as the author of the main work translated it. I did not look it up in the original quotation, but it's not the author of the overarching work saying this so I feel this is a good compromise. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise all sources seem OK Brianboulton (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

All issues resolved Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

CommentsSupport:

• "He is listed early in the witness list, the listing of those who witnessed the event. His position on the list implies..." A few too many lists and witnesses here!
  • "a listing of those who were present at the event." now... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Why might his name have been appended later? To give it some gravitas?
  • I can speculate, but my source doesn't. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Is it worth adding a brief explanation of what primacy means in this instance?
  • I've linked to the various articles in the lead. I think primacy here is self-explanatory enough for the context. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• From what I remember, free election were very rare. Why did Henry allow one here?
  • Nothing in my sources really speculates on why. It's possible that Henry wanted good press or he was just feeling friendly that week. Why Henry did anything is one of those great unknowns a lot of the time. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• It seems important that William was the first Augustinian canon; could it be made clearer why it was a big deal? Just realised that this is covered. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
  • He was the first Augustian to become an archbishop in England... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• "...dismissing the Canterbury monk's documents as forgeries..." What documents? --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Heh. The forged ones that the monks had put forward as proof of their case. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Could they be mentioned before here, as their dismissal is their first mention. If there is nothing really to say, it's not a problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, happy to support. Very interesting, and I think the recent changes make one or two things a little clearer. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim's comments

Good work as always, but I'm more concerned about this article that I've been about many of your other fine nominations:

• A compromise between York and Canterbury was negotiated, which involved Canterbury allowing York the supervision of the dioceses of Bangor, Chester, and St Aspah in return for Thurstan's verbal submission and the written submission of his successors

• St Asaph didn't exist at this point. The actual terms proposed were "Chester, Bangor and another which lies between these two, but is now vacant, owing to the desolation of the country and the rudeness of its inhabitants" (quoted in Charles Johnson, Hugh the CHanter, pp. 206 (text), 207 (translation) ).

• ODNB (the source for this) says "Canterbury should surrender to York the bishoprics of Chester, Bangor, and the unnamed diocese of St Asaph..." I could add in "unnamed" or "future" in front of St Asaph, but Barlow definitely is mentioning St Asaph here (I think we've discussed my opinion of Barlow before...) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• and in response he refused to consecrate William; the ceremony was performed instead by William's own suffragan bishops on 18 February 1123.

• Interesting. This is what the ODNB says too. Hugh the Chanter appears to indicate that that Thurstan wanted to consecrate William, but was prevented from doing so by the king.

• Yeah, I know this is a minefield as far as the primary sources. Unfortunately, Hugh is a primary source here, and we should be using secondaries mostly, especially for contentious issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• The section in the primacy dispute doesn't really provide enough background material. Some is essential. Urban II, Paschal, Gelasius and Calixtus (definitively in 1120) were all hostile to it, and chided the English kings and archbishops of Canterbury for insisting on it, as well as Archbishop Thomas for making a submission ... they claimed it was against the rules set out by Gregory the Great, and that it was an infringement of the Roman see's rights. The section as it stands is confusing/confused. it was indicating that the dispute was new and that the Canterbury bishops had a fair chance of persuading the papacy.

• I'm hoping to cover most of the incidental details in Canterbury–York dispute which is still very much a work in progress. This will make a lot of the bios of the folks invovled a bit less ... wordy. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have some problems with the monk versus non-monk section. The message is a little over-stated, and doesn't sit well with Bartlett p. 299, a source used. Canterbury was a monastic bishopric, and Anselm, his predecessor but one, was a monk, and William himself was virtually a monk, being a canon under the Augustian rule (regula, hence "regular canon").

• for this section, I'm relying on Bethell, who is probably the reason you feel the message is a bit overstated. Bethell's backstopped a bit by Knowles also. I've taken their emphasis as a bit more important than Bartlett, who is writing a "general overview" work and in any case is a 13th century specialist, rather than a 12th. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think the "Archiepiscopal activities" (now called) is comprehensive. Castle at Rochester is covered in depth, church councils somewhat ... but reading this article you'd think little else happened. A few other things are mentioned, but the organization is not what it could be [I tried to fix this a bit]. There is more stuff in the ODNB #Provincial and diocesan section.

• Any suggestions for sources besides the ODNB? I'll reread the ODNB and some of the others and see what I can turn up. I'll admit that the core of William was written a while ago, and is one of my "earlier" articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think you've covered the Augustinian side enough, about the order, about St Osyth's, about any patronage or lack it, [towards the canons holding to this rule] after becoming bishop. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Any suggestions for sources besides the ODNB? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I know this is a minefield as far as the primary sources. Unfortunately, Hugh is a primary source here, and we should be using secondaries mostly, especially for contentious issues.

• Indeed, though it is an indication that the section might need balancing/that there might be other stuff out there! :)

• I've taken their emphasis as a bit more important than Bartlett, who is writing a "general overview" work and in any case is a 13th century specialist, rather than a 12th

• I wouldn't say Bartlett is more 13th than 12th century. The centre of graity of his work is probably mid-1100s. If you were waying Bethell against Bartlett, the fact that Bethell was writing in the 60s and Bartlett is writing now should be heavier.

• I'm hoping to cover most of the incidental details in Canterbury–York dispute which is still very much a work in progress. This will make a lot of the bios of the folks invovled a bit less ... wordy. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• My point is more that the article itself needs to make the context clear ... as it gives the wrong impression about the nature of the dispute.

• Any suggestions for sources besides the ODNB

• I'd need to look into it, as Canterbury is a bit too Southumbrian for my usual interests. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I've addressed most of this (although honestly, some of it's pretty incidental details that may bog readers down a bit). As for Hugh's claim that Thurstan orginally was willing to consecrate William - I've checked Bartlett, HOllister and Green (her bio of Henry I) and none of them mention this particular curlicue on the whole Canterbury-York mess, so I think I'll leave that particular historian's debate to the Canterbury-York dispute article itself, where we can go into minute detail of why exactly Hugh might have said that and it might be a bit biased. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think such details are incidental. This is an FA candidate on what to most people is a fairly obscure topic. This stuff has to be right. While the sources being used are in general reliable sources, I'm not sure they are the most focused for every aspect of this article. Will you also be able to consult the Nicholl Thurstan book shortly, or is it totally unfindable? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hasn't turned up yet. Granted, I'm kinda swamped in real life so haven't looked. You know you're always welcome to add... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image review Both images check out. Magic♪piano 00:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - No problems that I can see here. Plus I learnt a new word: archbishopric, which I'm ashamed to say makes me laugh every time I say it. Tom (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Ambrose Rookwood

Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 10:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ambrose Rookwood was one of the less important conspirators enlisted by Robert Catesby into the 1605 Gunpowder Plot, but his story deserves telling, if only to highlight how naive he was to have thought that it could ever have worked. A well-dressed, somewhat showy individual, his love of the Catholic faith was not the most important consideration for Catesby. Rather, it was his stable of fine horses, essential for the planned uprising, that proved essential to the plot. Despite declaring his love (nothing unusual) for Catesby at his arraignment in January 1606, he was regardless dragged to the scaffold, hanged, castrated, disembowelled and then chopped into bloody pieces on a freezing cold English winter morning.

So now you're feeling all warm and cozy about Stuart-era English justice, hopefully you won't subject me to the same fate... Parrot of Doom 10:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 10:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Are the dates New or Old Style?

they're all relative to 5 November 1605, whatever calendar that might be in.

• • Then you should probably specify that dates after 1 January are New Style, because the start of the year in England then was 25 March, not 1 January. See Old Style and New Style dates--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
    • That's a point which is made in the Gunpowder Plot article as part of the story mentions how they celebrated the new year. I don't think its relevant here, however. Parrot of Doom 18:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
      • The problem is that nearly all English sources prior to 1752 are going to refer to the execution as happening in January 1605, not 1606, since 1606 had not yet officially begun. Catholic sources, of course, are going to follow the Gregorian calendar and its reform of the start of the year, but not Protestant ones. I haven't really done much reading on early modern period articles on Wiki, but I suspect that many editors have glossed over this issue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I still don't think its a problem. Not a single source I have seen (bar mention of celebrating the old new year in Gunpowder Plot) makes the distinction. The universally recognised date of the foiling of the plot is 5 November 1605, and all other dates in this article are relative to that, not 1752 or thereafter. Fair enough if I'd written "400 years ago on this date" anywhere in the article, but I haven't. Anyone wishing to research the topic from contemporary documents will have to work around the calendars themselves. For this article I don't think its necessary to mention the old/new calendars, since it has no impact on the reader's understanding of the topic. Parrot of Doom 19:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
          • This issue only comes up with dates between 1 January and 25 March.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I understand what you're saying but I don't think its an issue, and I don't think it has any effect on a reader's understanding of the topic. Neither, for that matter, do any of the sources used to create this article. For those reasons, I'll not be making any changes here. Parrot of Doom 21:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Titles in refs should conform to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#Composition_titles

you'll have to point out where you think a problem exists, but I don't normally change the titles of online sources.

• • The Anon citation as well as Questier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah I see. I've updated the Questier source. The trouble with the Anon source is, if you look at the front page of that pamphlet, it uses a range of fonts and styles. What would you suggest? Parrot of Doom 18:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Simplest thing is to follow the MOS rule, regardless of the contemporary idiosyncrasies on capitalization.
        • I couldn't be bothered capitalising the entire book title so I shortened it and capitalised that. Parrot of Doom 19:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Good enough.
• Rookwood or Rokewood? I realize that spelling was a bit variable back then, but the other Gunpowder Plot articles that I looked at use Rokewood.

all sources in this article use the former.

• • Fair enough.
• Images are appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Almost forgot, what makes Tudorplace.com.ar reliable?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that source, where is it? Parrot of Doom 11:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• • <blush>Sorry, that was in one of the other conspirators' article.</blush> As Emily Litella used to say, "Never mind."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good ... well-written. Just:

• Linking: are "Catholic" and "Protestant" obscure enough to link? Horse-breeder? Staffordshire, straight after the more specific Holbeche House? Hurdle?
• Should "Papist" not have a small p?
• Jesuits and Flanders linked twice? "Hanged, drawn and quartered" twice? Tony (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh I can guarantee that if I don't link Catholic and Protestant, someone else will, and then they'll change it to Roman Catholic, or Catholic Church in England and Wales. Best to remove temptation as those links tend to attract argument :) I think its fine to link horse-breeder as its a fairly specialised activity. The source used for Papist (Fraser) capitalises the word, so I followed suit. I removed the extra links to jesuits and flanders, but I think that HD&Q is far enough away from the lead to warrant being linked twice. Parrot of Doom 09:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I missed Staffordshire, and have removed that also. I'll keep hurdle as I doubt many today will know what that is. Parrot of Doom 09:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I'm a bit surprised this one's languishing like this, as I can't see significant issues with it. The one minor thing I'd question is "Nevertheless he seems to have been left to hang for longer than the others, before being taken to the block to be castrated, disembowelled, and quartered". Unless the reader's familiar with executions, they probably won't understand that this was a mark of respect on the part of the executioner in making sure he was unconscious before his body was dismembered, rather than an additional punishment by leaving him hanging longer; it probably warrants some kind of note. – iridescent 17:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• I could certainly add that but several sources on HD&Q state that after hanging, unconscious malefactors were brought back from sleepyland with a good slap and a splash of water, so I'm not sure its appropriate to speculate. I'll see if any of the Gunpowder Plot sources mention this. Parrot of Doom 18:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Dustbin Baby (film)

Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel I have gone above and beyond on this article for a number of reasons. Firstly, I bought the DVD, and watched the film several times. This isn't my normal choice of film. I wrote several pages of notes after watching the making-of feature. I managed to successfully request the release of some high-quality images to illustrate the article, one of which is now a featured picture. I wrote a good number of articles about topics related to this article, including some of decent quality. I've nurtured this article from creation on a sleepy afternoon after watching the film because I was bored to where it is now, and I now feel it is ready for featured article status. J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments

Although I made some formatting changes to this article in the past, I'll still comment here on some more issues that should be addressed before this reaches featured quality.

• The caption in the infobox doesn't need punctuation.
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• The plot should be reduced to the recommended guidelines of 400 to 700 words. Go through and remove some of the extraneous details or any subplots that aren't vital to the main plot.
  • I actually expanded the plot just before I nominated, so I included a mention of the majority of characters mentioned in the cast. I can easily cut it down, but will it matter that the cast will list characters who aren't mentioned elsewhere? J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Cut down to below 700 words. Missed off a few minor characters/symbolic incidents, but it focuses on the plot. It's actually surprisingly complicated because of the large number of flashbacks. Not the most linear of films. J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• I'm not sure if this applies only to American English, but should "14 year old" be "14-year-old"?
  • Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Both Jaqueline Wilson and critics responded positively to the film, and it was released on DVD on 12 January 2009." This would probably benefit with splitting into two sentences, right now it seems that the release was as a result of the good reception.
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Everytime I view this article I want to remove the random screenshots, but then I remember that they're all free. Again, excellent work on securing permission for these, this is definitely a rarity for film articles (especially ones that are so high-quality).
  • Thanks :) J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• "The BBC purposefully searched for an actress with Asperger syndrome to play the part of Poppy. Lizzy Clark, who has Asperger syndrome..." For the second occurrence, can it be reworded to avoid the redundancy?
  • I've just removed the sub-clause. That faced some rephrasing because of the fact I referred to her as "suffering" from AS, which is not PC. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Some of the paragraphs throughout the article are a little lengthy, could some be broken up to better divide up the ideas?
  • Split a couple. Any others concerning you? J Milburn (talk) 10:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    Maybe the plot could use one or two more, and reception could be split up into two. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

    • I tried splitting the plot further, but it wasn't really happening. I'm not really seeing a non-arbitary way to split the reception section either, sorry. J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Awards and nominations" -> "Accolades"
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• In the references, since "Behind the Bin: The Making of Dustbin Baby" is a DVD special feature could some additional parameters be added to help clarify this?
  • Expanded the main citation. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Current citation number 20 is dead, are there any other related news stories that covers the same information?
  • Citation 20 links to this, which is very much alive, as far as I can see? J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    Weird, wasn't working for me the other day. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look later. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, a few more fixes.

• "Both Jaqueline Wilson and critics responded positively to the film, with Wilson saying she thought it was the best film adaptation of her work." Looking over the novel's page, this has been the only adaption, is the "best film adaptation" necessary?
  • It's referring to her work generally- as opposed to the likes of, say, The Story of Tracy Beaker. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

    Perhaps change it to "collective work"? In this case it could be interpreted as just this film. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• "While at work at stately home..." Should this be "at a stately home", similar to someone working "at the office", or is it supposed to read similar to someone being "at school"?
  • Yeah, sorry. Part of me wants to make a joke, but I don't think anyone'd get it. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• "In a flashback, we see a young April..." "In a flashback, a young April is seen". Do the same for any other, "we" statements in the plot.
  • Yes, a good idea. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

    Nice work. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• "The film moves back to April's" In a similar manner, it's best not to use self-referential descriptions such as "the film" or "the plot". Reword any occurrences.
  • I struggled with that when writing the plot section. I'll see what I can do. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

    Plot sections are a pain to write, and then they get edited continuously by anyone and everyone instead of the more important sections of the article. Good job rewording it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• "The present April considers returning to Marion, but realises there is another place she wants to visit. Marion realises where April will be going..." Reword one of the "realises" for variety.
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if any clarification is needed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy to support, nice job. I would recommend getting the time frame references for the DVD citations as requested below. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, but the external link to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5h71MOkuHWqa875XG5NQMOq4IRQmg doesn't work (perhaps it does in the UK?). Ucucha 06:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The information is already cited to another source, so I've just gone ahead and removed it. There must be a reason that was there, but it's not actually needed, as long as the BBC can be considered a reliable source :P J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: all of the images' licenses check out. You're very lucky to get publicity photos released under a Creative Commons license for use here. I have a concern though. The Kindle Entertainment logo feels like window dressing to me. It's appropriate in the navbox at the end of the article because those articles pertain to the company. I guess I'm not seeing the encyclopedia value of including it in the body of the article where it feels like advertising to me. Imzadi 1979 → 07:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I could add other related logos (BBC and ITV DVD are both PD) to balance it a little, or I could remove the Kindle one. Your call. J Milburn (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I'd pull it. It's already in the article by way of the template, so using it in the article is a bit superfluous. The other reason is that the logo isn't discussed in the body of the article. In that case, it's not needed to illustrate an element of the text's commentary. It's not needed for branding or reassurance to readers that this article is about the company in question, since this is about a movie not the company. I can't think of any reason to leave it except decoration. Of course it would be nice to have more imagery to break up the text. It's a shame that you don't have a movie poster of some kind to include, even under fair-use, with the appropriate commentary on it. You'll have to ask someone more knowledgeable on WP:NFCC if the DVD cover could be used in connection with the "Home media release" section. Imzadi 1979 → 11:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
      • The logo is freely licensed? You do realise that don't you? The NFCC do not apply, so leaving it in as "decoration" is fine. And the DVD cover, which was previously used in the article, is not at all needed, as it's basically the same as the third publicity shot anyway. Neither the DVD cover nor the logo would be legit under the NFCC, but all of the images currently in the article are free, and so we can use them as we wish. J Milburn (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
        • As I say though, if you like images to "break up the text", the ITV DVD logo (which is free) could illustrate the home media release section, and the BBC logo could be slipped in somewhere. J Milburn (talk) 12:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I know that the logo is freely licensed, that's not what I was talking about in connection with my comments on fair-use, which were aimed at movie poster/DVD cover images. I don't know about others, but I don't add images to articles just for "decoration". Adding the other two logos would start to make the article look like the side of a race car. Being free to include a thing in the article doesn't mean it can or should be included. In this case, the logo is unnecessary window dressing. It doesn't add any value to the article, so it should go from the text. If you can find other appropriate images to include that would add value to the article, then do so to help break up the text. That's why I had the idea that the DVD cover might be nice to include. It could be used under fair-use if done correctly and placed in the "Home media release" section. Since it's so duplicative of freely licensed images in the article (which I did not know) it wouldn't meet NFCC as a free alternative does exist. If no other images can be included, that's fine. You might want to space them out a bit more if you can. Imzadi 1979 → 12:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Ok, I've removed the Kindle logo. I don't see the point of spreading out the images, as I have added them in the sections where they are most appropriate- you said yourself that images should add value, rather than be used decoratively. I strongly disagree that the use of the DVD cover would have been legit, regardless of the fact it is so similar to one of the images already used, but that is not really relevant. J Milburn (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I'm going to temporarily retract my guidance that the image licenses all check out. Yes, the three images currently in use are all taggedunder Creative Commons licenses, which was the basis of my previous guidance. It appears that the file uploader also processed the OTRS ticket. Please don't think I'm implying any impropriety, but until someone else can verify the OTRS ticket for me and respond at the Commons noticeboard, I feel the need to play this one safe. Imzadi 1979 → 22:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC) Ticket independently verified. Imzadi 1979 → 23:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The film was shown on the BBC but the 'Home media release' section states that it was issued by ITV DVD? Is this definitely right? I've seen BBC productions released by other companies such as 2 Entertain but never ITV. Cavie78 (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Definitely right. I was asked about it in the GAC review. Couldn't honestly say why this has happened (I'm no expert on the industry) but I can assure you that it has. J Milburn (talk) 10:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Why is the Dustbin Baby article on BBC's CBBC website listed at the top of the references? This does not appear to be cited in the article.
  • It's a general reference for the likes of run time, (the start of the) plot and, most of all, the cast. The kind of things that would often go without a reference. I couldn't think of a clean way to cite it inline for the cast list. J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
• There are numerous citations to the "Behind the bin" section of the DVD. Presumably track numbers and timings are available for the comments cited. These are the equivalents of page numbers in books, and should be given for each of the references to the DVD. Also, can you clarify what the role is of "Julia Ouston" in regard to this DVD?
  • Tracks? I could do approximate times if you want. I can address that tomorrow if you feel it is necessary. Julia Ouston was the producer of the film and the interviewer in Behind the Bin- would you like that clarified in the citation? How would you recommend I do that? J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

    You can see an example at Tropic Thunder, I used several commentaries and featurettes, and the citations included the approximate time (I used a second or two before the statement that was being cited was made). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

    The refs have been reorganised, so I can't see exactly how my minor concerns have been met, but they seem to have been resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

    I'll deal with the timing/track issue within 24 hours. J Milburn (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

    Sorry, I will get to this soon, I promise. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

    Done. J Milburn (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Consistency is required in the provision of retrieval dates (11 is missing) and on the formatting of these dates (26 is different)
  • Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise sources seem OK. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments: I don't normally read "entertainment" articles, such as those on movies, but I thought I would give this a go. Below are my comments.

• "Dustbin Baby is a 2008 BBC television film directed by Juliet May first broadcast on 21 December 2008..." – 2008 seems redundant in the opening sentence.
• The last sentence of the lead seems a little cumbersome. Could it be broken up?
• Some of the plot text seems disjointed: "However, the Johnsons' relationship is an abusive one, leading to Janet's suicide. Marion talks to April's friends, and realises that April has lied. April travels alone to Janet's grave. Marion continues her search, ending up in a shopping centre, where she meets Elliot, who has joined her." I realize that movie will jump from character to character, making it hard to connect in text. The text might just need some touch-up, with words like "meanwhile", "while April does X,", etc.
• Two references are listed by not cited in-line. For what are they referencing? (I plead ignorant when it comes to non-academic referencing.)
• Once someone reviews and approves your references, I recommend using WebCite to archive every web page you cite to avoid link rot, which may compromise this articles FA status later on (assuming it passes). If you have questions about how to do this, just drop a note on my talk page.

Overall, it was a very good article about the movie. However, the Plot section was a little tough to read. It may be me, though. If you fix the other points I've brought up, I will add "leaning support", and if other reviewers fail to find fault with the Plot section, then I will switch to "support". Good job! – VisionHolder « talk » 03:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Killer7

Nominator(s): Axem Titanium (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The previous nomination was closed early mostly due to procedural reasons. I believe this article meets the FA criteria by being well referenced and comprehensive. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 09:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note: images reviewed at previous FAC. No remaining issues as of this (current) version. Эlcobbola _talk 16:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Some redirects no longer link to the correct section. — Dispenser 03:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The link appears to be broken. Can you point out where there are broken redirects/anchors? I did a quick spot check but I couldn't find them. Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Fixed the link. Ucucha 09:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Okay, all fixed. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• Ref 24: Unseen64 appears to be an archive. Do we have any information on the original sources of its material?
• Ref 37: If Edge is a mgazine, it should be italicised
• Ref 38: Lacks retrieval date. What is "Famitsu"?
• Ref 41: Nintendo Power should be italicised
• Ref 42: What makes "insert credit" a reliable source?
• Ref 45: New York Times should be italicised
• Ref 50: Joystiq appears to be a blog
• Ref 56 is in Japanese, needs noting

Otherwise sources look OK. Note also: there are several uncited statements in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 10:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As I noted in the first FAC, "The Joystiq ref is actually a primary source, since it reproduces Thompson's letter in full. insert credit is of unknown reliability (which is to say, it hasn't been discussed), but the contributing author, Tim Rogers, is a well-known New Games Journalist, who provides a unique perspective not found in other reviews. Unseen 64 also provides primary sources in the sense that they compile pre-release/beta screenshots into one central location. I'm not citing the article, but the screenshots found in the article. But, if you still have an objection to it, I'm not particularly attached to that bit of information." All the other changes have been made. What uncited statements are you referring to? Axem Titanium (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the Unseen 64 bit since it lacks context and importance. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I will let reviewers with a better knowledge than mine decide if Joystiq and insert credit are acceptable sources. As to uncited sentences, here are a couple:-

• "The interaction between Japan and the US is a central source of conflict in Killer7".

  This is just a general statement which is made evident by the majority of the plot of the game being about US-Japan relations. I don't think it needs a source. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

  "Casamassina was also impressed by the quality of the anime-style cutscenes featured in the later half of the game."

  The previous ref sources both statements. I moved it to make this more clear. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Why is "United States" linked?
• Is "actually" adding to the meaning in the second para?
• "received extremely polarizing reviews"—consider just "received polarized reviews".
• "While some reviewers could appreciate the stripped down controls"—"Could" might even be POV; it's at least redundant ... "reviewers appreciated". Hyphen "stripped-down".
• "Jack Thompson, an outspoken video game activist, also criticized the game for its alleged "full-blown sex sequences", but his claims were ultimately refuted." Rm "also". What claims were refuted? That it contains sex sequences, or social/political claims about them?
• "Despite these setbacks, killer7's cult appeal eventually led to remakes of Suda51's older works, as well as the successful launch of No More Heroes." Or simpler: "Despite these setbacks, killer7's cult appeal led to remakes of Suda51's older works and the successful launch of No More Heroes."

Looking further down from the lead, things like: "By holding a button, the player character moves forward and another button causes the character to reverse direction." Can it be grammatically parallel?

I think the prose needs work. I am away Sunday to Friday. Tony (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I made the changes you mentioned and I gave the whole article a fresh copyedit. What do you think? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Revisiting by request (I'm about to be offline for a week). It looks ok. But at random, I picked out:

• "killer7 received divisive reviews and sparked debates about the role of video games as art and depictions of sex and violence in video games." Readers will trip over this. Either remove the last three words or fix some other way.
• It's partly a personal style, partly wider than that, but you might consider more commas before the high-level structural "ands", especially where the sentence is long and there aren't too many other "ands" hanging around: "He found that despite poor pacing and stilted gameplay, the "quirky scripting and edgy plot" were strong draws, and called killer7 one of "most artfully designed footnotes in gaming history".
• I won't use quote-marks because there's already a quote within: Kristan Reed of Eurogamer described killer7 as "a concept game, an arthouse game, a simple game, an often beautiful game, but most certainly never an everyman's game", keenly aware of the game's limited appeal.—What is the status of the last clause? I don't get it.
• "criticized those same aspects"—just "the same", I think. Do you? Then remove "also". Comma before "while". And consider not using "while" too much as a clause connector: it's a bit laboured (and carries possible unintended meanings).
• Lots of s and zh sounds: "the PlayStation 2 version, causing the latter's scores to suffer." The latter's is ungainly.

So, I think an unfamiliar editor should look through it carefully. WP needs to cover these pop cultural fields with razor-sharp prose—there's so much slop out there on the Internet on vid games, it's the way to gain authority. I'm not saying this is slop; but it needs a bit of cleaning up. I didn't oppose because I knew I'd be away during the crucial improvement period. Tony (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I made the changes you pointed out and I've called on a few people to take a look at it and maybe tighten up the prose. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment MOS:TM states "Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized" Article should be Killer7 not killer7 - X201 (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - the prose seems cleaned up to me, though Tony is the expert. A few points-

• The lead says that it received polarizing reviews due to the complex plot, but in reception you don't have any critiques of the plot, besides 1up calling it "edgy". Seems more like it was split due to the control scheme and art style than control scheme and plot.
• You link the publisher sometimes in the reception, but not always. I'd link IGN, 1up etc every time.
• Plot- I thought at the end he was going to kill Iwazaru/Kun Lan, but then suddenly he doesn't and it's a century later and Kun Lan/Harman are immortal? And before that, Garcian turns out to really be Emir, and killed the 7 manifestations of Harman's personality 50 years ago but now is one of the 7 manifestations? A few more sentences here to clear it up would be nice. --PresN 15:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. I must've forgotten to add something about plot in the reception section, so I added it. I linked all the publishers and I tried to clarify WTF is going on at the end of the game (it's very confusing, as reviewers note, lol). Axem Titanium (talk) 17:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Whistler Sliding Centre

Nominator(s): Chris (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because this article meets the necessary requirements to qualify for WP:FA. It has undergone two different peer reviews, one before it was nominated for WP:GA and one after it received WP:GA. This venue was the subject of controversey during the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver in the wake of Nodar Kumaritashvili's death prior to the opening ceremony and I have done my best to present him and the Olympics in as best and as neutral of a light as possible. Chris (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—the link to FIL leads to a dab page and the external links to http://www.nbcolympics.com/news-features/news/newsid=412058.html#luge+officials+tweak+track, http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/vancouver/bobsled/news?slug=ap-bob-two-manbobsled&prov=ap&type=lgns, http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/vancouver/bobsled/news?slug=capress-oly_bob_latvia_withdraws-2467691&prov=capress&type=lgns, and http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news?slug=ap-weighingtherisk&prov=ap&type=lgns are dead. Ucucha 05:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • - First link removed while the remainders were adjusted. Chris (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC) All FIL links are legitimate. Chris (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Is there a guide somewhere on the technical specifications and analysis on the track? Because for say, a motor racing track, different layouts require different emphasis on skills or car (sled) specifications or how it needs to be set up to optimise the speed/traction for the corners on the given track. eg, for formula One, on the BBC website they have a talk by a driver for each circuit discussing how to drive there, and set up their vehicle etc. I'm guessing statistics on the speed at various corners or straights, or the slope on various sections could also be useful (All the cycling experts know the slope of each mountain and know the gradient variation at different sections). I'm also wondering if anyone has said anything about how the corners and layout can require different physical attributes and how it could favour/hinder certain physiques or driving/steering techniques. Is this possible/available as it seems core to non-standardised sports venues (ie a swimming pool) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • - I have not seen any major track analysis for a venue like this except for general venue details. Most of the track sensors listed are that for times though there are speed trap listings for each of the eight events that were run on the track for the 2010 Games. When I set up the info box, it was for a general sports venue and not a motorsports based venue which I was unaware they had until now. I have looked at this venue IB and see that it could fit, but not in its entirety given you have start and track records for each event. Usually the FIBT or the FIL do not show any listing of track gradients and have never gone into that much detail, not even in the Olympic reports I have seen on venues like this. Chris (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • - Changed the Infobox to a motorsports venue rather than a sports venue per request. Chris (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Alt text isn't compulsory anymore, but simply saying "man celebrating a victory" isn't going to help a blind person who needs to have the actual literal colour, shape etc described to them eg "man wearing ??? standing on ?? with a ?? medal around his neck and ?? flowers ??. In the background is a sign....." YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Nvm this I stand corrected YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • File:BoardSlidingArea.jpg - Derivative work; cannot be freely licensed by the Flickr user without consent of the author.
  • File:Wsc1.jpg - Needs a verifiable source and summary per WP:IUP.
  • File:Wsc4.jpg - Same as above.
  • File:Wsc2.jpg - Same as above.
  • File:Wsc3.jpg - Same as above.
  • File:Wsc5.jpg - Same as above.
  • File:Wsc6.jpg - Same as above. Эlcobbola _talk 16:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
    • - Images removed per request. Chris (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Image issues resolved. By the way, the "Wsc" images would be resolved if the uploader just added "own work", "author: Earl Andrew" or something analogous (if that's indeed the case) - that would be sufficent sourcing (the {{PD-self}} template alone just isn't explicit enough). Эlcobbola _talk 17:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• It would be helpful if acronyms (VANOC, FIL, FIBT, BCRMCA) were spelt out at first mention
  • - They are listed at first mention. Chris (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I meant at first mention in the references. Brianboulton (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Ref 41: New York Times needs italicisation.
  • • • They are fixed. Chris (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • - Done. Chris (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Still unitalicised in what is now ref 48. Brianboulton (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Fixed. Chris (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• If a source is in English it is not necessary to state this. English is the default language on Eng wikipedia
  • - Extra English removed from source 99 per request. Chris (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • ...but not from ref 60. Brianboulton (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Fixed. Chris (talk) 13:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 08:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment the Motor racing track infobox does seem to make more fitting parameters such as the number of turns and the banking parameter, if desired YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Inforbox adjusted per request. Chris (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments –

• 2008–09 Luge World Cup, including training: Try not to start a sentence with a number like in "2482 runs took place...".
  • Fixed. Chris (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Should all of these figures in the thousands have commas in them?
  • Excess comms removed. Chris (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• 2009–10 World Cups, including training: Typo in "were allowed to train before to 2010 Games."
  • "to" to "the" Chris (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Public opening and post-Olympic usage: "Costs to the public was 5 Canadian dollars...". To make the tenses match correctly, "was" should be "were". Alternatively, you could start this with "The cost to the public".
  • Adjusted to alternate sentence. Chris (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Bobsleigh: "Meanwhile, the Germany-2 sled of Cathleen Martini and Romy Logsch was in fourth place after the third run, but were disqualified...". Is it "was" or "were"? Has to be one or the other, I'd imagine.
  • Fixed. Chris (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Edwin van Calker of the Netherlands withdrew to a lack of confidence...". Feels like "due" is missing from this passage.
  • "due" added between withdrew and to. Chris (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• "despite no crashes during four-man training had taken place before that day." After training, "that" or "which" should follow. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "that" added between training and had. Chris (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Overall safety concerns: "It has raised debate on tightening qualification standards to weed out unqualified athletes, require a large number of training runs, slow down the sliding tracks, or a combination of all three." I'm confused by this sentence. Would the tighter standards lead to these three things, or is that one of the three items itself? If the latter, "require" and "slow" need to be in "ing" form to work grammatically. If the former, the structure itself is okay, but I don't know what qualification standards have to do with track speed.
      • "ing" added to "require" and "slow" Chris (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • "FIBT President Storey wants to wait...until after the 2010 Games". It's well after the Games now. A little past tense is in order.
      • Changed to past tense. Chris (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see "to" in the Rogge quote as the source has it.
      • "to" removed. Chris (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Construction: "This venue was constructed on First Nations designated site." Missing "a" in the middle?
      • "a" added between "on" and "First". Chris (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • "the track actual costs were...". Add an "s" at the end of "track"?
      • "'s" added after "track". Chris (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Last but not least, there's a typo above the infobox. Look for "Slding". Easy to miss something like this, and I almost did. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Fixed. Chris (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose.

• Linking: why is "Canada" linked, when more specific locations are linked next to them and have prominent links themselves to the more generalised article? The opening is a link-farm that dilutes the high-value links. Why is "French" linked, as though the French language were a mystery, or readers would want to divert there suddenly at the top of this article? More: "Prague" is link enough without its country-name linked. And the rest in that para.
  • French language is part of the template lang-fr. The French language is wikilinked automatically. Chris (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Site construction of the facility began on 1 June 2005 following environmental approval from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Construction site safety and security was put in place at that time." Repetition; and why site construction? "were put in place". Then "construction" for the third time. And up to five times by the end of the short para.
  • Adjusted per requested. Chris (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Insufficient commas: for example, after "2007".
  • Where specifically? Chris (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Plain English: "The first run was on ...".
  • Adjusted. Chris (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Remove "located".
  • Done. Chris (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Austria", "Great Britain" linked again, in a sea of links.
  • The only time the countries as is are linked here. All of the other ones shown are Nations at the 2010 Winter Olympics piped in for their respective country. Chris (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• in order to
  • Done. Chris (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• What is "homologation"? Do we have to divert to the link-target to find out?
  • Changed to certification. Homologation is a fancy word for certification. Chris (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Quotation technique: Lueders commented that the track "... [is] definitely the fastest ... in the world and that's what makes it so difficult" while Kelly of Canada concurred with "... any loss of concentration ... [can get you] ... in trouble because it is technical as well.".—"said" is the normal speech tag. Why not: that the track is "definitely ...", which avoids the square brackets and the ellipsis points. Why the ellipsis points around [can get you]?
  • Quote removed in its entireity. Chris (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This needs work. Tony (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Still ellipsis points at the starts of quotations need removing; country-links ... I removed a few more. Other improvements could be made. It is hard to do this by oneself, through sheer over-familiarity with the wording. Tony (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ellipsis points removed completely. What other issues do you have that I need work on? Chris (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Capitol Loop

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 21:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think the article comes very close to meeting the criteria. This is an article about a highway that's not really a highway. It is really a collection of streets downtown Lansing, Michigan, US that masquerades as a highway because that's what its parents call it. The parents decide to conceive this controversial child in 1986, but didn't manage the feat until 1989. This child was caught in the middle of controversies at the beginning. The two parents wanted to give it reconstructive plastic surgery for its 15th birthday, but others disapproved. These others almost stopped the procedure dead in its tracks, but relented when the process was scaled back. Recently, this child seems to be a bit of a speed demon, with issues surrounding speeding tickets. Hopefully you'll enjoy the article as much as I have, and suggest or make any necessary minor improvements to polish the article off. Imzadi 1979 → 21:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources look OK, no issues arising Brianboulton (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - The lead looks a little long, could a couple of sentences be cut out of it? Other than that, I would be willing to support this article. Dough4872 01:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - Issues resolved. Dough4872 02:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 07:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
• Alt text isn't compulsory anymore, but simply saying "looking east/west" "X building" isn't going to help a blind person who needs to have the actual literal colour, shape etc described to them YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I was under the impression that alt text supposed to be kept brief without long descriptions, which are best left for the body of the article. The samples given at WP:ALT indicate that "A basketball player" or "Tony Blair shakes hands with George W. Bush" based on the purpose of the photo. Any suggestions are appreciated, but the old method of full descriptions of every element of an image aren't correct anymore. Imzadi 1979 → 07:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I stand corrected YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment - looks fine. nothing stands out as improvable, maybe ther are tweaks here and there with the prose but no deal-breakers as such. beginning a look-over now. I'll jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

... has notated it.. - " has designated it" ? The former sounds unsual and I suspect you mean the latter (?)

Yes, but aren't the labels on a map "notations"? I've switch to "labeled" for now. Imzadi 1979 → 04:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

each three-lanes wide - the hyphen looks odd to me here. I'd leave it out...unless there is some roadmap convention I am missing.

I think that's an artifact from a previous copy-edit. Either way, the hyphen is gone. Imzadi 1979 → 05:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments Support –

• Route description: "The two highway designations merge and run run concurrently...". See the problem? :-)
• Proposal and creation: "with the boundaries of Ottawa, Allegan, Logan streets...". When I read this, it feels like there should be an "and" in the list of streets (after Allegan).
• Street name changes: Pretty sure reference 17 should be after the parentheses. The normal rule of thumb is to put cites after punctuation; the only time I know of when the opposite applies is with dashes. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Replies:
    • Nice catch. Fixed.
    • "Ottawa, Allegan, Logan streets and the vacated section of Sycamore Street" so you think it should be "Ottawa, Allegan and Logan streets and the vacated section of Sycamore Street". That sounds like one too many ands to me. Any suggestions on how to recraft it? The only thing I can think of doing would be: "Ottawa, Allegan, Logan and Sycamore streets". How do I indicate the vacated status of Sycamore though? I got a suggestion from a friend on how to fix this.
    • Normally I would agree, but in this case, ref 17 is only for the inflation-adjusted number, while refs 16 and 18 are for the whole sentence, original dollar value and all.
  • Thanks for the comments! Imzadi 1979 → 15:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I've place a notice to Giants2008 that I've replied to his comments two days ago. Imzadi 1979 → 21:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image review
  • Most images check out; File:Michigan-Capitol-2005.jpg appears to be in good order, but could use an {{Information}} template.
  • File:Capitol Loop map.png is claimed PD, but the source of the underlying map is not given, and I doubt the editor drew it him/herself.

-- Magic♪piano 12:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • All done, and actually using GIS data your average editor with those skills can draw maps himself. Imzadi 1979 → 13:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It does need to be clear that that is what was done, as opposed to (for example) scanning or copying a base map from a copyrighted source. Magic♪piano 13:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Image issues addressed. Magic♪piano 13:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

*Comments

• • "The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) has labeled it as Capitol Loop I-496 or CL I-496 on some maps, similar to that of an Interstate Highway business loop." - not quite getting the connection here.
  • The third paragraph of the lead seems a bit too detailed on first glance.
  • 2.3 - The city did not kill the project outright and risk losing the investment in the downtown infrastructure. - rephrase? The parallel structure here just seems a bit strange.
  • 2.4 - MDOT moved work on Allegan Street that was originally scheduled for 2005. - moved... ?
  • 2.5 - "What's happening is streets are artificially posted too low for the purpose of writing tickets," according to Jones. - bad sentence structure.

Should be a support after these issues are fixed. --Rschen7754 06:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• Some copy edits have been made. Let me know if they address these comments. Imzadi 1979 → 14:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - issues resolved. --Rschen7754 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Quebec (1775)

Nominator(s): Magic♪piano 01:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The first big American defeat of the American Revolutionary War. It went through a MILHIST A-class review in May, and I think its prose benefited from learning experiences in my FAC submissions earlier this year. I hope it meets with your approval. Magic♪piano 01:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 07:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments

• There is some inconsistency in providing publisher locations
  • All books should now have locations.
• It ought to be made clear that the Griffin book is published by the author.
  • Done.
• The Griffin book does not appear to be cited in the article, and perhaps should be listed as further reading?
  • It is referenced in note 1; I have changed the text in the note to be consistent with other references there.
• Same point with Vergereau-Dewey book
• Same point with the Ward & Alden book.
  • These two are moved to further reading. Magic♪piano 20:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment No redirects. Has the French language really become that unimportant? — Dispenser 04:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Beats me. I do know that Quebeckers have a sensitivity toward military actions (especially those involving primarily English speakers) on their territory; hence the need to make sure the role of Francophones are well-represented in articles like this. Or did you have something else in mind? Magic♪piano 15:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I believe the suggestion is that you should create a redirect from the French name for the battle, so that French searches will lead to it (it is Quebec, after all). For example, when I work on other language articles, I redirect all possible translations. You should que no te callas!&redirect=no categorize them, also. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
      • That is indeed a fine suggestion; I have added a number of suitable redirects, and the French name for the battle to the article. Magic♪piano 20:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments: Just started to work my way through the article now, may be a while until I have gone through it totally due to my skiving at work XD

Ok, so far my only concern are the following:

• “In September 1775, the Continental Army began moving into Quebec, with the goal of liberating it from British military control.”

Is this not POV pushing (unless I have taken it in the wrong context), the next paragraph talks about how local inhabitants aided both sides, how the French had generally accepted British control and the British had recently passed certain laws to re-establish certain rights etc. So who were the Americans (Rebels :p) liberating?

Montgomery published a propaganda tract that said essentially this, so it is representative of the stated American goal. They thought they were liberating the locals, who (courtesy of the 1774 Quebec Act) did not have representative government, and needed to be freed from an authoritarian British regime that denied them basic rights. (The fact that the Quebec Act created a somewhat more accomodating government than the Royal Proclamation of 1763 did not enter into the American calculation, to their detriment.) I figure the statement as it stands implies it's their position, and not an editorial one. If you disagree, I can make it more explicit. Magic♪piano 17:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

On a second read, looks like i just misinterpreted it first time round. Seems fine.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• ”Montgomery realized he was in a very difficult position, since the frozen ground prevented the digging of trenches and his lack of heavy weapons made it impossible to breach the city's defenses. ... Arnold would lead one attack to smash through the walls at the north end of the lower town, and Montgomery would follow along the St. Lawrence south of the town.”

  This bit has me confused; if it was initially stated that Montgomery did not have the weapons to breech the walls then how, after splitting his force would they be able to? Granted the next section does refer to them as the outer wooden walls and not the main defenses, i think this should be clarified.

I've added some words to clarify this. Magic♪piano 17:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

CheersEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• External Links need to use the correct citeweb template.

Done (although this hasn't been an issue in my previous FACs...) Magic♪piano 17:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I have in the pass, i guess it depends on who looks at it :P EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Other than that the article looks well researched, intresting to read, everything is consistent and i will support it for FA status pending the above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

With the changes made, i have just added the portal to the article, i honeslty cant see anything majorly at fault with the article; its a good read, imformative and appears to tick off everything on the list.

• SupportEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Sherlock Holmes Baffled

Nominator(s): Bob talk 21:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Although it's only 30 seconds long, this short film is accidentally significant in that it is the first Sherlock Holmes film, and therefore the first detective film ever made. It was a "Do You Know?" entry in February 2010, and since then it has undergone a peer review and has passed as a Good Article. After making improvements both times (and probably covering all details that can realistically be included about a 30-second silent film), I respectfully submit it for review here. Bob talk 21:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I am a little concerned about whether sources such as ref #1, ref #4, ref #6 are WP:RS good enough for WP:FAC. I have formatted some of the refrences, will carry on when you have finished edits. Also Imdb is not good except for credits. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think some of those date from when this article was in its infancy, and don't really reference anything that the book sources don't. I see what you mean about 1 and 4 as reliable sources. 1 should definitely go. In the context of the article 4 is only being used to back up my own summary of the "plot". Reference 6 is a strange one, as it appears to be a reprint of an article by John C. Tibbetts, who is quite a noteworthy academic, but exactly where the article is originally from I don't know. IMDb is only used to reference the length of film in feet, which I doubt would be listed anywhere else. Bob talk 00:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your help with the reference templates. I have removed ref 1, ref 4 is only really being used to explain the "baffled" comment, and I have been unable to find where the Tibbetts one is originally from, so have moved that to the talk page. I have also added another book reference into the paragraph just before the IMDb film length. Bob talk 00:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. There are some minor inconsistencies in the references: some have the first name before the surname, others have it behind it; some have a space after "p.", others don't. 18 and 19 look like they're using a different template than the rest. Ucucha 08:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I will finish formatting consistently later today. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Done , we need a page number for ref #6 Slide, Anthony (1998). The New Historical Dictionary of the American Film Industry. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 9780810834262.

Thanks. Ucucha 08:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: Most of the sourcing and referencing issues have been resolved, apart from the minor format inconsistencies. However, I would like some information on http://www.weirdwildrealm.com/f-early-cinema2.html. Do we know who the publisher of this site is? Otherwise, how can we judge whether it is reliable? Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Jezhotwells has very kindly sorted the referencing, and also provided a more reliable replacement for that website, so hopefully this is looking much more consistent now. Bob talk 20:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

All of the problematic web sources have now been replaced. Bob talk 21:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• "Cheaper and simpler than the Kinetoscope, the system—marketed by the American Mutoscope Company, quickly dominated the coin-in-the-slot "peep-show" business." This is confusing because of the mdash. Should there be another one after Company?

Reworded.

• "This film is no exception, being produced for viewing in this manner on 68 mm film" This seems redundant; you have just explained it, so there is no need to say that the film is "no exception".

Reworded.

• "The camera itself punched a sprocket hole on each side of the frame as the film was exposed at 30 frames per second." Maybe its my ignorance, but what is the relevance of "the camera itself punched a sprocket hole on each side of the frame". Does this mean it created a hole? Or went into a hole? I'm afraid it makes no sense to me!

It's noting that the camera itself made the little guiding holes along the side of the film frame, as opposed to it already being part of the film. As for relevance, it's just a point about the physical make-up of early camera apparatus.

I understand the relevance now; perhaps make this more explicit in the article as it does not fully explain it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned the lack of perforations in the film stock.

• "The identity of the first screen Holmes, and that of his assailant, are not recorded.[13]" Should that be identities?

Sorted.

• "According to Christopher Redmond's Sherlock Holmes Handbook, the film was shot on April 26, 1900.[14]" Is the Sherlock Holmes handbook so respected and reliable that this needs stating, when everything else says 1903? Where did the author get his information? Would it be better just to leave this out?

The film was almost certainly made in 1900, but only copyrighted in 1903, which is why there's several mentions of the two dates. Redmond's book is the only one that explicitly states a date of production, which is why it's noted in the article.

In that case, I think it should be more definite in the article. At the moment, it reads like one person says X but everyone else says Y. Is there any chance of briefly saying why it was probably made in 1900? And if it is so certain, I might be inclined to say "The film was almost certainly shot on April 26, 1900 but the film's title card..." or "The film was almost certainly shot in 1900..." --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Another source on there states April 1900 (and a May "release"), so there's no reason to doubt this date is wrong. The tone of doubt probably originated from when I started researching the article and had seen various dates given of 1900 and 1903. April is mentioned in two references, so should be good enough.

• "...a Sherlockian film historian..." Sherlockian sounds very clangy to me. Is it necessary to use this word rather than "Sherlock Holmes film historian" or "historian of Sherlock Holmes film"?

Sherlock Holmes fandom/scholarship has quite a lot of weird terms like this ("Baker Street Irregulars", Sherlockian, etc). It turns up in quite a few WP articles: [15]. I've revised this per your suggestion, although the original term is probably more accurate.

• Rediscovery: I think it needs making a little more explicit that this is the form that the film was in when rediscovered. Also, I'm assuming from this section that it was never returned into film format and only survives on paper.

Clarified.

Is there a ref for its transference back to film? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what to do here - I have been unable to find anything explicitely referencing its transfer back into a watchable format, but given that it's even on YouTube, it's fair to assume that it has been transferred to a moving-picture format of some description at some point since. I've removed the "transfered back to film" mention, anyway.

I've just found a reference to a 16mm print of it held in the LoC collection and re-added that sentence. Bob talk 17:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• When did William Gillette portray Holmes on stage? Might be nice to add it here. Would it be widely known at the time? Also, "appearance and costume " may need expanding: why did Redmond think it was an imitation?

I suspect Michael Pointer is making a comment about the appearance being more akin to Gillette's stage look than the traditional Holmes illustrations. I've added a comment about Gillette's stage play being premiered in New York a few months before the film was made, which lends it some credence.

Is it not "debut" rather than "debute"? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarified.

• Was the existence of the film known at the time of its rediscovery? --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I assume it was known of, but thought to be lost. Most early films were on volatile nitrate film, and quite a large percentage only survive on paper prints. Bob talk 10:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In that case, was anything written about the film prior to 1968? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea! If there was, I very much doubt there was anything but a brief mention of the title, given that even the identities of the actors aren't known. The Michael Pointer article says "I can report", as if it's been discussed but only seen for the first time since it went out of circulation. Bob talk 21:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

More comments

• "Peep-show", "flip book" and "actualities": do these terms really need quotation marks?

Removed two. I've left the peep show one, as the term is commonly used to refer to Mutoscope film viewers (in Britain, they're sometimes called a "What the Butler Saw"). As "peep show" can also refer to other more, um, 'adult' entertainments, I thought it best to leave it.

• "The film's title card copyright date states 1903" Quite a lot going on here. Is there a less cumbersome way of putting it? Maybe "The copyright date on the film's title card is 1903" or "The copyright date given at the start of the film is 1903"? Not sure though.

Clarified this section. Now the date part has been rationalised, this has been more smoothly integrated.

• Do we know how many copies of the film there may have been, or how wide its distribution? If not, don't worry. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read anything about this in any of the references. Given it was made 110 years ago, and by a company which ceased to exist in 1928, I doubt any record of this is easily obtainable/extant. Bob talk 21:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead: The second paragraph seems a little short; could it be merged with the first?
• Action: The second paragraph doesn't really follow on from the first. Could it be integrated a bit more so that it doesn't just read like a stuck on quote?

The main reason in both these cases is that the plot of this film is so desperately short and insignificant -I suspect this reply has probably taken longer to write than the entire film! In the first paragraph, it was separate because the convention for films seems to be that the second paragraph be a short summary of the plot, but I've now converted it into two paragraphs now, anyway. In the second instance, the quote was really just a comment on how wafer-thin the action is in comparison to later sound detective films. I've now moved that to the analysis section. Bob talk 10:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Sherlock Holmes enters a drawing room to find it being burgled, but on confronting the villain is surprised when the latter disappears." Could be re-phrased. "...when the latter..." is a little clumsy. Would it be better in two sentences? Not sure.

I think "the latter" was added in response to an earlier suggestion to clarify who disappears. Any suggestions how to improve it grammatically would be appreciated.

You're asking the wrong person! :) Nothing springs to mind, and it's not too bad. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Analysis: Again, the paragraphs seem slightly disconnected. Could the first and second be merged as they both concern parodying Holmes. Maybe take out the names of the people you are quoting as it interrupts the flow. Also, the third paragraph could be brought in a bit more, for example linking the fact that it was Holmes in name only, or the parody aspect, to the idea that the main purpose of the film was to showcase trickery.
• "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's literary tales of Holmes" Is a bit of a mouthful. Is there a better way of saying that the film was nothing to do with the stories?
• "If anything..." seems unnecessary.

Have integrated/corrected all of these points, along with the quote about the plot from the "action" section. Bob talk 10:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I can't see any outstanding issues, referencing is good, prose flows well, images are tagged public domain and captioned well, citations are consistent. An interesting article on an early film. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support: I really like this article; very interesting on a very obscure subject. No major problems. I made a minor copy edit to one part of the article; feel free to revert if it doesn't work for you. One more minor quibble:
  • "The film was assumed to be lost for many years..." How do we know it was assumed to be lost if we have nothing written about it? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I like your integration of the "baffled" bit. As for being lost, it is a bit of an assumption, but I guess it's implied by the Pointer article that it was at least assumed to be lost like most early films. It seems that it was only after WWII that there was any effort to search through paper prints held there. I've just written a short article about the second silent Holmes film Adventures of Sherlock Holmes; or, Held for Ransom. I was under the impression that film was lost as well, but it seems the Library of Congress also has some fragments of that in there, so I'll have to look into that - perhaps change it to "which survives in fragments".) Bob talk 21:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• ISBN format: The manual for this (ISO 2108) can be found here among other places.

You appear to have sorted this out. The link you give of the format is a Chinese language document, so not particularly helpful. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• You should find out whether or not the 1905 Vitagraph film’s title contains a definite article. Looks like the Library of Congress lists it without.

I believe the LoC is the only holder of film fragments, have removed the definite article. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think the alt-text could use some attention:

  “A frame of the black and white film. Sherlock Holmes, on entering his parlour, taps an intruder collecting items in a sack on the shoulder. Holmes is wearing a dressing gown and smoking a cigar, the thief is dressed in black.”

  • This could be interpreted to mean the sack is being held on the shoulder of the intruder who is collecting items into it. There are a dozen sillier possibilities I’d care not to list.
  • Finally referring to “the thief” may lead confuse users—blind or image-disabled, remember—to assume there are three people in the photo.

Alt text is not an FA requirement any more. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

―cobaltcigs 22:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image/media review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Images:

• File:Sherlock Holmes Baffled.jpg file from Commons; Description: English: Still from the 1903 moving picture Sherlock Holmes Baffled. Y; Source: The film itself. - can this be more specific - was it downloaded from the web, if so where from? Uploader is User:Der Bischof mit der E-Gitarre; License: public domain. I feel that the source could be attributed better. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Have added likely source for original upload, although in both cases they probably originate as a YouTube screenshot.

• File:Mutoscope, 1899 (bis).jpg file from commons, description, license (PD) all OK. Y> Jezhotwells (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• File:Sherlock Holmes Baffled.ogv - could not get this work, will try tomorrow from work with good connection. file from commons, description, license (PD) all OK. Y> Jezhotwells (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• It's weird, it works fine in Firefox but not IE8. Not sure why, presumably due to a codec/Java issue. Unfortunately, my understanding of ogg Theora videos is very limited - I was quite chuffed to even get it to work at all! Bob talk 23:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Worked fine on high speed University connection (firefox), but notm last night at home on domestic ASDL (firefox0. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: no criterion three issues significant enough to prevent promotion. File:Sherlock Holmes Baffled.ogv technically does not have a sufficiently verifiable source ("US Library of Congress paper print archive" is so imprecise as to be meaningless. What is the identification number? The LoC website or a physical archive?) I have, however, added a source for pre-1.1.1923 publication/registration, so the license is supported, which is the aspect that most matters. Эlcobbola _talk 00:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• WP is not a dictionary. Why is "pistol" linked? Paper print? Detective film? (twice???) "Dressing gown"? "Perforated"? "New York City"? etc. Tony (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've removed the noted instances of overlinking in the article. I have left "paper print", though, as I can't imagine early motion picture copyrighting methods are standard general knowledge. "Perforated" is linked because of the discussion above about film sprockets. Bob talk 02:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I knew what a “dressing gown” is because I used to read a lot but I doubt most readers will. Absent an explanatory link, I recommend using a more common term like “robe” or “house-coat” in its place (or in parentheses after the first instance). ―cobaltcigs 06:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's referred to as a "dressing gown" in the books - there even seems to be a book about them! Bob talk 08:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That’s what I figured. Probably best to keep the link. ―cobaltcigs 09:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: In England a house coat is what hose wives wear and a roble is what a member of the aristiocracy wera when inducted into the hosue of lords!. However, a dressing gown is a perfectly ordinary item of English clothing. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If I dare ask, what do the British call the garment which a boxer (not typically a house-wife or a member of parliament) wears before (sorry…) disrobing to his shorts at the start of a fight? ―cobaltcigs 17:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know actually, I can't say I'm an expert on boxing. Google seems to refer to "dressing gowns" and "robes". I must say neither sound particularly matcho. Perhaps nobody's dared point it out? Bob talk 18:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Support - Ignoring pictures and sources, I can't find any problems. Why does the movie take so long to load, or is it just me? Tom (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It does seem to get stuck on the buffering in Internet Explorer, doesn't it? (Does anyone know a more reliable method of converting mpeg to ogg video?) Luckily, the film's fairly widely available off wiki anyway - I really just added it at the suggestion of User:Nehrams2020. I've hopefully sorted the sourcing queries noted above since the above comments were made. Bob talk 00:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Rivadavia class battleship

Nominator(s):  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC), Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The Rivadavia class did almost nothing but show the flag during their actual careers, but that isn't the interesting part (thankfully); it's what happened before they were commissioned.

First, the competition to simply build the two ships was fiercer than a lion defending her cubs. Famous shipbuilders from five major countries vied for it, and each country's government did as much as they could to assist. Eventually a dark horse, the United States' Fore River, managed to overcome a stunning amount of obstacles to win the contracts, which engendered scathing criticism from Britain and Germany. You would think this was enough drama, right? Read on.

While the ships were being built, the First World War flared up in Europe. Suddenly everyone—especially Britain and Germany—wanted to make sure that the Rivadavias went to Argentina rather than an enemy... which conflicted with Argentina's sudden desire to sell both ships.

Really intriguing story, albeit a muddled and confusing one. Hope you enjoy your read-through; as always, any and all comments are welcomed and encouraged. The article just passed a Milhist A-class review.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just got Ed's email offering me a co-nom ... I'm going to grab it for one of these 3 articles (Moreno, Rivadavia, and the class article), might as well be this one. I bought two sources, got one ILL, and have generally checked the article against the sources and done some of the writing. - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 08:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The introductory sentence is clumsy.

Current: "The Rivadavia class was a two-ship group of battleships (Spanish: acorazados) etc..."

Suggested: "(The) Rivadavia was a class of battleship (Spanish: acorazados), numbering two ships, etc...."

This change gets around the awkward doubling-up of "class" and "group" which mean similar but not the same things. It avoids having to link "group" to "Ship class" (which is a most specific thing, and not just a group. The word "class" can now be linked to "Ship class" which merely qualifies what type of class.

"two-ship group" is undtidy and inadequate. "numbering two ships" is better.

NOTE: consequent change of number from "group of battleships" to singular "class of battleship".

Include "The" or not, as deemed appropriate.

Amandajm (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope. No one says "The Iowa" (etc.) meaning "The group of 6 ships in the Iowa class"; it would be way too easy to confuse that with the Iowa. We don't usually use "group" though, it wouldn't bother me to use wording that we use in our other "class" articles. - Dank (push to talk) 11:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond here. Using your suggestion would indicate to readers that they are reading ARA Rivadavia, which isn't right. I could use the word "series" (cf 1, 2), or I could omit it all together (cf 3). Would that satisfy you? I agree that it is an awkward sentence construction, but I've never really thought about it before.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• The wording that I've come to use for class articles is like this: The Océan class ironclads were a group of three wooden-hulled, armored frigates... It repeats the exact title of the article which is essential. The close conjunction of class, which should be linked, with group, isn't great, but unavoidable, I think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Why is "Minas Geraes-class battleships" (note the hyphen) used? If this is correct, presumably the title of this article should also have a hyphen. Ucucha 11:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  See WP:SHIPS#Featured articles and search for "class". None of our FAs hyphenate this. - Dank (push to talk) 11:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  I've never understood that myself, actually. I was always told that "Minas Geraes-class battleships" gets the hyphen, but no one ever told me why article titles don't use it.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  I'm always up for a hyphen discussion. Main point: maintain low expectations for standardization and sense-making. Last year's AP Stylebook, p. 359: "Use of the hyphen is far from standardized. It is optional in most cases, a matter of taste, judgment and style sense. But the fewer hyphens the better; use them only when not using them causes confusion." Tony1 prefers no hyphen for these even in running text (last I saw at WT:MOS), and I expect "Minas Geraes-class battleships" is liable to be misread as some kind of modified "Geraes-class". There's an ongoing discussion at WT:TITLE over our policy (not guideline) on italics in article titles; let's see how that turns out, because italics would affect the hyphen, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 14:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  I have no strong preference for either solution, but I see no reason why this article should use "Rivadavia class battleship" but "Minas Geraes-class battleships"; overall consistency may be too much to ask, but internal consistency within this article would be desirable. Ucucha 14:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  I'm happy either way, Ed. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  I've asked Maralia (talk · contribs) to comment, as she (if memory serves) was the one who explained all of that to me.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

  As far as I'm concerned all of the class articles should have hyphens as they're all compound adjectives, which should be hyphenated, with few exceptions. But I rather like hyphens; I'm rather odd that way.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  Good to see you back in the saddle, hope you're taking the reins! (No offense to Brian or anyone else of course.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  Thanks, and same sentiments as Dank. Brian did extremely well, but it's certainly nice to see you again.  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Support after a thorough A-class assessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Rivadavia class battleship, per usual disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong link, Dank. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR ^♯♭ 16:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Striking support; just got Ed's email offering a co-nom. - Dank (push to talk) 21:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: File:Rivadavia class battleship diagrams Brasseys 1923.jpg: PD-UK-Unknown requires "reasonable enquiry". "Unlikely to have records in the publications' several reorganizations" may be true, but you have to put forth the effort to find out. What organizations were contacted? (Moving to en.wiki would resolve the issue.) Эlcobbola _talk 18:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

  I'll ping Jappalang (talk · contribs), as he was the one who originally tagged File:Minas Gerais class battleship diagrams Brasseys 1923.jpg as such, and I copied that over to this image (as it is from the same publication). Thanks,  Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

  I regret to say that I had not contacted any body to ascertain the identity of the artist; I made the assumption based on the numerous reorganisations the publication has gone under. I agree with Elcobbola that the image should be moved to Wikipedia unless contact was attempted with the owner of Brassey's. Jappalang (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

  please ping me when this is resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

  I've moved it to en.wiki under the same name. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

  See also [16]. Which references [17] which states that commissioned or freelance work belongs to the artist unless otherwise agreed and that work done as a condition for employment belongs to the employer. So, without an attribution, I'm inclined to think that this is out of copyright in the UK as it was likely done by a staff artist.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Did some ces but "New Zealand's Evening Post was more analytical in its approach to the issue." seem's to overstep into editorial statement as teh only ref is the article itself; it appears to be placed as Wikipedia's endorsement of the punditry being more sensible; It may be but probably not for us to say that. YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 04:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks for that (and the support). - Dank (push to talk) 12:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant "analytical" as "delved into the facts and avoided yellow journalism". Is there any better way to word it? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed "analytical"; see how that works, YM. - Dank (push to talk) 22:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments

Who is Seward W. Livermore? With him being a red-link, it would be nice to know who he is...is he a scholar, a naval Admiral, etc? We're left with no idea.

"Historian" wouldn't be inaccurate, but Ed has the book. I added "historian" but feel free to make it more specific if you like, Ed. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Despite a British attempt to allow the Armstrong Whitworth-Vickers team to lower their price by $570,000," Argentine Pesos and US Dollars use the same symbol. Accordingly this article shouldn't be using an unmodified/unlinked "$". (Note I picked one example of the problem here)

Should we link any ambiguous term or symbol every time it occurs in every article for the benefit of the people who don't read top to bottom? If so, we'll need to change WP:Linking, which recommends linking sparsely. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

No, but each use should be US$. Being an Argentine topic, I would expect the bare $ sign to refer to the Peso. Courcelles 13:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Understood; MOSNUM is ambiguous, and either requires this or prohibits it depending on how you read it :) I've asked at WT:MOSNUM#Currencies. - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, just got an answer at WT:MOSNUM#Currencies in line with what I was expecting. MOSNUM seems not to allow what you want, but I can add a note, see if that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I tend to agree with Courcelles here, but yay for style guides. I'm fine with the note, although it could benefit from increased visibility if it was moved into the infobox... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yay for style guides, but MOSNUM is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get, I have to check the page every few months and ask when I have questions. If we were talking about a word rather than a symbol, the general principle would be WP:UE, which is actually policy. - Dank (push to talk) 13:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"...Argentina alleged to the United States' State Department that... " Perhaps use the full name, United States Department of State to avoid that awkward 'States' State'?

Agreed, done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"The two ships of the Rivadavia class were 594 feet 9 inches (181.28 m) overall and 585 feet (178 m) between perpendiculars." What is this? I'm 99% sure it is length.

If you click on the links provided, you can raise that to 100%. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Same paragraph, is there a reason why the tons are written as 30,000 but the enlisted men as 1000 without the comma?

See WP:MOSNUM#Delimiting (grouping of digits). - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ref 23; location? Evening Post is highly ambiguous.

Courcelles 07:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support As usual, I don't agree with much of MOSNUM, or the (on-wiki or real-life) primacy of the U.S. Dollar, but what else is new? Nothing left wrong with this article. Courcelles 20:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Not quite happy yet with the prose.

1. Can't quite see the point of linking "seeking bids".

   Because we have an article on the subject? :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

2. "the United States' Fore River"—could we avoid the ungainly possessive? Either just remove the apostrophe or "the American company Fore River". Then we get United States' again in the next sentence ...

   Reworded Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

3. "This move shocked the European bidders, especially in Britain" ... European bidders were resident in Britain at the time?

   Removed Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

4. Do we subject a battleship to rumours?

   The battleships' fate was subjected to rumors... I've changed it to "of". Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

5. Is there a reason that "struck" has a Wiktionary link?

   When a ship is removed from a naval register, it is "struck" or "stricken" from it. I highly doubt that a common layman would know that, hence the link. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

   Check that, the link was wrong (Wikt has page titles in upper- and lower-case, apparently). See wikt:stricken. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

6. "Rivadavia was scrapped in Italy beginning in 1959"—so it took years? Can't you say, for example, in 1959 and 1960?

   Ship breaking takes a long time even today, and the sources I've used don't say when it was completed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

7. Why is Sao Paulo piped to "soaring demand"????

   There was a coffee boom in Brazil around that time, which allowed for the funding of the two dreadnoughts. It's eggy, but that's the way we did it in a previous FAC (Brazilian battleship Minas Geraes) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

8. Any reason "Scientific American" should be mentioned inline, when there's a ref tag a few mm to the right?

   To qualify it. Quoting it without saying who said it would make it seem like the article was promoting they were the best battleships. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

9. "American government"; normally "US administration" (or president's name administration), isn't it? Or "Washington's".

   Shortened to "American" Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

10. Can you write "million" to avoid 18 zeros in that sentence?

    No, because I want to keep consistency through all the large numbers, ie including 10,000 and ones I wouldn't write out. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

11. "Still" is a bit informal here: "Still, since Europe was the traditional arms supplier"

    Copyedited here, but it may be more convoluted now... Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

12. "quick American diplomacy"—prompt?

    Good suggestion, added Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

13. Suddenly a sterling conversion ... why? "Italy's tender was just $48,600 (£10,000) more".

    Whoops, I was putting all of them into notes, but I missed one. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

14. Try to shield readers from bad English in sources, here apparently in translation from the Spanish: the body which chose the final design, said: "The reason why the United States' tender was lower than the English is that steel for construction work and armor-plating is a great deal cheaper in the United States than in England." So, do this: the body that chose the final design said the reason the American tender was lower than that of the English was that "steel for construction work and armor-plating is a great deal cheaper in the United States than in England".

    Reworded using that, thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

15. Biles quote: why start with ellipsis dots? The lower-case "i" says it, yes? After "government", put four unspaced points: "government....".

    I was always told in my college classes to start it off with an ellipsis if I was quoting from the middle of a sentence. I can change it if you would like; it's not a big deal. The four dots are done—thanks, I wasn't sure how to format it when I was copying in the quote. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

16. "They also made note of"--> "They referred to"
17. "much cheaper than that of Britain's"—nope.

    Both addressed, the second before I came back and saw your comment. ;-) Poor word choices. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

18. Why is "US$" linked? And MOSNUM says $ alone, unless there's some doubt. Who'd have suspected NZ dollars?

    There was something above about $ being the symbol for the Argentine peso, but we decided to take out the US$ anyway. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

etc. Tony (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Needs unfamiliar eyes to run through the whole thing. Tony (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

PS Some great pics, but why so small? I boosted one from the default 220 to 240, but up to 260 would be fine for a few if they have the res. Do you really like left-siders? Also, if you have the latitude, consider placing higher rather than lower in each section (avoids white space bottom of sections in really wide windows). Tony (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I hate left side images. :-) I placed some lower in sections to space them out, as the sections aren't equal in length. I just increased the size of some of the images as well. Thanks for the comments, Tony; they're much appreciated! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Paschal

Nominator(s): Secret ^account 23:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully third time the charm for this article. I finally got the time to fix Giants2008 concerns as I had health problems near the end of the last FAC. Criticism is welcome. Thanks Secret ^account 23:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC) -

• Comment—no dab links, but the external link to http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/paschbe01.shtml is dead. Ucucha 05:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

  Fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Ucucha 08:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: Just one tiny nitpick. Since you have generally observed the "p." convention for page numbers, this should apply to refs 30 and 40 as well. Otherwise, all sources and refs OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed Secret ^account 00:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The name of the paper is TNYT not NYT. Also, is there something in the infobox that allows you to display the #games. That seems rather important YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  Fixed the first comment, I'm not sure about the second as I'm not an infobox person Secret ^account 02:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  As a matter of fact it has been agreed that New York Times is acceptable; don't ask me where the thread is, it was a couple of months back. Sandy may know. Anyhow, I have been accepting this form in sources reviews. Brianboulton (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  Hah, Sandy told me to TNYT it one an FAC in 2008, but it probably is acceptable as many books etc just cite NYT and SMH YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  Yep, see User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch63#The New York Times. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  The Bomb Strikes Again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• More comments
  • Is there some statistical database that shows how many games he played for the smaller teams, as this seems to be missing
  • Secondly is there some list of the games that Paschal played in and game-by-game stats, and the team's schedule, to see when he was playing and when he was dropped/injured. Because in parts the article says that he was dropped, close to being dropped or didn't play often, so I think it would be necessary to give some context, eg, he had ten games in a row where he didn't score anything, and was then dropped, etc. Because at the moment it mostly gives his averages and the odd notable performance, and says that he was not a regular player at times, so it doesn't map out his peaks and troughs throughout the season. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Object. It needs to explain the team selection better. At the moment it casually mentions here and there that he was not always a regular but it doesn't explain what was happening: if some other guy turned up and got better stats and forced him out, or if his productivity went down, or when these things happened. On second thoughts, Object. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It explains that there was three starting outfielders by the time Paschal was playing so it was hard for him to crack the lineup. Yes there is a game log of everything but going though every game in which he didn't do anything and writing it out from baseball-reference makes it original research. Secret ^account 17:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how stating a performance trend breaches OR, unless you make comments trying to link statistics to other factors. If you simply look and the logs and see that in one game X was playing and ten games later he was replaced by Y after not scoring anything, that is not OR, if you say it was because of this, and self-create attribution then it is a problem. But I can't see how one can talk about performance trends by just citing the season averages as it is completely unlikely that a person maintains the same level of performance all the time, especially when he is in and out of the team all the time, without even documenting when it was. Secondly it also doesn't even state how many games he played each season, declines in game time except for vague adjectives saying he doesn't play much. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• • I'll add some stats to the article on monday, right now i'm busy at work and don't have a computer Secret ^account 01:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I added some stats, I noticed that Bob Meusel missed the whole month of July 1926 with some kind of injury I presume, during which Paschal played every day during that month. The only source I have are game logs, I want to come up with more reliable sourcing. Maybe if I get access to the New York Times archives I would get better results. Why doesn't wikipedia pay for these archives. Secret ^account 15:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Lots of people have a registration for this. When I asked at WT:MILHIST there was more than offer to download and email PDFs within a day YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Note I just got access to the NYT will expand signifancly Secret ^account 13:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I asked in the baseball Wikiproject. Secret ^account 16:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Struck object YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I expanded it some more, pinch hitter was linked, as one for most of his career of course he didn't play in every game. I still don't have access to The New York Times, even though I asked in the related wikiproject. Secret ^account 16:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Now I do but it didn't give me much but the information given was helpful now I need someone to copyedit it for me. Secret ^account 15:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment; no image issues as of this (current) version. Эlcobbola _talk 17:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments – Third time that I've reviewed this one.

• "Paschal is best known for hitting .360, standing in for Babe Ruth, who missed the first 40 games of the 1925 season with a stomach ailment." I'm not a big fan of the order here; in particular I'd like to see it made clear earlier that this was only in 1925. Perhaps something like "Paschal is best known for hitting .360 in the 1925 season while standing in for Babe Ruth, who missed the first 40 games with a stomach ailment." He didn't replace him for the whole season, so what I typed can be improved, but the order in that sentence is clearer in my view.
• Used your example Secret ^account 21:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Early career: Two consecutive sentences end with citations to reference 9. The first one doesn't seem all that necessary to me. All the information is covered by the following cite, and it's not overly controversial to the point where it would require its own reference.
  • Fixed Secret ^account 21:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Yankees career: The 1926 contract has no modern-day equivalent dollar amount, but the 1927 contract does. It would be a nice little addition, if possible. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe Wizardman did the modern-day equivalent amount on that, as I have no idea how to do it. Secret ^account 21:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Decided to add the required template myself. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments:

**There's a jump from his release by the Indians to his time with Muskegon. Looks like he played with Hall of Famer Bill Terry in Dothan,[18] which could be worth an addition.

• • "Paschal collected his only three hits, and lone runs batted in, of the year." I'd reword, noting that he had 3 RBI in that game.
  • "Paschal hit a home run in a 5–1 win against the defending World Series-champion Senators" Link the Washington Senators + add city name, since it's the first mention.
  • "Showing weakness against right-handed pitchers, the Yankees traded for veteran outfielder Bobby Veach." Swap the two pieces of the sentence around; as it is now it makes it sound like Paschal had the weakness rather than the whole team. If my first guess was right make it a bit clearer.
  • He had four solid years at St. Paul, yet only two are mentioned. the br link I give above has some stats if you want to beef that up a bit.
  • The publication names in the references should be linked on first mention; the Spartanburg paper is the only one getting that treatment right now.
  • Ref #28 (Red Sox Fan Tries to Spark His Team) has no page number; since it's LA Times I'm positive there is one.

Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'll work with it tommorrow, right now i'm in a public library computer and can't really edit. Secret ^account 21:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Fixed everything, expanded it some. Some of the newspapers didn't have an article so i left it without a link. With the LA Times I think they removed the article from google archives I can't find the page number for it, and I searched. I don't have a proquest account so I can't search its archives for the article. Secret ^account 16:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments
  • I think some of the prose could do with a little work. At the moment, the reader either needs a good working knowledge of baseball or a lot of time to follow links. If this is aimed at the general reader, I think it needs further explanations. For example:
    • "Paschal was purchased as an option to keep": Sounds like a baseball expression and I think I understand it, but in my opinion, more clarification would help the reader. Better now, but I copy-edited it a little to try and make it flow.--Sarastro1 (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • "He appeared in nine games, collecting one hit on August 16, which broke up a no-hitter by Bernie Boland with two outs in the ninth inning." Again, I can follow this, particularly by following the links, but it does not make easy reading to a non-baseballer. I see most of this has been taken out and replaced with something else. OK, but I think it would be good to include as it is obviously an indication of his ability. I just think it needs phrasing better and my knowledge of baseball is not enough for me to do it. Something like "He collected one hit on August 16, in a game where pitcher Bernie Boland allowed no other hits..." (I don't understand the significance of the two outs, so I can't do much with that. Was it good or bad?)
    • "In 1923 Paschal had a better season. In 141 games, Paschal got 200 hits, 22 triples and 26 home runs..." This is just a bald list of figures and I think just a little explanation would help.

At the very least, the word "got" is ugly. Achieved? Managed? To be nit-picky, what about some indication of where this placed him in comparison to others. Was 200 hits good? How good? --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Some of the prose is a little choppy with some of the sentences a little abrupt.

tried switching first sentence and rejigging subsequent ones for flow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • "Paschal was born in Enterprise, Alabama, and grew up as the son of farmers in nearby Sanford." "Grew up" seems redundant.
    • "After a two-year break from baseball because of World War I and other circumstances..." What circumstances?
    • "He appeared in nine games for the Red Sox, batting .357 with five runs batted in (RBI).[7] In his first game with the Red Sox, Paschal had three hits against José Acosta of the Washington Senators. The Red Sox returned Paschal to Charlotte because he was still inexperienced as a fielder.[9] On August 20, 1921, Paschal suffered a broken leg while sliding, which sidelined him the rest of the season." To me, these are choppy, and would benefit from being linked together somehow as they don't flow at the moment.

When was this? The previous sentence says after the 1920 season, so was this in 1921? But the lead says he played for the Red Sox in 1920. It really should be clear here. Who was Acosta? I'm assuming it was a significant achievement by Paschal, or it wouldn't need including. I've tried to tidy up this a little and improve the flow, but not sure of all the info. Feel free to revert if I've changed any meanings. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• • These are just a few examples and there are others within the article. I think a copy-edit by a non-baseballer would help greatly. I am not suggesting giving all the rules of baseball in the article or writing for someone who doesn't know what baseball is, but I think a little more help would be beneficial. I know this is a problem I have in cricket articles. Also, I had a quick look at some baseball FAs such as Mariano Rivera, and these all seem to give more explanations and slightly expanded descriptions of statistics. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• I would do it later wait until monday I'm very busy right now Secret ^account 22:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Casliber fixed the prose for me I can't explain baseball terms very well without adding a few unnessarry sentences. Secret ^account 15:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've done a partial copy edit of one section to show what I mean about improving the choppy prose and giving some explanations. I don't think the sentences are unneccesary. The article isn't too long and it would improve it for the reader. I still believe a copy-edit by a non-baseballer would help. And the prose still needs work as I don't think it is currently FA standard. However, I don't think the article is a lost cause and just a little work would make a huge difference. Unfortunately I can't spare much more time on it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for now as I think the prose still needs some work. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Casliber did further copyediting of the article, check now Secret ^account 14:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There are still outstanding points above. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

More comments

• "who excelled at hitting for average and power, running, throwing and fielding": Two queries: what does it mean by hitting for power and average, and I think the sentence needs recasting as it reads like average, power, running, throwing and fielding are all types of hitting.
• The lead says that Ruth, Combs and Meusel kept him out of the side. The main article does not really say this. It says that Ruth replaced him after his big lay-off, but only mentions the other two when Paschal replaced them. Is there a way of showing in the main body that he would have played but these three were preferred when fit?
• Unless I've missed it (which is possible) there is nothing in the main text which refers to "considered one of the best bench players in baseball during his time with the Yankees, and sportswriters wrote how he would have started for most other teams in the American League. He was one of the best pinch hitters in the game during the period, at a time when the term was still relatively new to baseball". --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Fixed the first concern, but I don't know where to place the information on the other instances except for the lead, his pinch hitting is featured on the main article. Secret ^account 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Could it not go at the end of his career as a summary? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

• I moved some of the information without ruining the lead. Secret ^account 22:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

1. MOSLINK says to avoid bunched links: why are both baseball and outfielder adjacently linked, when baseball is prominently linked in the outfielder article? I'm not sure "outfield" needs to be linked as well, below. Won't the reader get access to that through the first link? There are high-value links that should not be diluted in this way. "Boston Red Sox" and NYY ... repeat links. Can you weed them out?
2. "After a two-year break from baseball because of World War I and other unclear circumstances,"—was WWI an unclear circumstance?
3. Why was the bottom pic tiny? I've made it default size. Tony (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• My source says World War I, so I fixed it though I can't explain why he didn't play the 1919 season, I know there was American forces still in France at that time so I'll let it slide. Removed repeated links. Secret ^account 15:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comments smoothing out prose as I go. Please revert if I goof and change the meaning accidentally. Queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Paschal did not play in the Yankees' 1927 World Series victory over the Pittsburgh Pirates. -why? fair enough, you can only add verified content.

Paschal and Durst were mentioned in several trade rumors for unclear reasons - why not just "Paschal and Durst were mentioned in several vague trade rumors"?

The end is abrupt - there is very little on his personal or post-playing life. Is there anything sourceable to add at all? If not then does any source mention him leading a quiet life or obscurity? If there is none then there is none I guess..I just think if there was anything else to add it'd make the article read a little better fair enough, you can only add verified content..Casliber (talk · contribs)

• I don't have any sources on his personal life I have to closely research the sporting news every article between 1915 and 1934 to find any extra sources and that would take months. Also I don't have a source on why he didn't play the 1927 World Series I'll presume it's because he was just a backup. Secret ^account 15:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured you would have extracted most or all of waht is extractable, just double checking. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

*Oppose – per YM. Nothing on his playing style. What weaknesses did he have? Who did he play well against? so on....Aaroncrick ^TALK 11:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• • It explains his playing style well, he showed weakness against right handed pitchers and played well against left-handers, as he's a obsure baseball player I can't find much in sourcing. Secret ^account 13:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Note to closer, I expanded the article another 2,000 KB so wait until I get a reply back from YellowMonkey and Aaronchick, both whose edit times aren't the same as mine, it's like 1 AM in Australia right now before closing. I also asked several people and the related wikiproject for a copyedit. Secret ^account 15:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay, thankyou for your hard work in trying to find info, and I thank you for your pleasant note on my talkpage. Aaroncrick ^TALK 21:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Raid at Cabanatuan

Nominator(s): Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

After recently watching The Great Raid, I was really interested on learning more about the historical events the film is based on. I searched for book after book, and was fortunate to find plenty of detail to significantly expand this article. Covering the events of a prisoner rescue attempt, where over 500 people were freed from a POW camp (except for a guy left in the bathroom!), I think you will find the article to be an interesting read. With quality images provided by Jappalang, and extensive copyediting performed by Malleus Fatuorum and Ericleb01, I believe this article meets the FA criteria. Thank you for taking a look and happy reviewing! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 05:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments -
• The ISBN for the King Rangers ref doesn't seem to be working. Is it this book from World Cat?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's weird. I got the ISBN off of Google Books, and from the Book sources page, it only works on a few of the databases. I looked for other editions of the book as well as tried a few other ISBN numbers, but they also didn't work for the majority of the databases (including WorldCat). A Google Books and Amazon search also don't turn up anything. Does WorldCat provide ISBNs anywhere on their pages? If not, it would probably be beneficial to keep the current ISBN as it's accessible on Google News where the entire publication is available for full viewing. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they will put the isbn in if they have it .. they also do OCLC numbers, which you can use to find the correct edition also. I'm not worried about it being unreliable, just it was a bit odd that the isbn was off for WorldCat. (I like WorldCat because it'll give me a idea of how many libraries have the work, generally the more that have it, the better the chances of the work being "mainstream" and not fringy) Ealdgyth - Talk 02:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WorldCat and Google Books are the most helpful when searching for new sources (although Amazon actually allows for purchasing when no local libraries have it). This is the first article I've worked on where the majority of cites are from books, so I'm sure it definitely makes for an easier lookover. Out of curiosity, how do you check the ISBNs for FACs? Is there a tool that assists or do you just manually enter each ISBN into WorldCat? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(Randomly found myself here) He probably uses the WP:ISBN feature accessible through your in-article references. You can search the ISBN on any book provided that you have it written on a page (example: ISBN 1-4289-1576-1 displays ISBN 1-4289-1576-1). _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 05:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was aware of that, I was just wondering if there was a tool that quickly checked all of them instead of her manually going through and clicking on each link (which may be repetitive with numerous book sources). That page is helpful for finding books in local libraries. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments Very interesting read! Look forward to supporting, here's a few comments/suggestions to think about: Sasata (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• 25 acres -> convert to metric

  Converted. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• "To supplement their diet, prisoners were able to smuggle food and supplies into the camp during Japanese-approved trips to Cabanatuan, usually in their underwear." They made these trips in their underwear?

  I think some may have with the heat, but I reworded it to be a little clearer. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• "The agreed on plan figured the attack would commence" awkward construction

  Tried rewording, let me know if it still doesn't flow well. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• my knowledge of military weaponry is limited… how about a link to carbine? Probably bazooka as well (I see it's linked in a later section)

  Added a few links. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• the article says the scouting teams left Guimba at 19:00 hours, but does not explain where Guimba is. A paragraph later, "… a radio set was based outside of Guimba." what is meant by "radio set"? would "established" be a better word choice than "based"?

  Added wikilink and reworded radio set to be clearer. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• link reconnaissance

  Linked first occurrence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Any chance of having a map that would show the locations of these names (Platero, Cabu River, Guimba, Pampanga River, etc.)? Ok I see the route map in the "Trek to American lines" section. Maybe this should be placed in the Strategy section, where several of these place names are first mentioned?

  I think it's current placement is helpful for detailing the return trip, which is also mentioned in the related section. Also, listing it at the top would kind of 'spoil' the story (assuming a reader skipped over the lead). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Mucci had already given Nellist's January 29 afternoon report and forwarded it to Capt. Prince, whom he entrusted to determine how to get the Rangers in and out of the compound quickly" I think that one's supposed to be a "who"

  I must have been sick the day they covered this grammar lesson in school, so I'll trust you on that one. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• "the raid would be accomplished in thirty minutes or less." thirty -> 30

  Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• peso should link to Philippine peso

  Link added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• depending on the width of my browser, the right side of the text in the "Outcome and historical significance" section pushed up very close to the left edge of the "Prisoners rescued" table; is there a way to fix that by including an invisible margin or something around the table?

It does that to mine as well, and although I tried several parameter changes, I didn't see a difference. Looking over Help:Table, I see the same spacing issue, so I don't know if there is a way to correct it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Some of the Rangers and Scouts went on bond drive tours around the United States" link to war bond?

  Link added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• "...what patrols can accomplish" ellipses should be spaced, says MOS

  MOS seems to prefer the opposite, asking for nonspaced. Spaced is not recommended if I'm reading it correctly. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry, I didn't express myself properly... I meant ellipses should have a spaces on either side of them. Sasata (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  Gotcha. Fixed spacing. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• link Presidential Unit Citation

  Link added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion three:
  • File:Henry mucci.jpg - Where does the source indicate US Army authorship? "National Archives Photo" does not mean the photo is public domain. Indeed, per the Archives, "not all materials appearing on this web site are in the public domain". Who is the author?

    It's hard to see, but in the bottom left of the image is a symbol for the Signal Corps, a unit of the U.S. Army which would qualify the image as public domain. It was definitely a good idea to whoever decided to have the unit go along with the group. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

  • File:Robert Prince.jpg - Same as above.

    The image was taken by one of the 832nd Signal Service photographers attached to the unit, same as the one above (this one just doesn't have the symbol included). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    Where can that authorship information be located? Эlcobbola _talk 17:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    The image is available at the National Archives and the only people with cameras that were present during the raid were the 832nd Signal Service (all of the soldiers would have been forbidden from carrying other items besides the required weapons, food, etc. to prevent making noise or slowing them down during the long trek). However, since I don't have a direct link to the image from the National Archives I can't provide that detail. For now, I have replaced it with a smaller image. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  • File:Northrop P-61.jpg - Needs a verifiable source per WP:IUP.

    Source added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    The source doesn't attribute an author. Where can we verify this is a federal work? Эlcobbola _talk 17:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    Couldn't find anything so I just switched it out for another image that was available from the U.S. Air Force. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

  • File:AlamoScoutsRaidCabanatuanFeb1945.jpg - Why isn't the author (W. E. Nellist) credited? Where does the source indicate W. E. Nellist was a federal employ conducting official duties (i.e. that this is a federal work)? Эlcobbola _talk 17:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

    Nellist is one of the Scouts in the image, so he's not the author. The image was taken by one of the 832nd Signal Service photographers attached to the unit. The website the source is linked to probably contacted Nellist for use of the image, since he likely had many pictures from the actual event (probably the reason why they credited him). I saw similar occurrences of other soldiers providing photos for newspaper articles and books. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    Apologies if I misread the caption. Where can we verify attribution to "832nd Signal Service photographers"? Эlcobbola _talk 17:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

    If you view this page, a very similar image (picture asgh_048) is available (with some of the same people and same background) which was taken by the 832nd. I'm assuming they had a few more people join this picture. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

    I'll strike the oppose once the new video issues are addressed, but I won't consider this fully resolved and will leave it as a comment for others to contemplate. It's not the same photo, so it could have a different author or other "purpose" (PD-Gov applies to authors performing official duties; just because one is deployed in the armed forces and in possession of a camera does not mean all images taken therewith are not eligible for copyright protection). It's further an issue of verifiability over truth. No federal authorship is attributed at the source, so the federal authorship license is not supported. Again, I'll leave it to others to decide whether they care. Perhaps just use the asgh_048 photo? Эlcobbola _talk 15:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

    The attached military photographers were included with the rescue mission for the sole purpose of documenting it (probably for troop morale-boosting videos afterwards). Since there were orders for them to take the pictures/video, that would classify as official duties rendering them invalid for copyright use. There was a Life magazine photographer that took some pictures, but that was not until the POWs were returned to Guimba (none of those images are used in the article since they are tagged as non-commercial, but they're linked to in the external links). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

  • File:RangersGuerillasBehindEnemyLinesRaidCabanatuanJan301945.ogv and File:PrisonersReturnRaidCabanatuanJan311945.ogv both need sources; "Signal Corps archive footage" is a description. Where did these files come from? Where can one verify federal authorship? Эlcobbola _talk 15:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

    The videos were pulled from a documentary found in a YouTube video which I have now linked to (I figured we didn't encourage the use of linking to YouTube, so that's why I had just listed archive footage). Additional footage can be seen at this YouTube video, but since it was included in the film The Great Raid with added text and aesthetic pauses, I wasn't sure if that would be considered a derivative work. Would the addition to the video pages of a citation saying that the attached four Signal Corps photographers were there to document the rescue attempt be sufficient with authorship issues? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

    Oppose stricken, as source links resolve the issue (yes, it would be helpful to add the photographer documentation comment). Other reviewers can judge whether they care about the lack of explicit authorship attribution, a technicality. Эlcobbola _talk 14:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note I have also added several videos in addition to the replacement images. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments

• I think you mean illuminate rather than patrol in this sentence: The Rangers were unaware that the Japanese did not have any searchlights that could be used to patrol the perimeter

  I guess guard dogs would be for patrolling. Fixed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• What size was the 832nd Signal Service? Company, platoon, what?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

  Several sources say battalion, I have added the detail. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments - just a few things, and then I'll support this. I looked this article up after I watched the movie a couple years ago, and the article has come a long way since then.

• Under "Strategy"
  • "The POWs were increasingly becoming more wary of the Japanese guards," - increasingly is redundant there.

    Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Under "Prisoner rescue"
  • "Some of the POWs weighed so little due to illness and malnourishment that some Rangers carried two men on their backs." - any way to get rid of two "some"s in the same sentence?

    Reworded to remove the redundancy. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm assuming that all times in the article are local - is that mentioned somewhere, or is it assumed? Canada Hky (talk) 03:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  Nice catch, labeled the first occurrence. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks good, but a few niggles:

1. Why link both the general "Philippines" and "Cabanutuan City" next to each other? The latter contains a very prominent link to the former. MOSLINK says to be specific. (Same for the NE and Ph in the infobox: readers need one link, the most specific.) WP is not a dictionary, so why link "guerrillas" and "muzzle"? Links should not be a substitute for spelling out an initialism, such as "POW camp"; why not spell it out first time, without the link—it's hardly obscure, and the target article isn't focused on the specifics of the Japanese POW camp.

   I removed the links for Philippines as well as the links in the infobox. Although Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we have the benefit of being an encyclopedia and I considered that readers may not necessarily know that much about the two terms, and preferred to error on the side of having the link present. Since guerrillas are significantly referred to in this article, it would be best for readers to have background on strategies of the type of warfare if necessary. For the POW, I did spell it out for the first occurrence in the lead as well as in the article, but I have now removed the wikilinks. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

2. "Pillbox" is piped from "bunker": again, readers shouldn't have to hit the link to find out what this deceptive link means ... "pillboxes (bunkers)", possibly without the link (I haven't checked the target for specificity).

   Reworded to "pillbox bunkers" to keep the designation as well as better inform the readers with the link. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

3. MoS says en dashes as interrupters should be spaced; or to use an unspaced em dash.

   I think at one point I had all emdashes, but they were probably moved around during the copyedits. I believe I have fixed all occurrences. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

4. Layout of the camp: unfortunately garish in colour, but nothing in it is intelligible at that size, including the key. If it's important enough to include, why not a bit bigger? Is the Fisher pic of sufficeint res to enlarge a bit? Same for the Black Widow?

   I modified the image sizes (however, I'm editing from a different computer than when I was working on the article so it looks the same to me), but feel free to increase the size as you see fit. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

5. "assorted terrain"? no ... assorted cookies. And are rivers terrain?

   Nice catch. I was so happy to get a video for the article, I just through the caption together. I've reworded a bit, please take another look. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

6. I haven't looked at the vid guidelines, but surely we'd like to know the duration in the caption ... Tony (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

   Looking over WP:VIDEO (which currently isn't a guideline), there are no details about how captions should be organized (and the example they provide does not list the duration). Readers are able to see the duration on the video's page or if they initiate the video. If we're ever going to see a significant rise in video use on Wikipedia, we definitely need to get the WP:VIDEO page better organized and have more detailed guidelines. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll get to addressing these tomorrow when I have Internet access (kind of hard to edit using the iPhone). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• At 11:30 on January 30, Scouts Lt. Nellist and Pvt. Rufo Vaquilar etc. - should be "At 11:30 on January 30, Scouts Nellist and Pvt. Rufo Vaquilar", you've already mentioned Nellist's rank.
• The American soldiers also paid 5 pesos to each of the carabao cart drivers who had helped to evacuate the POWs - it would be helpful if we knew what this was worth in today's dollars.
• $1 ($9.04 in current U.S. dollars), $1.50 per day (a combined total of $22.59 in current U.S. dollars). - simpler wording is "$1 ($9.04 today)" etc., which is just as clear.
• An estimated 530 to a high of 1,000 Japanese soldiers were killed during the assault. - this is awkward. I would write something like "Estimates of the Japanese soldiers killed during the assault ranged from 530 to 1,000".
• Both Cpt. Fisher and Cpl. Sweezy are buried at Manila National Cemetery. - could be "Both Fisher and Sweezy are buried at Manila National Cemetery.", we've already mentioned their ranks.
• In an effort to quell the increase in American morale, Japanese propaganda radio announcers broadcasted to American soldiers that submarines, ships, and planes etc. - this is awkward. Better wording might be In an effort to counter the improved American morale, Japanese propaganda radio announcers broadcast to American soldiers that submarines, ships, and planes etc."
• and the American public, for the raid had touched an emotional chord - I think "and the American public, as the raid had touched an emotional chord" would be better.
• General Douglas MacArthur spoke about his reaction to the raid - you can probably just use "MacArthur" here, without a link. He's already been introduced and linked earlier in the article.
• Although Lt. Col. Mucci was nominated for the Medal of Honor, he and Capt. Prince both received etc. - "Although Mucci" and "he and Prince" should be fine here, we've mentioned them and their ranks before.
• All other American officers and selected enlisted received Silver Stars. - how were the enlisted who were to received Silver Stars selected - i.e., was there some general theme? If each one received it for a different reason, though, it would be too much detail to mention.
• Lts. William Nellist and Thomas Rounsaville and the other twelve Scouts received Presidential Unit Citations - again, we already know their names and ranks, should be "Nellist and Rounsaville and the other twelve Scouts received Presidential Unit Citations". Also, it would be interesting to know why they received the Citations, if there is some general theme.
• Land was donated in the late 1990s by the Filipinos to create a memorial. - what does "by the Filipinos" mean? By the government? By a specific group?

In general, please look for other duplicated ranks, first names, etc. I've made a few minor copyedits as well. Overall, an interesting, well-written, FA-quality article. I think these issues can be cleared up fairly quickly. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Millennium Park

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because this is the main article of a WP:FT that needs two more promotions by September 1 to retain its featured status. Although time seems to be against us, I hope for this not to be demoted for too long if we can not beat the clock with this and one more promotion. FAC2 was a recent quickfail due to image issues which have been resolved at Wikipedia:Peer review/Millennium Park/archive1.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Renomination approved with image clearance from Elcobbola. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Are all those external links really necessary? I already removed one that was used as a reference. Ucucha 05:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Chicagoist on the photography "ban" goes nowhere for me, but seems to refer to the kind of info that belongs in the article, cited, and not as an external link-- please review external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, that link is dead; I'm sorry for not catching it. Ucucha 09:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Done. Link fixed. —Jeremy (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Thanks but that raises another question: FAs are expected to be comprehensive, and ELs should only include content that can't be included in the article for some reason (see WP:EL); why is there no mention of the content in that EL in the actual article, using it as a source instead of an EL? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I can not see that webpage on my browser, but the article has an entire paragraph on the photography ban issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I thought about that when fixing the link. The paragraph in the article really makes the link redundant. Although the paragraph focuses on Cloud Gate, which I think a little misleading firstly because all the artworks in the park are subject to the same copyright restrictions, and secondly because the city was actually requiring permits for photography anywhere in the park—Jeremy (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Recurring issues

Samples only, thorough review for similar needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• MOS issues: there are Wikipedia:ACCESS#Section structure errors throughout, and there is WP:OVERLINKing-- these are repeat items in your noms, TTT, and should be addressed prior to nomination. I've left sample edits; work to do still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Still not fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed the WP:ACCESS issues. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• WP:OVERLINKing also continues, and has been a recurring issue in all of TTT noms; at some point, TonyTheTiger, I am expecting you to begin to take responsibility-- as an experienced FA nominator-- for your noms instead of waiting for other reviewers to clean up recurring issues, which creates an unnecessary burden on FAC reviewers and leads to lengthy nominations. At a minimum, Tony1 has mentioned overlinking in most of his reviews of your nominations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• I removed quite a bit of overlinking, (we edit-conflicted, but I integrated your changes). Dabomb87 (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for the assistance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Prose issues, sample:
  • In addition to formal critical review, the park is admired as an example of successful urban planning by other mayors such as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who wishes San Francisco could do the same thing.^[1][2] Even the Mayor of Shanghai has enjoyed himself at the park.^[3]
• Isn't the "In addition to formal critical review" clause redundant? Other mayors is plural, Gavin Newsom is singular, and why is the link to SF mayor helpful to this article (overlinking)-- that is explained in his article. "Even" is POV, and since the source is a subscription only link, please provide a quote of the text justifying the statement that he "enjoyed" himself and its relevance to the article. I only checked this last section, these are only samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • My subscription seems to have expired or something. I have attempted to tweak the other issues, but I think linking a term like SF mayor is fairly standard when the topic is what other civic leaders think about the park.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I disagree-- that link adds nothing to this article, when you've already linked the actual mayor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sourcing, sample only:
  • The park is considered to be beyond the ambitions of many cities.^[4]
    • The source says "While nothing that ambitious is planned here...". What is your point?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
• But the source merely says that nothing that ambitious is planned for Charlotte-- the source does not support the statement. Please review throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I have tweaked to say "The park is considered to be beyond the ambitions of some other cities that consider it exemplary." This seems to me to follow from the quote I gave above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • You're still using plural, while giving the example of one city only-- are there others? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Does Shangai count?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• Rephrasing: considering some of the issues above, I'd like to see the exact quote backing this statement:
  • The Financial Times describes the park as an extraordinary 21st century park resulting from a unique combination of money and power that liberates artistic expression in the way it creates a new iconic images of the city.^[5]
    • The FT online archive is only accessible for 5 years. I can not produce the quote anymore.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • If you are relying on subscription only or online sources that expire, you should be keeping hard copies of those sources so you can backup article content. At any time, other editors can request a quote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
• The content looks like it wants to be a direct quote, but isn't; how was it paraphrased to avoid plagiarism? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Is this further on the FT quote request above?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It doesn't look to be a direct quote. Relevant sections of the FT article look to be:
    • "His work is just one piece in an extraordinary public park that is set to create new iconic images of the city."
    • "In the previously moribund 25-acre site, Chicago has unleashed artistic liberation. In a city known for its historic skyscrapers with their clean, angular lines, the park offers chaotic curves. In a city known for its green parks, this is a space defined by its objects, not the turf beneath them. The result - a genuinely 21st-century interactive park - could trigger a new way of thinking about public outdoor spaces"
    • "This eclectic mix was driven by the ad-hoc accretion of new projects, led by financial donors. Indeed, this is a uniquely Chicagoan park, the result of a close collaboration between money and power."

—Jeremy (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that some of these sample issues have been cleaned up, I am expecting a closer review of the article and its sourcing for similar-- these were samples only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Current ref. 10 is missing an accessdate and ref. 233 is missing publisher information. Placement of "subscription required" information is inconsistent (refs. 53, 78). Ucucha 10:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • All three issues fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for spending time evaluating this article. I will spend time with it this afternoon.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments from Ruhrfisch

I have told TonyTheTiger I will copyedit this article. I have been a co-nom on FACs for several of the features in the park, but have not made any major contributions to this article directly (besides the image map). I had two questions on the article, one for Tony and one for the image experts.

The question for Tony is: why is there a separate section on the 2009 Pavilion projects? These were a temporary exhibition in Chase Promenade in the park for several summer months, and no longer are present there (something the article does not make clear). Since there have been several other such exhibits in the promenade and park that do not have their own sections, why does this get its own section? Would it make more sense to have a section on special exhibitions or art in the park? I also note that the {{Millennium Park}} template does not include the pavilions with the other permanent features. The template also mentions the Grant Park Music Festival, which has a much longer history, but is only mentioned in three sentences. This is a WP:WEIGHT issue.

This is the main article of a WP:FT. It should summarize all the articles in the topic. The WP:FT guys have insisted that the Pavilion projects be included in the topic (over my initial objection in 2009 and renewed objection in 2010). As such it is summarized here on equal footing with all other articles within the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure how to handle the GPMF. I could expand it here if you feel that is appropriate. In truth I am not sure what the protocol is for a main article of an FT. I do think it be definition should summarize the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think part of my problem is that it treats the Pavilions like permanent features (when they are not) and does not treat them and the festival the same. What if there were an "Art and music" section that talked about the Pavilions and the music festival (perhaps as subsections of two paragraphs each) and then had a paragraph on other exhibits and concerts / events in the park? Perhaps it could even be called "Use" or "Usage" and also include the current popular culture paragraph (movies and tv shows use the park for filming scenes). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Are you interested in making such a change. Your editorial assistance is, as always, quite welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I plan to copyedit this, starting with the sections relating to articles I have already been a co-nom or done a copyedit on. I will be glad to try this. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the ce efforts so far.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

YOu are welcome - got another section edited tonight, will hopefully get much more done tomorrow. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(out) I moved the Pavilion projects subsection and the Popular culture section to a new Use section, after budget. I also added the lead of the Grant Park Music Festival article there as a subsection. Does this look OK (still needs to be copyedited and more refs for the GPMF section)? I am done with copyedits on the 13 Features subsections, but not anything else yet. I was thinking of adding the architects to the Exelon Pavilions and moving most of the sentence on the GPMF from the Pritzker Pavilion section to the GPMF section too. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• It looks good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The question for an image reviewer is: would File:Cloud Gate boy reflection.jpg be OK for use in this article? I assume so, as it was used on the Main Page when the Cloud Gate article was TFA. If not that, I assume File:Cloud gate construction.jpg or perhaps this image of the sculptor File:Kapoor cropped.jpg would work? More to come, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• File:Cloud Gate boy reflection.jpg is copyright free, since it's only a tiny part of the whole structure, and is cute and I like it. File:Cloud gate construction.jpg is ugly and probably not something you want to show, ok for Cloud Gate, but not anywhere else imho. File:Kapoor cropped.jpg I think is only tangentially related, and shouldn't be used either. — raekyT 20:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• File:Cloud Gate boy reflection.jpg seems to be a good suggestion. I will add it and await feedback, but like you said, since it was on the main page for WP:TFA it is probably acceptable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Struck that as it was OK on the Main Page and Raeky says it is OK. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

New questions for Tony

• In Background the sentence Some sources say that the park was the outgrowth of the exuberance of private sponsors, and others say that Mayor Daley used his power to garner corporate supporters.[27] has one source (although multiple sources are implied) and that does not really say what the sentence says. Can you please provide more / better sources for this sentence? Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems that I had thought I had seen a source that I would again come across when I added the exuberance part. Although I thought I would remember where I had seen it, I had probably paraphrased something that from memory that won't really be able to find. I have removed this from the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, I tweaked it to Mayor Daley's influence was key in getting corporate and individual sponsors to pay for much of the park. which seems to me to be more waht Time was saying (and avoids "some sources" being attributed to a single ref. Feel free to disagree / tweak. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• I do not get this sentence referring to Millennium Park: One of the larger public parks in metropolitan Chicago, it is a showcase for postmodern architecture. Since MP is less than a tenth of the total area of Grant Park, and Chicago has several very large parks and the suburbs do too, how can it be considered "one of the larger parks in metro Chicago"?
  • I think that it is an artifact of the article prior to proper sourcing. Rm it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I removed it. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• It might just be that it is late, but I do not see the permeable area claim in the ref Of its 24.5 acres (99,000 m2) of land, Millennium Park contains 12.04 acres (48,700 m2) of permeable area. What exactly is meant by permeable area? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • We don't have an RS for that and it is also an artifact that I tracked down to this edit by a WP:SPA. I am not sure of its veracity. We might want to strike it unless we can source it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I have removed it for now - I assume the gardens and great lawn are meant (concrete is impermeable to rain, dirt covered with plants is permeable). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• Would it make sense to add a Comments column to the Budget table? My thought was that opening dates etc. could be added to it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess an opening date column would be O.K., but some have completion dates and opening dates and others only have one, IIRC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmmm, six of the items in the budget column are not separate features but infrastructure and endowment). Others like the Exelon Pavilions opened on two different dates as they were completed, or Cloud Gate opened with the park, then was finished later. I think it is OK to leave it off - the dates for the individula features are in their sections. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
      • O.K. so how is the ce progressing?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I have copyedited it through Budget and am working on Use. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I am done with GPMF in Use. I want to add a brief introduction to the Use section (two or three sentences). Tony, do you know of any attendance figures for the park? The article has the opening attendance and the comparison to Navy Pier. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I have continued to look for new numbers. You would think they would put out a press release, but I don't see anything at http://www.millenniumpark.org/newsandmedia/ . I have found sales brochures and I see this, which may be an RS.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• I was bold and moved Lurie Garden up to fourth in the features as it is described as one of four major features in the lead and Features section intro. Tweaked the image layout after that too. On to Budget for copyedits. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
• I am done with copyedits to the Use section - I added two images there. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• I am done with the copyedit. Here are my final points - I am very close to supporting, but have a few issues left. I see I have now made 56 edits to the article. If other reviewers feel this makes me too much of a contributor, I will recuse myself (but feel it is essntially ready for FA now).
  • I would remove the Looptopia material from Use restrictions (I already hid in a comment for now) as I could not find a RS for it. If you can find a RS, perhaps add it back in, but it seems pretty trivial (basically the park is always closed at night, even for an all night part in the Loop). Sentences were The obvious presence of security guards is also cited in some quarters as working against a public park. For example, during the dusk to dawn event Looptopia on May 11 and May 12, 2007, public access to the park was prevented by police enforcement of the park curfew.
    • Looptopia was an artifact of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I am also not sure about including the park's hours and dog policy, but that is your call.
    • From my experience, this is an unusual dog policy for a park, making it notable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
      • OK< I had not thought of it that way. I am fine with leaving it in, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Would the Recognition section be better as "Reception and recognition"?
    • Good idea. I have made the change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I also hid this sentence in Recognition: The park is considered to be beyond the ambitions of some other cities that consider it exemplary. - the ref is basically small town folk go to Chicago and admire its half-billion dollar park, but know they can't do that back home. I do not think the original ref is that notable (how many places can afford such a park, but wish they had one like it) and the sentence does not really reflect the ref well.
    • That is fine. Someone else above had a problem with the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • In the same vein, I am not sure I would include the fact that the mayors of Shanghai and SF like the park and/or wish they had one too. Your call.
    • In terms of critical review, they are probably more important than journalists because civic leaders actually make civic amenities happen.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, I am fine with that. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I added some images and was very tempted to add the panorama of Jay Pritzker Pavilion at the end here, as it is in that article. What do you think Tony?
    • I like the images that you have added and generally favor more images than most. I would be fine with the extra image.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I added it just now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Finally, I agree with Sandy on most of the External links being superfluous. I would keep the official map and brochure, the city of Chicago MP site, and the news story archives. The "Virtual tour of Millennium Park" is neat, but really slow to load. If Forgotten Chicago has cool stuff, add it as a ref - you go to the page and there is nothing obvious on MP, and no search function to look for it that I could see. Same with the other material - convert it to a ref or get rid of it. The Awards link should definitely be used as a ref - I would do it, but I am burnt out on MP right now.
    • I just cut out a few.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I converted the awards EL into a ref and added two sentences on the material in it. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• I have one more little thing to add that I forgot. Please revert if I made mistakes or introduced errors. I hope I have improved the article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:58, 11 August

2010 (UTC) OK, I am all done with the copyedit and everything and all of the issues I raised here have been addressed. I have changed to support above. I really need to see this park in person ;-) Thanks Tony for all of your work on these articles, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—the lead seems a bit repetitive to me. For example, in the first paragraph it says: "Completed in 2004, it covers…", then in the next paragraph we have "Construction began in October 1998 and was completed in July 2004" and "…was opened in a ceremony on July 16, 2004" —does the fact that the park opened in 2004 need to be mentioned three times in the lead? The third paragraph tells us that the proposed budget was $150 million, but he final cost was $475 million, then in the next paragraph (and only one sentence away) it tells us that the cost approximately three times as much as was initially budgeted —I don't think that this information needs repeated. I also think that the sentence on features have changing names is such a minor detail that it doesn't need mentioned in the lead.—Jeremy (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I would have no objection to the changes you suggest. Do you want to take a stab at them?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • OK, I had a go. I wasn't sure what to do with the last sentence: "Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley at first placed much of the blame for the delay and cost overrun on Frank Gehry, who designed several parts of the park". This sentence, to me at least, implies that the next sentence is going to say that the Mayor changed his mind or that Gehry was in some way vindicated. But there is no next sentence. I also can't find this discussed anywhere else in the article; so perhaps we can just delete this sentence. —Jeremy (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I moved that sentence to a more appropriate location in the text.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Per the first nom. I was shocked to see that it didn't pass as I see no major issues. If I have to explain myself again i believe that the article meet FA requirements because it is well sourced, gives a perfectly balanced account of the park, addressing the components of the park in turn. I have helped improve previous articles related to Millenium Park at the FAC stage and have offered constructive criticism where it is needed to ensure that the article is the best possible but I certainly do not post "support" unless I really mean it. I find Sandy Georgia's comments on my talk page accusing me of supporting this article as I have commented on Tony's previous FAC's out of order. At the end of the day it is Sandy and co who decides whether to promote an article or not, so I'm wasting my time here anyway. Dr. Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 19:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments I found this an overall great article, but there were a couple of issues.
  • The park curfew (the park is closed from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. daily)[215] and obvious presence of security guards is also cited in some quarters as working against a public park. For example, during the dusk to dawn event Looptopia on May 11 and May 12, 2007, public access to the park was prevented by police enforcement of the park curfew. - this is a sloppy paragraph.
    • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, you have a couple of two sentence paragraphs. It may not be in the rules anywhere, but I prefer a paragraph to be at least three sentences long.
    • I got these.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • This article takes a while for my computer to load. Could you cut some info from the featues section, which already have spin off articles, out of the main one?

That's all for now. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • Note: The article is 122 kB, but only 44 kB of that is readable prose. There are a lot of refs, which helps make it so big. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    • After my copyedit it is 46 kB of readable prose Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Also note that this is the main article of a WP:FT. We have to adequately summarize the topic. The article is well within all WP:MOS WP:SIZE requirements. as noted by Ruhrfisch.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Leaning toward oppose Sorry, but I can already see several problems in the lead: (No longer leaning toward oppose, but not actively supporting just yet.)

• We don't need to specify the county in the first sentence. People are far, far more familiar with the city of Chicago than with its county. Even Illinois is arguably expendable.
  • Rmed county.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• The second sentence is awkwardly structured (that...that), and could probably be split into two smaller sentences. There's a lot of information packed inside it.
  • Split.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• As of 2007, Millennium Park trailed only Navy Pier as a Chicago tourist attraction. Surely there's more up-to-date info?
  • I have tried to find something more up to date unsuccessfully as each element of this topic has gone through FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I'll see if I can find anything. Just out of curiosity, how do they determine attendance figures for Millennium Park, anyway? Zagalejo^^^ 06:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • In a case like this, it might be safer to say something vague, like "Millennium Park is one of the most popular tourist attractions in Chicago." Zagalejo^^^ 21:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I am not so sure I understand the logic of going from a slightly dated statement of fact to WP:WEASEL words.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
        • WP:WEASEL doesn't apply. It's still a statement of fact, just less specific. You'd need a more recent ref, but it should be trivially easy to find something useful. Zagalejo^^^ 06:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Anyway, this might possibly be helpful for determining 2010 rankings, though I can't immediately access it. Zagalejo^^^ 06:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I was under the impression that you knew of a way to eventually get access to this. It likely has our info.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I'm sure Harold Washington has the article. But I haven't had a chance to go down there, and I probably won't for a few days. Zagalejo^^^ 19:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
              • Well, I did manage to go today. According to the article, Millennium Park was second in 2009, with an estimated attendance of 4 million. (Navy Pier was first, with an estimated attendance of 8,050,000.) Zagalejo^^^ 23:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• ...and Millennium Park, which has become the world's largest rooftop garden What makes it a rooftop garden? I don't even see this explained in the body.
  • Doesn't this sentence cover it: "Millennium Park is considered one of the largest green roofs in the world, having been constructed on top of a railroad yard and large parking garages."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Oh, I see. I was searching for "rooftop". I'm not really sure that's worth mentioning in the lead, though, since it's only technically a rooftop garden, according to one organization. It's enough to simply mention that the park has won awards for green design. Zagalejo^^^ 06:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I think I could find more mentions as a greenroof or rooftop garden, if that is your point. These terms are common references about the park.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
        • If the fact is to remain in the lead, I think it should be moved to a different part of the paragraph. It seems uncomfortably shoehorned into the current sentence, and there's no logical reason for it to be there. It might also be worthwhile to briefly explain why it is a green roof, because that description will be counterintuitive to people who look at the pictures. Zagalejo^^^ 21:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
          • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I've reworded it. Zagalejo^^^ 23:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• The park's design and construction won awards ranging from accessibility to green design. "Accessibility" and "green design" aren't awards. You win awards for those things.
  • Good eye.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I tried to reword it myself. Zagalejo^^^ 06:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• The completed park has received near univeral praise from critics. This assumes that you've read every published review that has ever existed. Could you reword this? Zagalejo^^^ 03:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Near universal --> consistent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's much of a difference. I'd prefer "praise from many critics". Zagalejo^^^ 06:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Note that I've only commented on the lead. I don't really want this to turn into a peer review. My general impression is that the article could still use some work. Zagalejo^^^ 06:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • As I stated on your talk page, I would imagine they might let this one run another 10-14 days, if we are making progress. I am sure I have mentioned WP:CHIFTD to you before. We are about to lose our projects only FT. We need to get some more FAs to save it. Please comment here now if you have time. Please note that Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) has tried to do a copyedit.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Someone else had recently copyedited the lead, so I did not tweak it nearly as much as the rest of the article. The "near universal praise" was mine though, sorry. In the course of the copyedit, we looked for attendance figures, which turned out to be pretty difficult to find. The few places that did list them gave no indication of how they were measured. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I'll try to look at at least a few sections of the body sometime this weekend. Zagalejo^^^ 21:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Some more comments (I'm still reading through the article, so I'm not done yet.)

• A showcase for postmodern architecture, it also features the McCormick Tribune Ice Skating Rink, BP Pedestrian Bridge, Joan W. and Irving B. Harris Theater for Music and Dance, Wrigley Square, McDonald's Cycle Center, Exelon Pavilions, AT&T Plaza, Boeing Galleries, Chase Promenade, and Nichols Bridgeway. This reads strangely to me. Shouldn't there be some the's in front of some of those list items?
  • I believe it is more wikified without a series of preceding articles. I have removed the one from in front of McCormick Tribune Ice Skating Rink instead of adding one in front of the rest.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't see what wikification has to do with anything. Elsewhere in the body, you do refer to some of these places as "The Harris Theater", "The Exelon Pavilions", etc. It just seems odd to me to see some of these place names without articles. Zagalejo^^^ 06:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
      • O.K. added to all.
        • Whatever you do, you should be consistent throughout the article. Does Millennium Park itself use articles when referring to these locations? Zagalejo^^^ 20:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
          • sort of.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Clicking around their site, it seems that they use the before all of them except Cloud Gate and Wrigley Square. (Which makes sense.) You should just follow their lead. Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
              • I have tried to address this concern.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Performers ranging from mainstream rock bands to classical musicians and opera singers have appeared at the pavilion,[52] which hosts physical fitness activities such as yoga. There's no logical connection between the two halves of this sentence. Zagalejo^^^ 01:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Is it any better now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Not really. You're setting up a false distinction: rock bands and opera singers are also "cultural offerings". Zagalejo^^^ 06:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
      • How is activities.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
        • That's what you had before. I think you need to restructure a few sentences, rather than try to apply a quick fix. Zagalejo^^^ 20:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, I tried to fix things by removing "a broad spectrum of activities, including" Zagalejo^^^ 20:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• The Cloud Gate section gets somewhat repetitive in places. I think you can drop "Cloud Gate is wildly popular" from the second paragraph, since you talk about its popularity in the next paragraph. Also, you use the phrase "highly polished" twice within a few sentences.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• Its use of water is unique among Chicago's many fountains, in that it promotes physical interaction between the public and the water. This is a pretty bold claim. What about the water playgrounds in many neighborhood parks? Can't some of those features be considered fountains? (You know, the things kids like to run through.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
  • What was your source in the first place? I see you tweaked the wording, but even that doesn't seem to be supported by any sources. Zagalejo^^^ 22:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Removed the uniqueness point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink is a multipurpose venue located along the western edge of Millennium Park in the Historic Michigan Boulevard District. It's not actually in the district, is it? I'm sure it's too new to be a contributing property.
  • AKAIK, it is geographically in the district, but I am sure it is not a contributing property.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Does the district even cover both sides of Michigan Avenue? The profile here emphasizes the "streetwall". Zagalejo^^^ 01:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• From June 21 to September 15, 2002, the plaza served as an open-air exhibition space and hosted the inaugural exhibit in Millennium Park. Might as well mention what the exhibit was.
  • Added name and explanation of who it was by, I am not sure if you need the explanation of who the artist was in this article. Let me know if I should take it out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • That's good enough. Zagalejo^^^ 08:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• The pedestrian bridge is the first bridge Gehry designed to be built, and was named for British Petroleum, which donated $5 million to the construction of the park. I'm pretty sure that, by the time the bridge opened, the company was legally just called BP.
  • The company changed its name in 2001, but might have donated the money before changing its name. I changed the article text however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• As a general point, are you trying to use serial commas? The article is inconsistent.
  • I am not really cognizant of what I do in this regard when writing and am willing to go either way if it is an issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think it matters either way, as long as you're consistent. Zagalejo^^^ 08:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• It is the first new performing arts venue built in the city's theater district or downtown since 1929. I remember challenging this at the theater talk page, but never got a response.
  • Is Gallery 37 a structure?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • There is a Gallery 37 building on Randolph. Part of the building is a small theater called the Storefront Theater. Now that I think about it, however, there's another, more important venue that predates the Harris Theater: the Chicago Shakespeare Theater. (Yes, Navy Pier has been around a while, but the theater facility was constructed in the 1990s.) Zagalejo^^^ 08:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Chicago Shakespeare Theater is north of the Chicago River. I don't think it is part of the Theatre District, although it is close by.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Also, when was Gallery 37 constructed?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Navy Pier isn't considered downtown? Anyway, the Storefront Theater at Gallery 37 opened in 2000. Search for "Anchor theater to open in April" in the Sun-Times database. Zagalejo^^^ 23:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
          • Rmed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• The Harris Theater has hosted notable national and international performers, such as the New York City Ballet's first visit to Chicago in over 25 years (in 2006). This sentence needs to be restructured. A visit is not a performer.
  • How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Now it's a bit wordy. Just write a new sentence from the ground up. Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I am not sure what is wrong with the sentence and thus am not sure how to fix it. Either give me more of an explanation or give a suggested wording.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I made some tweaks myself. Zagalejo^^^ 19:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Wrigley Square is a public square located in the northwest corner of Millennium Park near the intersection East Randolph Street and North Michigan, in the Historic Michigan Boulevard District. Similar to my comment above. Isn't it too new to be considered part of the district
  • The district is defined geographically as Michigan Avenue between Randolph Street and approximately Roosevelt Road.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • But is every structure along that route considered part of the district? Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't actually know the precise details of the Chicago Landmark geography designations, but for a National Register of Historic Places district an area is defined and contributing properties therein are specified. Non-contributing properties exist within the defined areas however.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
• Pro-cycling and environmentalist journalists in publications well beyond Chicago have described the Cycle Center as exemplary, impressive, unique and ground-breaking. This just comes across as boosteristic. It would be better to actually quote the sources.
  • O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Something I've been wondering about for a while, but never asked: should it be "Pavilion projects", or "Pavilion Projects"? The article is titled "Pavilion projects", but its first sentence capitalizes the second P.
  • Fixed there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Is that correct? That looks somewhat awkward (especially when italicized). Did anyone actually call them "the Pavilion projects"? It seems that most sources called them the Burnham Pavilions. Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I have added the alternate title to the article. I am not averse to a page move, but keep in mind that this is part of a WP:FT.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
        • What does being a FT have to do with a page move? Anyway, why exactly did you choose to name the article "Pavilion projects" in the first place? Where did you get that from? Zagalejo^^^ 04:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
          • IIRC, I did not create the page and it was thus named by someone else. I think a lot of people have looked critically at the page since it was added as a supplemental nom to the Millennium Park FT and no one really mentioned moving it. However, if you think it should be move that is fine. They don't really have a name in the sense of a name for a show or for works of art, AFIAK.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
            • • Ah, you're correct, someone else started the page. (And that person has only made one edit this entire year.) I think the article should be moved to Burnham Pavilions, unless you know of any sources that refer to them as "Pavilion projects". That said, that article's title really has little bearing on the main Millennium Park article, so I'll just strike that comment. Zagalejo^^^ 19:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
• Not everything in the "Use restrictions" section pertains to use restrictions (eg, the surveillance cameras).
  • Most use restrictions are restrictions on the public by the authorities. The cameras are a restriction on the authorities by the public.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Eh, that's a cop-out. (No pun intended.) Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Do you want the section retitled or the content moved. If moved, where do you suggest?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
        • I can't think of a title that would tie everything together, so maybe you should create a new subsection. Zagalejo^^^ 04:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I am not so keen on the one paragraph subsection but I have moved the content out and created a separate subsection.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• Speaking of which, did the city ever install the "less-intrusive" cameras, or did they drop the idea altogether?
  • I have no knowledge of replacement cameras.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
• The Financial Times describes Millennium Park as an extraordinary 21st century park, resulting from a unique combination of money and power that liberates artistic expression in the way it creates a new iconic images of the city. It's been established above that this is not copied word-for-word from the source, but it is still very close. Why not just quote the source?
  • I don't think an overview article should be rattling off a bunch of direct quotes, but will include them if you really think it is a must. Recall WP is a tertiary source whose task is to synthesize and summarize secondary sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • That's generally true, but reviews are the sorts of things that should be quoted. (Especially when you're barely paraphrasing the source to begin with.) Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
      • This is not one quote. It is three secondary source quotes properly synthesized for use in this tertiary source. If it were a single quote what you are suggesting might be more feasible. Look at the three distinct quotes above that Jeremy submitted.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
        • All you really have to do is take individual phrases from the sources, and put those phrases in quotes. You can omit unneeded words with ellipses. It can be done; just be creative. Zagalejo^^^ 04:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I would not know how to use the ellipses because I do not know what order the above quotes are in at the source. I don't know if Jeremy listed them sequentially, randomly or in order of importance above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
            • I tried to fix it myself. I quoted one whole phrase from the article, and trimmed some of what you had before (which was nonessential, IMO). Zagalejo^^^ 02:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
              • I added another part of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
                • OK. Zagalejo^^^ 06:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• while Time refers to it as an artful arrangement resulting from a creative ensemble. This is also very close to the source. Why not just quote the source?
  • I don't think an overview article should be rattling off a bunch of direct quotes, but will include them if you really think it is a must. Recall WP is a tertiary source whose task is to synthesize and summarize secondary sources.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
    • See above. Zagalejo^^^ 00:12, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Looking at this again, I don't think the text in question adds much to the article anyway. I'd just drop it. Time is already mentioned earlier in the paragraph. Zagalejo^^^ 02:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
      • With your impetus, I attempted to add what I thought was relevant for the reader to hear.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
        • OK. Zagalejo^^^ 06:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• In 2006, Timothy J. Gilfoyle's Millennium Park: Creating a Chicago Landmark was an editor's choice of the New York Times Book Review,[259] and the San Francisco Chronicle. I think this is beyond the scope of the article. Zagalejo^^^ 04:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments - A strong summary article overall, but many minor issues:

• In the lead: "The completed park has received praise many critics." From many critics?
  • I fixed this one. Zagalejo^^^ 06:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* ... the Chicago Tribune dubbed Gehry "the hottest architect in the universe" cite the quote?

• • There is a citation at the end of the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You have to cite directly after the quotation, yes?

Not sure, but I have done so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

* ...Pritzker enticed Gehry in head-on confrontations. Enticed and confrontations don't quite match. Face-to-face discussions?

• • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* "The choice of Gehry was a key component in having modern themes in the park." This is not clear. The choice of Gehry led to more modern themes in the park?

• • Added some context.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* "The park was officially announced in March, 1998" The park did not exist. Do you mean the project was announced?

• • Clarified.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* "...its broad variety of amenities placed it under the jurisdiction of the city's Public Buildings Commission." Why? What to the amenities have to do with it?

• • Reworded.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* The "centerpiece" of Millennium Park is the Jay Pritzker Pavilion... Why quote centerpiece? It is a common usage.

• • undone.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* "... and a signature Gehry stainless steel headdress." What is a headdress? What is signature Gehry about it?

• • Is it O.K. now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's better. But still: what's a headdress? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It is now linked as a bit of a misnomer.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

* "The pavilion and Millennium Park have received recognition by critics, particularly for their accessibility..." There are all kinds of recognition, good and bad. Don't you mean it has been especially recognized for its accessibility?

• • I am not exactly sure I understand your point, but I have tweaked the wording.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is that "received recognition" does not say anything. I think it's better now. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

* "It was named after Ann Lurie." Who is Anne Lurie?

• • Is philanthropist Ann Lurie better?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A little. But what does she have to do with this park and why did they name something after her? Did she donate lots of money? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Amount added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

* "The rink is operated by the Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs rather than the Chicago Park District." Why? Why is this important?

• • I don't know why but it is relevant as stated in the rest of the sentence "which operates most major public ice skating rinks in Chicago".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)\

It just seems like kind of bureaucratic trivia as it stands. I mean, does it really matter?--Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is quite relevant in the article about the rink. I could take it out here, but am not sure that I should. Will do so upon your request or you may just yank it yourself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• "The bridge's design enables it to bear a heavy load." What about it? Why is it important?
  • Explained.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Highway standards doesn't really explain it, though. Why on earth would a pedestrian bridge be built to highway standards? And what would that actually entail? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not an engineer and don't understand why the fact that it is built to highway standards does not explain why it can bear heavy loads. What exactly are you questioning and why do you want more detail in an overview article?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If the point is worth making, isn't it worth explaining? If there is something important about the load bearing design, what is it? If not, why mention it? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Have I made it relevant now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

* "Frank is just the cutting edge of the next century of architecture." Cite the quote.

• • The citation is at the end of the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

See above. Don't you have to cite the quote directly? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Corrected as above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

* "... the equivalent of 14 star-rated energy-efficient houses." You mean Energy star rated?

• • I do not really understand this lingo, but have tried to tweak it. Feel free to make changes or respond.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* "It also serves as a venue for event planning on a rental basis." This does not make sense. You mean people rent it for private events?

• • Tweaked. Hope you like.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
• There is a lot of overlinking: loading dock, work of art, bean, mercury, themes, slope, sheet metal, flower boxes, pedestal, Metra (multiple times), pedestrian bridge (more than once), hill, lots, photographer, grant. There are others.
  • Personally, I think most of these help the reader, but I have made the following change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope most English speakers know what a loading dock, theme, sheet metal, flower box, and pedestal (among others) are. Why link them?--Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

fixed--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

* Many of the captions are sparse and uninformative. Some have periods when they should not.

• • Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sort of. The captions are still not very compelling. For example: "Crown Fountain attracts youthful attendees" does not add much and is not really supported by the text. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to point out any others that you have concerns with.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Wrigley square serves as a place of relaxation." "Boeing Galleries serve and an open-air gallery." Surely there is something more interesting to say about these interesting places? Also, as mentioned before, many of the captions that are not sentences have terminal periods when they should not. I deleted a couple. The rest should also be fixed. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I tired to make the captions more interesting. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

* Why is Zagats survey redlinked in the references? Zagat survey exists.

• • Zagats-->Zagat.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

* Is it really necessary to list four or five citations for the same claim throughout? I realize this is a matter of taste, but it is very distracting in an FA.

• • I see four places with more than three citations and they are all related to critical reception.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. But still. Why do you need all of that? Isn't there one really good reference that makes the point? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The point of these items of critical reception is to show that they are the consensus of beliefs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no rule of course, so I'll strike the quibble. I just wonder, for example, if the fact that Cloud Gate is popular is really so controversial that the consensus of opinion would ever be in doubt.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

1. I'll support when the overlinking is fixed: why is "Illinois" linked just after "Chicago". Who wants to go to the article on the state when reading about a park in this well-known city? Why is "cost overrun" linked? Is this an obscure term? Why is "pedestrian bridge" linked? "Flower boxes"? "Sound system"? "Headdress"? ("Headgear, headwear or headdress is the name given to any element of clothing which is worn on one's head." ... Is that article remotely useful to the readers?). "Naming right"? "Christmas caroling"? "granite"? "reflecting pool"? Themes? Dualism? "Universal design" is unclear, and the readers shouldn't have to hit a link to find out the definition of a term. "Perennials", "bulbs"? WP is not a dictionary. Needs to be fixed throughout.
   1. fixed--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
2. Acres should not be converted to metres squared. Otherwise, why not feet squared first? Either ha or km².
   1. fixed--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
3. "The area had previously been occupied by"—"was previously occupied by".
   1. fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
4. MoS breach in "March, 1998" (no comma).
   1. fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
5. "Chief executive officer (CEO)"—small c. Tony (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
   1. fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment Per TonyTheTiger's request, I removed all instances of voerlinking that were specifically mentioned here. I also removed the links to the features in captions and duplicate links to periodical like the Tribune, Sun-Times, Time, Financial Times, and USA Today in the refs. diff. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, nice work all round. Any chance of starting a stub on "Chicago Department of Cultural Affairs" to avoid the prominent red link? Tony (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how that go linked. We can't have articles for every department in every mayor's office. I just delinked it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Boys from Baghdad High

Nominator(s): Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

After working on this for a couple of years, I think it's finally ready. The Boys from Baghdad High is a British-Iraqi docmentary television film, depicting four boys in their final year of an Iraqi high school. The boys were given video cameras and were told to record their lives over the course of a year. When I originally watched the film I found it to be extremely powerful and eye-opening. I hope I've done the subject justice. Matthewedwards :  Chat  21:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment No dabs or dead externals, and dates are Day Month Year throughout after a small edit—good. Looks well organized from a glance. --an odd name 00:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, dates and language should all be British English, although it's possible a couple of Americanised spellings may have slipped in by accident. If anyone spots any, just let me know. The longer I'm here, the harder it is for me to continue writing the British way. Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note: not yet rechecked. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, the article hasn't changed and Ucucha confirmed below that all the ELs still work. That isn't to say you shouldn't recheck (I don't want anyone to say later that it wasn't) but that there shouldn't be a rush if you have other things to do first. :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Now rechecked, all OK Brianboulton (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—still no dab links or dead external links. If the above timestamps look confusing: the nomination was reopened after a few weeks, and the nominator re-signed his statement. Ucucha 22:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, I probably should have said something about that. Thank you for rechecking the ELs and DABs :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support—a very nicely done article, and an interesting read. There are a few issues with the article, which I have listed below, but I am very happy to support this. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 12:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Make sure that you use a single tense throughout the synopsis section. For example: "In discussing the state of Iraq, Hyder's mother stated that many people were hopeful about the arrival of American forces, and that it is wrong to blame America for all of the problems in Iraq when the bloodshed has yet to stop as the Sunni continues to kill Shiite, and vice versa. As the film continues, the family loses its income and has to disconnect their Internet and begin selling their furniture to make ends meet." and "Anmar passes the retakes and hopes to study English literature in college ... Mohammed failed four subjects and must repeat his senior year to graduate." WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 12:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Before working on the film, O'Mahoney had been a United Nations peacekeeper in Bosnia and an attorney in the Netherlands, and had worked on the documentary How to Plan a Revolution." Since the documentary does not have an article, perhaps provide a brief summary of the film, or replace the "the" with another word, since it seems to imply that the reader should automatically know about the documentary. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 12:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• "O'Mahoney and Winter realised it would be too dangerous for the students to be seen with either a Western or Iraqi camera crew because it would draw too much attention to them. This is why they decided that the students would film the documentary themselves." This sounds like one point in two sentences. Consider changing it to "O'Mahoney and Winter realised it would be too dangerous for the students to be seen with either a Western or Iraqi camera crew because it would draw too much attention to them, and so they decided that the students would film the documentary themselves." WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 12:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Footage that was nearly edited out included the scene where Anwar had to siphon petrol out of the family car for the house's generator". Consider changing "the scene" to "a scene", since many readers will not have seen the film. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 12:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• I carried out the suggestions you had. Thank you for supporting! :) Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I'm making copy-edits as I go, here are things I encounter:

• In the lead: "The documentary also received the Radio Times Readers Award, and nominations from Amnesty International." Nominations for what?

• done Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• "Ali Shadman, a Kurd, gives a report one night of neighborhood news, but finds there is nothing to speak of by explosions, violence, and death." "by" doesn't sound right.

• Not sure here. I'll look back through the page history and try to figure out what it originally said. Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• Still not resolved, but I trust you can take care of it. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• "Ali wonders why he has to do the task over studying" Not sure what you mean by "over studying". Does it mean he prioritizes fixing the generator when he should be studying?

• done, changed to "Ali wonders why he should prioritise it over studying" although I think the spelling might be messed up. Is it still ize in British English? Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• I think -ise is correct. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• "As the film continues, the family loses its income and has to disconnect their Internet and begin selling their furniture to make ends" Any elaboration on the loss of income (lost job, savings dried up, etc.)?

• I'll have to rewatch it, but from memory I think it's from someone (Dad?) losing their job. Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• Yup, it was. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• "They chose Tariq bin Ziad High School for Boys to source the students from." This sentence is not particularly well-written. "to source the students from"???

• done Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• In your sources, did you find out why the four boys dropped out?

• No, no reason was ever given. Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• "and even had families and a school on board" Avoid colloquialisms such as this. What do mean by "on board"; were they supportive of featuring women in the documentary? Also, was the entire school privy to the fact that the documentary was being filmed?

• The source of that is an interview with one of the producers.

  NE: Why didn’t you choose any girls?
  Winter: The short and easy answer is, that while we had a girl's school on board and families who wanted to participate, the then minister of education said, "No."

  I've changed it to "and had found a school and families willing to take part in the documentary" Yes, the entire school was privvy. Other kids and teachers are obviously aware of the cameras, and occasionally make comments to the cameras about the boys. Matthewedwards :  Chat 

• The reception section is rather choppy. For example, the third paragraph starts with a good topic sentence (similarities between Western and Iraqi boys), and proceeds into a slew of "he said" / "she said" quotes, some of which basically parrot each other—compare Michelle Nicholls' comment and Patrick Huguenin's and you can see that they essentially copy each other. I feel that if you cut down the quoted material and paraphrase more, the flow will improve considerably. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I'll try to work over that in the next coulpe of days. Matthewedwards :  Chat  00:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Done that now. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, it looks better. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, DaBomb. Matthewedwards :  Chat  15:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - the prose is below FA standard. The problems are mainly in the Synopsis section. Here are some examples of poor writing:

• Here, "Ali Shadman, a Kurd, gives a report one night of neighborhood news, but finds there is nothing to speak of by explosions, violence, and death" the by is wrong. Does it mean "except" or "apart from"? The sentence is also vague and leaves the reader guessing as to whom the report was given to.
• There are several problems in this section, "One of the few Kurds remaining in Baghdad, Ali and his family are struggling financially and must siphon petrol from their car to run their back-up generator when the power grid fails. While fixing it one night against a backdrop of gunfire, Ali wonders why he should priotitise it over studying." There are too many loosely connected ideas. If they were siphoning petrol from someone else's car, than this would logically connect with their financial problems. And, it is not clear what the antecedent of the pronoun "it" is, which is used twice in the later part of the section.
• This sentence sounds wrong, "His family, however, is more nervous about any nearby gunfire, as their Christian beliefs increases the threat to their lives if anyone were to find out." Should this be "increase" and should the sentence end with "about these". Actually, I think the whole sentence needs rewriting.
• Here, "believing that his later execution was the right choice", choice sounds odd. How about "decision" or "his later execution was justified"?
• This sentence is a snake and needs chopping, "When discussing Iraq, Hyder's mother states that many people were hopeful about the arrival of American forces, and that it is wrong to blame America for all of the problems in Iraq when the bloodshed has yet to stop as the Sunni continues to kill Shiite, and vice versa."
• This sounds odd, "to disconnect their Internet".
• There is tedious redundancy here, "At the end of the year, the boys must pass seven final exams to graduate. Anmar, Hyder and Ali each fail two subjects, and are given the option to retake the exams so they can graduate. Anmar passes the retakes and aspires to study English literature in college, while his family plans to move to the safer region of Arbul now that he has graduated. Hyder also retakes his exams and passes, but his family can no longer afford to pay for the university courses. Ali chooses not to retake the exams, and his family decides to leave Iraq. Mohammed fails four subjects and must repeat his senior year to graduate.
• I think this would be better than it here: "it would draw too much attention to them".
• This lakes logical flow, "Principal Ra'ad Jawad selected eight boys to take part in the documentary because he knew they would be discreet" - it sounds like there is something special about 8 boys as opposed to 6 or 7.
• This sounds odd "Haydar filmed outside at night on occasion" Does it mean Hayder sometimes filmed outside at night?
• The two parts of this sentence are not connected, "The students filmed more than 300 hours of footage, along with occasional footage from the two Iraqi associate producers."
• Here, "Receiving the tapes from Iraq proved difficult". Receiving is too weak a word, something much stronger is needed such as getting the tapes out of Iraq proved difficult.
• There's a double period here, "Die Jungs von der Bagdad-High in Germany.[20]."

I did make a start on copy editing but I haven't seen the film and there are more problems than I originally thought. Graham Colm (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Though my internet has become limited recently, I will go through your concerns and address them over the next day or so. Matthewedwards :  Chat  23:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Support, but:

• Matthew, why link "television film" and "documentary film"? These are common terms that are well-known. Worse, I see multiple tags at the top of the first, which looks like a crummy article. And they breach MOSLINK's advice about bunching. "Sheffield Doc/Fest" is the high-value link here—it's VERY hard to get readers to hit a single link, so let's be discriminating to encourage them. BBC is repeat-linked. New York Daily News is italicised, but not the preceding broadsheet title? Don't like the flags and linked country-names in the infobox (but there's no rule against it); but instead, why not simply link "Iraqi" before "schoolboys" in the top para. Could you link "video diaries" first time rather than second? "priotitise" typo. This quote: "I wanted to tell the story of Iraq in a different way", said Winter. "As journalists, we do stories about ...". It's clear that Winter is saying this, so why not remove the "said Winter"? If it's continuous in the original, fine, it's smoother; if you used the speech tag to indicate a gap in your quotation, why not use ... ellipsis dots. While on quoting technique: "generals and militants ... [who] claim to"—just remove the ellipsis points and have [who]. Then this: The Huffington Post said it that giving the video cameras to the students was an excellent idea because the depiction of their school-life versus the increasing danger was captured "with neutral equality ... the film is able to capture the interiority of its subjects more acutely than a straight-forward examination of violence would".—Glitch at start. Then the grammar of the quotation doesn't quite work in the larger sentence, specifically in the ellipsis-point gap. Replace points with [so that]. And: ""The 90-minute documentary doesn't say much about the larger issues facing Iraq, but it does capture some small and captivating human stories ... They live in"—just checking that "stories" doesn't finish a sentence in the original; if it does, you need.... to do that. Then: Perigard commented, "despite the". In the "Ten rules for writing" by Elmore Leonard, American crime fiction writer (on which he was interviewed last year on ABC Radio National), there is this advice: "Never use a verb other than 'said' to carry dialogue'. Not 'stated', not 'declared', not 'exclaimed' ". Tony (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Honório Carneiro Leão, Marquis of Paraná

Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is very well written and well sourced and I do believe it is worth of being raised to featured status. Kind regards to all. Lecen (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• I see many page ranges are still using simple hyphens rather than dashes, and a few repeated citations not grouped together but clearly in close proximity eg "Gouveia, p.276" and "Gouveia, p.278" YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—a dab link to Order of the White Eagle. No dead external links. Ucucha 06:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

—Fixed dashes, grouped citations for Gouveia, p. 276, and fixed dab for Order of the White Eagle to point to the correct article. • Astynax ^talk 08:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Ucucha 08:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note I didn't evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:05, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments: This seems like a very strong article, but I know virtually nothing about Brazilian history. I think you should notify appropriate noticeboards of this candidacy to try to entice comments from more knowledgable editors.

• The infobox says he was a member of the Liberal Party from 1830 to 1834 and a Conservative from 1834 but this is not matched by the detail in the article.
• In the lead, "conservative" is repeated twice in the same sentence and "liberalism" is described as a "conservative cause". I would find some other way of phrasing this.
• Please see MOS:LQ and check that the article follows logical punctuation.
• I find the claim that he came from an impoverished background implausible. His family were "a powerful clan"; his father was an officer in the army; he was raised by a colonel. Both his mother's and father's family were armigerous. This is a relatively well-to-do background at a time when the majority were living in uneducated squalor or slavery.
• Why did the emperor abdicate?
• Is there an easier way of phrasing: "The priest Antônio Feijó (along with Aureliano Coutinho, Carneiro Leão's former colleague at Coimbra University) planned a coup d’état in which he would assume dictatorial powers and concurrently the constitutional amendment would be passed without the approval of the National Assembly (Parliament)."
• He was elected in 1830, and "displayed no indication" of energetic leadership or strong personality but in 1831, he averted a threat by delivering four speeches in a day, and the following year he gives "the most important speech in his entire political career." So, the statement that he displayed no dynamic leadership or strong personality is proven incorrect. I think the section: "He made a discrete start...upon Brazil's fall into anarchy during the regency period." should be rephrased along the lines of:

As a member of the opposition to Emperor Dom Pedro I's government, he made a discrete start in the Chamber of Deputies,[28] primarily focusing on bureaucratic activities such as participation in parliamentary committees.[27] However, upon Brazil's fall into anarchy during the regency period of the 1830s, the energetic leadership and strong personality for which he would later become famous became apparent.[29]" (I have kept the original reference numbers, but obviously they will change)

• It is not clear what the "aftermath of restorationist troubles in Minas Gerais province" was.
• It is not clear whether the Additional Act led to decentralization or was, as the article says, "a result of" it.
• "...when they began throwing their support..": who are they? The Coimbra bloc?
• Is "he became Brazil's de facto first prime minister" in the references cited at the end of that section? How does José Antônio da Silva Maia fit in? He is listed as the emperor's principal minister 1843–4. If this is in the references given, are there any sources that contest the claim that Paraná was the first de facto prime minister?
• The article is almost wholly positive about Paraná, and the legacy section only quotes favourable interpretations of his life. Where are the unfavourable ones? DrKiernan (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, DrKiernan, thank you very much for reviewing the article. Let's answer your questions:

1. On polical parties inconsistency in the infobox: I fixed that.
2. The Conservatives evolved from the Coimbra bloc, composed of politicians who supported Liberalism. In fact, the Coimbra bloc was part of a loose coalition called "Liberal Party" (not to confuse with the later Liberal Party which is mentioned in the article) during Pedro I's reign. Since Carneiro Leão did not enter politics in those years, I did not mention it. Perhaps it could be changed from "he championed the conservative causes of his day, namely liberalism" to "he championed the Brazilian conservative causes of his day, namely liberalism"?
3. I'll ask Astynax to look ponctuation issues.
4. On Carneiro Leão's impoverished background: all sources say that. The Carneiro Leão family came from Portugal to Brazil in the 1600s and settled in three provinces: Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais and Bahia. His family branch probably became decadent and by the time of Carneiro Leão's birth it was poor. His father was 3rd Sergeant. You should take in account that the colonial Portuguese army was badly paid. A colonel rank did not mean a high salary. That is precisely the reason that most military officers in Imperial Brazil were also politicians and farmers. In fact, as you probably saw, Carneiro Leão himself was both a politician and a judge. Do you have a suggestion to what we should do in this case?
5. In 1826 King João VI of Portugal died, leaving Emperor Pedro I as the new king of Portugal (as Pedro IV of Portugal). He abdicated the crown on behalf of his eldest daughter, Maria II. However, her throne was usurped by Pedro I's younger brother, Miguel I. From 1826 to 1831 Pedro I's focus was directed toward his daughter's throne. By 1831 he was tired of having to deal with both Brazil and Portugal and went to Europe to fight against his brother. He invaded Portugal with an army of 8,000 men and defeated in 1834 his brother who had an army of 80,000 men (now that is a looong story). He died in that same year at age 35 of tuberculosis (a result of the war) but left a daughter in the Portuguese throne and a son (Pedro II) in the Brazilian throne. So, you believe we should add that to Carneiro Leão's article? I could, at most, add as a footnote something like "Pedro I departed to Europe to reclaim his daughter's throne (she was Maria II, Queen of Portugal) which had been usurped by his own brother, Miguel I."
6. On Feijó's attempt to become a dictator and pass a contitutional ammendment without the legislative process: I will ask Astynax to take a look in it.
7. His first year as a national deputy was in 1830 and was pretty much lame. He did not make any speech nor did anything that could call attention. Only in the next year, and a couple of months after Pedro I abdicated, was that he stood up and revealed his skills. And the country only suffered from rebellions after Pedro I abdicated. I sincerely can not understand why the sentence is wrong. Could you be more clear, please?
8. On the "aftermath of restorationist troubles in Minas Gerais province": sorry, it made more sense before, but I removed a paragraph that explained who were the restorationists. I will fix that.
9. "Among its provisions, were the abolition of the Council of State, and establishment of a federal national structure as a result of administrative and political provincial decentralization". I changed to "and establishment of a federal national structure resulting in administrative and political provincial decentralization"
10. Changed from "appeared when they began throwing their support" to "appeared when the Coimbra bloc (boosted with former restorationists' adhesion) began throwing their support". Better?
11. There were several "strong" ministers in Brazilian history pre-1843 who could have been themed "de facto prime ministers" such as José Bonifácio (hero of Brazilian independence and minister from 1822 to 1823) and Bernardo Pereira Vasconcelos (from 1837 to 1839 after the Araújo Lima became regent) but it was with Carneiro Leão that the practice was firmly established. After him, there was always a de facto prime minister (but the office was only officially created in 1847). José Antônio da Silva Maia was a minor member of the Coimbra bloc. Where did you see that he was a prime minister?
12. On Carneiro Leão's legacy: historian Aldo Janotti wrote that "One of the most seducing aspects of Historiography is given by the controvertial position to which historians usually take when they judge things and men from History. True historigraphic chains are formed and all of them contrary to each other. What one affirms that other strongly denies, turning it from a denial into its own affirmation, thus giving the opportunity to the appearence of a third position..." and ends with "In the Brazilian case, however, specially in relation to" Carneiro Leão, "it seems that the rule finds its exception. The Marquis of Paraná (1801-1856), from his contemporaries to later ones, men of the diverse ideas and tendences, he is unanimously accepted as the pinnacle of the historical evolution of the Empire." (p.11) I did not find critics to Carneiro Leão, beyond, however, the ones on his character, that is, his arrogancy, rudeness, acid tongue, etc... which are mentioned in the article. Unless I find a criticism, the article won't pass?

Again, thank you, --Lecen (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes, that's clearer.

2. How about removing "the conservative causes of his day, namely" so that it reads "As co-founder of the Brazilian Conservative Party,[1] he championed liberalism, ..."

3. OK.

4. Well, if all sources say that, then I can't really complain. If I were writing the article, I'd probably try to use "modest" or "humble" or something like that, but obviously you'll have to follow the sources.

5. Hmmmn. Yes, try the short footnote. I agree all the detail should be left out.

6. There's nothing wrong with the sentence per se. It's just a little long.

7. My problem with it is that expecting him to make a big splash immediately is an unrealistic expectation, and we're only talking about a 12 month quiet gap between election and fame. The way it's currently worded would indicate to me that it took him a long time to build up to his grand entry into politics, whereas actually it only took a few months.

8. Pending.

9. Thanks, it's clear to me now.

10. Yes, that's better: but I've taken out "adhesion" as it is unnecessary.

11. I saw it here: http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Brazil.html Perhaps they're confused? I see da Silva Maia was "Minister of the Empire": I'm not sure what that means. The important point is whether the claim is verifiable. As long as you can provide a reference that says he was the first, and I or anyone else cannot provide a reference to the contrary, then it's fine.

12. It should pass if it meets the criteria. If historians do universally admire him, then the article would accurately reflect established scholarship, so again it's fine.

13. One other point, I missed out earlier: in some of the succession boxes, the predecessor or successor are not known. I'd probably remove those, unless the officeholder can be identified. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Done.

2. Done. Removed the word "conservative".

3. Pending.

4. Done (I changed to "humble" background).

5. Done. I added a note. However, I'll ask Astynax to change it to a true footnote similar to as can be found in the article about Pedro II of Brazil (See: Pedro II of Brazil#Explanatory notes).

6. Pending.

7. Pending.

8. Done. I just added a small bit of information regarding the restorationist movemet. Is it better?

9. Done. Just a small mistake.

10. Done. Made the sentence more clear by adding "Coimbra bloc (boosted by... etc...)

11. Minister of the Empire is the same as Minister of Interior. It doesn't mean a higher status when compared to other ministers. There are three sources to Carneiro Leão being the first de facto prime minister: "By personally selecting the cabinet members, he became Brazil's de facto first prime minister. Prior to this, the emperor had always designated the cabinet ministers. Following on this precedent, the office of prime minister would be formally instituted four years later, under the title "President of the Council of Ministers".[98][99][100]" The [98],[99] and [100] notes are the sources. Do you want me to copy them and also put them at the end of the sentence ("he became Brazil's de facto first prime minister")?

12. Ok.

13. Done. Removed. --Lecen (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

3. Many of the quotes are translations, and the punctuation is based upon whether the quoted phrase completes the thought, rather than absolute position in the original. I've gone over the quoted material and have adjusted a few in which I could not confirm whether the ending punctuation was part of the quote.

6. I have made two sentences of the over-long sentence regarding Feijó's coup plot. Hopefully it is easier to read.

I'll work on making a section for explanatory notes. • Astynax ^talk 17:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• The 2 footnotes which contained long text explanations are now moved to a new "Explanatory notes" section. Thanks for the copyedits, they do make for easier reading. • Astynax ^talk 17:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Thank you; I would have expected history to have paid more attention to his views on slavery, and to have brought him to task for owning them, but looking through the books available to me it does look as though this is not a heavily covered area in the literature. I can only find one quote from 1850 where he says the trade should be abolished because of the British pressure. I'm satisfied that this article meets the criteria, and I would also praise the speed and willingness with which comments have been addressed. . DrKiernan (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Great article. Having read it, I can't really find anything to comment on or complain about. Bruno Ishiai (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment. This is a fine article, well-researched and painstakingly written, but I think there are some outstanding issues, though I am close to supporting.
  • Prose concerns:
    • "Paraná was appointed by the national government as president of Pernambuco province to investigate and uphold a fair trial for the rebels": the problems are in "investigate and uphold a fair trial". One doesn't investigate a trial, and "uphold" isn't right either. I suspect (from reading the body of the article) that what is meant is something like "to investigate the case against the rebels and ensure that they received a fair trial". However, even that may not be accurate: was he appointed to ensure a fair trial? Or was he appointed, upon which he took it on himself to ensure it? I think the latter is the case in which case my rephrasing is not accurate either.
    • "Unexpectedly, he died in office of an unknown disease": not a very natural phrasing; typically the adverb would not be the first word in the sentence in this case.
    • "He first lived in Paracatú then moved on to Ouro Preto, which was then called Vila Rica and was capital of Minas Gerais, where he spent his childhood and adolescence": what is the antecedent of "where"? Minas Gerais or Ouro Preto? I think the latter, parentheses would do a better job than commas at avoiding the former interpretation.

      Ouro Preto is a town in the province of Minas Gerais. Do you believe we should me more clear? The article already says that Minas Gerais is a province. --Lecen (talk) 14:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

      I guess I wasn't clear about this one. What I'm not clear about is this: did he spend his childhood in Minas Gerais? Or in Ouro Preto? Mike Christie (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

      To be more clear: one could read the sentence as saying he spent his childhood in Minas Gerais, but not necessarily all in Ouro Preto. I'd suggest either "He first lived in Paracatú then moved on to Ouro Preto, which was then called Vila Rica and was capital of Minas Gerais. It was in Ouro Preto that he spent his childhood and adolescence", or "He first lived in Paracatú then moved on to Ouro Preto, which was then called Vila Rica. Ouro Preto was the capital of Minas Gerais, where he spent his childhood and adolescence", depending on which interpretation is intended (probably the former). Mike Christie (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed that. Is it better now? --Lecen (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • I changed "discrete" to "discreet", thinking that was what was intended, but I think "modest" probably has the desired connotations.
    • "In concert with his colleagues, this prevented restriction of legal rights": I think this should at least be "the restriction", but "this" isn't appropriate after "in concert with his colleagues", which implies that the subject is a collective "they" -- he and his colleagues.
  • Other points:
    • A map would be helpful just to identify some key locations. Brazilian geography will not be well-known to most readers; a simple overview identifying the key provinces/captaincies/whatever is most relevant would be useful. User:Kmusser is often helpful with map requests and does good work, if you decide it would be worth adding a map. I would not oppose for the lack of a map -- this is just a suggestion.
    • "it was forbidden to hold both that position and retain a seat on the Council of State, of which he was a member by that time": membership of the Council of State sounds more important than his other roles; should we not have heard in more detail about his membership of the Council before this? And shouldn't some details at least be given at this point, if not before?
    • the "Moderate Party" is first mentioned in the paragraph on the Coimbra bloc, without identification -- are these the same as the Nativists? Similarly the "restorationists" are first mentioned here. Reading on, I think the restorationists are in fact the Nativists, but that's not at all clear.
    • In the section "Party's leader in the Chamber of Deputies" I would reorder the sequence: you have Feijó assuming office at the start of the paragraph, with the rest of the paragraph functioning as a flashback. I think this is needlessly disorienting.
    • You have some quotes directly from the historians that I think are unnecessary and could be paraphrased. I understand they are often pithy and apposite but quoting in this way should be done sparingly, and there are too many, though they are appropriate in the "Legacy" section.
    • Why did the Coimbra bloc's ascension to power mark the demise of the Moderate Party? I must be missing something here.
    • 'This group would evolve during the 1840s into the "Liberal Party"': Why is "Liberal Party" in quotes? Same question for "Courtier faction" a few sentences later.
    • "Carneiro Leão showed preference for his co-religionists when filling cabinet positions" -- this is the first mention of religion. (I assumed they were all Catholic.) What does this mean?
    • "In January 1844 the president requested the dismissal of the inspector of the Rio de Janeiro customs house": but according to the preceding paragraph the title "president" isn't adopted until four years later.
• Incidentally, if you want to interleave your replies with mine, that's fine; I see you responded after Dr K's comments above, but it might be easier if you indented your replies in turn after my comments. Either way will work for me.

-- Mike Christie (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Mike, for taking your time to review the article. I mean it. I will not interleave my replies with your remarks because since there are two editors (myself and Astynax) working in this article, I want to avoid the questions and replies becoming a mess. Also, I'd like to tell you that anything related to grammar, spelling or similar ask Astynax. Anything that has to do with the subject, I'm the person! So, I will leave your remarks about grammar unanswered (if you don't mind) and leave it to Astynax.

That works. I'm going to intersperse my replies to your comments below; I hope that's OK. Then if there is more to say you can start a fresh list below, as you did for Dr. K. Mike Christie (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Mike: was he appointed to ensure a fair trial? Or was he appointed, upon which he took it on himself to ensure it? I think the latter is the case in which case my rephrasing is not accurate either.

As the president of the province (that is, governor of state), Carneiro Leão was supposed to keep a close eye on the justice system to check if the rebels would get a fair trial. Is not that he had any kind of power to do anything for real.

It's much improved, but I think one more little tweak is necessary. Currently the lead implies that he was appointed to urge a fair trial; that is, that it was the intention of the appointment that he should urge it. Unless the sources specifically say that I would suggest changing it to "... investigate the matter; he urged that" which removes the implication. Mike Christie (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Mike: "it was forbidden to hold both that position and retain a seat on the Council of State, of which he was a member by that time": membership of the Council of State sounds more important than his other roles; should we not have heard in more detail about his membership of the Council before this? And shouldn't some details at least be given at this point, if not before?"

That's because it is mentioned that he was named for a seat in the Council of State in section "Against the Liberal rebellions of 1842".

OK. I see the later explanation doesn't give a precise date, but it appears his appointment was between November 1841 and May 1842. Could we change the earlier sentence to "to which he was appointed in 1841" (or 1842 if appropriate)? Mike Christie (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I got it. I only mentioned the recreation of the Council of State, not the date in which he was appointed. --Lecen (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was reading the book and the author is not clear on that. Certainly he was named among the 10 who were chosen as councilors to the recreated Council of State. I presume the list with the nominations was released along with the law that recreated it. Anyway, what do you propose? --Lecen (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Then let's just leave it as it is. I've struck my comment above. Mike Christie (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Mike: "the "Moderate Party" is first mentioned in the paragraph on the Coimbra bloc, without identification -- are these the same as the Nativists? Similarly the "restorationists" are first mentioned here. Reading on, I think the restorationists are in fact the Nativists, but that's not at all clear."

My mistake. The alliance between the Coimbra bloc and the Nativists was called "Moderate Party". In one of my edits I must have erased that. I added it back. Everything will make more sense now.

That resolves it. Mike Christie (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Mike: "you have Feijó assuming office at the start of the paragraph, with the rest of the paragraph functioning as a flashback. I think this is needlessly disorienting."

I'll ask Astynax to take a look in it.

Mike: "You have some quotes directly from the historians that I think are unnecessary and could be paraphrased. I understand they are often pithy and apposite but quoting in this way should be done sparingly, and there are too many, though they are appropriate in the "Legacy" section."

I'll ask Astynax to take a look in it.

Now OK. Mike Christie (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Mike: "Why did the Coimbra bloc's ascension to power mark the demise of the Moderate Party? I must be missing something here."

Also my mistake. The "Moderate Party" is the name given to the loose coalition formed by Nativists (led by the priest Feijó) and the Coimbra bloc (led by Carneiro Leão). Since I did not make that clear before, it looked weird here. The Coimbra bloc was against Feijó and his Nativists' coup in 1832. With Feijó's election as regent in 1834, the division between them only grew. In 1837 they managed to remove Feijó from office bringing the final and true split between the Coimbra bloc and the Nativists. Or in other words, the end of the Moderate Party.

OK -- the earlier clarification makes this completely clear. Mike Christie (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Mike: "Carneiro Leão showed preference for his co-religionists when filling cabinet positions"

My mistake. I should have written "co-party members". That is, he called only members of the Conservative Party. That's nothing to do with religion. Fixed that.

OK. Mike Christie (talk) 12:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Mike: "but according to the preceding paragraph the title "president" isn't adopted until four years later."

You are correct, but historians (as can be seen in the article) consider him the first de facto Brazilian Prime Minister. Although not called "president" then, we took the liberty to do that. Similar to "Byzantine Empire": the Eastern Roman Empire never called itself as such and that was a name created centurie after it disappeared. Even so, historians call it "Byzantine Empire". However, I changed it for "he".

OK. Mike Christie (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I am very tired now and I know I left a few questions unanswered. I promise I'll do that first thing in the morning. Once gain, thank you, Mike. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Reply: I have edited the article to address your comments and suggestions in the "Prose concerns" section of your comments. I've also added a map showing the provinces in 1822 (feel free to substitute a better map). • Astynax ^talk 07:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have also reduced the number of quotations from historians outside the Legacy section. I have left alone quotations from Paraná, Pedro II and other figures. • Astynax ^talk 09:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

  I've struck both those comments. Mike Christie (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

More comments:

• The notes are inconsistent about the use of dates; Barman is given as "Barman (1999)", but Janotti doesn't get a date, even though in both cases there is only one reference work. There are two by Carvalho so the date is necessary there. I would suggest either adding dates to everything or dropping them from everything except Carvalho.
• This isn't something I'd oppose on, but it's not necessary to link the footnotes and references into a single section, as you have done under the title "Bibliography". See WP:FOOTERS, which suggests that sub-sectioning these end sections is undesirable. Mike Christie (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

  That's because most articles related to the history of Brazil as an Empire share pieces of information and sources. For example, some of the information that was written here was taken from "History of the Empire of Brazil", where 3 books written by Barman are used as sources. Is "Barman (1999)" really an issue? --Lecen (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

  No, I wouldn't oppose on either of the issues above; they're just suggestions. Two more questions below:

• The lead mentions his exceptionalism, which is not explicitly discussed in the article; I think it should be made clearer in the body of the article where his views are thought of as exceptionalist.
• There is a picture here in pt.wikipedia that seems to be freely licensed and might be useful; any reason not to use it?

At this point, the issues remaining are minor enough that I am changing to support, though I'd still like to see the prose tweaks suggested above. Mike Christie (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It meant that Brazil should pursuit its own course, that is, a Portuguese-speaking parliamentary monarchy unlike its Hispanic-American Presidential Republic neighbors. That should be added to the main body of th text? --Lecen (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of what's in the body of the article, so yes, if it's worth mentioning in the lead, it should be somewhere in the body. Mike Christie (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Done that, is it better? --Lecen (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that does it. Mike Christie (talk) 11:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason I did not add that photograph is because I have no way of proving its reliability. I don't know if I can really trust it and believe that is indeed a pciture of a house Carneiro Leão lived in 1832. --Lecen (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Prose needs cleansing, although nearly there. Can you find someone unfamiliar with the text to go right through it? I've looked at the top:

1. Overlinking: why are all of those words linked in the opening sentence? statesman, diplomat, judge and monarchist. I think by now we know what a representative, parliamentary democracy is. Commonplace. The useful links are being drowned out. Why is Brazil linked twice again in the infobox, just after the more specific town-name? Dictatorship? Politician? Roman catholic? And you couldn't write a stub for the two red links in the infobox, could you?
2. "He first lived in Paracatú then moved on to Ouro Preto, which was then called Vila Rica." Why the italics for the last item? Remove "which was".
3. "exercised great efforts"—ugly. "made"?
4. "received a bachelor's degree in Law in 1824, and after another year of study, on 18 June 1825, earned a Master's diploma." Received and earned ... he didn't work for the first one? Remove "after another year of study,". Are you looking for redundant wording? Please see these exercises.
5. "he supported the constitutionalists against the absolutists"—do we find out what these politics were? Even briefly wound into the sentence?
6. Why is "processing plant" piped, and why to "factory" (is this useful for readers, or just more dilution of high-value links)?
7. "Between 1831 and 1832 only, six uprisings occurred in Rio de Janeiro, the country's capital." The only is odd. "In 1831 and 1832 alone, there were six ....". Tony (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• The items 1–7 noted have been fixed per your good suggestions. • Astynax ^talk 09:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)