Knowledge

:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2011 - Knowledge

Source 📝

December 2011

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 11:07, 24 December 2011 .


Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. Mark Hanna. Political advisor, senator from Ohio, power behind the throne (maybe) in the McKinley administration. Perhaps more to the point entering this campaign season, his 1896 campaign for McKinley was in many ways the first modern political campaign. Come and lose yourself in the strange but familiar politics of the 1890s.Wehwalt (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments. The sources all appear to be of high quality. I assume Croly's still good 100 years on. I hope you don't mind if I list comments here and add to them day-by-day as I work through the article. I'm afraid I don't have the time for one sitting. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

  • "In 1869, he was elected to the Cleveland Board of Education, but he attended less than half the meetings at a time when he was traveling for business a great deal." This is a rather ugly sentence in an otherwise pretty section. I've already changed "less" to "fewer".
  • There's a gaping hole between the first two paragraphs of the "Aspiring kingmaker (1880–1888)" section, as if the second paragraph is missing an opening sentence.
  • "Congressman Garfield, who ran a front porch campaign". Is "Congressman" necessary?
  • "Hanna, according to his biographer Croly..." Should this and the following two sentences have an inline cite to Croly?
  • "Hanna supported Sherman because the candidate favored the gold standard, understood and acted to solve the problems of business, and because he was from Ohio." A couple of comments: (1) did Sherman actually understand and act to solve the problems of business, or was that merely Hanna's belief; (2) the second "because" seems out of place.
I would not throw a 1912 biography past the community without being comfortable with it. There is a discussion of Croly's book in Horner at pages 23 to 26. Croly was selected by Hanna's family, but he was a reputable biographer and it was written as part of an overall biographical series of major figures. I link to the discussion here. As Hanna's family destroyed his papers after Croly was done, Croly is the biographer who had the most information about Hanna. Croly is cited by Horner and other more modern works on Hanna, such as Stern's book. Yes, please feel free to work as you feel comfortable, it is a long article, but there is no alternative to considerable exposition if the reader is to understand why Hanna acted as he did. And there is no way to avoid talking about McKinley's actions as he sought the presidency, because you can't disconnect from Hanna, he was right there. I will look at your specific points. I do tend to overuse titles in an article like this, because it is difficult, but important to keep straight the changing titles of people who were advancing in life and politics just like Hanna was.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Re Sherman, from page 32 of Horner: "The presidential candidates he supported most energetically, Senator John Sherman and William McKinley, felt similarly to Hanna on the business issues he wanted the Republican Party to adopt." Horner is contrasting the Republican practice of "waving the bloody flag", which was the standard technique in late 19th century elections, blaming the Democrats for the Civil War. Hanna got tired of it sooner than many.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I've addressed the other things as well. If I don't reply to something, it means I've accepted your point. However, there is sometimes a slip between cup and lip so you might want to keep track of my changes. Thank you for your comments; I look forward to more.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "With McKinley’s candidacy needing little of his attention, Hanna spent much of his time working to secure..." Very picky, but this sentence says "secure" twice.
  • "They observed McKinley as the Ohio governor presided over.." presiding?
  • Some quotes are curly, others are straight, sometimes in the same quote (eg. “If Mr. Hanna has covered every district in the United States...). The same goes for apostrophes. The things that matter :)
I wrote part of this on board the cruise ship, and since they charge for internet by the minute, in my word processor. I did not realize that it was coming across as curly quotes.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "a nomination the Populist Party soon joined in." placement of preposition (end of sentence)?
  • "Among those who visited were Bryan himself, accompanied by his defeated rival, Bland" should "were" be "was"?
  • "Silver Republicans" who had bolted the party at the convention or later received nothing. This isn't a complete sentence.
  • "Although Hanna was reputed to have control of the administration's patronage". would "reputed to control" suffice?
  • "Over 250 officers and men were killed." Officers aren't men?
Short for enlisted men. If I just said men, readers with military knowledge would wonder why I did not include the officers.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "With no drama, Hanna was re-elected in January 1904 for the term 1905—1911" en dash?
Support Good interesting read; high-quality sources; comprehensive and detailed; the right balance between coverage of Hanna's life and coverage of the political history of which he was so intimately a part. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, I did not notice your final comments and will work through them.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
They are done now.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate your removing the spaces from between the punctuation and the reference. I will know in the future to look out for those.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Missing citation info for Hobson
  • There appears to be a formatting problem with FN 173
  • Page number for File:Hanna_1877.png? File:Man_of_Mark.png?
  • File:William-Jennings-Bryan-speaking-c1896.jpeg: verify date. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your thorough comments; I thought I would get away clean this time! I don't have a page number on the Man of Mark image. Just the 8/4/1896 date for the Journal. The rest are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: I did a long peer review for this impressive article, which provided me with a useful seminar on late 19th century political history. No doubt a few more tweaks around the edges will benefit it, but as it stands I am confident that it meets the criteria. Great work. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for the reviews and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: Very interesting, detailed and well-written article on a subject I am not overly familiar with. As Brian says above it is probably over the line already, but I had a quick flick through anyway and made two very minor edits to the prose, which you can see in the article history (I have – for a change, some would say – given care to leave detailed edit summaries). Very good work, which meets the criteria and more. I am very happy to support. —Cliftonian 19:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the praise and the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Alt text: Good thing I checked. There was none. To save you the bother I have written alt text for all of the images; I hope it meets with your approval. —Cliftonian 20:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Would some of the folks who reviewed prose here please explain the use of "in around" to me?

Taken in around 1877

Wouldn't that be better phrased as "Taken about 1877"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I've fallen behind a little on my Milhist FACs while I'm putting energy into WP:FACG, the Guild's FAQ request page, but I'll get to this one today. "Mark Hanna, around 1877" is more common than "Mark Hanna, taken around 1877", and I made the edit. On the question of whether to put a preposition in front of "about", which I've struggled with myself, Garner's says: "at about. This phrase is sometimes criticized as a Redundancy, the argument being that about can often do the work by itself. It often can, but in many contexts, especially those involving expressions of time, the phrase at about is common, idiomatic, and unimpeachable." - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I am content either way.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I have never seen "at about" followed by a year, or by anything other than a specific time, e.g "at about 10 o'clock". "At about 1877" seems like an aberration; can you cite any such thing in respectable prose? Brianboulton (talk) 23:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree, "around 1877" (as I mentioned above), but "at about 10 o'clock". My only point was that prepositions are sometimes permitted before "about". - Dank (push to talk) 23:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Support:

  • In "Nominating McKinley," you say that "McKinley was nominated easily." Does that mean on the first ballot? Did any other candidates receive votes?
  • "Currency question": I think you explain the question well, except for the point that the gold standard actually resulted in deflation from about 1875 to 1900. It wasn't just that debtors wanted cheap money, but that they wanted money to stop getting more expensive. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
McKinley was nominated on the first ballot. The people I mentioned all received votes (Quay, Morton, Reed), as did Senator Allison of Iowa. It wasn't particularly close. McKinley was in full control of the convention, except for the 22 delegates who walked out. As for the money question, I'd prefer to avoid getting into the whole question of deflation. Just give the thumbnail and move on, I would say.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
That's a good point. I've been forced down that path (usually by FA reviewers) and it does no one any good. Changed to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the review and support. Yes, boiling an economics that no one understands today down to a few sentences makes me want to make sure it is bulletproof and avoid side issues. If you feel strongly on either point please engage me on article talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 11:07, 24 December 2011 .

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC), Mdk572 (talk · contribs)

Mdk572 (talk · contribs) and I have been buffing this article for a bit. It's got just about everything content-wise and formatted out. Prose has been tweaked here and there and I think it's in line with other featured bird articles. Have at it. There are two of us nomming so we should deal with comments double-quick :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
Marj got 'em Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Not following the page notation on FN 5 - translation please?
Clarified citation of a plate in an unpaginated work Marj (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Marj aligned them Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Least Concern — Is this normally italicised in bird articles?
In my experience (limited) see White-bellied Sea Eagle Marj (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Certhia — is it worth mentioning that this is because of an assumed relationship to the treecreepers?
Added Marj (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • 0.3 birds per hectare (2.5 acres) — Surely the parenthetical bit should be the more helpful "birds per acre" (0.12 I make it) rather than just telling us how many acres to a hectare.
Changed both to convert birds not acres. Marj (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • London, United Kingdom — a bit too American for my liking, also inconsistent with Oz publishers which are given as "Queensland" etc rather than "Australia". For major cities like London, Brisbane, Melbourne, this style is a bit too reminiscent of "Paris, France" for my British taste Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
You're saying Paris isn't in Texas? Will go through the refs. Marj (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC) Left ststes for Kenmore Hills and East Roseville, removed them from London, Paris Sydney. Marj (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
looks good so far. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Support Finished. The text all reads fine to me now. --99of9 (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thanks :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Phylidonyris_pyrrhopterus_male.jpg: I got an error message trying to load the source, can you verify? This also applies to File:Crescent_Honeyeater_Male.jpg and File:Phylidonyris_pyrrhopterus_-_Austin's_Ferry.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The photographer is JJ Harrison (talk · contribs) who used to be known as "Noodle snacks", so is an active editor. Not sure why his personal website is down but not sure that impacts greatly on state of play as he uploaded them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Noodle snacks is the old username of User:JJ Harrison, who is a prolific contributor of own work on Commons. So this is own work, and the copyright release is fine. The URL is not provided as a source, but as his preferred attribution, but obviously it's down at the moment which he may or may not know about. --99of9 (talk) 04:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support A concern I often raise regarding articles on Knowledge is their general lack of readability. One must be an expert on the topic to benefit from the article; sometimes the outcome of the FA process as authors are pushed into greater technicality and detail to satisfy the experts in field. However, I found this article to be most clear and other than a minor concern over song flights (addressed on the talk page), I feel I leave with a solid understanding of our feathered friend. It addresses all the questions that a non-expert as myself may have regarding the natural history, morphology, and taxonomy of this bird. Assuming it meets the technical requirements; I feel confident the prose and content represent the highest of standards.--JimmyButler (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thanks for that - and thanks for queries on the talk page. Looking into them. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 11:07, 24 December 2011 .

Nominator(s): Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is safe to bring it back to FAC after three peer reviews, two failed FACs, and one copy-edit by by an experienced copy-editor. Most importantly, "Single Ladies" documents one of the most culturally significant pop songs of the decade... Many people around the world know this song for its catchy hook and its viral dance video. The fact that it is still in the top 400 of US iTunes nearly four years after its release in late 2008, further supports what I mentioned. I will be very happy to make the corrections needed. You help and suggestions are most welcome. With that being said, "Help me put an FA icon on it". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

  • "All the singing ladies, all the singing fellas " - don't need that ellipsis
done I have removed it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 4: do you have an album ID or catalog number?
Well, i cannot understand why you are asking me about this? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Album numbers are a good thing to include where possible as they make the source easier to locate. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I do not have a physical copy. Can i ask someone else or it is necessary that i own one? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to ask someone else. You might also be able to find that info online. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
It is 0088697417352. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Cool, could you add it to the citation? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers
May I remove all the locations? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
done I have removed all the locations to maintain consistency. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for newspaper, and if so how these are notated. Compare for example FNs 31 and 33
Well, this is difficult to do. Simply because it depends on whether I use cite web or cite news. The Times is a magazine, which means I should use cite web while The Guardian is a daily newspaper, which implies i have to use cite news. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
done I have removed the locations and checked for correct usage of cite news and cite web. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
True. I have fixed that.Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
Can you please exemplified this? I actually did not understand. Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I think i have done this but i am not confident. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?
Billy Johnson (Yahoo!) is an experienced music writer, writing in Black Voice News and Rap Sheet Newspaper, Vibe, The Source, Entertainment Weekly and the Hollywood Reporter. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Please provide the FN. This has over 200 references. Actually, the website is down temporarily. I started feeling dizzy searching for it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Urlesque is an entertainment magazine, part of The Huffington Post and owned by AOL. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Need a bit more. What are the author's qualifications, and what is the magazine's editorial policy? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Nikki, what exactly do i need to provide? Things like where the author has worked before? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
These are all i could find. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 08:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Urlesque has been replaced everywhere. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I have removed this reference along with its associated prose. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Mark Edward Nero (About.com) has written in The San Diego Union-Tribune, Los Angeles Daily News, The Boston Globe and Pasadena Star-News. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Comic Book Resources has been described as "the premiere comics-related site on the Web" by by the University of Buffalo's research library. It is also the favored research and news site on comics and graphic novels by American Libraries and Universities. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I have replaced this. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • FN 44: this doesn't match the formatting used for earlier Billboard refs
I replaced cite news with cite web. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Check wikilinking for consistency
done Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Avoid using leading zeroes (ex. FN 85)
Good? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in how you format TV episodes
Please explain further. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I think i have done this but i am not confident. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Not quite. You have two citations to TV shows: one with season/episode at the beginning, one with it at the end. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Please provide me with the FNs. Please. Jivesh1205 (Talk)12:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Currently FNs 126 and 168. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Please check now. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Publisher listed for this source seems to be incorrect.
done I have replaced this. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Some notes: Jivesh boodhun, please read the WP:FAC instructions and refrain from using "done" marks. Also, please revisit WP:WIG and your sig, which makes this FAC utterly dreadful to view. On an article's third time at FAC, we should not still be seeing a long list of reliability of sources and MOS issues-- presumably, by the third time through, these kinds of things should be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Greetings Sandy. I will change my signature temporarily. By the way, the sources i have defended above were already defended in the first and second FAC. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: Not sure why a whole sub-section is devoted to Kanyegate, which is very, very tangentially related to this song. Also, avoid single-paragraph sub-sections and lists such as "Australia, Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom", especially in the lead ("Many countries" will suffice). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indopug (talk • contribs) 20:07, 22 November 2011

With all respect i owe to you, did you read that paragraph and did you know what happened at the VMAs in 2009? Do you know about the coverage it received?
I don't see why i should avoid "avoid single-paragraph sub-sections"? Do you think it is better to present a whole lot of information under a same section? Our aim on Knowledge is to facilitate reading. That is why we have sub-sections.
And it is better to list the countries that way. Do you realize saying many countries will be confusing? What if people start thinking that the song made the top 10 in Europe when that's not the case? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Did you write "very, very tangentially related to this song"? Well, let me explain now:

While Taylor Swift was making her acceptance speech for winning Best Female Video for "You Belong with Me", Kanye West got onto the stage and interrupted her; he took her microphone, saying: "Yo, Taylor, I'm really happy for you and I'mma let you finish, but Beyoncé had one of the best videos of all time. One of the best videos of all time!", referring to the music video of "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)". Angered, he flipped off the crowd. His behavior was not appreciated at all. Celebrities, bloggers, newspapers, and even U.S. President Barack Obama complained. This whole situation, which has a direction connection with "Single Ladies", was termed as Kanyegate. You can go on Google any type Kanyegate and see the number of articles that will appear. All of them will mention "Single Ladies". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Support — I read the article a few times and really impressed me with all that information that it possesses. From the concept, recording and release to the composition, critical section and etc. I also had a look at the references, but as I seem there is also not a problem with them. The only thing that I found slightly disturbing is the repeating of "Single Ladies" in the lead. Instead it could be use, the song, the single or eventually it. All in all the prose is good. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I will address your concerns shortly. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. Please check. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
All in all good, but you could also change this:
Hmmm, i think it should remain as such because i previously mentioned "Single Ladies" as The song and then listed a number of countries, followed by the use of a connective and. So, just to avoid confusion, it better remain like that. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Well it's obvious that you are talking about "Single Ladies", but nevertheless ... my support still remains — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose on issues with prose, layout, and media. - As I told you before, in all good faith the prose is still rough and shall I say sloppy.

  • Writers in the infobox are credited with birth names.
Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Critics praised the song for its smooth production and noted its aural similarities to Knowles' 2007 single 'Get Me Bodied'." – What is "smooth production"?
Let me quote the seventh edition of Oxford dictionary. Smooth in a musical context means: nice to hear, and without any rough or unpleasant sounds. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "As of November 2009, 'Single Ladies' had sold over 6.1 million copies worldwide." – November 2009? It's been two years.
Well, the sales have not been updated. Is that a problem? If yes, may i know why?Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
If there has been no update since, then I will not question it. —WP:PENGUIN · 11:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The song's accompanying music video, directed by Jake Nava, was shot entirely in black-and-white." – I do not see that use of "entirely". Without the word, it means exactly the same thing.
Done. Jivesh1205 (Talk)
Well, it s done but i feel i need to explain why i put that word. Actually, during the I Am... Sasha Fierce era, several videos were shot in black and white but not all of them wore shot entirely in black and white. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "People from around the world have parodied and imitated the routine, including US President Barack Obama and pop artists Justin Timberlake and Joe Jonas." – Similar thing here; "from around the world" is just exhausted. I suggest the sentence be re-worded like: "There have been parodies and imitations of the routing by people such as US President Barack Obama and singers Justin Timerblake and Joe Jonas."
Wait, "by people such as US President Barack Obama and singers Justin Timerblake and Joe Jonas"... that seems as if only celebrities did the routine. Pardon me but it does not read well. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Nevertheless, i attempted to rephrase it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "According to the Toronto Star, the music video started the 'first major dance craze' of the internet age." – Why do you have a specific quote in the WP:LEAD, which is supposedly a general overview of the topic?
Please have a look at the first and second peer reviews and the previous FACs. Such mentions (similar to worldwide sales) have to be sourced in the lead. I hope that was what you are referring to. If ever it was to this, "'first major dance craze' of the internet age", i hope you know that the dance craze "Single Ladies" started is not just an overview of the song. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
If i remember well, the lead has been criticized many times for being lengthy and over-detailed. In the first and second GAN, the peer reviews, editors posting on my talk-page and i think even in one of the FACs. So please, with all respect oi owe to you, do not expect me to re-write the lead. Because every time it is the same thing, someone say A, the other one says Z. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The video won several awards, including Video of the Year at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards." – Is it important to say in the lead which year ceremony the video won the award? Can't we just way "The video won several awards, including the MTV Video Music Award for Video of the Year." Maybe throw in a few other amazing achievements into the sentence as well?
Yes it is. Simply because the song did not win awards only in 2009. Please help me with this, "a few other amazing achievements"... A few examples? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Artists such as Katy Perry have covered "Single Ladies", and television shows and other media have used it." – Could you expand on other cover artists?
Expand but why? Please explain. As you said previously the lead is just an overview and the word overview fits here best because the covers did not really receive the attention that the song itself received. They were just covers. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't like quotes from specific publications in the lead. I don't see the problem listing a few other artists who have covered the song. Maybe two more? —WP:PENGUIN · 11:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Overall, the lead looks a bit dry as a summary. It focuses little on the lyrical meaning and production.
I have responded to this above. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Passive voice is overused in the Background and release section. "Was produced by" this, "was written by" that. It is much preferable to say "This wrote the song, which that produced."
  • Your use of quotations in this section is too much. The flow is disruptive and there is little original prose, sorry.
Okay. I will try to do this. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. Please check and let me know if you are satisfied by how it is now. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • There are awkward formations such as "Speaking about marriage, The-Dream said". They need to be re-worded so that you do not use both "speak" and "say". Otherwise, just cut "Speaking about marriage".
These will be taken care of soon. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "It appears on the second disc of I Am... Sasha Fierce because Knowles portrays her alter ego, Sasha Fierce, in the song." – What appears? Using "this" is awkward and rather unencyclopedic; it also does a bad job specifying what is being referred to. "This reinforced the theme of the album" What is "this"?
It means releasing two singles simultaneously, each taken from either discs. So do i need to replace this by what i wrote? Don't you think it it will be repetitive? Jivesh1205 (Talk)
Iunderstand what it means. I don't like the use of "it" here. Why not "The song"? Note: Do not say "The single" because it does not make sense for a single to appear on a disc, it can appear as a disc though. —WP:PENGUIN · 11:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "'Single Ladies' contains musical similarities to Knowles' 2007 single "Get Me Bodied"; Andy Kellman of Allmusic called "Single Ladies" a "dire throwback" of that song." – A sentence that can easily be condensed. "'Single Ladies', according to Andy Kellman of Almusic, is a "dire throwback" of Knowles' 2007 single "Get Me Bodied"."
To tell you frankly, the first sentence helps me to understand what the second sentence means because i am not a native speaker of English. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "what responds to" – What does that mean? I'm not looking for a reply, I want you to paraphrase the quote so that it is better understandable.
Hmm how am i supposed to do that. I left it like that because of the source. Please read the article from People magazine. Jivesh1205 (Talk)> 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The song has been compared to schoolyard chants, and has been said to feature "playground vocals"." – By who exactly?
Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Remember you should also be trying to shorten sentences as much as possible without loosing meaning, and make the prose dense. You can do this by re-wording or taking out redundant words that are too vague to give added meaning. (ex various, a number of, multiple, from around the world, etc.)
Excuse me but my English teachers say quite the contrary. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course, different communities and organizations have a different perspective on this, But here on Knowledge, making wordy prose ruins the flow. You will see strong copy editors like Baffle gab trying to "condense and clarify text". —WP:PENGUIN · 11:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • What in the world is "danceability" and is it even a real word?
Will dance beat be a good replacement? Or "ability to urge people to dance"? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
"dance beat" sounds good. —WP:PENGUIN · 11:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The Background section in Music video is awfully small and I question its raison d'etre as a standalone subsection.
I am merging it with concept. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Music video screenshot needs fair use rationale to be expanded.
With all respect i owe to you, it is more than enough. Please have a look at the PRs. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Can you get a bit more detailed than "To demonstrate the use of J-setting choreography in the music video"? FAC is different from PR, Jivesh. Havea look at File:4MinutesVideo(G3).PNG.
Oops, my sincere apologies. I just realize what you really meant. I did not understand at first that it was in fact here that i needed to improve the rationale. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Like a reviewer above, why does Kanyegate need its own section? The info can stay, but I really don't see the need for a subsection. It looks really cluttered.
I will not remove this. If i remove Kanyegate, the whole incident will fall directly into the Response and accolades section. Do you realize that it will be hard to find the ideal place to fit that because you need to understand that it was not a common kind of response. It is not every year (i have not written everyday because i am trying to be reasonable) that Mr X will get on the stage and interrupt Miss Y; saying: "Yo, Miss Y, I'm really happy for you and I'mma let you finish, but Mrs Z had one of the best videos of all time. One of the best videos of all time!". Is it clearer now? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 02:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the problem removing this. You could then say where the word "Kanyegate" came from? Right now, it's just not pretty.

I understand with such a long article it is hard to polish it to perfection, but that is the only way you will get a featured article. Note that all prose issues I have listed were only from sections up to Composition. Thorough copy editing is required. —WP:PENGUIN · 22:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well i understand but this is discouraging. Every time, i am told the same thing. It has already received several copy-edits. I have responded to all your issues above. Except the Background and release section which will be re-written soon. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The copy edits should have been more thorough. And you can have several of them and still not satisfy the criteria. At FAC, if we see prose issues, we will definitely bring it up simply for the best of the article. —WP:PENGUIN · 11:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I have resolved all the issues except the quote in the lead, which i strongly believe should remain as such. There is nothing wrong in having a quote in the lead. Please do not get me wrong but ever since since this article has been nominated, whether it was for its numerous PRs, GANs, FACs, it has always been condensed. This time, nothing more will be removed. It has already lost more than 22 Kb. Jivesh1205 (Talk)> 11:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning in the lead (just to give the third paragraph more volume) that SL remained at number one on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart for twelve consecutive weeks. I believe such things do not happen very often even tough it is just the R&B chart. But if you think it is not necessary, then i won't. By the way, i just expanded the lead a bit more. I tried my my maximum to follow "Love the Way You Lie" but you know, "Single Ladies" does not have so much information about recording and/or production because most often, Beyonce does not talk about her songs nor she lets her producers or writers talk about them. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

And will i have to remove Main article: Kanyegate as well? Penguin, i still do not understand why we need to remove it. I mean, it received so much coverage. That incident prompted more people to watch the video. It was notable enough to merit its own article on Knowledge. And look at the sub-title, it is Response and accolades. It will look horrible if merged directly. Imagine someone knowing absolutely nothing about music, Beyonce, Kanye West or Taylor Swift reading the article. Having that section tiled as it is right now, will help the viewer to understand what impact that the incident left and coverage it received. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Fine, the heading stays. :) I still do not understand what's is so important about the quote that it has to be in the lead... —WP:PENGUIN · 15:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, you know it was not a quote before but i was told to change it to a quote + add a source to that. The one who reviewed it, could not believe that "Single Ladies" had really had that impact as he knew nothing about music. Look at what he wrote. That's why i always say that when we write a song article, especially one that had a cultural impact (like "Single Ladies"), we should keep in mind that not everyone may have across the song or its video (for various reasons). So, sometimes it is better to quote and cite. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:49, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment - The article has improved thanks to the well-done copy edits. I have struck through my Oppose and am looking forward to support this article eventually. Further input from other reviewers is always appreciated. One question; I am uncertain about why the image in the Chart performance section was moved. Thanks, —WP:PENGUIN · 18:57, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The copy-editor asked me clarify the US chart run. I had to add three more sentences and that completely disrupted the structure of the article, mainly because of the image placement. That's why i moved it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I have taken a look at the previous revision, and it looked fine. What do you mean when you say "completely disrupted the structure of the article"? Maybe a re-sizing to the default could help? —WP:PENGUIN · 19:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I have done it the way you want. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
So, you will support only if more people support? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I will do what I did at "Rehab" and try and make as many fixes myself until I reach the point at which I can do no more, Then I feel that it is ready and will support. Won't take time. By the end of this weekend hopefully. —WP:PENGUIN · 20:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Support - My issues have been addressed, article has been thoroughly copy-edited and the prose is looking much better. I will be happy to see this article one day at the main page for all readers to celebrate the music revolution known as "Single Ladies". —WP:PENGUIN · 20:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm back now. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
@Penguin, since i have fixed all your issues apart from that 'another thorough copy-edit' one, is there a possibility you may change your opinion if SL gets another c/e? I read the article two times on Thursday and did whatever i could but i do not know if it is satisfactory (according to you). Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
It depends on the copy edit. If I am satisfied with the prose (which will not be easy), I may change my opinion. 'Till then, my oppose stands strong, sorry. —WP:PENGUIN · 19:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

So am i right to consider that you opposes only on the prose? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see atm, yes. —WP:PENGUIN · 19:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Penguin, the article is being copy-edited. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments I will post some comments before I decide Support or Oppose, as I can't go through the entire article right this minute.

  • FN1: Billboard and PGM need to be wiki-linked
Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • FN38: Yahoo! linking needed.
Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • FN55: Shows as Time Inc.. (two full stops). Remove it from the parameter.
Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • FN111: Publisher?
Calvin, it is a press release. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • FN115: Shows as Time Inc.. (two full stops). Remove it from the parameter.
Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • FN146: Shows as Time Inc.. (two full stops). Remove it from the parameter.
Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "A sample of "Single Ladies (Put A Ring on It)," a dance-pop" → There is a double space there.
Fixed. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
This was mentioned in the first FAC and it has been removed where necessary. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I would change "Commercial reception" to "Chart performance", it seems more appropriate to use that title.
I prefer to leave it like that because this was the title proposed. It was Chart performance previously. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think Critical reception and Commercial reception work well. Calvin • 17:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I am changing it then. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "while wearing her roboglove, and pointed to the glove as she sang the song's chorus." Why is this so notable in this performance? She does it in every performance.
Well not really. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
She always points to her ring at the end of the performance and during the middle. Calvin • 17:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
She does not always wear the roboglove Calvin. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Really? I've always seen her wear it. Calvin • 17:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Search for each performance on YouTube. She does not always wear it though she never forgets the ring. After all, it is her wedding ring. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "the line "Put a Ring on It"" Technically it's a lyric, this is a music article.
Well, i don't understand you here. They used that line where the ring is the female condom and the 'it', well you what it is. Lol. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Female condom?!!? I mean't change "line" to "lyric". Calvin • 17:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Ahh okay. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
How on earth did you arrive at female condom?!?! haha. Calvin • 17:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's why i understood. It was a campaign for women. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Calvin • 14:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I have read the article and to be honest, I can't see anything else wrong with it. This song deserves to be an FA due to the impact it's had as well as its success, and the information in the article clearly provides this information to a high level of competence and coherence. Only four points to address from me now, but you have my Support.

Support Calvin • 16:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

@Penguin, the article is being copy-edited though the copy-editor himself told me that there is not much to b e done here. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm done, and I've left a few notes on your talk page for the remaining things I think need to be dealt with. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Support I can't see any problems regarding prose, or any other aspects pertaining to FA criteria. Happy to support. --Sp33dyphil © • © 09:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Two Hearted River''(paddle /fish) 22:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

–Comprehensive/amount of detail
  • Nothing is said about the recording of the song. There are a few sentences about its writing, one sentence about Knowles' not wearing a ring while recording it, and then it's released. As the subject of this article is a recorded song, I don't see how the article can be called comprehensive (FA criterion #1b) without some discussion of the song's recording.
  • Do we need to know that this song swapped chart positions with "Live Your Life" a couple times? Why isn't it enough to summarize, as done in the next sentence, that the song was at #1 for four non-consecutive weeks?
  • I don't see any problem in commentary about a song's commercial performance. It is interesting from a reader's point-of-view how a song went up-and-down a chart. Let's face it, general public lives for commentary, not overt technical details. Jivesh, keep this information. — Legolas 09:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • How does knowledge of when Knowles first, and later, wore the roboglove further the reader's understanding of this song?
  • How does knowledge of what Knowles was wearing in various live performances further the reader's understanding of this song?
  • I guarantee you that there will be people who are wondering what Beyonce was wearing during her performances, so I don't think it would hurt if the information regarding her performance apparel was included.--Sp33dyphil © • © 02:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
–Prose issues (not exhaustive):
  • "The-Dream was inspired to compose the song as it explores an issue that affected many people's relationships: the fear or unwillingness of men to commit." – Suggests to this reader that if a song is to explore men's fear of commitment, one couldn't help but be inspired when writing it.
  • Please explain and if possible use shorter sentences. Did you mean that there should be something like according to him?
  • No, that didn't change the meaning. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but surely you didn't mean it the way I read it. Did you mean that Knowles' marriage inspired The-Dream to compose a song about an issue that affected...? That would make sense. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Lots of critical comments creep into the Composition section, which is distracting. In fact, almost everything after the first 5.5 sentences ought to be moved to the Critical reception section. Noting the lyrical theme is fine, but that should be summarized without quotation instead of rattling off a bunch of critics' characterizations of the theme.
  • Composition sections for recent songs are crafted using material from critical reviews. It is preferable to quote to avoid copyvio issues as i have been told numerous times in the past. And frankly, i don't see how i can fit those pieces of information into a critical reception section. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Again, THR I have to agree with Jivesh. These are not mere pedestrians commenting about the song, these are well-respected critics who have opined about the composition. — Legolas 09:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Interesting that you say that, because my point is that the writing style treats their characterizations as just some people's opinions that we don't want to stand behind, which is less respect than they deserve. This section would work much better if the source material were synthesized and written in the editor's own words, without naming the writers but with citations to back it up. The last sentence of the second paragraph is how the entire section should be written. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Did you write without naming the writers? But that would be like stealing from them. I have done this in the past and in less than a day, i saw someone adding by who templates at the end of each sentence. I don't want that to happen again., And whoever did that was article as that avoids copyvio issues. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The music video for "Single Ladies" was shot immediately after that of "If I Were a Boy", to reinforce the concept of conflicting personalities..." – Is it the filming date proximity or the release date proximity that reinforces the concept?
  • Should we go by what the source says? Every time one video from I Am... and another one from Sasha Fiercewere shot immediately one after the other though they weren't always released at the same time. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "with whom Knowles had worked on her previous music videos" – the inclusion of "her" suggests that Nava was the only person to have directed Knowles' videos to that point
  • "they were released to major outlets on the same date" – What constitutes a "major outlet"? Was the video released to minor outlets later? What constitutes a minor outlet? Are there minor outlets?
  • Okay, now I'd like you to replace "outlets" altogether in the name of clarity (and lest the reader think you mean outlet store). My guess is that "outlets" means TV networks and perhaps certain websites but not brick-and-mortar/internet retailers where a physical/digital copy could be purchased. Is that right? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I am changing it to media outlets. No need to complicate things. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "She explained that it was shot without numerous different camera shots..." – "numerous different" as opposed to "numerous same"? How about just "multiple"?
  • "One of the most viral videos..." – There are levels of viral?
  • "...it addresses a serious issue that women experience everyday" – "everyday" is an adjective
  • ""Live Your Life" by T.I. featuring Rihanna climbed the top spot of he Hot 100 chart issue dated December 20, 2011." –spot the error
–Fair use issues:
  • A music sample is not necessary to illustrate the corresponding caption.
  • Really? Frankly, i would have never known what robotic effects feel like to the ears. Nor would i have known what a song compromising of R&B, dance-pop, and bounce as well as dancehall influences altogether may sound like. I don't see how the reader will understand the prose fully without the music sample. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The boxed quote from Ann Powers is excessive and doesn't really further our understanding of the theme of the song beyond what's written elsewhere in the article.
  • With all the respect i owe to you, that analysis is simply perfect. Please read it again. What is easy for you may not be easy for everyone else, especially youngsters who have just began discovering music. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Same with the second boxed quote.
–MOS issues (not exhaustive):
  • In American English, ", " constructions not ending a sentence require a comma after . (", " constructions do, as well.)
  • Inconsistency in the Chart section: "number 72", "number twenty-eight". Check throughout.
  • Please see WP:ORDINAL. "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either '5 cats and 32 dogs' or 'five cats and thirty-two dogs', not 'five cats and 32 dogs.'" (A must) It also says "numbers greater than nine are commonly rendered in numerals, or in words if they are expressed in one or two words". (Editorial preference). --Sp33dyphil © • ©02:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
":*Thanks for this. I have fixed them. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
THR is right in this case Sp33dyphil. WP:ORDINAL does not apply here. — Legolas 09:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • There are quoted phrases in successive sentences and only one citation at the end of the series. I believe citations are required after every quotation.
  • "American rock band, A Rocket to the Moon, covered..." – commas not warranted here
  • – order numerically
–References that don't support the text (not exhaustive):
,
  • What do you specifically want? Should i add in the sense that the dance steps of Knowles her two female dancers were similar to those of Gwen Verdon and her two female dancers? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The reference doesn't mention bloggers at all, so you can't use it to back up a sentence about bloggers.
–Text not supported by references (not exhaustive):
  • "However, the main intention is to attract the viewers' attention toward their hands and ring fingers."
  • The quoted claim from Miklós Jancsó Scott Cudmore (which is misattributed to Kate Carraway in the article, as is the source article in the reference) that this video inspired people to seek out artful music videos seems dubious. How could one draw that conclusion?
  • I wonder how the author changed when i archived that source. I don't see anything dubious. It is very easy to understand. "Single Ladies" was inspired by "Mexican Breakfast". As a result, people (especially youngsters) searched for "Mexican Breakfast after having watched "Single Ladies". Evidently, after watching MB, they would want to watch other artful music videos. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, with all the respect i owe to you, who are you to question what he said? Do you think Eye Weekly is has no editorial policy and is unprofessional to the point to publish any nonsense people will say? Try to think about it with a cool mind mind. You are stressing on the matter too much. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Who am I? I'm a person with a brain. Reputable sources need not establish the veracity of every statement they wish to quote before printing it. (Here's one from The New York Times today: "'Congressman Jackson acted honorably at all times and did not violate any House rule or federal law in connection with the Senate appointment process,' the letter says.") Consider my original question. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The internet has really changed the way people make music videos. Beyoncé’s video for ‘All The Single Ladies,’ for example, broke out on the internet and made people consciously look for music videos because of its art. The music video is a format that allows for a lot of experimentation, but it’s a very young medium of film that’s disappearing, at least from the mainstream public eye.

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't believe Cudmore has any basis for saying the "Single Ladies" video "made people consciously look for music videos because of its art". Three facts would need to be established: 1) that people were consciously looking for videos at the time, 2) that "art" was the driving force for the previous fact, and 3) that "Single Ladies" was the catalyst for it all. The second and third are impossible to prove absent a survey or maybe some highly detailed YouTube statistics, and I'll eat my hat if the former exists or if Cudmore were privy to the latter. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I can see everything is here

YouTube killed the video star. Yet Toronto director Scott Cudmore has a plan. They Shoot Videos, Don’t They? a bi-monthly music-video screening series debuting July 9 at Trinity-Bellwoods gallery 107 Shaw (107 Shaw), features some of video’s best and brightest auteurs — most of them Canadian — proving that the art form can live on long after Michel Gondry and Spike Jonze take to bigger screens.

The internet has really changed the way people make music videos,” says Cudmore, whose films for Timber Timbre, The National and Brian Borcherdt boast a wintry melancholia that recalls Hungarian filmmaker Miklós Jancsó. “Beyoncé’s video for ‘All The Single Ladies,’ for example, broke out on the internet and made people consciously look for music videos because of its art. The music video is a format that allows for a lot of experimentation, but it’s a very young medium of film that’s disappearing, at least from the mainstream public eye.”

  • Wait, who told you that Comprehensive/amount of detail is about details. Here it says, it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. How do you want me to get details that do not exist on the web? Do you how many times i have contacted Columbia records and Beyonce on her official website. But they won't reveal the details. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I have explained the fair use and i still cannot understand how you can figure out what robotic effects are. Don't just think about yourself. Also think of others who will read this article and will not understand what robotic effects are. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Legolas
  • Another point Jivesh, the image of Kanye is simply not needed. Its not a major section of the article, and Kanyegate has its own issues. The image simply overlaps and disrupts two free flowing sections. I would strongly recommend removing it.
  • "It has a basic chord progression of Em–C–Em in the verses, and Em–C–Am–C–Am in the chorus" – That's not exactly a basic chord progression is it. I would recommend removing the word "basic".
  • Kinda hung-up sentences like "Nick Levine of Digital Spy particularly lauded its beats" --> Readers are left wondering how did he laud and what beat?
  • The recognition and accolades section needs to be separated into what it is. Recognition "and" Accolades. At present you have two paras devoted to recognition while the third starts with awards. Merge the first two for a clearer picture.
  • Please substitute that (ugh) Twitter link.
  • When you are mentioning certifications, you have to mention the shipment for which the song received it.
  • During her tour in Melbourne, Australia, on August 13, 2010, Katy Perry performed "Single Ladies" --> Which tour?
  • song as part of Billboard magazine's --> the word magazine is unnecessary here.
  • Regarding the cover versions, that whole section appears pretty stale. Can you try to find some critical info regarding those covers? At present it looks like a WP:DIRECTORY.
  • Come to think of it, Trish Crawford's commentary on the impact can really be changed into prose and merged into the first para of the Cultural impact section. It really does seem unnecessary to put it in the quote box.
  • The quote paints a powerful picture of people from many age groups performing the "Single Ladies" dance, which is a distinctive aspect of the song. @Legolas Do you mind if I trim the quote to half its current size? --Sp33dyphil © • © 10:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, i think what he wants is for it to be "changed into prose". Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, a cultural impact and legacy section loses its weight if the prose part is less and the quote box part is huge which was the case here. That's why I asked to change it into prose or shorten the box. You removed it altogether? — Legolas 17:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think much text was removed. Should we add the quote box back then? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything about the Glee performance in their concert added to the prose. So what is that image doing there?
  • Legolas, most often, we learn about covers through YouTube and you know better than me how difficult it is at times to find reliable references to source the covers. In all the sources i have (all are reliable), the reviewers do not leave a single critical commentary worth mentioning. Click on them one by one, you will see. What should i do then? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • If you can't any sources, I suggest removing the photo. 10:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That's all at present. I will look for more later. — Legolas 09:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Support – I think all my issues are addressed plus the article has grown much and reads like an ideal FA for Knowledge. Best, — Legolas 09:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Leaning to Oppose Comments Oppose
For reasons that I cannot keep up with Jivesh's pace, I am changing this to "comments" only. --Efe (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • If the quotation is factual, better paraphrase and get the most essential. Regarding the video for "Single Ladies", Knowles said, "Out of all my videos, it was the least expensive and took the least amount of time. And it ended up being the most iconic. I just wanted to keep this one really minimal. But once we got on the set, it was like, wait a minute. This is something special." --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Second paragraph under "Response and accolades" is read like the staccato notes towards the end of her song "I Care". Its not written well, doesn't flow well. Needs trimming perhaps and transitions? --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • What are transitions? Can you help me because frankly, three copy-editors and I have done our best to make that section look good. The list is too long and we cannot help it. I will really appreciate if you help. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • This is really a piecemeal list, and it's difficult to present such things well if each entry gets its own sentence. I've tried a different way of presenting it. What do you think? This issue arises quite often in popular music articles, so it would be good to know if this works or what else might. --Stfg (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Very verbose structure: Knowles said that she wanted to keep the video simple. She explained that it was shot without numerous different camera shots and cuts, without alterations to hairstyles, costumes, sets or lighting. She focused only on the performance. --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I get the viewpoint of Nava, or whoever is quoted here: He deliberately used lengthy shots so that viewers "would connect with the human endeavor of Beyoncé's awe-inspiring dance". --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Simply because it is the best place to include it. The plot of the video (synopsis) has a direct connection to it. It is one of the many styles to which the dance routine exposes the viewer. There is no better place it could be. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 19:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of COIs and POVish quotations here: "Nava later wrote to MTV, stating: "I don't think any of us predicted the amount of parodies it would attract. It's a testament to Beyoncé's mind-boggling talent and to the fact that sometimes, less really can be more."" Of course Nava would always promote the interest of the artist. --Efe (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I partly reformulated this. But i definitely agree and won't remove that it is a testament to Beyoncé's talent. What guarantee do you have that if Mariah Carey, Lady GaGa, Katy Perry or Rihanna was in the place of Beyonce, the video would have had the same impact? And Mark, the video may seem simple to you but that choreography is very hard to tackle. I bet that any of the four artists i mentioned above could have never done that choreography. And it is not for nothing that so many reliable sources credit Beyonce as one of the best dancers (i mean singers who also dance). Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
We are not talking about Beyonce's talent here. Just focus on the facts. Not anyone else's opinion, much less those not disinterested to the subject in question. Nava is the director. --Efe (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • We are not talking about Beyonce's talent, are you sure? Then whose... Nava? Was he dancing in the video? Would the video have existed without someone dancing in it? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes we are not. That introduces POV. And as I have said, do not introduce opinions by "interested" parties. --Efe (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • In all honesty, I think Mark is correct. The article is not supposed to focus on Beyoncé's general "talent", but the song itself or its video. The article must be neutral and focused. "I don't think any of us predicted the amount of parodies it would attract" is enough. —WP:PENGUIN · 15:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • No, i don't think so. You are trying to remove something which is sourced. Why? Because according to you he is biased. For me, this (what you think) is a WP:POV because your opinion cannot be sourced. What about MTV News? Do you think they are biased and have no proper editorial policy? But i am removing it for peace and as evident as it is , you will never agree with me and i will never agree with you. Nevertheless, i am removing it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:08, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Jivesh, I again would like to repeat and reestablish my point that quoting somebody who is INTERESTED to the subject introduces biases, unless critics agree. Even so, we handle it with so much care so as not to breach anything around here. WP:RS and WP:NPOV are interrelated in some respect, but are completely independent from each other. Just because Nava's statement is sourced by Rolling Stone, MTV News or Time Magazine doesn't exempt it from being biased. --Efe (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Additional comments
  • The section "composition" is poorly written. I don't understand why almost every song article has this chord progression stuff when it doesn't even add value to the section as a whole. Just a passing through of that single fact, which is very technical to average readers. --Efe (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry Mark but i think it is not to be removed. I know i should not cite other examples as that will fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. To tell you frankly, i do not understand a single word here... set in common time. ... Morse code beeps. According to the sheet music published at Musicnotes.com by Sony/ATV Music Publishing, "Single Ladies" is written in the key of E major with a moderate groove of 96 beats per minute. Knowles' vocals range from the note of F♯3 to D5. but that does not mean i should cut off those sentences. It sure is a technical term but is that a valid reason for removing it? Having such term may motivate people to open their dictionaries or learn more about music just for the sake of understanding what was written here. Think about this from a broader view. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Remove those not very important, or those which do not give value to the readers. --Efe (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Efe, you seem to think none of our readers can read music, or know even very basic musical terms. In fact these are very common skills, and those who don't have them can just skip. I hope not much of this material has been removed, as it all "gives value". Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Introducing POV: "Knowles displays much attitude in her voice", "Knowles emphasizes her more aggressive and sensual side, her alter ego Sasha Fierce". This needs attribution. Who said these? --Efe (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • An attribution added to this Knowles emphasizes her more aggressive and sensual side, her alter ego Sasha Fierce will be an inappropriate thing to do as it is obvious Knowles is doing that. It has already been explained in the Background and release section. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 13:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. The article is going somewhere, but I still see so much issues. --Efe (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

  • "showcasing the contrast between Knowles' persona as herself and her aggressive onstage alter ego Sasha Fierce." I think we also need to add something about her "persona as herself"? Parallelism should be applied here because her alter ego is being described. --Efe (talk) 11:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • And what do you think should be added? If you are suggesting it, I assume that you have an idea as well... because to me Knowles as herself is more than clear and easy to understand. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
More clearer to you as a Beyonce fan. How those not so fanatic about her? Do you think they are getting the point you are trying to convey? What is in her self that is being portrayed??? --Efe (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Obviously not. But I was looking for and interested in "arrangement", because its a technical and broad term, and I don't get what do we mean by beat's arrangement. Its like the word is taken literally. --Efe (talk) 15:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
It has been corrected. Okay. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I still feel some of the facts are littered with POVish additions or the way it is presented. For example in this sentence: "Knowles' marriage inspired The-Dream to compose a song about an issue that affected many people's relationships: the fear or unwillingness of men to commit." It seems it is being presented as a general fact, agreed by the majority. I suggest rephrasing this as to convey it as something that is an opinion of the composer. --Efe (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Listen to me now., I cannot add something which is not in the source. I can all add information which is in the source. So please do not ask for impossible things per the rules of Knowledge. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 15:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not asking what is not found in the source. What I am trying to say is that the fact is being conveyed as being a general truth. The source just quoted the composer, and therefore should be paraphrased here as his own opinion about the issue, to which people might have different take. --Efe (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I am wondering why there is such no ample discussion about Knowles as herself, except in the lead. Why Sasha Fierce is discussed heavily. --Efe (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • With all the respect I owe to you, you are asking for too much. This article is about a song not about I Am... Sasha Fierce. You can go there to find more details about Knowles as herself. Coming to the song again, it concerns Sasha Fierce and that's why Sasha Fierce is discussed here. This is not "If I Were a Boy". 15:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Balancing is just what I asking Jivesh, as much as I want to have that portion in the lead to have parallelism. --Efe (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • What parallelism are you bringing over and over again? I asked for your help but you did not even propose something while all the other reviewers have helped me so much. Why aren't you suggesting something? Efe, don't you think you are weighing too much of your personal opinion in this article? I cannot, in fact, no one can write an article the way you want it o be. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • What makes this important? "At the 2008 World Music Awards in Monaco, Knowles performed "Single Ladies" while wearing her roboglove, and pointed to the glove as she sang the song's chorus." And what about her pointing to the glove? --Efe (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Have you ever watched the video? What does Beyonce wear in the video? What does she do in the video? Do you think she does the same thing in all her live performances? And please read everything before posting. All these things have already been discussed above. Please, this is a humble request. You are repeating the same points over and over again and this FAC is getting longer for nothing new. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Gained attention? And where do I need to put that? In the lead? If that was you you meant, a NO will be my answer. A lead is only supposed to summarize the content of an article, not to give particular attention to only one parody. You are indirectly encouraging favoritism here. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Discussing a well-known parody is actually a good way to show the song's lasting cultural legacy. A mention in the lead is probably overkill, but something towards the end of Reception - or whatever section best described the song's lasting impact - wouldn't go amiss. {{cite video}} would work. It will probably only give one more sentence and not seem like it is worth adding, but SNL is a fairly big show so a parody by them is pretty notable and a good indicator of lasting notability. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • But the fact remains that all this information is in the article already. Please read it. Melicans, if i understand well, you are telling me to write a description of the performance. But you know, the video itself is very simple. It does not even have a story line. It is only about dancing, hip shaking, wrist twist and jazz hands. So, the word parody is more than enough. A parody in other words means an imitation. And what did they imitate? It was the dance. It cannot be described. Frankly, tell me yourself... what will I describe in the dance? The way they were dancing? Well that will be very tricky. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I'm afraid I omitted part of response when I was typing it (I seem to do that a lot, thinking something in my head and then forgetting to actually say it). With the above I only meant that it should be included if it wasn't already being mentioned (which now that I re-read the article, I see that it is). Taking a second look at Efe's comments, I think that by "gaining attention" he means it received a lot of discussion (from music journalists, from pundits, commentary from Colbert or the like); though again, if I am incorrect in this guess, please correct me! If there is any mention out there on her performance and the parody it would be a good thing to include. Live reception is more than useable, especially if she was in on the joke. Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, if any exists. Based on the links you showed me, I think a little background on the skit could easily be added. It just helps to give a little more detail on what went into it; a more complete picture if you prefer that phrase (I think I do, XP). Melicans (talk, contributions) 07:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "and its deployment of jazz hands with a wrist twist". Why is this mentioned on the legacy section, and not on the analysis of the video? --Efe (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "It has been credited with starting the "first major dance craze of both the new millennium and the Internet"," I think this is where the attribution (Toronto) is best added. I personally removed the one in the lead. --Efe (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • If I'm interpreting Efe's comment right (and Efe, please correct me if I am wrong)... I think what is being asked is what aspects of those songs are being compared. It isn't enough to say that it has been compared. Put simply, why are the critics comparing them? That information should be in the reviews themselves and easy to find.
For an example, here is how the comparisons are discussed in "City of Blinding Lights": The sound of "City of Blinding Lights" has been compared to U2's 1987 single "Where the Streets Have No Name", prompted by a similar style of guitar playing, as well as to the atmospheric tone of the band's 1984 album The Unforgettable Fire. The melding of guitar and piano in the introduction was likened by the Edmonton Journal to the Coldplay song "Clocks". Rolling Stone described the song as "building into a bittersweet lament", while Uncut said it was "beautiful but slightly sinister", comparing the quality of the lyrics to the George Harrison song "The Inner Light".
I hope that this explanation and example help. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Support (after these are addressed or are replied).

  • Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't the first sentence of the lead be "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" is a song by American R&B recording artist Beyoncé Knowles from her third studio album, I Am... Sasha Fierce (2008).?
  • Otherwise the lead is well-written and flows very well. The infobox for Length should be in {{duration}} template.
  • Can you please do i for me? I cannot understand. 17:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • For the Released, I see no country listed there; however, in the "Background and release" section the release reads The singles debuted on US radio on October 8, 2008 and Both singles were added to rhythmic contemporary radio playlists on October 12, 2008.
  • Also in this section, what does this mean? "Single Ladies" did so on mainstream urban New York radio station Power 105.1.
  • Aren't all publications supposed to be italicized? If so, Slant Magazine isn't in italics in the "Composition" section. That's all for now.

Good luck with this nomination and happy holidays, Jonayo! 15:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I wish you and everybody here the same. Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. This has no doubt been a tough gig for Jivesh, and to be honest I had no great hopes for it when I first looked at it. But a lot of work has been done since then, and I now believe the article to be a worthy example of its type. Malleus Fatuorum 06:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. I've read the article several times and I couldn't find any mistakes. A very nice article. Nice job. My love is love (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Support, with just a few minor corrections/suggestions:

  • In the lede, Composed by Stewart, The-Dream, Kuk Harrell and Knowles... – Stewart who? Christopher Stewart?
  • I know dealing with people's stage names and real names is hard, but it's a little confusing in the lede and "Background and release" sections. Could you do one of these the first time names like that are mentioned: Christopher "Tricky" Stewart, Terius "The-Dream" Nash, etc.?
  • Not sure if anyone else has mentioned this already, but you might want to add a reference to and a sentence about the minor scandal that broke out when a group of pre-teen girls covered the video. That generated quite a bit of buzz in the news. The most logical place I can see for it is in the "Parodies" section, though it actually wasn't a parody (and some of the other stuff in there doesn't seem entirely parodic to me, either... maybe "Parodies and homages"?). I'd be happy to add it in if the author is currently too frazzled fixing the 500 other suggested corrections :)

Great work and good luck! Accedie 07:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Sure fell free to help. I am a bit overloaded. I was told to remove that incident and just summarize it as such. Reviewers told me to add it only if the girls one day become singers. However, tell me yourself... should i add it? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, I'm sorry, I missed that in this long, long thread. Yes, I think it's definitely as notable as the baby parodies! I'll just stick it in there, and if anybody complains, feel free to remove. Accedie 07:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Support per Malleus. Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Leaning towards Support Hi Jivesh, very good article. A few smallish comments:

  • I'm not a big fan of the ", as stated by so-and-so" structure. It doesn't seem very elegant to me. I edited one, about Sarah Liss and the CBC, but I noticed two or three more cases of it: "She displays much attitude in her voice, as stated by Nick Levine of Digital Spy."; "Knowles goes out to celebrate with her crew in a club, where she is snaring a new man, but her old one is watching, and the song is directed to him, as commented by Powers."; "On the bridge, Knowles affirms that she wants her new love interest "to make like a prince and grab her, delivering her to 'a destiny, to infinity and beyond'" while "Prince Charming is left standing there like the second lead in a romantic comedy, Beyoncé lets her new guy sweep her off her feet", as noted by Powers." If nobody else objects to this structure, I won't insist, but all things considered, I think it'd be better if it was changed.
  • Very good point. This point is repeatedly brought about. Well, I do not know whether you usually edit music articles (preferably material released after the 2000s). I will not change it. Let me explain. When we write music articles, we have to take care of mentioning each and every attributions. This is what I have learned through all the articles I have been promoting since 2009. Actually when we do not attribute, some editors (I do not know them personally but I can assure you that they are very quick at noticing such things), leave {{by who}} templates through the article where attributions are missing. Music articles are different; they are NOT written the same way other articles are. (Well this is obvious, right?) We rely 75% on critical commentaries to write them (recent ones). Since we do not own those critical commentaries, we have to attribute them appropriately. The rest (mainly chart performance has a major weighing in the remaining percentage) are independent of what critics write. Even if I change it as per your comments, the nine other reviewers who have supported my FAC will not appreciate it. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the way the attribution is presented could improve it. Instead of " of ", try varying the way it is presented. I know attribution is particularly annoying when it comes to music articles, but there are little ways to tweak it. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I wasn't proposing you remove the attribution altogether (and, yes, I do regularly work on music articles, and I know how that attributions are important). I was just saying maybe they could be reworded. For the Sarah Liss one, I rewrote it as "The instrumentation includes a bass drum, a keyboard and spaced out synthesizers which occasionally zoom in and out; one commentator, Sarah Liss of CBC News, noted that their arrangement surprisingly comes as light, instead of dense." By using the semi-colon, and starting with the vague phrase "one commentator" (but still attributing the commentator) the emphasis is still on the idea rather than the person saying it, which is what I think you probably want. I'm not proposing that you change all of them to this exact structure, because that would get repetitive, too, I'm just agreeing with Melicans that with a little creativity, there are other ways to express the same idea and keep the right emphasis. Right now I have to do some other stuff, but maybe later today I can try to have another look at the three other instances and see if I can reword some of them effectively. If you don't like my new version, you can always revert them. :-) Moisejp (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't end up coming up with anything better for those three lines, and now that I read them again, they don't bother me as much as they did. Anyhow, I am changing my Leaning to Support to Support. This is an excellent article, which covers the topic very thoroughly and contains really good prose. Moisejp (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Greg Kot of the Chicago Tribune noted that the lyrics reflect "post-breakup" situations." Would this line be better moved to after the "call and response" one, to where other sentences are talking about break-up?
  • No, simply because before doing a break-down of how the song proceeds, we have to mention the general points, among which is the lyrical meaning of the song. In this case, it is post-breakup situations. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Of course it is but he did not comment much. This how we get to construct an article about song. I mean we have to use a large number of references and make things connect without ruining the flow. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Like Melicans, the first time I read it I was also wondering if that quote was necessary. It doesn't seem to flow (in the spot where it is at least) and it doesn't seem to add much. It would be easy enough to remove. Moisejp (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I've got to leave the computer right now, but I might have one or two more small comments to add later. Moisejp (talk) 15:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'm not sure if this has already been brought up in the discussion above and I missed it, but should the Parodies section maybe be called Parodies and Imitations? It doesn't seem like everything in the section is about parodies per se. Moisejp (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Accedie had suggested something similar above—that we rename the section to something along the lines of "Parodies and homages". I agree that not all the acts were necessarily parodies or mocks. —WP:PENGUIN · 03:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, WP: Penguin. I thought I maybe remembered seeing something about that before but I guess I didn't look hard enough for it just now. Moisejp (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
No problem. :-) —WP:PENGUIN · 11:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: "on May 31, 2011, Matthew Raymond-Barker sang the song on the seventh prime in live of the second series of the X Factor France." I assume "on the seventh prime" is a phrase used in X Factor? How about "in live"? Should that just be "live"? Moisejp (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I present my heartfelt thanks to everyone who helped me. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment Pretty much ready to support, but given that the lyrics give an unusually coherent story for a pop song, the lead should say more than "the song explores men's unwillingness to commit". The section below should be expanded with some more quoting of the lyrics. Too many journalists are credited in the main text, rather than footnotes, for my taste. For example, do we need the "authority" in the text for: "According to a critic for the Daily Mail, in the second verse, Knowles "urges women to dump their boyfriends if they don't propose", and tells her ex-lover that, as he did not attempt to make things more permanent when he had the chance, he has no reason to complain now that she has found someone else."? The 2nd part is referenced to someone else anyway. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi. I cannot make extensive use of lyrics because they are copyrighted and that would be knowingly committing a copyvio. I can remove the attributions. I have no problem with that. But every time I do it, bots place {{by who}} templates on the article. We do not own those critical commentaries and that's why we need to attribute. Can you suggest something that could be added to the lead about the lyrical content? Everyone seems satisfied with how it is at the moment. What specifically do you want me to add? Hmm, a suggestion please... :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I changed a bit. In a piece this long, you would be able to make more use than you do of quotation for the purpose of commentary without breach of copyright. The lyrics seem rather more ambiguous than you say - whether the former lover is wholly rejected is unclear in the "Don't treat me ...." section, but you need sources. Johnbod (talk) 22:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't treat me to the things of the world / I'm not that kind of girl / Your love is what I prefer, what I deserve / Is a man that makes me, then takes me / And delivers me to a destiny, to infinity and beyond / Pull me into your arms / 'Say I'm the one you own / If you don't, you'll be alone / And like a ghost, I'll be gone

The lines are directed to her former love interest. She is telling him about the kind of lover she wants. But I did not find a reliable source for the first three lines. But I have sources for the last six lines and they are in the composition section. Please... this is a humble request. Don't ask me to put things which I cannot source. This goes against Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep your hair on. How do I know that you can't source them? Can I predict that none of the numbskull pop "critics" have performed a basic textual analysis? There is a pretty clear ambiguity as to who "Your" and "you" are, and what he is supposed to do, but as you say that needs sources. Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Listen I am totally unaware of what Keep your hair on could mean. And if you ever thought I was being rude, then I am sorry. I was not trying to be rude. To tell you frankly, there is no ambiguity. It just depends on how many songs you listen... What type of song you listen to... if you are familiar with the artist, etc. And the analysis you are talking about... Well this is something I have told in the past. Every article has its own style in which it is written. When you write a music article, there is only a very small chance that you will have a source which will do an entire composition analysis. Most of the time, we have it for old songs... that also in books. And "Single Ladies" is not old yet. I did my best to take one line from this source, one line from there and so on in order to make things connect. I cannot do more unless I can find another source. But there is none. I mean, there are many sources but they are blogs. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
"Keep your hair on" is an idiom that means don't get over-excited or upset, nothing more. I know this has been a tough FAC for you, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it restarted, but faint heart never won fair lady. Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Do song lyrics need to be sourced? Aren't they analogous to the plot section of a novel, in that they're the source for themselves? Malleus Fatuorum 16:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Lyrics are copyrighted. They should not only be sourced but also very limited usage of lyrics (quoting) should be made. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Support The article is not perfect, but I think meets the FA criteria. Johnbod (talk) 14:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


Media review
  • Infobox image has detailed rationale and is acceptable for use.
  • File:Tricky.jpg was produced by the uploader, so is fine.
  • File:Singleladies.ogg - I'm not too picky, but if the file could be reduced to 64 Kbps, then it would be nice for compliance with WP:SAMPLE. Length looks good. Source should be I Am...Sasha Fierce, not "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)".
  • Penguin... look at all the attempts of the editor. He/She really tried but it was in vain. It is already lowest quality. It can be lower... She did it but the sound quality was full of accentuation and unpleasant noises. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It's okay. It can be lowered but is very difficult and sound quality is messed up. I think a 4 KBps higher quality won't hurt. I just raised the issue so that if it was possible, it could be done. Thanks for trying anyway, Moisejp. :) —WP:

PENGUIN · 10:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

  • All other images look fine as well.

—WP:PENGUIN · 21:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

  • All concerns have been addressed.

—WP:PENGUIN · 10:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick additional note; I'd say that the rationale on File:Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) screenshot.jpg isn't quite there yet. Could the purpose be expanded a little to tie it in with the text? What's the image showing, and what part of the text does it illustrate? There seems to be a very good case for the image, but the rationale isn't quite 100%. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Greetings. How is it now? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Better. I'd say that the key to writing a strong explanation of the purpose of an image is to tie it to the text- say what is said in the article, and how that cannot be fully understood without the picture. I'm happy with that rationale, and the images generally, but it's a good thing to know. If you can't tie the image into the text that way, it's more than likely that it's not needed. J Milburn (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh thank you. I am happy to see some positive notes. :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 11:07, 24 December 2011 .

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 01:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is one of the major highways in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. There isn't anything flashy about this roadway, but I think that the article is ready for review here. (P.S., my copy of the article from The Daily Mining Gazette lacks a page number, however the Portage Lake District Library in Houghton, MI, has been contacted to see what page it was on in the print edition.) Imzadi 1979 → 01:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

  • I cannot convince FN 3 to load on my computer - can you confirm that it works on yours, and if it is a multi-page source (I can't tell) can you specify page number?
  • FN 69: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose' see Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates/U.S. Route 2 in Michigan/archive1#Coordinates discussion Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support — I am one of five editors who reviewed this article through WP:USRD's A-class Review process. This article fulfills all of the Featured Article criteria. If there are any remaining issues, I am confident they are minor and Imzadi1979 will ably correct them.  VC  22:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Respectfully, I disagree with Imzadi1979. WP:FACR starts "A featured article exemplifies our very best work' and 1(c) continues "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". Emphasis sources plural. Because we obviously can easy do much more and IMO better than the infobox map, the openmaps link, and the textual description, by the use of {{coord}} and {{GeoGroupTemplate}} which link to multiple RS maps, we should. It is incomprehensible to me that we would deliberately not take the opportunity to link to this diversity of rich sources, and promote this as an article that exemplifies our very best work. Under what part of "best" in a web environment is "deliberately not linking to some of the best sources around" found? Where will we find a user base thankful or happy that they can't view this structure on GoogleMaps or Bing or their preferred map provider? Only if an aim of this FAC is to deliberately and needlessly frustrate or dismay segments of our readership should this be promoted. At the risk of boring you, I will oppose each road article FAC having the same issue as this one. I appreciate your view may differ from mine; there we go. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Replying, but 1(c) doesn't apply. Adding coordinates to the article is not adding sources as I previously explained. In fact, I'd be curious to know which "high-quality reliable sources" out there would give specific coordinate data for this highway. MDOT doesn't include coordinate data in their Physical Reference Finder Application. The only line of latitude on their printed map is 45°N, and the map omits longitude completely. Google Maps, which is used in the article only for satellite views, is notoriously unreliable. Case in point, they marked Interstate 296 on their mapping service for a number of months earlier this year, even though MDOT removed the I-296 signs from the freeway c. 1979–80, and they've marked U.S. Route 30 across the United States as a Quebec highway. Other online mapping services suffer similar issues with quality, and in general I don't use them as a source for Knowledge articles beyond the satellite views. OpenStreetMap can't be used for a source on Knowledge because it is user-generated, although it can be an external link. I can't measure the coordinates myself with a GPS receiver because that is original research.
      If you wanted to use criterion 1(b), which deals with comprehensiveness, you still fail to convince me, or others, that failing to add any coordinates makes this article less comprehensive. Between the map used in the article, the full text of the "Route description" section and the photographs displayed, any readers should be able to find US 2 on a map. We are not required to add external links to the article. In fact, we're not required to add ISBN/ISSN/OCLC/etc numbers to citations, let alone required to use citation templates. Yes, ISBN/ISSN/OCLC/etc numbers make it easier for readers to find the book/magazine/etc at their local library, but that's not a requirement of FAs. Coordinates are in the same league. Sorry, I won't be adding coordinates, and there's no positive requirement to do so. Imzadi 1979 → 20:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Several editors went through this article at the ACR stage and all the problems they found have been resolved. Meets all the criteria. --Rschen7754 21:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I am one of the aforementioned editors who did a thorough check of the article at the ACR stage. It meets the FAC criteria. –Fredddie™ 22:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I recently reviewed the article at an A-class review and I am satisfied that it meets FA criteria. Royalbroil 05:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments Oppose (1(a). I am sure that the article is comprehensive and technically accurate, but the prose is not yet of featured standard. There are instances of clumsy phrasing, repetition, redundancies and occasional dodgy grammar; the following examples come from only the first quarter of the text, and it is likely that similar problems will arise in the rest:-

Lead
  • Problematic opening sentence with slight ambiguity in the initial phrasing and a repeated "that runs from".
  • "historic bridges that date back as far as the 1910s and 1920s." I don't think the words "as far as" are justified; the 1910s and 1920s are relatively recent history
Route description
  • Repetition: "US 2 is an important highway for Michigan, "provid the major western gateway to Michigan" and "serv an important role..."
  • Grammar: "Of US 2's 305.151 miles (491.093 km), it is divided..."
  • "in between is a section of US 2..." The words "of US 2" are redundant here. We're not talking about any other road here.
Western segment
  • All three paragraphs of the section begin "US 2...", as do successive sentences within the text. Try to use some variety of expression, to avoid the prose developing a mechanical feel.
  • "The section of US 2 that runs concurrently with M-64 was the location where the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) recorded the lowest traffic volume along the entire length of the highway in the state; here 770 vehicles used the roadway daily on average in 2010." This wording is heavy-footed and verbose. Running on from the previous sentence, you could say "This concurrency has the lowest traffic volume along the entire length of the highway within the state; in 2010 the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) recorded a daily average usage along the stretch of 770 vehicles".
  • This figure of 770 is not very useful in isolation, and needs to be compared with average daily usages along other stretches.
  • "where the waters meet" could be pipe-linked to Drainage basin
  • Grammar/punc: "Also located in the area are the Sylvania Wilderness and the Lac Vieux Desert Indian Reservation, which includes the Lac Vieux Desert Casino and Resort." If the "casino and resort" relates only to the reservation, shift the comma to after "Wilderness". Otherwise, "includes" → "include"
  • "leaves the Ottawa National Forest behind..." "behind" is unnecessary
  • Consecutive sentences beginning "US 2/US 141..."

Individually these are minor problems that can easily be fixed, but someone needs to go carefully through the remainder of the text, to pick up similar issues there. One non-prose problem: the map is not very informative as it stands. It does not indicate which areas are Michigan and which are Wisconsin, doesn't clarify the interstate line (there are unexplained blue and black lines). I suggest you clarify these matters, perhaps by expanding the caption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianboulton (talk • contribs)

(Sorry, I forgot to sign above) Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment from the nominator: Juliancolton (talk · contribs) is working on copy editing the article for me. I will be out of town with family for the American Thanksgiving holiday, and I will be offline starting on Tuesday morning as a result. I should be able to check back in while on the road in a few days. Imzadi 1979 → 02:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I have returned home now, so things are back to normal for me. Imzadi 1979 → 23:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Between Juliancolton's copy edit of the full article, and some touchups by myself, all of the above prose comments have been addressed save one. I can't minimize the number of times "US 2" or its variants are used any further without sacrificing clarity. (We kinda need to repeat the name whenever an intersection roadway is mentioned to avoid confusing the reader as to which highway/roadway/trunkline is the subject of a sentence.) As for the traffic counts, MDOT doesn't report an average for the highway, just the measurements on each segment. The article as it stands now lists the highest and lowest traffic counts in the Route description where they occur along the progression of the description of the highway, which is a standard practice used in other Featured Articles about Michigan highways.
      As for the map, I'm not a GIS wiz, so the best I can do is request a new map. Imzadi 1979 → 00:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure how you have answered my concern about the 770 vehicles, which statistic still stands in isolation and is therefore of little use. All the other points I raised have been dealt with satisfactorily, and the map is much better. I don't think I'll have time to go through the rest of the article, but in the light of your positive responses I have struck my oppose. How do you intend to answer the two outstanding opposes, which both appear to relate to one specific issue? Brianboulton (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
      • This is part of an aggressive campaign by two editors to enforce the use of coordinates on articles for which there is no consensus, and is thus not actionable. See the talk page and linked pages. --Rschen7754 21:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
        • The draft guideline they seek to enforce against this article, WP:WikiProject Geographical coordinates/Linear lists 5 options for listing geographic coordinate data in an article on a linear feature, the last of which is: "No coordinates", and the consensus of opinion from the U.S. Roads and Canada Roads projects is to avail ourselves of that option at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 22:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
          • You continue to misrepresent the situation. Projects do not form their own consensus, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. This has been pointed out to you many times in recent weeks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
            • You continue to ignore the stack of editors that don't care what your backwards interpretation of the situation is. You continue to ignore requests to provide "policies and guidelines reflect established consensus..." to give your LOCALCONSENSUS argument any weight. This was requested back at the end of August.. Go start an RfC and establish your consensus amongst the community, otherwise it doesn't exist and you're going off WP:SILENCE. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 17:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
              • I answered the question you cite back in August; and in text which another editor has removed for this page. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
              • What do you make of this? --Rschen7754 21:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
                • We have a few issues here at work. On the matter of adding title coordinates, it wouldn't be proper to pick one set of coordinates as representative of the whole length of US 2 in the state of Michigan because it exists in two discontinuous segments in the state. Since we can't have two sets of title coordinates, I won't place any on this article lest we favor one segment over the other, end of story. As for the rest, we have dueling WikiProjects and no community consensus. If the U.S. Roads WikiProject can't form a consensus that coordinates are unnecessary in articles under its scope, then how can WikiProject Geographic coordinates form a consensus that linear features need to have them? And we suddenly have a situation where the draft guidance being used to request/require the inclusion of this data isn't being followed since it provides that editors may opt to add "no coordinates" to articles. Since you're advocating for a change in the status quo (US highway articles lack coordinate data tagging), the onus is on you to initiate an RfC to overturn that status quo. Imzadi 1979 → 22:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
                  • If you mean me; I'm not advocating any change to the status quo; the MoS already allows for coordinates in articles about roads; as you well know, having had this pointed out several times recently. What does WikiProject Geographic coordinates have to do with this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
                • WP:LOCALCONSENSUS states: "For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." The problem is that there is no policy that requires the inclusion of coordinates in articles. There is no generally accepted guideline that states that linear features need to have coordinate data. There is only a draft guideline from a WikiProject devoted to adding coordinates to articles that has not been generally accepted as applying to roads articles at this time. I say that it hasn't been generally accepted because the overwhelming majority of the over 10,000 US road/highway articles lack coordinates, so LOCALCONSENSUS cuts two ways, Andy. The only way out is an RfC, which you've so far refused to start. Imzadi 1979 → 22:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
                  • You have this arse-about-face. Again. The MoS allows for coordinates in articles about roads. Your project colleagues insist that your local consensus forbids them. It cannot. An RfC is not needed to maintain the current MoS. You also ignore the FA criteria, to which I have ready referred in a comment which you removed from this page; and which local project consensus also cannot override. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
                    • The FA criteria do not require coordinates. M-185 (Michigan highway), an article to which you opposed in its FAC, was promoted last night without the addition of coordinate data. FA Criterion 1(b) states: "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". No major facts have been neglected as this article states where the subject is located. It just does not do so in a manner you'd like using blue-linked strings of numbers. I remain unpersuaded that displaying sets of geographic coordinates is necessary to make the article "comprehensive", so I have not added them. You've said your piece, I've said mine. It's time to let the delegates/director weigh in because circumstances won't change with any more discussion. I'm walking away from this point, feeling it has been addressed several times now. Imzadi 1979 → 00:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Please feel free to point our where, in my objection to this FA, I invoked WP:LINEAR. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I have added a weighted average AADT value computed using an Excel spreadsheet version of the AADT report from MDOT. The average is weighted by segment length because some segments MDOT measured were less than a half mile, and some as long as 10 miles. If that is not appropriate, please advise what I should do instead. Imzadi 1979 → 23:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Image review

  • Oppose - This edit from the nominator, unilaterally removing the comments of oppose votes, is unethical. No comments on the article itself, but I must oppose this nomination because it is neither fair nor acceptable for nominators to do this. Either put it back, point to a statement where an FAC delegate explicitly stated that the comments should be removed, or I will take this to AN/I and bring it up when this is written up in the Signpost. Refactoring comments is a blockable offense. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
You should be aware that the discussion surrounding the opposes (which is linked from the opposes) is entirely spill-over from discussions at MOS:RJL regarding coordinates on road articles. The nominator was not trying to sweep it under the rug, but rather trying to keep that discussion from dominating this nomination. The delegates would obviously check the link to see what the reasoning behind the oppose votes (which remain here) was. I do believe there is a greater need to assume good faith here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 03:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the nominator notified a delegate right after he moved the discussion to the talk page. He moved the same comments (almost verbatim) from M-185, which was promoted just days ago. –Fredddie™ 04:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Had I seen that one in time, I'd have opposed that too. If discussions take up too much space, you collapse them, you don't sweep them under the rug. What the nominator is doing is unethical, plain and simple. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Erm, actually no, not at FAC. To help page loading times at WP:FAC, extended irrelevant discussions are moved to the talk page, not collapsed. Ed  10:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Extended irrelevant discussion moved to the talk page, again. Please don't make me ask a FA delegate to comment here on your conduct. Ed  16:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I promoted a different road FAC a few days ago over objections about coordinates, and I will continue to do so until the use of coordinates in this context is required in the Manual of Style. It is disruptive to repeat the same discussion at several FACs—such general discussion should instead take place at the relevant MOS page, which apparently is WP:RJL. However, it is not appropriate for the nominator or other involved editors to take it on themselves to move commentary to the talk page; please don't do that again. Ucucha (talk) 12:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

You also promoted it despite censorship of objections, like that discussed above. Your FAC colleagues advised us to bring up objections under individual nominations. WP:RJL discusses road junction lists, but not the use of coordinates for articles as a whole, nor for features which are not junctions in lists. :The MoS already supports the use of coordinates in articles about roads. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • In the lead, you have "Before European settlers came to the UP, the route of what would become US 2 was used as part of two Indian trails, and the Michigan segments of the Theodore Roosevelt International Highway and the King's International Highway auto trails"; does that mean the Teddy Roosevelt and King's Highways were created before there were settlers in the UP? Ucucha (talk) 13:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - on my readthrough of the article, it passes all of the FA criteria, of which coordinates are not one. As per your usual, nice work. I have a COI in that I drive on this road most days, though. ;-) Ed  16:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Comments
    • "in between, US 2 briefly enters the state of Wisconsin" – it does more than enter, it also passes through and leaves. How about "briefly traverses"?
    • "Two sections of the roadway are listed as part of the Great Lakes Circle Tours, as well as other state-designated heritage routes." – Does that mean the same two sections are listed as other heritage routes, that other heritage routes are listed as part of the GLCTs, or something else?
    • "As a rural highway in the UP, US 2 passes through two national and two state forests." – Suggests that since the highway exists in the UP and is rural, it must pass through two national and two state forests.
    • "Before European settlers came to the UP, the route of what would become..." – "became"
    • "Most of M-12 would be redesignated as part of..." – "was" (Consider replacing the other three instances of this verb tense, as well.)
    • "...which means that the route is currently a business spur that ends at the state line." – "...which reduced the route to a business spur..."
    • "US 2 continues eastward through the UP woodlands..."
    • "US 2 and M‑64 join together and run concurrently over..." – or maybe "merge"
    • "...which includes the Lac Vieux Desert Casino and Resort." – This is a non-restrictive clause, which requires a comma.
    • Somewhere between the two segment sections, you might mention how long the Wisconsin segment is.
    • "The county line in between not only separates the two communities:" – I believe you need a comma instead of a colon: while the second clause is further explanation of the first, the first cannot stand alone.
    • "A predecessor of the Great Lakes Circle Tours decades later..." – strike "decades later" or replace with "by seventy years" lest it suggest predecessor status was bestowed upon the GLAR decades after its inception.
    • "A predecessor of the Great Lakes Circle Tours decades later, the route followed '... a circular journey along the banks of lakes Michigan and Superior and Green Bay ...'" – similar quotations in this article do not use the preceding ellipsis
    • "...with the former route being initially designated M-54." – WP:PLUSING; try "and the former route was initially designated"
    • "...with the old road turned back to county control." – maybe "turning the old road back to county control". (And since that makes for three consecutive sentences structured identically, I'd suggest changing the second to "which replaced M‑125 completely".)
    • "Addition realignments were completed by the MSHD..." – "Additional"
    • "...as the federal government geared up plans for the freeway system." – I see "gear up" has a dictionary entry, but how about "readied" instead?
    • "...with a new freeway interchange to connect US 2 to the bridge. This freeway interchange for the bridge was connected by a new freeway segment to the southern end of the previously completed freeway in 1961."
    • "The Department of State Highways expanded..." – I think this is where note should go, or at least another instance of it.
    • "The state built a new bridge over the Manistique River bypassing downtown in 1983." – Could be read to mean a new bridge was built over the Manistique River – the particular Manistique River that bypasses downtown, and not other rivers with the same name – in 1983, and who knows where it is? I suggest "...over the MR in 1983, bypassing downtown."
    • "The former routing into downtown Manistique..." – I'm struggling to make sense of this sentence.
    • "...to grant this designation which was granted..." – comma before the non-restrictive clause
    • "These markers do not reset at the state line when US 2 crosses back into Wisconsin and instead count toward total mileage." – "These markers" refer to MDOT markers, so of course they count. You mean the Wisconsin mileage.

Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 17:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I think I have implemented all of your suggestions in one manner or another. Please advise if I haven't address something. Imzadi 1979 → 07:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks like you've got yourself another featured article here. Aside: the impossibility of passing Sunday drivers searching for broasted chicken on the section between St. Ignace and Engadine is why I always chose M-123 to M-28 for my cross-UP trips. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments and review. As another aside, my family and I have always taken that same route unless weather forces us south. Yesterday though, we had to stop in the Naubinway area on our way from Marquette to Onaway, so we were on US 2. Imzadi 1979 → 19:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I note that this page has once again been censored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 11:07, 24 December 2011 .

Nominator(s): — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I really think that the article is close to the FA criteria. This is the third nomination of "Rehab" and I really that it really progressed since it was nominated for first time. During its history, it got a number of copy-edits and also one major peer review that lasted for nearly two months. I plead all the users that Oppose, to put the comments on this page. Thanks — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

MOS Check by Wikipedian Penguin

  • Pictures need alt text.
  • Ellipses are not used in the beginning of quoations.
  • Hello, Baffle gab1978. I respect you in the sense that you are a fantastic copy editor. However, ellipses are never used in the beginning and end of quotations unless the reader may mistaken it for a complete sentence and meaning is lost. It is not needed here as the quotes are integrated into the prose. "Over the couse", I assume, would mean within the quoted text, not outside of it. —WP:PENGUIN · 00:26, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, WP. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
No problem. :-) —WP:PENGUIN · 13:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure precisely what the original comment meant by "spaces between dates and ellipses", but: (A) MOS does not require nbsps inside mdy dates and the examples in WP:MOSNUM don't contain them; actually, nbsp between the month and the day seems quite nice, but I think that before the year it's overkill (I'm not suggesting to go through removing them, though). (B) nbsp is needed before an ellipsis but not after one. --Stfg (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Check for WP:OVERLINK. Articles should not be linked more than once in the body of an article.
  • Album notes citations need page numbers.
  • Not covered by MoS, but check for colons vs. commas when following words such as "said" and "wrote".
  • When you say "This guy wrote:", you are better off using a comma (,) instead of a colon (:). So instead, "This guy wrote,". Same for "this guy said". —WP:PENGUIN · 18:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Citation inconsistencies remain, such as usage of parentheses. Some EW refs have Time Inc in brackets, whereas others do not. Same with Billboard references.
  • Why do the Year-end charts follow a different format in terms of chart names than the weekly charts?
  • Trim down the usage of quotes.
  • Removed some sentences as a result of death sources... What do you think now?

Sincere apologies for not picking these up in the previous reviews. Also, various issues from previous FAC remain unaddressed. For example, I still do not understand by what you mean when you say Rihanna was accompanying Timbaland. Another prose problem is "'Rehab' received positive and negative reviews from music critics." This literally makes sense, but reads awkward in the sense that it does not do a good job summarizing the section. There is usually always one critic who will write negatively. How about "Critics were divided" or something like that. Loose prose is also present, such as "It was one of three songs produced by Timbaland for Rihanna's Good Girl Gone Bad album; 'Sell Me Candy' and 'Lemme Get That' were the other two." You can shorten that down to "'Sell Me Candy', 'Lemme Get That' and 'Rehab' were all produced by Timbaland for Good Girl Gone Bad."

  • Actually by accompanying I mean, she was with Timbaland while he was a special guest on Timberlake's tour. So three of them were on his tour together. But I don't know how to re-word it. Rihanna also said similarly in the source interview. However, I changed the other sentences. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 09:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to oppose, but I want to see what other reviewers think and if you can address issues quickly and promptly. :) —WP:PENGUIN · 13:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Penguin, I agree with most of your points, but alt text is not required. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking about supporting. But there are still some prose issues that confuse me, such as "Rihanna responds with the ad-libbed the song's hook" and "The video premiered worldwide on MTV on November 17, 2008", where your use of "on" is repetitive. Remember, the prose must be engaging and professional. —WP:PENGUIN · 13:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support on compliance with style guidelines, images, references, content and prose. However, I would still like to see what other reviwers think. Good work! —WP:PENGUIN · 15:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Quick comments

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  • MOS issues with quotations, as pointed out by Penguin and Efe above
  • Title given for FN 1 doesn't match that of the source
  • Check for typos in refs, for example in the author name for FN 1
  • Be consistent in how magazine publishers are notated
  • What are Quentin Huff's qualifications as a music reviewer?
  • Some of your archive links, for example this one, return errors
  • Check for consistency in wikilinking
  • Your options are: link terms on every occurrence in footnotes; link terms on first occurrence in footnotes; don't link terms in footnotes. For each potentially linked term, you must apply one of these options, and do so consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This doesn't appear to be the right link for FN 31

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


Oppose
  • Production and recording is still lacking for me, and seems padded with quotations in the second paragraph that add nothing to what actually went on in the studio.
  • Prose remains choppy in ares: "After performing a show in Chicago, Rihanna and Timberlake went to a studio to collaborate. They later went to New York City... where he began writing a song for her.." Well, what was the result of their first session, after the show in Chicago? If nothing notable came out of it, why is it mention here? And, the song that he began writing for her in New York, was it this one? or was it another song?
  • "Timbaland and Timberlake worked together on the latter's album FutureSex/LoveSounds in 2006;" What's the notability of this point? Why not just give it a cursory mention, as in "Timberland also recruited the help of American pop singer and musician Justin Timberlake, with whom he had previous collaborated." Here, the last clause of the sentence serves as just a "fyi". Also, Timberlake and Timbaland have worked on many other songs since his album, so don't limit their work to Timberlake's album.
  • "Rihanna's vocal range spans nearly an octave and a half, from the low note of F3 to B4"-- F3 isn't low, by many people's standards. I'd suggest saying "Rihanna's vocal range spans nearly an octave and a half, from F3 to B4".
  • "Rihanna told Entertainment Weekly's Margeaux Watson: "'Rehab' is a metaphorical song. Rehab really..." Paragraphs need a topic sentence. But beyond that, please introduce your quotations properly. At least try and hint to the reader what to expect from the quotation, or what the quotation is trying to support-- "In an interview with EW, Rihanna explained the meaning behind the lyrics of the songs: 'Rehab' is a metaphorical song ...'."
  • This is more of a personal thing, and I haven't yet consulted the relevant Wikiproject. But why has the section "Live Performances" become such a staple in these articles? What makes some performances more notable than others? And if none is more notable, then are you going to include every single live performance of the song she has ever done? And if she performed it tomorrow, would you add it to this article too? And, as expected, this section is the lengthiest.
  • ""Rehab" received both positive and negative reviews from music critics." Doesn't make sense. Almost all releases have received both positive and negative reviews. Your job is to weigh them and say if they were generally positive, generally mixed, or generally negative.
I appreciate the work that has gone into the article. But in all good conscience, I cannot support. Not yet. Orane (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Rehab_(Rihanna_song)#Production_and_recording. Orane (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I have seen, responded and copied the paragraph in the article. What you did was really marvelous. I also made some c/e. Thank You... logically comes the question ... Are you satisfied how the article looks now? — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 12:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment — I have done a rough copy edit of that section. This is my edit. —WP:PENGUIN · 21:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment. Struck my oppose vote. But still unsatisfied that crucial sections seem to suffer from a lack of comprehensiveness. The "Composition" section is a little incoherent, since the section mentions the music and time signature, then uses a long quotation to explain the song's lyrical theme, then goes back to mention the song's structure and instrumentation. You also said "Critics noted similarities between "Rehab" and some of Timberlake's songs such as "What Goes Around... Comes Around" and "Cry Me a River"." In what ways are they similar? Beat-wise? Lyrically? Structurally? Also, how did the song perform on the charts? We got 2 sentences about its performance in America: its debut and its peak. But how long did it take to get to the peak? Did it chart on any other mainstream, radio-based chart (Pop 100?, R&B/Hip Hop chart?) Place it in context: how did it do compared to other singles on the album? These are questions that remain unaddressed when I read the article. My addition to the production section was just one way that it could be improved. So I won't oppose it. But in answer to your question, am I satisfied with how the article looks? Not quite. Not when I compare it to other featured articles like "Irreplaceable" or "4 Minutes". Orane (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Journalist, I think that you should directly struck your oppose vote. I changed a little bit the composition section: First added the structural stuff and then what critics commented. The both critics considered that structurally Rehab is similar with the other mentioned singles. I also added some chart info about the US and UK and I expect to be a little bit c/e. Also, there is not much information in this section because in fact this song has never reached number one or chart strongly in any territory. I know that NOW the both FA that you mentioned look stunning, but please see how "Irreplaceable" and "4 Minutes" looked at the time they were promoted. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 16:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I struck my oppose vote, so I don't know exactly what is expected of me. To be honest, if I critique the article, it may seem like I'm nitpicking. But if you wanted another reason, the prose is not compelling and professional, in my opinion. Here are examples:

  • The first paragraph in the lede is choppy, and none of the sentences connect. And, in addition to that, read them out loud and they sound too simplified: X did this, the song did that. The song is this, it was sung like this. Vary the sentence structure and create a nice flow throughout. Read this out loud and listen to it:
  • It was written and produced by Hannon Lane and Timbaland Justin Timberlake also co-wrote the song and provided additional vocals. Development of "Rehab" began while Rihanna was accompanying Timbaland on Timberlake's FutureSex/LoveShow tour in 2007. The chorus is sung in an emotional, melancholic style . "Rehab" is a mid-paced R&B song with a subtle beat . Def Jam Recordings released the song to contemporary hit radio in the United States on October 6, 2008 . It was released in the United Kingdom as a CD single on December 8, 2008..
  • Do you get what I'm saying? Am I being unreasonable?
  • "Critics generally gave mixed reviews of the song". This is ambiguous. Did most critics, as a collective, give the song a mixed review? Or did the song get a lot of positive and negative review, and so average response to it was mixed? (In other words, if 10 critics reviewed the song, did all 10 of them give the song a 3-star rating? Or did 5 give it a positive response, and another 5 gave it a negative response?) Am I being clear?
  • "It features Rihanna and Timberlake as a couple who engage in sexual activity in a desert." So... they have sex?
  • In the "Composition" section, you can get rid of the last section of the quote ("We're just saying, 'We don't wanna smoke any cigarettes no more,' meaning we don't wanna deal with this BS anymore.'"). It's grammatically unsound (you need a sign). Plus, it adds nothing to the section. Problem still exist, even without the , as of Orane (talk). Orane (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • (Tomica1111 has asked me to take a look at some things, which is why I'm commenting.) I'll leave the question of removing it to Tomica1111. As to the , it isn't clear to me that it's needed to assure the reader that there is no transcription error on our part, and I didn't want to be guilty of the solecism described in Sic#Using 'sic' to Ridicule. To me, it's obvious that the quotation is colloquial and slangy, and I don't think it needs pointing out. I am not sure where a could usefully go, but if you have somewhere in mind, please would you do it? --Stfg (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Every second sentence in the "Chart performance" section begins with "'Rehab entered...'"
  • ""Rehab" entered the US Billboard Hot 100 chart on November 22, 2008..."
  • "Rehab" entered the Canadian Hot 100 chart at number 56..."
  • "The song entered the Australian ARIA Singles Chart at number 37 ..."
  • "In New Zealand, "Rehab" entered the singles chart..."
  • ""Rehab" entered the UK Singles Chart at number 51"
  • ""Rehab" entered the Dutch Top..."
  • "In Norway, the song entered..."
  • There's so much parallel structure it's difficult and not necessarily wonderful to vary the phrasing. Do you think it would look better as a table, maybe? --Stfg (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
How about "the song debuted on the Billboard Hot 100 at ...", "the song first appeared at number 56 on the Swiss Charts ...", "the song entered the Canadian charts", "The song peaked at number five after first appearing at number 56 ..." See? Something can definitely be done to the prose. Orane (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I should have mentioned that, apart from making my comment, I also copy edited to tackle the problem you mention. Here's the diff, though this section has had a couple of modifications since. In general, in popular music articles, I find the repetition of "the song" in every other sentence to be even more excruciating than repeating the song's title, but the unmarked word "it" can be repeated as often as one wants so long as what "it" refers to is clear. Anyway, please would you have a look at the current state of the section, and comment or adjust it as you prefer? --Stfg (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Now I see what more needs doing. There's something in RL that I really must attend to, but I will work on it again later today. --Stfg (talk) 14:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I had concentrated on the repeating "Rehab" and forgotten the repeating "entered" and the generally litany-like run. Duh! How is it now? --Stfg (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • For the "Music video" section, you devoted an entire paragraph to hear-says and gossip about Jessica Biel. It was already advised in the first FAC that it added nothing to an encyclopedia article about this song.
  • "In his book Post Cinematic Affect (2010), Steven Shaviro wrote that the videos of "Rehab", "Love Sex Magic" and "4 Minutes", Timberlake is "radiat a smothering sexual heat", which "can be contrasted with the videos from Timberlake's own Future Sex/Love Sounds album which Joshua Clover convincingly describes as a 'homosocial' exchange between Timberlake and his producer Timbaland"."
  • "which Joshua Clover convincingly describes as a 'homosocial' exchange..." What do you mean "convincingly describes"? I don't follow. Are you making the conclusion that his argument is convincing? If so, why? Orane (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Eh? What's going on here? This is a direct quote from the source; of course we're not drawing that conclusion! I've restored "convincing" as it's in the quoted source. I have, however, clarified the relationship between the two quotes from the same source. --Stfg (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Critical Reception" section lacking. Stop making the quotes do the work for you!
  • If the tones of the reviews change for the second paragraph, how about indicating this with contrasting prose. Something like "Rehab also garnered negative reviews from critics. XX criticized its songwriting ..." I don't know. Something. Anything to unify the prose.

And fixing these specific concerns may not be enough. These are just examples! Orane (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment Completely agreeing with what Orane wrote above, I would also advice you Tomica to not leave sentences which are open to interpretations. Fro eg: in the composition section, you have a comparison between "Rehab" and Timberlake's other singles, but what exactly is being compared, is not explained. Also I found there are some repetitive wordings in lead, which could be avoided by tweakings. For eg: "The video won the award for Best Music Video at the 2009 Urban Music Awards." Consecutive usage of award here is problematic. Also a big thing missing is the main inspiration for the track. Wasn't there any available? — Legolas 17:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments
  • "Rehab" is a mid-paced R&B song with a subtle beat with an emotional and melancholic-style chorus. How will we qualify mid-paced and subtle?
Not convinced you need to qualify mid-paced: musical tempi are often called fast, medium or slow according to how they compare with a normal pulse rate (70-80 bpm), but that might be too technical a side-track here. Is "subtle" a bit POVish? --Stfg (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm just not comfortable reading mid-paced song with a subtle beat. Isn't it redundant? Subtle here is vague. --Efe (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree, really. I've removed the subtle beat from the lead, but kep the other two occurrences, since it's directly cited to the Spence D reference (FN9 currently). --Stfg (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Changed the 2nd "with" to "and". --Stfg (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Changed "melancholic-style" to "melancholy". I understand it to refer to the character of the music itself (i.e. it would still be melancholy in any reasonable cover). --Stfg (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Further, emotional and melancholic seem POVish. IMO, I don't see that song as it is written here. --Efe (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Critics were divided on the song, comparing it to Justin Timberlake's 2007 single "What Goes Around... Comes Around"." This makes an odd connection to the first clause. --Efe (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the first part has them divided, the second apparently all comparing it to <thingy>. I've tried "divided on the song, some comparing it ...". Does that do it? --Stfg (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
IMO its not enough. What caused the division of opinion? --Efe (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • ""Rehab" is one of the three songs composed and produced by Timbaland for Rihanna's third studio album Good Girl Gone Bad. During this time," That is a poor connector. What time it is being referred to? --Efe (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Phrase removed as unnecessary. The historical account begins in sentence 2. --Stfg (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how formal something has to be to qualify as a "session", so have not touched that. But I changed "failed to" into "did not", because the source doesn't seem to be clearly saying that they were trying to achieve a complete song. --Stfg (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Although this is not very contentious in nature, but it qualifies as an original research. --Efe (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
So it does (the source says nothing about not yielding a song). Sentence deleted. --Stfg (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • This one is very week for inclusion: She said, "Working with Justin in the studio is just great. He's a fun guy and likes to make all the sessions enjoyable. He's also such a genius when it comes to lyrics."

There's still a lot more issue to this article. But that's all for now. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments by Jivesh (From lead)

  • I see released three times in the first paragraph of the lead. > Very repetitive use of the word.
  • Timberlake wrote the song in collaboration with the song's producers > Repetitive use of the word song. Keep in find that this is at FAC, we want near-perfection in prose.
  • the lyrics are about the singer's painful memories of her former lover > Does that mean the song details part of Rihanna's real life?
  • Critics were divided on the song, some comparing it to Justin Timberlake's 2007 single "What Goes Around... Comes Around". Divided on what? The comparison? This is the impression i get here.
    • They were divided on the song, and some of them compared it to the 2007 song.
  • on the official charts Is that the word official needed? Knowledge does not allow some charts... So what's the use of the inclusion of official here?
  • Anthony Mandler directed the accompanying music video in Vasquez Rocks Park, near Los Angeles. Does not read well, according to me... What about > Anthony Mandler directed the accompanying music video, which was shot in Vasquez Rocks Park, near Los Angeles.

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

... More is coming.

  • Rihanna's stint with Timbaland also resulted in "Sell Me Candy" and "Lemme Get That", produced for Good Girl Gone Bad. > relevancy? Already, i feel that the first sentence was not necessary but after a second thought, i said to myself, there is nothing bad if it stays but Rihanna's stint with Timbaland also resulted in "Sell Me Candy" and "Lemme Get That", produced for Good Girl Gone Bad. is becoming too detailed now. Add to this, the section starts and ends with that. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I have never seen professional music critics writing medium-tempo > mid-tempo is good.
  • published by Sony/ATV Music Publishing > published where? On their website (if they have one)?
  • I think it is important to precise that it is written in G minor actually refers to being written in a key.
  • I removed "in the key of" because it's a tautology. What else could it mean?
  • Not wanting to descend into appeals to authority, I think it might be fair to mention that I have a university degree in music and have taught children of that age. Yes, any child that can understand when a piece is said to be "in the key of G minor" (which very many can) can also understand a piece being said to be "in G minor". Not that Knowledge is written for 10-year-olds. The fact remains, it's a tautology. --Stfg (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • When I became a regular editor on Knowledge in 2009 (I was 15), i did not know what G Minor and company mean because i am not a native speaker of English and i was not familiar with musical terms. I can bet the same thing will happen with my sister (currently 5 years of age) if ever she reads this article in 10 years or less. But it's okay. I won't argue on this. Keep it the way you want. :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 06:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, I've restored "in the key of" after all. Looking around, it's in pretty much all popular music articles and I don't want to tilt at windmills. Sorry for the distraction. --Stfg (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It calls for a vocal range spanning > What about simply writing ... Rihanna's vocal range on the song spans
Changed it.— Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 18:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The source doesn't say anything about Rihanna's range. That's why I changed this in the article. It says "Instruments: Voice, range: F3-Bb4", that's all. The source also has clickables to get transpositions, and does not say that Rihanna sang in the G minor. In fact, in the Youtube video linked in our "External links" section, she sings in G# minor. --Stfg (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • nearly an octave and a half > Is that in the music sheet?
  • Beware, you are using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And it does not even apply properly here as the day "Irreplaceable" was promoted, the website you are using in the Rihanna article had not even seen the light of the day. It was a different website. Look back at the day it was promoted. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:46, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Please link some of the instrumentation like tambourine.
Done— Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 18:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Rihanna then sings the opening lines: > use a comma
  • between Rihanna and Timberlake, in which Timberlake chants, "Now ladies gimme that", and Rihanna responds with an ad-libbed hook. > between Timberlake and Rihanna, in which the former chants, "Now ladies gimme that", and the latter responds with an ad-libbed hook.
  • structural similarities > What is this?
  • Release section ... I can see it... it... it.... it... Know what has to be done, right?
  • on the iTunes Store in the UK and Ireland > Spot the mistake yourself(ves)
  • Critical reception... Please do not use say. When i see this word, i visualize the reviewer reading his review aloud rather than having written and got it published. It's a review, not an interview.
  • called the song a highlight of the album > a or the?
  • slinky-assisted Timberlake background vocals, tension-filled production, and contrasting strings and guitars What about writing this in your own words (if possible) and making it fit into the composition section?
  • Same for ... the groove being built around tambourine shakes, acoustic guitar swirls, and a subtle backbeat.
  • 12th US top-twenty single > Should it be twelfth US top 20 single, 12th US top 20 single, or twelfth US to-twenty single?
  • The song rose to number 19 on the Canadian Hot 100 chart after starting at number 56. Dates?
  • Somewhere else i see Rihanna's twelfth consecutive top-thirty single ... Many inconsistencies.
  • and in the week after that > Reword.
  • Never use The single > I have been told so.
  • it reached number 4 ... at number 3 ... to number 4 ... at number 8 > Read WP:NUMBERS
  • In Norway it > comma missing
  • Many style guides recommend not having commas in positions like this, because it makes things too choppy and is not needed for clarity. Among them are the (IMHO superb) NASA style guide. See its section "Introductory phrases and clauses" at the bottom of page 49 (p.57 in the PDF), though the relevant advice here is on the next page. --Stfg (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • to become Rihanna's seventh top-five single in that country. > Was it the aim of the song?
  • A song peaks on a chart not in.
I will be back tomorrow. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm back. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Music video section is amazing but and Rihanna won the award for Best Female Artist. > How is this relevant?
  • For live perfromce, p;ease read WP:LQ.
  • where she won the awards for Favorite Pop/Rock Female Artist and Favorite Soul/R&B Female Artist. > Relevancy?
  • at the ceremony, There are many types of ceremonies, so please specify
  • which she later removed after she was lowered to the main stage > Can be made better. Spot the mistake in the structure of the sentence.
  • Link set list

References

  • 6 same as 1
  • 14 Same as 1 and 6
  • 15 Why do i see Rap-Up. (Devine Lazerine) ?
  • 16 Radio and Records should be linked for the first time.
  • 18 Amazon should be linked for the first time.
  • 24 Not supposed to be Aria Charts. Hung medien but australian-charts.com. Hung medien
  • 25 Unlink Amazon
  • 26 Why do i see Billboard. (Prometheus Global Media) ?
  • 29 Prefix Magazine should italicized.
  • 31 same as 26
  • 33 same as 26 and 31
I will resolve the other issues with references, but have to explain about the brackets. As you can see all the printed sources in the article have their publishers in brackets. The issue was previously questioned in Penguin's comments, with a result bracketing all the printed references. 09:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
When you use {{cite web}}, brackets are not to be included. While using {{cite news}}, they are automatically included. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 09:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Jivesh, I think what Tom is trying to do with the brackets is that he will use them for all magazine publishers. (Rap-Up, Billboard, etc.) I do not see this as being a major issue at this point as long as he is using this style consistently with all magazines. Though, I prefer cite web as well, FAC reviews look for consistency. —WP:PENGUIN · 11:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
We want this article as FA, right? So let's edit it the way it should be. Instead of complicating things by inserting brackets each time (at places they are not supposed to be), why not do the common thing, that it use cite web and cite news appropriately? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

More coming about references later. I am hungry right now. :() Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm back...

  • 34, 35, 36, 37 same as 26
  • 40. Wait you use acharts and you source it as The Official Charts Company being the publisher? Acharts is not allowed even in GAs.
  • 41 Same as 40
  • 43 is simply MTV UK
  • 46 Link Dutch Top 40
  • 47 Unlink Dutch Top 40
  • 49 No Caps in title + Link IFPI
  • 52 Instead of Associated Newspapers, use Daily Mail and General Trust
  • 53 Why is News International not linked?
  • 55 Link NBC Universal
  • 56 Link MTV
  • 62 Prefix Magazine is listed twice
  • 65 Unlink MTV News
  • 66 Use Guardian Media Group
  • 67 Variety is a magazine. So use {{cite web}}
  • 69 It is City Life, not CityLife. Unlink Guardian Media Group
  • 74, 77 Same as 26
  • 78 Why is Media Control Charts being linked again?

A lot of work is needed here. I am a bit surprised that the supporters did not find the mistakes with the references (at least). Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Based on the abundant reference errors cited by Jivesh above which should have been sorted before nomination, prose issues (cited by reviewers above) and awkward phrasing and a general lack of comprehensiveness througout. There are quite a few aspects of being bias as well, for example, "Rehab" is a mid-paced R&B song with an emotional, melancholy chorus, critics don't call the song "emotional" or "melancholy", which makes it sound like this is your opinion. Basic issues should not be present over 3 weeks into an FAC, this is not a Peer Review, which is how some reviewers are treating it. Also, the Credits and personnel section is nowhere near FA standard, "by" should not be used and there is no linking at all. I can still see prose issues in the lead, but as you have told me before, you don't like like receiving "tips" from me. So I doubt you will correct anything I have said. Calvin • 17:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I have to make some comment here cause I am over with your behavior with me. First off all your oppose is a result of an frustration that you have. You had like maybe 5 or 6 FACs with no success. Peer review? What are you talking about? I also had one Featured List nomination together with User:Status (Jennifer Lopez discography) that also lasted for a long period and all of us (Status, me and users that commented edited the page and later became a FL. So, that's not some big problem here. Awkward prose? Do you want to remember you something? I think that you were the user that review the article and made it a GA. Understand me? I don't want to be rude, but this is happening over and over and over and it's enough ! In the end it's your choice oppose, but you don't have one reasonable sentence in your expression of opinion. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 17:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Please calm down guys. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Tomica, the things I have said are not different to what others have said, so don't just single me out. GAN is very different to FAC, and "Rehab" has changed a lot since I reviewed it. My behaviour with you? I don't have a problem with you and I never have, but you seem to think that I do. This is not about you, it's about the article. At the end of the day, this article is not perfect nor does it have very few minor discrepancies, thus, it does not get my Support. To me, this article is just not comprehensive or broad enough to be an FA. Calvin • 18:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Well other users think that the PROSE is the only problem. And it is currently trying to be resolved, but okay I am not gonna argue with you. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 18:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, several have said it lacks comprehensibility. Calvin • 18:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Who said apart Legolas? Who?! — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 18:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Journalist/Orane also said it, and it is something which he still finds an issue. Calvin • 18:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely false. If you read better his comments, you will see. And here it stops this. This is not my talk page neither yours. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 18:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Look Calvin, I have told you maybe like billion times that this is the right Credits and personnel structure that a descent FA should contain. I didn't invented it. During the peer review of the article User:Efe told me to wrote it like that and since he has quite a lot experience here and has advanced few articles including "Irreplaceable" to FAC I believe to trust him. And about the prose? Don't be ridiculous, it was copy-edited by three or four major copy-editors on Knowledge. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 23:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
You just proved my point. First, you've never told me that that is the correct way. No, it's not. Other FAs do not follow this, thus Efe's is down to personal preference. Second, just because 3 or 4 people have c/e, doesn't mean it's perfect. Look at how many people have been involved with S&M, yet prose was still an issue. What one thinks is good, another will always think is bad. You shouldn't be depending on other people as much as you are, you should use some of your own initiative. Calvin • 23:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Well as I can see here three people think that article overall is good. And even though you think is bad I will not changed anything of the prose, cause I believe to GOCE's participants, who really help me here. And about the Credits and personnel as I can see nobody also has a problem with that. I know Déjà Vu (Beyoncé Knowles song) was also Efe's FA nomination, however, it went through the FAC process and nobody complained about it, so overall it's fine being like that. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 23:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I have never said this article is bad, you are misinterpreting. It is indeed a good article, I don't just think it's FA quality. My main issue is lack of comprehensiveness and lack of broad information. I do think some sections could be expanded further. Calvin • 23:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Then tell me how can I do that, or eventually find sources for it. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 09:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Here are a few things:

  • I don't see the need for a three paragraph lead. Two would suffice. The first paragraph is so short.
  • with an emotional, melancholy chorus → As I said before, this is not said by any critic. Bias.
  • US Billboard magazine's Hot 100 → US Billboard Hot 100 chart. Why overcomplicate it?
  • reached top-ten → attainted top-ten
  • It calls for a vocal range → What on earth! This is very poor phrasing.
  • Release section might as well be one paragraph.
  • Credits and personnel section, I've said above what it is wrong with it.
  • The whole article has a "list of hard facts" feel to it, with very short, to the point sentences. I have real issues with this in any article, because it is important for an article to flow cohesively from one sentence to the next.

Support only because the discussion is opened for more than three weeks. If you haven't improved the article properly for this period, seems like you really have a long waste of time gossiping on completely non-sense things. Moreover, the things you're referring to are only slight changes and the time you've apparently spent discussing the issues should be better used to edit the article. My impression is that the article meets most of the criteria for an FA. The only problem for me is the lack of sources in the intro, that could easily be fixed, since most of them are already in the article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Kiril. I will explain you. The lead of the article is based on the main text which is placed more through the whole article. And about the sources, trust me this is everything I can find for the article. There were also some other sources which were removed from the Internet or were FA failure. If you find some information about the article which you think that is useful, please contact me. ;) And thanks ...— Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 17:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there has been neither a spotcheck of the sources nor an image review. Ucucha (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, there was a spotcheck. Nikkimaria in a various situations through all the FACs questioned reliability of some sources which were respectively removed. Also there was an image review made by Penguin. And about some reference errors, well in the end Jivesh found all of them and now there are fixed.— Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 20:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
No, a spotcheck has not been done. Nikki did a source review, looking at the citation formatting and the reliablilty. A thorough spot check must be done to check for copyvio and close paraphrasing. —WP:PENGUIN · 20:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Who can do that actually? Is there particular user or just anyone? — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 20:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Anyone who hasn't significantly edited the article can do it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Media review

Question(s)/Points not fixed

I believe i am satisfied with the rest. Address these two concerns of mine, then you have my support. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I got everyone, fixing all magazine references and being clear on critical reception. —WP:PENGUIN · 11:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I like what you did on the lead. I am checking the references. Please wait. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Done, repaired them. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 19:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The source for the first one is reliable, however for the second it's not. It's stupid to add only one cover. And I am looking for Esmee Denters' Outta Here digital booklet, if its says there that "Rehab" was sampled we can add it. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 18:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually according to many Wikipedians, YouTube videos are allowed to be used as a RS but are discouraged. Best, Jonayo! 20:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
FAC asks for high-quality sources however. Even most GAs would turn down YouTube as a reliable source. —WP:PENGUIN · 20:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Well what about this? (At the recommendation of a couple admins (who mentioned the same "discouraged") they advised that if nothing else or even worse sources were available, then using YouTube (to prove the existence) would be a last resort acceptable alternative.) Best, Jonayo! 20:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
That was a GAN-related discussion. Do you have any FAC information? Again, maybe it would be best to ask someone experienced with the FAC procedure whether YouTube passes FACR. I am highly suspicious that it is not. —WP:PENGUIN · 20:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
No sorry :-( But when you said YouTube is not a RS, what me and my old mentor was working on had came to mind. Best, Jonayo! 20:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
No worries! :) When reviewing a GAN, I would accept YouTube on certain circumstances, but FAC is different. —WP:PENGUIN · 20:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
It depends on the type of YouTube video. If it is uploaded by Joel991xxx, no, it cannot be used. If, however, it is uploaded by the artist, the record label or some other licensed outlet (ex. Vevo, Hulu), or a media company (Rolling Stone, Billboard, Toronto Star, CNN, BBC, etc). it is perfectly admissable as a source. The same is true of linking to music videos. You can use {{cite web}} or {{cite video}}, depending on which one best serves your need. Alternatively, if you find a useful clip on YouTube from a TV broadcast containing information on the song, you can usually find enough information to cite the original TV or radio broadcast.

Digital booklets, as a type of music release note, are also acceptable sources in certain circumstances; namely artist/writer/producer/musician credits, track listings and runtimes, PIDs, dedications, and acknowledgements to other artists if there are samples used. {{cite music release notes}} can be used for that. I have done all of these on numerous occassions with no problems through my various FACs for No Line on the Horizon, "City of Blinding Lights", "Mothers of the Disappeared", and the currently underway "One Tree Hill".Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

So the concensus here would be that the both links are unreliable and both of them shouldn't be used. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 20:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
The first one is reported on by NME and is from her official YouTube channel. That makes it an acceptable source based on the above. I don't think you could mine much from the second; it doesn't say it is mined from Rehab, only that it sounds a bit similar. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, there you go. Thank you Melicans for clearing things up! —WP:PENGUIN · 21:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
My pleasure. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Melicans from me too, but I have to find at least two covers with reliable sources, cause it's useless using one. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 21:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
A cursory search of iTunes reveals 48 results for "Rehab Rihanna". About 6 are from various Rihanna releases; the majority of the remainder are karaoke tracks. There appear to be one or two actual covers, but they are by non-notable artists and so probably not worth even mentioning. A search for the song name and one of the writers (who would have to be credited as the original writer on any commercially available cover to avoid copyright infringement on the release) also turns up no worthwhile results; just more karaoke. The Jordan McCoy covers appears to be the only existing cover of some notability. As the song was only released 3 years ago, this isn't entirely surprising. It can take years, even decades for songs to be covered by other notable artists. Some songs never get this treatment. At this stage I would think it premature to incorporate a section for cover artists, though a one sentence mention under critical reception for the Jordan McCoy version should be fine I would think. Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I now feel confident to support this. After that the prose has improved significantly and that the references have been fixed as they should have been since the very beginning, I believe "Rehab" can now be an FA. Though, this article is very short, (yes it is), it is well-written. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Cheers. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment With regards to the concerns raised above by Calvin regarding comprehensiveness of the subject, I have added {{find sources}} to the article's talk page. It seems likely that this article will pass the current FAC, but Tomica, if you have time, I think it would be good to check the template out; there may be newspaper interviews or reviews with discussion on this song that you have not yet found, or information in recently published books. There will undoubtedly be some junk articles mixed in there (mentioning the word rehab as opposed to the song), but by including Rihanna in the search parameters most of these occurances should be filtered out. The more information presented in the article, the better after all. I think it would well be worth a few hours of your time to check for any sources you may have missed. I know that I have often been surprised by the amount of content I am able to find after searching through that template. Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Wait: I saw that User:Nikkimaria asked about the reliability of Prefix Magazine as a source? Was it defended? I still see it in the article. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The source in question is FN 63; the url is identical to one example that Nikkimaria mentioned above. FN 29 is also from Prefix Magazine, and so by extension is also under consideration for reliability. What makes Prefix a reliable source? In asking this, we simply need to know what sort of fact checking they do. This can be established by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. You can also show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions, or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute (ie. who publishes the material), or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods. There are some other ways that would work too. Put simply, it is their reputation for reliability that we are looking for. Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches has further detailed information on this. Or there may be an archived discussion at WP:RSN (or you could initiate one yourself) that determines reliability. Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Melicans, but I didn't understand how should I defend the source. Can you explain me once again in more simple way? — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 16:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Mmm, I'll try to explain a bit more clearly (sorry, I admittedly sometimes struggle with saying things clearly). Web-based sources have a harder time of it; partially because they are more recent and have not had as much time to prove their reliability, and partially because they are not as well known. Allmusic's reviews and Pitchfork's articles are two examples of reliable internet publications. In general, blogs are not reliable because they are considered self-published sources (though there are some exceptions; a blog by someone who is notable in the music field, such as Robert Christgau, is one example). The same is true of websites maintained by a single person (such as Serebii.net for articles on Pokemon). Websites composed of user-generated content, such as Sputnikmusic or reviews on Amazon.com, are more examples of unreliable sources. Prefix Magazine is, from what I can gather, an internet music website and does not have a print circulation (meaning actual physical copies of a magazine sold in stores or delivered to homes). It used to have an article but was deleted as a non-notable website. That makes it harder to show that it is a reliable source.

To assess if a source is reliable (and thus passes the criteria of WP:RS) we need to know information about the kind of fact-checking that they do; that is to say, how do they get their information and check to see if it is accurate? This reliability can be demonstrated in numerous ways:

  1. If the source (in this case Prefix Magazine) is cited by a publication that we already know is reliable. Print magazines such as Rolling Stone, NME, Q, Billboard, Mojo, etc. are almost always considered notable for music articles because they are some of the most reputable and well-known music magazines. One way to see if it is reliable is by checking to see if a Prefix Magazine article is cited or mentioned in an article by a different publication (probably something like Rolling Stone or Q, but sometimes they are mentioned by sources like BBC or CNN).
  2. Is the author of the article or review a notable person in the field? I've already mentioned Robert Christgau as one example, but there are many, many others. An article in Rolling Stone will always be considered notable, but the author of the article may not be. Proving the author's notability by showing their experience (who have they worked for, how long for, etc) is a great way of saying that the author's work is reliable. If they are (or were) the editor of a reliable publication, are considered one of their top staff by the editors, or have published a book on the subject are further examples. To provide one from my own experience at FAC, I work mainly on U2 articles. A great resource for me is atu2.com. The webmaster and owner of the website, Matt McGee, is the author of a book on U2. By showing his notability in the field, I proved that his articles on the website are reliable (though articles published by other staff members are not).
  3. Contact the website. Ask them what kind of fact-checking they do and bring that information to FAC. Some websites have a page where they say what kind of fact-checking that they do to get their information. Or you can usually contact somebody (preferably one of the editors) through a 'Contact Us' page. You can even get in touch with the author of the article; many internet pages list an email, Twitter, or Facebook address that allows the reader to send the author their thoughts (usually at the top of the page near the author's name, or at the tail end of the article). You can bring their response to FAC and even forward the email on to the FAC reviewers. It doesn't always work, but it is worth a shot.
  4. Who is the publisher of the information? By this I don't mean the name of the publication (ie. Rolling Stone), but the company that finances and distributes the publication. NME, for example, is owned by IPC Media, which is in turn a part of Time Inc.. This information is usually present somewhere on the website; in the fine print at the very bottom of the page, under 'Contact Us', or perhaps under an 'About Us' section. Small, independant websites are usually not notable. Publications owned by big media are, because the publisher gives notability and reliability to it through their reputation.
  5. Check WP:RSN. There may be an archived discussion on the source which says that, after a thorough discussion, it is considered reliable because of this and for that. If there has not already been a discussion on this source, you can always open one yourself. Having a discussion about it with other, experienced editors can help to prove the reliability of the source.

If you can provide information on any (not all) of these points, it helps the reviewers at FAC to assess the reliability of the source. There are some other methods, but these are generally the best options to check. It may take time but it is well worth the effort; not only for this FAC, but for future ones as well. I hope that this helps and is a bit clearer than my first attempt! Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Awesome; hopefully you shall receive some answers soon. I still recommend trying some of the other methods to assess reliability; it can only improve your chances. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Well the publisher of the magazine is Prefix Magazine itself so ... and about the authors, Ethan Stainislawski (which is inactive. you can see on his side on Prefix Magazine website) and Norman Mayers! I don't know how notable are they ... I will also try to contact the magazine, so we can see what we get. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 22:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I've done my own search for info on Prefix Magazine and the authors of those two articles. What I have turned up is less than promising. There is nothing to indicate the website's reliability, or that of the authors. I would recommend doing the following: Remove the Prefix review (FN 29). It really only adds about 5 or 6 words, and the other two sources you use in that same sentence - Village Voice and The Boston Globe are reliable. Its removal will not be missed. FN 63 is a bit more tricky because you use it to cite the performance at the Awards. I would remove the Prefix commentary about that performance. To cite the actual performance, change the source to the Award ceremony itself. {{cite video}} will be the best option. If you aren't sure about how to use that template, I am more than happy to do it for you. That should take care of the remaining concerns about reliability of sources (though I think a spotcheck is still needed?) Melicans (talk, contributions) 02:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I also feel the same and now think that Prefix Magazine is unreliable for Featured articles. I have removed the first Prefix Magazine source and I would like to help me with the second, or better said with the {{cite video}}. Thanks :) !— Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 09:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for doing it Melicans. — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 16:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
My pleasure, Tomica. I've been following this nomination since the initiation, and had I responded at first it would have been a definite Oppose. But there has been some absolutely amazing feedback from multiple editors, and Tomica has done an amazing job at responding to it and integrating the suggestions into the prose. It is perhaps still a little bit rougher than I would like in some places, but I am happy with the improvements and believe that the article now passes the FAC criteria. Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Spotchecks

  • Some of the material cited to this source (currently FN 9) doesn't appear to be there - no keyboard melody, no middle 8, etc
  • A number of your Webcite links returned a "page not found" error, which I believe is because you're trying to archive GBooks links, which they don't allow
  • "In the second half of the performance she leaned sensuously against a pole" - you're citing this to a primary source, so unless there's a commentator that actually says she was "sensuous", it's probably OR to say that


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 20:56, 22 December 2011 .

Nominator(s): Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is featured article worthy, and the peer review has been completed. Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Check italicization on FN 24; otherwise fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (and Rcej), have you checked for correct use of secondary reviews relative to primary sources, per WP:MEDRS? The way to check for this is to (time consumingly) click on each PMID, expand the info at the bottom of the PMID and make sure source is not primary, and if it is, check that it's used correctly. Rcej, I assume you know the article should be mainly written from reviews, avoiding inappropriate use of primary sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
No, I didn't check that, apologies. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I hope you are a little more sure of the article's FA-worthiness than simply feeling it has "potential", otherwise the nomination is premature. I will assume you are expressing yourself modestly. I don't know anything about this subject, but when I see a section headed "History" with less than two lines of text, I start thinking of comprehensiveness issues. Is that really all there is to be said on the history of this disease? And is the bottom of the article the best place for this section? Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! "Potential" is just my unfortunate, probably humble, and hopefully benign choice of words. On the history section and its placement, much context of the disease history is assocciated with the evolution of its prognosis, and it would be repetitive to include that content in both secctions; and the placement is per MEDMOS suggestion. :) Rcej (Robert) – talk 03:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
OK. I see you have added a little. The "History" section deals essentially with pre-1980 and the "Prognosis" section follows on. So to my unpractised eye, the sequence suggested by MEDMOS appears illogical, but I won't press the point. Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Seem my note below about section order. Colin° 08:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(Graham Colm) I haven't had time to read the article yet, but I put it and this page on my Watchlist when it was nominated. It's recommended by the Knowledge medics that the history section should be at the end, and although I don't always agree, the editors there will expect this. This is a relatively newly recognised disease that was first described about forty odd years ago, so its history is short. I agree that the use of "potential" is a possible cause for concern, but I think it's just modesty. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

PS. On my first reading I was impressed with the comprehensiveness of the article and the sources used. It's highly informative and well written. But, I am worried that some readers will not understand much of the genetics, immunology and microbiology. But given that this is rare disease, and that good writers know their readers, we should ask ourselves who will look this up? I'm a clinical microbiologist and will recommend this article to my students. I am tempted to add my support but must wait to see what other reviewers have to say. Graham Colm (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape check - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

First glance, no time for more, I see lots of underlinking and undefined terms (that sorta ties in with Graham's mention of reader understanding-- I'm accustomed to reading med articles, and want to understand the differential diagnosis of this condition, but had a hard time with some of the jargon/lingo/lack of linking and undefined terms). I'm encouraged that the very old GA was passed by Delldot, encouraged that Graham endorses the article, but I am always concerned when there is only one reviewer at peer review and there hasn't been wide participation at WT:MED (there may have been and I may have missed it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I was the single editor who was involved in the peer review. I'm not sure I agree with you on the underlinking; by the time one gets to the Differential diagnosis section, most of the technical terms have been linked previously. I thought Rcej did a pretty good job with the jargon, but one has to read the article from beginning to end to catch all the definitions. This is difficult subject matter, and not an easy read for the average Randy—I think Graham's comments about audience are spot-on. Rcej did try to solicit input from the medics, but didn't get much response other than Axl, who had a few words to say about antibiotic therapy (see talk page). I'll go through the article again and see if I can help with any further improvements to assuage your concerns about jargon. Sasata (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Sasata-- all of that is reassuring (and I appreciate you doing the homework for me :) As the FAC gets further underway, I'll recheck to see if there are any sections going over my head-- I went straight to differential diagnosis for a scan, which raises one question-- is there any need for repeat linking if terms are first defined a long way apart in the text? (I dunno-- haven't checked-- asking ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I didn't have the time for a for thorough review then. I shall try to give a more complete assessment below. Axl ¤ 20:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment—This disease sounds ghastly. The article appears to be in pretty good condition (although I got a little lost in some of the genetic terminology). Here are a few points I noticed:

  • The text switches between serial commas and non-serial commas in a few places. Please be consistent, where possible.
  • "...and excessive production of pus-filled sputum prone to occur with...": I think this statement is missing an article (the), as in either "the excessive production" or "the pus-filled spetum prone to occur".
  • "This eventually becomes life-threatening...": 'eventually' is vague. Perhaps an average interval from onset could be listed?
  • "...between HLA-B an HLA-A...": 'and'?
  • "Another gene, though not a part of...": "candidate gene"?
  • "...asthma and chronic bronchitis by its rapid progression...": 'rapid' is vague.
  • "purulent" seems to be unlinked jargon.
  • "The diagnosis of DPB requires analysis of the lungs and bronchiolar tissues...": does this usually involve taking a biopsy?
  • There are a couple of overly long paragraphs (beginning with the wording listed below). Can these be split for less tiresome reading?
    • "DPB and bronchiolitis obliterans..."
    • "The successful results of macrolides in DPB and similar lung..."
    • "Around 1985, when long-term treatment with the macrolide..."
  • Has this disease been observed in descendants of East Asian immigrants to the U.S., Canada, or elsewhere? It would be interesting to mention this in either case.
  • Some information on current research efforts would be good, if available.

The citations seem to be in good shape. Nice work. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Comments by Axl

The picture (Respiratory system complete en.svg) has three errors in the labelling: "Cricoid cartilage", "Lingular division bronchus" and "Intermediate bronchus". I first tried to draw attention to these in June 2011. I have now posted a message on the Wikimedia Commons talk page. Axl ¤ 20:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 3: "If left untreated, DPB quickly progresses to bronchiectasis." I am struggling to find a source that uses the adverb "quickly". Homma includes the statement "it may often show rapid progression with fatal outcome". Poletti states "If left untreated, DPB progresses to bronchiectasis, respiratory failure and death." Axl ¤ 20:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

From "Classification": "DPB can be distinguished from these by the presence of lesion-like nodules." "Lesion-like nodules"? Is that really what the sources say? Axl ¤ 10:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

From "Signs and symptoms" describes wheezing, crackles, dyspnoea, etc. However the most common problem is chronic sinusitis, affecting over 75%. Sinusitis often precedes chest symptoms by months or even years. The next most common symptom is chronic cough with sputum. Axl ¤ 11:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

From "Signs and symptoms": "These include ... severe cough with large amounts of sputum (saliva with coughed-up phlegm)." Sputum is not saliva with coughed-up phlegm. Axl ¤ 11:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

From "Signs and symptoms": "Other symptoms include ... hypoxemia." Hypoxemia is not a symptom. Axl ¤ 12:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

From "Signs and symptoms": "DPB is a life-threatening condition, and leads to respiratory failure." This is a rather alarmist statement, given that the untreated five-year survival is 62% and ten-year survival is 33%. Axl ¤ 13:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

From "Signs and symptoms": "... bronchiectasis, a life-threatening condition that can lead to respiratory failure." Again, this looks rather alarmist. Bronchiectasis is not usually a life-threatening condition. Axl ¤ 10:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

From "Cause", paragraph 2: "A subset of the human MHC is human leukocyte antigen (HLA)." HLA is human MHC. Axl ¤ 13:41, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"MHC controls human leukocyte antigen (HLA)." No! HLA is human MHC. Axl ¤ 11:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
No, HLA is part of MHC. Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
After some digging around, I have found that technically you are right. My apologies to you. In my defence, many sources conflate HLA and MHC, as indicated in the first paragraph here. (Really we're both right, depending on the definition used.) Axl ¤ 11:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

From "Cause", paragraph 3, I don't think that the passive voice speculation is helpful. Why not just state "the candidate gene is likely to be within a 200 kb (kilobase, or 1,000 base pairs) region of the 300 kb telomeric class I HLA, near the HLA-B locus at chromosome 6p21.3"? Axl ¤ 19:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I don't see much change at all. Axl ¤ 17:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • If I supercede the source, that is speculation. I have "After further study of this localized area between HLA-B and HLA-A, it was concluded that a DPB susceptibility gene is located within a 200 kb (kilobase, or 1,000 base pairs) region of the 300 kb telomeric class I HLA, near the HLA-B locus at chromosome 6p21.3.". That was the conclusion, and for context purposes, we need "After further study of this localized area between HLA-B and HLA-A, it was concluded that...". If we just have "The gene is located...", the reader would feel like we left something out. Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


From "Cause", I wonder how relevant the extended discussion of candidate genes actually is to this article. Poletti discusses Bw54 and A11. (Homma doesn't mention these, but it is a rather old paper.) Fishman's Pulmonary Diseases and Disorders (my preferred respiratory text) mentions Bw54. Many of the references for the candidate genes look like primary sources. Axl ¤ 20:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There hasn't been much change here either. I don't think that these details about candidate genes should be in this article. Much of it could/should be moved to articles about the genes themselves. Axl ¤ 17:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I removed the phrase "candidate gene"; but are you suggesting I remove all mention of the genes themselves from the cause section? The journals haven't from the etiology. Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources:-

6: Giannoli, "HLA and transfusion: new approaches with Luminex™ technology"

7: Pedersen, "Porcine major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class I molecules and analysis of their peptide-binding specificities"

8: Matsuzaka, "Identification of novel candidate genes in the diffuse panbronchiolitis critical region of the class I human MHC"

9: Keicho, "Contribution of HLA genes to genetic predisposition in diffuse panbronchiolitis"

10: Park, "Association of HLA class I antigens with diffuse panbronchiolitis in Korean patients"

11: Keicho, "Fine localization of a major disease-susceptibility locus for diffuse panbronchiolitis"

12: Keicho, "Contribution of TAP genes to genetic predisposition for diffuse panbronchiolitis"

17: Emi, "Association of diffuse panbronchiolitis with microsatellite polymorphism of the human interleukin 8 (IL-8) gene"

18: Mocci, "Microsatellites and SNPs linkage analysis in a Sardinian genetic isolate confirms several essential hypertension loci previously identified in different populations"

22: Oda, "Leukotriene B4 in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid of patients with diffuse panbronchiolitis"

23: Kadota, "High concentrations of beta-chemokines in BAL fluid of patients with diffuse panbronchiolitis"

24: Hiratsuka, "Increased concentrations of human beta-defensins in plasma and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid of patients with diffuse panbronchiolitis"

25: Yamamoto, "Influence of human T lymphotrophic virus type I on diffuse pan-bronchiolitis"

26: Homma, "Comparative clinicopathology of obliterative bronchiolitis and diffuse panbronchiolitis"

27: Sculte, "Diffuse panbronchiolitis. A rare differential diagnosis of chronic obstructive lung disease"

28: Homma, "Diffuse panbronchiolitis in rheumatoid arthritis"

30: Hayakawa, "Diffuse panbronchiolitis and rheumatoid arthritis-associated bronchiolar disease: similarities and differences"

33: Shirai, "Analysis of cases allowed to cease erythromycin therapy for diffuse panbronchiolitis--comparative study between patients with cessation of the therapy and patients continuing the therapy"

34: Kudoh, "Improvement of survival in patients with diffuse panbronchiolitis treated with low-dose erythromycin"

35: Nagai, "Long-term low-dose administration of erythromycin to patients with diffuse panbronchiolitis"

38: Oda, "Erythromycin inhibits neutrophil chemotaxis in bronchoalveoli of diffuse panbronchiolitis"

39: Saito, "Tiotropium ameliorates symptoms in patients with chronic airway mucus hypersecretion which is resistant to macrolide therapy"

Given the rarity of this disease, it is unsurprising that Rcej has relied on many primary sources to collate information. Our guideline recommends use of secondary sources in preference. However there just isn't enough detail in secondary sources alone to make a good encyclopedia article.

The information in the primary sources is not controversial, but I do wonder if some of it (such as the candidate genes) really should be included in an encyclopedia article. Axl ¤ 21:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Just curious, but if I can't write as comprehensive of an article without primary sources, what can be done? I think the secondary review texts probably are covering everything we have in some way; if those are citing the same primary sources I was once citing, would not citing those secondary sources suffice whether or not they explicitly state the corresponding information from the primary source that is covered in the Knowledge article? Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS is only a guideline. There is room for editorial discretion.

" if those are citing the same primary sources I was once citing, would not citing those secondary sources suffice whether or not they explicitly state the corresponding information from the primary source that is covered in the Knowledge article? "

I'm not sure what you mean by that. If secondary sources contain the same info as primary sources, it is preferable to use secondary sources as the references. If primary sources contain info that is not present in secondary sources, this casts doubt over the relevance/inclusion of that info in this general encyclopedia. Axl ¤ 10:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have been rather busy recently and I have only just come back to this FAC. My thanks to Rcej for good progress on this article, especially removal of the primary sources and speculation about putative genes. Axl ¤ 15:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

From "Cause", last paragraph: "This mutation in the CF-causing gene is not a factor in DPB, but a different form of this gene is known to occur in many Asians not necessarily affected by either disease." I'm not sure what the "different form of this gene" is. Presumably an allele? Different to the wild-type? Axl ¤ 15:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

From the same paragraph: "It is wondered if this gene in any form could contribute to lung disease including DPB. However, because DPB does not cause disturbances of the pancreas nor the electrolytes, as does CF, the two diseases are entirely different and thought to be unrelated." These two sentences seem to be contradictory. Axl ¤ 15:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

From "Diagnosis": "Analysis of lung tissues can require a lung biopsy, or the more preferred high resolution computed tomography (HRCT) scan of the lungs, and blood tests include the blood gas." I don't think that blood gas is a useful test for the diagnosis of DPB, is it? Axl ¤ 15:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

From "Diagnosis", subsection "Differential diagnosis": "obstructive respiratory functional impairment is synonymous with emphysema." That's not true. Emphysema is one cause of obstructive impairment, but it is certainly not the only one. Indeed asthma ans chronic bronchitis also cause obstruction (among others). Technically, emphysema refers to damage to the respiratory epithelium distal to the respiratory bronchioles. Axl ¤ 16:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I changed the wording. Axl ¤ 10:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

In "Diagnosis", subsection "Differential diagnosis", why isn't cystic fibrosis mentioned? Axl ¤ 22:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I asked this question on 1 November. See below. Graham Colm (talk) 22:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

From "Treatment", paragraph 1: "Erythromycin therapy over an extended period has been shown to have a curative effect in some cases of DPB." Really curative? Axl ¤ 10:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

From "Treatment", paragraph 2: "The antibiotic effects of macrolides are not believed to be involved in their beneficial effects toward reducing inflammation in DPB." Why not say "The antibiotic effects of macrolides are not involved in their beneficial effects toward reducing inflammation in DPB."? Axl ¤ 11:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

From "Prognosis": "In DPB cases where successful treatment with erythromycin has resulted in a curative effect.... In spite of the improved prognosis, DPB still has no cure." These two statements appear to be contradictory. Axl ¤ 15:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

From "Epidemiology": "The disease is slightly more common in males, with the male to female ratio at 1.4:2.1." The reference (Anthony) does indeed state a ratio of 1.4:2.1. I believe that this a mistake. Why state a ratio of 1.4:2.1? Why not 2:3? Moreover, the M:F ratio 1.4:2.1 indicates fewer affected males: a contradiction by Anthony. Poletti states a ratio of 1.4–2:1. Poletti's ratio range is actually sensible and therefore more likely to be accurate. It is likely that Anthony misunderstood/misread Poletti's figure. Axl ¤ 14:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Your correction is accurate. However I am concerned that general readers may misunderstand "1.4–2:1", like Anthony did. Would it be reasonable to say "about 1.7:1"? Or perhaps even "about 4:3"? Axl ¤ 12:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Ack, did I say "4:3"? I meant to say "5:3". I have fixed that. I see that Uploadvirus has changed the syntax, which is fine by me. Axl ¤ 01:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS suggests that "Epidemiology" should come before "History". Is there any reason why that isn't the case here? Axl ¤ 20:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for re-arranging it, Rcej. Axl ¤ 15:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comments by Looie496

I believe that the primary target of medical articles on Knowledge is people who know somebody who has the condition, and want to know more about what is happening to them. The primary target is not medical students or MDs. Thus, a medical article, especially at the FA level, should make an effort to describe the symptoms, treatment, and prognosis in terms that an ordinary reader can grasp, especially in the lead. There is no harm in having additional info at a more technical level, but this basic information ought to be accessible. I doubt that an ordinary reader going through the lead of this article will pick up much more than that the disease has something to do with the lungs and is pretty serious. It should be possible to do better. Looie496 (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, I beg to differ. I am a layperson, and I believe the average literate adult could grasp the lead as well as I. Terminology is clearly linked or defined; but if you will specify the problematic content, I will certainly edit accordingly :) Thx! Rcej (Robert) – talk 08:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Looie that we can do better in some sections, and will go through as the FAC advances ... but in the lead for now, is it possible to do a better job of explaining the immune susceptibility without obliging the reader to click on the haplotypes? I recognize it's not always possible, but we can try, and it's not always necessary to give specifics in the lead:
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Let me note that I've placed a draft for a revised lead on the talk page of the article, see Talk:Diffuse panbronchiolitis#Proposed draft of revised lead. Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


Why are pulmonology and COPD listed in "See also"? Generally, in an FA, links worth mentioning are incorporated into the text-- wouldn't pulmonology be a basic link somewhere in the text, and wouldn't COPD be covered under differential diagnosis? My first foray into the article was for just that purpose-- to try to understand how we distinguish this condition from other common pulmonary diseases. Is there material to beef up Differential diagnosis? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And should Cystic fibrosis be specifically mentioned in the Differential diagnosis? It is a similar disease that does not occur in east Asians. Graham Colm (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Some sourcing upgrading may be needed-- we shouldn't be using primary studies except in limited situations (see WP:MEDRS).

For example, there is a free full-text recent (2009) review that should probably be used:

  • Good src, and contains four case reports. It is a peer among the large number of secondary src review papers I cite in the article. I'll definitely use it if the disease status quo can be updated from it, or replace a primary :) Rcej (Robert) – talk 08:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
and the genetics material is currently citing primary studies, case reports, and comparative studies, when there is a recent review (2011) by some of the same authors:
Please check over your sources carefully to make sure you aren't using primary studies, and are accessing secondary reviews when they are available. To find reviews, go to PubMed, type "Diffuse panbronchiolitis" in to the search engine, and when you get the results, click on "Reviews" at the upper left. For any given PMID, click on the + to expand "PUblication type" in PubMed to see if it's a review (some are misidentified). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I am saving the ref overhaul for last! btw, I've been a PubMedaholic since '07 ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
That's confusing-- I can't support a med article that is based on primary sources, and I would think correcting the sourcing would be the first priority, alternately, withdrawing the FAC while the sourcing is upgraded? The one review I posted above seems to indicate that the text is incorrect or outdated ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I've gotten rid of one more case report that was cited, then re-cited with a secondary; but the majority of my sources are either secondary or just there for reference purposes without being cited for content (i.e. some in the Epidemiology section). But if you are asserting that the majority of the sources for the article are primary and/or outdated, you'll need to point them out. I can't completely re-reference a 48-source article based on a non-specific claim. I'd greatly appreciate your help in weeding them out :) Rcej (Robert) – talk 08:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by "just there for reference purposes without being cited for content". If they aren't the sources you used to supply and verify the article content, take them out of the references section. If you can explain more why you want to cite those papers, then perhaps we can find an alternative section for them to go in, if necessary. Colin° 08:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Whoa! All that I mean is, i.e. in Epidemiology, I am using refs PMID 1504438 and PMID 10511794 to merely establish, respectively, that DPB has been reported in Korea and Thailand. Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Generally looking very nice, though this is certainly not a subject about which I know anything.
  • "an irreversible lung condition that involves enlargement of, and damage to the bronchioles, and pooling of mucus in the bronchiolar passages" Could this be rephrased? "enlargement of, and damage to the bronchioles," is the problem bit, I think
  • "confused with bronchitis" Link?
  • "primary bronchiolitis include bronchiolitis obliterans, follicular bronchiolitis, respiratory bronchiolitis, mineral dust airway disease" Are primary bronchiolitis and/or the unlinked conditions worth linking/redlinks?
  • "In DPB, a variation of TAP2 was found very likely to be associated with the disease." Odd phrase
  • Perhaps consider a picture of one of the bacteria species mentioned? Visual interest can't hurt. Your call.
They are both Gram-negative bacilli – just tiny, red, rod-shaped bacteria - I don't think pictures would be informative.File:Haemophilus influenzae Gram.JPG and File:Pseudomonas aeruginosa Gram.jpg Graham Colm (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "neutrophil granulocytes" Link?
I agree a link might help, but these are just the type of white blood cell that constitutes pus so a definition in brackets might be enough for some readers. Graham Colm (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "include strong cough with large amounts" a strong cough?
  • You mention blood gas a few times before explaining it.
You are right, this needs to be explained earlier. (It's just the oxygen and carbon dioxide levels). Graham Colm (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not keen on the history section at the bottom, but if that's what the WikiProject says, go with it, I guess. I think it needs to be reworded a little if it is placed there; the opening seems odd for something so far down the article.
The article is very well written, and, despite my non-expertise, I didn't have too much trouble following. I will have to defer to experts, but I would be inclined to support if the small issues I've raised are resolved. J Milburn (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The Knowledge:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Sections does not specify an order. It states "The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied, particularly if that helps your article progressively develop concepts and avoid repetition" It goes on to give examples or cases where varying the order can help, including an example where the history section is at the top. If editors think an article is improved by having different headers or a different ordering, then they should feel free to make the change. Colin° 08:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Support Comments from Cryptic C62. I intend to do a full prose review, but before I do, there is one structural unrelated comment I must make: I believe the History section should be expanded. This can be partly resolved by stealing the historical content from Prognosis, which I think is a necessary step anyway. Any subsection which is not called History should describe the current state of knowledge in that area. It is confusing to just arbitrarily litter the entire article with historical tidbits when there is a section which is intended to cover such information. It may also be helpful to add to the History section some snippets about the history of treatment, or perhaps how our understanding of the causes of DBP has changed. I like broccoli.
  • "In spite of the improved prognosis, DPB still has no cure" Why is this sentence not in the lead? I would think that the availability of a cure is one of the most important pieces of information available about any disease.
  • "DPB can be distinguished from these by the presence of lesions that appear on X-rays as nodules in the bronchioles of both lungs" I don't see why the X-rays bit should be mentioned here. That is better suited for Signs and Symptoms or Diagnosis rather than Classification. Ten years from now, the way in which the disease is diagnosed may have changed, but the classification may stay the same.
  • "Signs revealed via lung X-rays and blood gas evaluation, respectively..." This seems like a very weird way of constructing this sentence. I'd prefer to see it the other way around: "Other signs include dilation (enlargement) of the bronchiolar passages and hypoxemia (low levels of oxygen in the blood), which can be detected via lung X-rays and blood gas evaluation, respectively."
  • "HLA-B54 is associated with DPB in Japanese" Might there be some way to disambiguate the language from the people? Even putting "the" in front of "Japanese" would be sufficient, I think. Another option would be to swap out "Japanese" with "those from Japan".
  • "by allowing increased disease susceptibility" Susceptibility to this disease? Or to diseases in general?
  • "Further, it was possible that a number of..." Not sure that I understand why this is in the past tense. Is this no longer possible? Perhaps the phrase "believed to be" is missing...?
  • "Genes within this area of HLA include TAP2 and C6orf37." I am of the opinion that paragraph-opening sentences should not use "this" to refer to items in the previous paragraph. There are two options to avoid this: rewrite the sentence to explicitly state what "this area" refers to, or rejigger the paragraph splitting for great justice.
  • "TAP2 (Transporter, ATP-binding cassette, MHC, 2)" Err... who exactly is the intended audience of the parenthetical content? I suggest deleting it. If the reader is curious to know what seemingly-arbitrary string of characters are associated with TAP2, he or she can navigate to TAP2 and find out there.
  • The same is true of "C6orf37 (Chromosome 6 open reading frame 37)", although this one is slightly less mysterious.
  • "Inflammation is a normal part of the immune response" I may be the only person who thinks this, but I think it may be helpful to insert "human" before "immune response". It's entirely possible that a reader will jump down to Pathophysiology without reading anything else, in which case it would not be clear what species is/are being referred to.
  • "The diagnosis of DPB requires analysis of the lungs and bronchiolar tissues, the sinuses, blood and sputum." I'm not sure I understand why there are two instances of "and" in this list.
  • "Severe inflammation in all layers of the respiratory bronchioles, and lung tissue lesions that appear as nodules within the terminal and respiratory bronchioles in both lungs are the distinguishing features of DPB, and confirm its diagnosis." The first comma in this sentence confuses the crap out of me. Assuming I've interpreted this correctly, here is how I would rephrase it: "The distinguishing features of DPB which confirm its diagnosis are severe inflammation in all layers of the respiratory bronchioles, and lung tissue lesions that appear as nodules within the terminal and respiratory bronchioles in both lungs."
  • "the bronchiolar nodular shadows visible on lung X-rays" I assume that "shadows" has some particular meaning in the context of X-rays, but as a non-medical dude, I don't know what it is.
  • "When either disease is diagnosed in a Japanese individual, the differentiation between them is routinely examined." I don't understand the significance of this sentence. It reads as though it will be elaborated upon in the sentences that follow it, but it immediately transitions to rheumatoid arthritis. Confuzzled!
  • "In DPB, the nodules are noticeably and typically more restricted to the respiratory bronchioles" The adverbs "noticeably" and "typically" seem to contradict each other in this context. The former implies that the restriction is always true and is always noticeable, while the latter implies that the restriction is generally true, but there may be exceptions. Which is correct?
  • "Long-term treatment in DPB denotes that an individual with the disease has been or will be treated with erythromycin for an indefinite period lasting longer than two or three years, depending upon the success of treatment." This sentence is just a giant mess o' words. I can't suggest improvements because I really have no idea what it is trying to convey. Perhaps you would be so kind as to try and explain it here?
  • Fixed in the article. But seriously, do you want a perfectly qualifed english sentence, of which you have not identified a syntax nor grammatical error, explained to you here? :) Rcej (Robert) – talk 09:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Much better. And seriously: while it is often the case that incomprehensibility is the result of grammatical or syntactical errors, it is still possible for a correctly-structured sentence to be confusing. Modern legalese contains plenty of examples of sentences which are correct without being comprehensible.
  • "and stopping treatment for a while in such cases has been studied." I don't think this clause is necessary.
  • "This curative effect is considered to be in play" I'm not a fan of the highly informal and somewhat ambiguous phrase "in play".
  • "A journal report from 1983 indicated that untreated DPB had a five-year survival rate of 62.1%" I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, this report is so old that its findings hardly seem relevant in 2011. A lot changes in 28 years! On the other hand, it's true that the treatment options will have improved, but that wouldn't have any effect on the untreated survival rate, right? But on the first hand, it's possible that our diagnostic capabilities have gotten better, which would mean that DPB would be identified earlier, which would inflate the statistic of how long it is possible to survive untreated. Merh. I would love to see a more recent source for this kind of statistic, but I'm also open to other suggestions or arguments.
  • "In DPB cases where successful treatment with erythromycin has resulted in a curative effect, which sometimes happens after a treatment period lasting longer than two years, treatment has been allowed to end for a while." This seems a bit redundant, as the cessation of treatment was mentioned just a few paragraphs earlier.
  • "DPB has a high prevalence among Japanese, at 11 per 100,000 population" I wouldn't describe that as "high". Perhaps "the highest" would be better?
Review complete. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 12:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Link check - no DAB-links, no dead external links, no overlinking (considering the topic's length and complexity). GermanJoe (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment—The bottom half of the article has a "wall-of-text" feel to it. What do you think about breaking up the flow with a picture of erythromycin in the Treatment section? Adds a bit of visual interest and is certainly of relevance, as a major treatment option. Sasata (talk) 06:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Comments - Overall, the article looks good. Here are some things that are commonly mentioned in other sources that may warrant inclusion:
  • Japanese diagnostic criteria
  • CT findings (perhaps the image from this article can be included as well, it seems to have a suitable license: )
Thanks! I have added it to the article. Some text about the role of CT still needs to be added. --WS (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Relationship with smoking
  • Prognosis with Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection (very bad)
Some other remarks:
  • The list of symptoms probably only needs one or two reference instead of four.
  • "DPB is not age-related." - what does this mean? (especially considering the article also says onset is around age 40, and other sources quote peaks around 20 and 50 and almost no cases <20)
  • "The disease is slightly more common in males, the difference above females being negligible." - what is negligible? the ratio seems to be around 1.4-2:1
  • Why have the epidemiology and history sections been merged? I think they can easily stand on their own.
  • The diagnosis section could use some attention, with the diagnosis part explained a bit clearer.
  • The differential diagnosis part should be shortened a bit.
  • The first paragraph of the treatment section contains some vague statements like "stopping treatment for a while in such cases has been studied." and "curative effect" (some of it explained later in the prognosis section).
  • Current survival figures should be in the prognosis section, not under history.
--WS (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I will have to rewrite much of the Cause section, to get rid of primary sources, and mainly to be concurrent with the state of things as per the 2011 review of the genetics of DPB (PMID 21303426). I'll have it ready in a few days. :) Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Support --WS (talk) 08:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Support – It would be nice to see those two red links "stubified". Graham Colm (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments from delldot ∇.
Hey, here are a bunch of kind of random notes, take from them what you will. A lot of this I’m not sure whether it’s a problem but I’m noting it so others can figure it out. Sorry I’m not around a lot lately so may not be able to respond quickly.
  • Good job defining unfamiliar terms throughout the article. You might want to add definitions to chemokines, haplotypes, neutrophil, pathogenesis, lumen, etc. (or use simpler words instead).
  • The classification section is three sentences long. One sentence you could add is something that explains "as opposed to what" after this sentence: "DPB is classified as a form of "primary bronchiolitis", which means that the underlying cause of bronchiolitis is originating from or is confined to the bronchioles." You could also expand on the "and a number of others" in the classification. What makes this condition different?
  • The respiratory diagram has a lot of stuff labeled in it. Maybe you could take out the stuff that's not that relevant to the article, e.g. the pharynx, and enlarge the print on the relevant stuff.
  • It seems like there's a lot of repetition throughout the article, e.g. with the first two sentences both using "inflammatory", and this sentence in Treatment: “…by erythromycin and other macrolides. Macrolides are especially effective… Macrolides also reduce…”
  • Maybe someone could correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this belongs in the diagnosis section: "Signs of DPB that include dilation (enlargement) of the bronchiolar passages and hypoxemia (low levels of oxygen in the blood) are revealed via lung X-rays and blood gasses (a blood test from an artery, used to measure the oxygen and carbon dioxide content of the blood), respectively."
  • Unnecessarily wordy: "signs of bronchiectasis begin to present themselves."
  • The first four sentences in s/s have no references. Then the fifth and sixth have them. Does this mean the refs for the fifth sentence cover the previous four as well? I kind of prefer to use the refs at the end of every sentence they cover because then you can add something in the middle or rearrange stuff without losing your refs or misrepresenting them as covering something they don’t.
  • Whenever I ref only at the end of several sentences or a paragraph, the ref(s) are covering everything. For that section, it would be redundant and unnecessary to ref more. :) Rcej (Robert) – talk 10:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • This sentence is confusing: "several known factors are suspected to be involved with the pathogenesis of DPB." Does this mean they're known to be factors in DBP? Or are they known phenomena, and suspected to be factors in DBP? If they're known to be factors, why are we saying the cause is unknown?
  • This sentence is confusing: “unique to Asians, particularly of East Asian descent.” “particularly unique” doesn’t make sense to me. Is it unique just to East Asians? Or unique to Asians but more often found in East Asians? Also is “descent” necessary or is that just wordy?
  • The word “individuals” is used a lot in the causes section and I can’t figure out whether it’s being used for a reason or just as a substitute for ‘people’ or something. It’s particularly confusing in this sentence, because it seems like you’re talking about populations, not individuals: “The common genetic background and similarities in the HLA profile of Japanese and Korean individuals were considered in the search for a DPB gene.”
  • The causes section is tough because it’s dealing with difficult material, and I’m finding a lot of sentences in it that I think are awkward and could use a copy edit. For example: “After further study of this localized area between HLA-B and HLA-A, it was concluded that a DPB susceptibility gene is located within a 200 kb (kilobase, or 1,000 base pairs) region of the 300 kb telomeric class I HLA, near the HLA-B locus at chromosome 6p21.3.”
  • I’m not sure whether this sentence fits in with the rest of the paragraph: “Environmental factors such as inhaling toxic fumes and cigarette smoking are not believed to play a role in causing the disease.” I’m also not totally clear whether we’re talking about DBP or the other disease introduced in this paragraph, BLS I.
  • In pathophysiology, is there a reason why it’s written “P. aeruginosa and Haemophilus influenzae”, with one abbreviated and the other spelled out?
  • would you say “excess mucus production in the airway”, or “airways”?
  • I’m not sure the definition of chemotaxis is correct. Do the chemicals the cells are attracted to have to be specifically designed to attract them (leaving aside the notion of “design”), or can they be attracted to pathogens, toxins, and other incidental stuff? And is it necessarily attraction, or can cells also go away from the molecules?
  • I’m not sure how this sentence fits in with the rest of the paragraph: “The leukotrienes are an important contributor to inflammation in the respiratory tract.” Are the other chemicals being discussed also leukotrienes?
  • The article’s tough for a layperson to follow with all the abbreviations and gene names. I guess it can’t be helped with the specific genes you’re talking about but I wonder if in the case of CD4+ if you’d lose anything by just calling them helper T cells? Or do you need to mention the protein they present for a reason?
  • Another confusing use of “individuals”: “Conversely, in individuals with human lymphotropic virus, onset of DPB increases the frequency of adult T-cell leukemia.” Surely you’re talking about populations not individuals when you’re talking about “frequency”?
  • This sentence is too long and needs a citation: “Erythromycin therapy over an extended period has been shown to dramatically improve the effects of DPB, apparent when an individual undergoing treatment for DPB, among a number of disease-related remission criteria, has a normal neutrophil count detected in BAL fluid, and blood gas (an arterial blood test that measures the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the blood) readings show that free oxygen in the blood is within the normal range.”
  • I’m confused by this sentence: “In those cases where treatment can be stopped for a time, however, DPB symptoms eventually return, and treatment would need to be resumed.” Does this mean that the return of symptoms is certain to happen? Why the use of “would” then? If symptoms return, treatment needs to be resumed, right? I’m confused because I expect to see “would” paired with a concept like “if this happens, then you would have to do that”.
  • I think you should ask someone who owes you a favor to give the whole article a copy edit with an eye toward simplifying and cutting out unnecessary wording. There are a number of cases where I think something could be said more simply and concisely, here are some examples: “untreated DPB has progressed to the point where respiratory failure is occurring”, “for an indefinite period lasting two to three years”; “Mucus production in the airways is a major culprit in the morbidity and mortality of DPB and other respiratory diseases. The significant reduction of inflammation in DPB attributed to erythromycin therapy also greatly inhibits the production of excess mucus.”
  • In one part of the treatment section it says “erythromycin may not prove successful in all individuals with the disease, particularly if macrolide-resistant P. aeruginosa is present” then later it says “in DPB cases with the occurrence of macrolide-resistant P. aeruginosa, macrolide therapy still produces substantial anti-inflammatory results.” Does this mean ‘except in the aforementioned cases where it doesn’t’, or does it always produce those substantial results, but they’re just not substantial enough to be effective when the macroglide-resistant bugs are there?
  • “Rare cases of DPB in individuals with non-Asian lineage have also been noted” How rare? Are we talking a handful of people? Because the rest of the article stresses that it’s unique to Asians.
  • This sentence is confusing: “DPB has been reported in a few Asian immigrants and residents in western countries”. Does “a few” mean a handful? i.e. it’s incredibly rare? Or does this sentence really mean to say “in remarkably few” or some such?
  • The epidemiology section kind of seems to contradict the causes section, saying non-genetic causes may be involved after all. And the causes section says “Environmental factors such as inhaling toxic fumes and cigarette smoking are not believed to play a role in causing the disease” (which is wordy by the way) but then in the epidemiology section it suggests a third of sufferers are smokers. Does a third of the general population smoke, or is this a higher rate? Well, I guess it’s unfair of me to ask you to figure this out if it’s not mentioned in any of the literature.
  • I think it would be good to learn more about ages of onset and how that breaks down into age categories if that info is available. I noticed the article in Thorax by Høiby mentioned that cases are often in elderly patients.
Anyway, good work in general, good info. I think the copy editing thing to reduce wordiness and simplify where possible is the main thing holding this article back right now. I don’t know how much info is really out there but if it’s very limited it might not be possible to flesh the article out any more. If it is available though it would be good to see more detail in sections like epidemiology and classification. Apologies in advance if I’m tough to get a hold of in upcoming days, feel free to email me if you need to to get my attention. delldot ∇. 08:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC) A couple more notes:
  • In diagnosis, I think it would be good to mention what tests are used to detect the white blood cells, immune globulins, etc mentioned in the last few sentences.
  • In this sentence, I think you should describe in a few words what a bronchoalveolar lavage is: "Neutrophils, beta-defensins, leukotrienes, and chemokines can also be detected in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid taken from individuals with DPB."
  • I'm glad you've taken care to explain the unfamiliar terms, but sometimes the parentheticals make sentences harder to read. In these cases I would suggest rephrasing. For example, i would rephrase this sentence: "In the differential diagnosis (finding the correct diagnosis between two or more suspected diseases that have common or overlapping features) of some obstructive lung diseases, DPB is often considered" perhaps like this: "When two or more diseases have common or overlapping features, a differential diagnosis is needed (or is used? is made?) to determine which disease is present (or is causing the symptoms). A diagnosis of DPB is often considered when someone is experiencing symptoms found in obstructive lung disease." Or something like that. It doesn't have to be that way, I'm just saying you can rewrite the sentence to introduce and explain difficult concepts, rather than using the words as an expert would and just sticking in a parenthetical to define it. There are a lot of parentheticals that kind of interrupt the flow of the rest of the sentence they're in, I've already gone in and changed one or two but it might be worth looking to see if there are more to change. delldot ∇. 00:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I noticed a couple recent reviews not used in the article. Did you not find anything useful in them or were you not able to access them? If the latter, email me.
  • Yang, M.; Dong, B. R.; Lu, J.; Lin, X.; Wu, H. M. (2010). Yang, Ming (ed.). "Macrolides for diffuse panbronchiolitis". The Cochrane Library (12): CD007716. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007716.pub2. PMID 21154381.
  • Keicho, N.; Kudoh, S. (2002). "Diffuse panbronchiolitis: Role of macrolides in therapy". American Journal of Respiratory Medicine. 1 (2): 119–131. doi:10.1007/BF03256601. PMID 14720066.
  • Kudoh, S. (2004). "Applying lessons learned in the treatment of diffuse panbronchiolitis to other chronic inflammatory diseases". The American Journal of Medicine. 117 Suppl 9A (9): 12S–19S. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.07.024. PMID 15586559.
  • Rubin, B. K.; Henke, M. O. (2004). "Immunomodulatory activity and effectiveness of macrolides in chronic airway disease". Chest. 125 (2 Suppl): 70S–78S. doi:10.1378/chest.125.2_suppl.70s. PMID 14872003. (free full text)
  • Siddiqui, J. (2004). "Immunomodulatory effects of macrolides: Implications for practicing clinicians". The American Journal of Medicine. 117 Suppl 9A (9): 26S–29S. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.07.026. PMID 15586561.
  • Amsden, G. W. (2004). "Anti-inflammatory effects of macrolides--an underappreciated benefit in the treatment of community-acquired respiratory tract infections and chronic inflammatory pulmonary conditions?". Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. 55 (1): 10–21. doi:10.1093/jac/dkh519. PMID 15590715. (free full text)
  • Friedlander, A. L.; Albert, R. K. (2010). "Chronic Macrolide Therapy in Inflammatory Airways Diseases". Chest. 138 (5): 1202–1212. doi:10.1378/chest.10-0196. PMID 21051396. (free full text)
  • Altenburg, J.; De Graaff, C. S.; Van Der Werf, T. S.; Boersma, W. G. (2011). "Immunomodulatory Effects of Macrolide Antibiotics – Part 2: Advantages and Disadvantages of Long-Term, Low-Dose Macrolide Therapy". Respiration. 81 (1): 75–87. doi:10.1159/000320320. PMID 20733282.
This is from a not-too-thorough pubmed search which makes me wonder if there's more out there that this article could be taking advantage of. Relying heavily on a few sources is understandable if there's not that much out there, but that doesn't seem to be too much of a problem here. delldot ∇. 01:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
To save Rcej from having to say it, I don't feel that explicitly using all available reviews is a reasonable thing to ask for. An article only needs to be used if it documents a statement that is not documented by any other equally good review. Furthermore, articles are more maintainable if they use the minimum number of sources needed to validate the text. Looie496 (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, and I concur. :) Rcej (Robert) – talk 08:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Delldot's search has highlighted review articles that focus on macrolide use in DPB. I think that this aspect is already well covered in the article. The question is: are any of the new references better than the existing ones in the article? I suppose that we could debate the merits of the impact factors of "American Journal of Respiratory Medicine" and "Chest" vs "Clinical Microbiology Reviews" and "Current Opinion in Pharmacology". From a PubMed search, it is impossible to tell which is the "most" authoritative review article. While I have an opinion about the general ranking of these journals, it is unreasonable to expect Knowledge editors to use such judgement calls to influence referencing.
On the other hand, the Cochrane Database is widely regarded as authoritative, and I think that it could be used in addition to the existing references.
To address Delldot's other concern regarding "missing" information: I too have searched for references, both online and hard-copy textbooks. While macrolide usage is well documented, other information is sadly lacking. In particular I tried to find further epidemiological details such as prevalence in Koreans, and incidence in Japanese. I couldn't find any data at all. Another treatment I was hoping to include was lung transplantation. Again, there is no data.
In summary, the article already contains the information available from reliable secondary sources. It is reasonable to add the Cochrane Database reference. Axl ¤ 17:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, great, I'm glad someone with more knowledge of the topic feels that the article sufficiently covers it. I wasn't saying it has to use everything available, just wondering if some of the information I didn't see in the article might be in some of those articles. If not that's fine. delldot ∇. 03:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Spotcheck: clear 5/27 checked Concerns lead me to halt spotchecking until addressed,MEDRS Primary Check: seems clear. I'm a labour historian, not a medical professional. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
    • PRIMARY check per MEDRS:
      • Homma, H is a "1,000 cases" case report; this appears to be secondary enough for me. It appears to be used for medical review type statements. (I am not an MEDRS expert, definitely not)
      • Anthony M is an n=4 out of an unknown population case report. It is heavily relied upon. This is far less convincing to me, to the level of potentially being a problem. I am unable to adequately review the use cases as I am not a MEDRS expert. I noted above than Anthony was recommended as a review, and so am happy.
      • Yamanaka, A is a PRIMARY but used correctly.
      • The following appear to my non-expert opinion to be correctly used PRIMARIES: Kim YW; Chen Y; Chantarotorn S.; Fitzgerald, J. E; Martinez, J. A.; Sandrini, A. (Not MEDRS expert)
      • Høiby, N is miscited as "Hoiby, N."
    • Spotcheck clear 5/27 sources checked. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I simply cannot find the claim "A genetic predisposition among East Asians is indicated." in Høiby, N. Given my concern over this, I'm not going to proceed to detailed spotchecking until I get a response over this point. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks for spotchecking...much appreciated! :-) Fixed. Rcej (Robert) – talk 09:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, I must have been unclear when asking for a response. I meant to ask, "To what extent should I place my trust in the capacity of the article's sources to support their conclusions, when, the first source I check does not in any way support its conclusion?" There has a level of expectation in bringing an article to FAC that the sources support the claims, so much so that we rarely checked this before this year. When I start spotchecking an article I start with the assumption that the article editors are excellent encyclopaedists, and look for confirmation. That trust is reduced when a source doesn't support the claim, especially when the claim is fairly specific (a genetic predisposition in a group of men). Are all other citations carefully cited to support their claims? What procedure did you use when writing, or preparing for FAC, to ensure this? How did you match claims to sources, or sources to claims when editing? Could you explain your editing practice on this point? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe that the statement "A genetic predisposition among East Asians is indicated" has Keicho ("Genetic predisposition to diffuse panbronchiolitis") as its reference. In its "Conclusions", Keicho states "Diffuse panbronchiolitis is a complex genetic disease affecting East Asians, and is strongly associated with class I HLA-B54 in Japan and HLA-A11 in Korea." Axl ¤ 03:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Respectfully, Firefloo, you find one statement–during 45 days of nearly constant copy edits, rearrangements, and re-referencing–that simply had the wrong citation, and after it is corrected, you respond with:
"That trust is reduced when a source doesn't support the claim, especially when the claim is fairly specific (a genetic predisposition in a group of men). Are all other citations carefully cited to support their claims? What procedure did you use when writing, or preparing for FAC, to ensure this? How did you match claims to sources, or sources to claims when editing? Could you explain your editing practice on this point?"
Fear not! I will not be a wiseguy and wikilink decaf in italics. ;) But seriously, every statement I write in a wikipedia article is supported by its citation; however, I removed nearly 30 primary sources from the article during this FAC, so a mistake that activity created is entirely possible. It is fixed now, though! Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I spotchecked this version thoroughly. fn:1–3; 7; 22, 5/27 spotchecked, clear of close paraphrase, clear of plagiarism, support their statements.. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC) From my point of view, there is only one outstanding issue: the picture "Respiratory system complete en.svg" has three errors in the labelling: "Cricoid cartilage", "Lingular division bronchus" and "Intermediate bronchus". I have previously tried to draw attention to this on its file talk page, its Wikimedia Commons talk page, and at WikiProject Medicine, without success. Delldot suggests removal of many of the irrelevant labels, which is reasonable. Axl ¤ 15:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
How about removing the image? I think we could do without it. Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
It looks like this article still needs an image review. Ucucha (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC) Thank you to everyone who participated! I appreciate all of the direction you gave, and time and work put into this whole thing and the article! Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Holidays, Go Solstice, "Festivus for the rest of us"... and when does the article get its bling, and get front paged? Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 20:56, 22 December 2011 .

Nominator(s): —Ed! 04:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article. It's both a GA and a MILHIST A-class article. Short and sweet. —Ed! 04:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments.

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape review – No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches, but I would consider putting "an avid reader" in quotation marks as there is a 2% match with the source used. Graham Colm (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. —Ed! 17:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Comments for now.

  • This sentence appears twice in the Lead, "He was widely reported as the first American soldier killed in action in the war".

*As do these clauses, "received national attention after his death" "subsequent reports indicate he may not have actually been the first".

How were these problems not spotted in the GA and a MILHIST A-class reviews? Graham Colm (talk) 18:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll take that as a compliment, since the A-class review predates me (barely). I'll be happy to finish the copyediting if someone will make a solid start on it. - Dank (push to talk) 19:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Dank, I am happy to pay you compliments any time ;-) The rest of the article looks pretty-much OK, but another pair of eyes can do no harm. It think the image of the decorations is too large. Graham Colm (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Same here, I'm a big fan of your work. Good to hear the writing gets better, I'll give it another look. - Dank (push to talk) 19:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Support. I'll live with the present arrangement, although I'd prefer to see the italics myself. That's all the comments I can muster, so I'll support now. Writing, sourcing, etc. all seem up to par. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments
  • MOS:FLAG states "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many. Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text." That doesn't seem to be the case in this article.
  • I think the lead would benefit from a couple more dates, ie: what year did Shadrick drop out of school in, and what year did the Korean War start.
  • I'm not sure the fact Shadrick liked reading and occasionally went hunting belongs in the lead.
  • "Higgins later reported that he was the first soldier killed in the war, a claim that was repeated in media across the country": across which country, the US or South Korea?
  • "Shadrick was described by his family as "an avid reader" throughout his childhood, who had a variety of interests, including westerns and magazines": the assertion that Shadrick had a range of interests seems like a framing statement, so in my opinion would go better at the start of the sentence so it would become "Shadrick had a variety of interests, including westerns and magazines, and was described by his family as "an avid reader" throughout his childhood".
  • "(American) football" looks odd. As this is an article on an American subject maybe you could ditch the qualifier "(American)", or at least the brackets as they're not really necessary.
  • "Shadrick's division was the closest to the Korean War": the Korean War is an event rather than a location, so this should be changed to a geographic point of reference.
  • Considering Shadrick's claim to fame is being misattributed as the first American soldier killed in the war and the lead mentions the Battle of Osan saw the first American battle fatalities, why is this not mentioned in the outbreak of war section? We're told that the 21st Infantry Regiment was routed, but not how many losses it suffered.
  • "Shadrick's family heard of his death from a neighbor who had heard his name on a radio broadcast": this can be rephrased to avoid repetition of "heard".
  • "Shadrick's body was returned to the United States, and on June 17, 1951, a funeral attended by hundreds of local residents was held in Beckley, West Virginia. The funeral was set to coincide with the anniversary of the start of the war and Shadrick's death.": there's a repetition of "funeral", perhaps the second one could be replaced with "service"? Why was the funeral a year after Shadrick died? And if Shardick died on July 5, how was June 17 the anniversary of his death?
  • The awards and decorations section should be rearranged so that each description is next to each badge it relates to. The current arrangement of two separate tables is odd.

A good little article, which seems to cover the subject as well as can be expected, but there are a few issues which could be sorted. Nev1 (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! —Ed! 04:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Image review, ignoring the icon issue raised above.

Removed the icon. —Ed! 15:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Support I like the parts about his high school days, I think they do a good job of showing his personality a little. I made some edits and added a few links to things that needed them, but other than that I think the article meets the Featured Article criteria. Tango16 (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Spotcheck fn 2, 3, 13, 18, 21, clear. 5/21 fn checked. From the manner of loose paraphrase, and generalised use of sources rather than over reliance on single sources in narrative, I do not expect further checking would uncover problems. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Slight issue, "Shadrick and the other bazooka operators began firing on the tank from long-range concealed positions at around 16:00." the time of action is not found in footnote . Perhaps another source (TIME, cited for the para?) gives the specific time of action? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There's currently a reference error relating to the ref "Apple79". Ucucha (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it. —Ed! 17:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 20:56, 22 December 2011 .

Nominator(s): Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello everyone. You know the drill by now; I feel the article is at the FAC level, it's been through GAN and PR, etc. But of course, what I think of the article is not as important as what you think of it! I bring you yet another U2 article; this one a single from The Joshua Tree. The song was written in memory of a friend of the band, who quite sadly was killed at a very young age. "One Tree Hill" is about his funeral. I hope that you all enjoy the article, and I look forward to your feedback! Melicans (talk, contributions) 22:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

SupportLeaning to support: Melicans normally does these song articles well, and this is no exception. Just a few points for action or consideration:-

  • A caption to the music sample, explaining what part of the song the sample relates to, would be useful.
  • "On a courier run in the rain, a car pulled in front of him; unable to stop, Carroll crashed into the side and was killed instantly." Needs rephrasing; it was Carroll, not the car, on the courier run.
  • Third paragraph of the "Inspiration" section: The reason for including the stuff about Castro and Jara is presumably to explain the inclusion of certain lyrics in the song, but this doesn't become clear unril the end of the paragraph. In my view there is rather too much background detail before then, which I found distracting (it seemed temporarily as though I had strayed into another article).. What is missing at this point (though there is a partial explanation later) is why Bono thought the reference to Jara's martyrdom was appropriate to a song dedicated to Carroll's memory.
  • Finally, I'd echo a concern raised in the peer review, concerning the amount of directly quoted material. I think there is still too much, and that some paraphrase and/or reduction might be in order.

I look forward to an eventual full support. Brianboulton (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your review (and for the compliment)! I've made the following changes:
  • I've moved the file down to Composition and added a brief description. I didn't include a reference as both events are mentioned numerous times in the prose.
  • I've rephrased it to "On 3 July 1986, just before the start of the recording sessions for The Joshua Tree, Carroll was killed in a motorcycle accident while on a courier run. In the rain, a car pulled in front of him; unable to stop, Carroll crashed into the side and was killed instantly." It might need further tweaking (prose is not my strong point), but I think it does at least clarify that Carroll was on the courier run, not the car.
  • I've tried to rephrase this also so that it is more coherant. Please let me know if there is more needed on this aspect.
  • The paragraph is better now, but I think it still needs an extra sentence indicating why Bono felt inspired to add a lyric referencing a Chilean resistance hero in his tribute song to Carroll, who has no obvious connection with the Chilean resistance. Was it simply that he was moved by the story of death, albeit in different circumstances, of another young man of principle and promise? This seems to me to be the only thing of importance still missing from the article. Brianboulton (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
  • From memory, none of the sources explicitly state why that connection was made, they simply have a variation of "The song also references Victor Jara..." I'll definitely double check them all for it though once I have a chance to go to the library for the books I rented when crafting a few articles in September/October. Should have a definitive answer for you within the next few days for that point. Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I've tweaked it a little, and shifted the order in the section so that the Jara material comes at the end rather than in the middle of the narrative. That way, it is clear that the Jara lyric is one element, not the central element, in the song. I think this works better, but if you feel otherwise, please revert. Can I also suggest that you reword "after the hill he saw the first time he visited Auckland" to "after a hill he remembered from his visit to Auckland"? Brianboulton (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that shift was absolutely spot-on; the way it was before made it seem as if it was central to the song, rather than just a passing reference. I've also made your suggested tweak, along with a few other minor adjustments. Thanks again for your sharp eyes! Melicans (talk, contributions) 07:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I admittedly have a habit of overquoting, both on Knowledge and in my school work, out of an ingrained fear that by not rewording/paraphrasing/etc enough it may be construed as a copyright violation. I tried to reword a bit during the PR and just prior to the nomination. I've since done a bit more in Reception. Are there any specific quoted parts that you think would do better as regular prose? I'm a bit leery about attempting anything on the religious theme as I admittedly know nothing of the subject.
Thanks once again for your comments! Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
You have addressed my concerns, and I'm happy to support now, subject to sources and image clearance. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the improvements and for your support! Melicans (talk, contributions) 21:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Support with the changes identified above. I did the GA review of this article and agree with Brianboulton's proposed changes that the article will meet FA standards. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Not strictly a sourcing point, but be sure to check WP:MOS details - I noticed some spaced emdashes, for example
  • Ranges should consistently use endashes
  • Are the album notes paginated? Also, not sure the "Canada" is really helpful, unless the Canadian version is different. Applies also to subsequent album citations
  • FN 17: pages? Print sources without web links need page numbers in general; there are a few others missing
  • Live Nation or LiveNation? Check for naming consistency
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for newspapers or not
  • Where is Longwood? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the sourcing review, Nikkimaria.
  • I think I have caught and fixed all the em/endash mistakes, but it is something I am unfamiliar with so there may be some hyphens that should be endashes and vice-versa.
  • The album booklet (more a short book that was included with the boxset) does not have page numbers inside. I could count them though if that is necessary for that citation template.
  • The content is not different, but the publisher id number (PID) is. These can vary from country to country, even when the record label and album contents are identical. The same is true for the singles. Because of the PID I also included the location for accuracy/completeness.
  • FN 17 was a reprinted article in a magazine cobbled together by the editors of Uncut 2 years ago. Said magazine contained old articles from numerous other magazines, as well as fresh reviews on the albums themselves (FN 12 is an example of the fresh review). I'm unsure how to represent the reprinted article in that though, as it was originally published in Melody Maker, not Uncut. Do you have any advice for that instance? The remainder were obtained from a U2 fan site that reprints the articles without page numbers, and which I cannot link to directly due to potential copyright infringement concerns on their end.
  • I have fixed both instances to Live Nation; I think it was a simple spacing error that I missed.
  • I only saw one instance of inconsistancy regarding the use of publishers for newspapers and that has now been fixed.
  • Florida added after Longwood.
Thank you again for your comments! Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
For FN 17, you could use a "Republished from..." with a nested cite template / citation (haven't checked whether you're using templates). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I think I've nested this correctly (I don't see any errors cropping up in the Reference section from this change), but it is my first time trying to nest something like this. How does it look to you? Melicans (talk, contributions) 00:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Great. My only comment on that would be to be consistent in whether editors are listed first or last name first (actually, looking again, this applies to authors too). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that is all taken care of now for the print sources. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Comment
  • As far as I am aware the current format is fine. I don't know of any MOS policy saying it has to be written a specific way, and other song FAs I have been the primary contributor to ("City of Blinding Lights" and "Mothers of the Disappeared") are done the same way as this article and had no issues in that regard during the candidacy process. If I'm honest, as someone who is barely literate in music (I can make out time signature and tempo and that is about it), I wouldn't even know how to convert it to Roman numerals (another editor helped me out a great deal in that particular paragraph). Melicans (talk, contributions) 15:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Media review - no concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

CommentsSupport - Hello, Melicans. This article is looking great and few people know how to write a song article so well. A few concerns and I'll be happy to give a support:

  • I am not fully satisfied with the first two sentences, the first of which is very short. May I suggest putting them together so that we have a more complete thought? How about: "'One Tree Hill' is a song by rock band U2 and is the ninth track from their 1987 album The Joshua Tree." This also helps deal with the two consecutive sentences that start with "It..."
  • "It was released as the fourth single from the album in New Zealand and Australia in March 1988, while "In God's Country" was released as the fourth single in North America." - Could this be re-worded so that the first clause does not have two "in"s very close to eachother?
  • Is there a specific day in March 1988 when the song premiered?
  • "The song was a hit in New Zealand" - the body of the article does not seem to say anything about the song being a hit in NZ, only saying that it charted at No. 1.
  • "'One Tree Hill" was favourably received by critics..." - How about shifting "favourably" to after the word "received"? I know this is not particularly a split infinitive, but moving the adverb reads a bit better. If you decide to, I suggest to do the same in the Release and critical response section.
  • "with most renditions occurring" - A controversial structure, because of the fused participle and the poor use of the work "with". Try "as most renditions occurred". Similar concern here: "with a sample of The Edge's guitar playing".
  • Per MOS:QUOTE, we do not link inside quotations.
  • MOS suggests that when placing ellipses in quotations, we have spaces on both sides of it, and an nbsp would be placed before the ellipses.
  • "Colm O'Hare of Hot Press believed The Edge's guitar riff personified the lyric 'run like a river runs to the sea'." - I think there would be a "the" before "Hot Pres", similar to "the Washington Post".
  • "All lyrics written by Bono, all music composed by U2." - how about we write this as a complete sentence?

Just nitpicks I know. But this is all I feel is needed to polish this article up to FA standards. Keep up the effort on the articles of one of the best bands of all time. —WP:PENGUIN · 00:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments on comments
  • Not sure where the March 1988 date came from. Can't find any sources to back that up, so one needs to be found. But when it comes to single release dates, it's sometimes difficult to pinpoint a specific day of the month when it was released.
  • Adding "the" before Hot Press is not necessary because "the" is not part of the journal's title (unlike The Washington Post, not just Washington Post). That would be like saying "the Newsweek" or "the Time".
  • "All lyrics written by Bono, all music composed by U2." is generated automatically by the {{track listing}} template. It's not a complete sentence because it is written the way it would appear in a release's liner notes.
–Dream out loud (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments. I have struck through two of my queries. —WP:PENGUIN · 19:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Wikipedian Penguin; thanks for your comments (and thank you Dream out loud for addressing some of them in my absence). I probably won't be able to address all of your points for a few days, as I am heading back to Ottawa for my final exam of the term tomorrow morning and will be studying quite hard after I am there! I was unable to find a specific day in March that the single was released. The March 1988 date is found in the liner notes of the 2007 remastered boxset edition of The Joshua Tree. I will try to get to the rest of your points as soon as I am able. Melicans (talk, contributions) 23:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
So sorry for the delay, and thanks very much for your patience. Here are my comments on the points that you brought up:
  • Reworded per your recommendation.
  • I've reworded it to "In March 1988 it was released as the fourth single from the album in New Zealand and Australia" which I think reads a little better.
  • No specific date that we know of; even the band's official material (remastered boxset described above and I believe the U2 by U2 book) only says March 1988.
  • You're right, I was probably reading a little too much into that. Thanks for the catch; I've rephrased it to "The release charted at number one on the New Zealand singles chart."
  • So done.
  • Looks like somebody beat me to the renditions part. Rephrased the sample part to "The song begins with a highlife-influenced riff by The Edge on guitar, which repeats in the background throughout the song."
  • I only caught one instance of linking inside quotes and that's now been fixed. If there's any I've missed, please let me know!
  • Wow, I didn't know ellipses needed spaces. You learn something new every day! MOS recommends the non-breaking spaces "only as needed to prevent improper line breaks". I couldn't see any portion where that was an issue and so I have ommitted them.
I think that addresses all of the points you raised. If there was anything I missed, or something further that comes to your attention, please let me know! Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Supported. I spotcheck would be nice. Great work though! —WP:PENGUIN · 16:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your support! Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Spotcheck (I think we probably need to recruit someone who loves doing music-entertainment-popculture spotchecks and someone who loves doing science-medicine-zoology spotchecks; I find both these difficult because they use a different citation culture). I'm a labour historian, not an Irish studies scholar. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
    • fns 2, 4, 6, 9, 24, 32 (AGF off the quote) clear

**The quote at 4a is in the book, but it isn't at p. 157 in the same ISBN as the one you've cited.

    • 4b This anecdote spans two pages, neither of which you cite
    • 4c And the citations aren't even all on the same page
    • 4d Still different pages, and Bono describes it as a "love affair" (in the sense of an intense, limited experience; not pashing)
    • 6a Not at that page in the edition you've cited
    • 6b Again, and there's no mention of Bono's wife in the copy I read
    • 6c On another radically different page which conflicts with the page for 6b, agrees with 6a's actual page, but conflicts with the page cited for 6
    • The paragraph "On 3 July 1986..." seems to be largely comprised out of stitched together quotes of PRIMARY sources on a theme; how is this acceptable for encyclopaedic music writing? Where's the secondary source that emphasises the centrality of the Greg Experience to the creation of one tree hill, why isn't this source front an centre with the quotes hanging off it?

**9 not at these page locations with the ISBN you're citing.

    • So my concerns are about something really weird with the book citations. Quite frankly I don't understand how you're 50 pages out, and how multiple cites sharing the same footnote number are actually on different pages. From your style of writing and citing through the McCormick primary source and through the three secondaries I checked you look clear—this page number issue is curious. Similarly I'm rather concerned about the reliance on PRIMARY sources, this is the second time I've done a rock FAC and it seems to be an attempt to connect with authenticity. The problem is: when you compare this to Blonde on Blonde, BoB uses secondary sources for the narrative and then hangs primary source quotes and anecdotes "off of" secondary sources that have already established weight and narrative. As lovely as Greg may have been, I find it difficult to consider as encyclopaedic an attempt to write him in when he's not appearing in secondary sources on One Tree Hill. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
      • That is... really unusual about the page numbers. What are you using to check 4a-d, 6a-c, and 9a-d? I did a quick search on Google Books and, though what came up is the 2006 German hardcover edition (I could not find the 2006 English hardcover edition available for preview, which is what I own and used for this referencing), it confirms that everything cited in FN 4 is there on page 157. The Ali reference is cited to FN 4, not 6. FN 6b is regarding his working for U2 in Dublin and joining their tour as crew. The search link above for the German edition does not show 177, but if you click 178 and then scroll up one page you can see it is there. Likewise, all the details in FN 9a-d is shown to be on page 178. It's really weird and I'm guessing it only seems to be an issue for the McCormick references as all of the page discrepencies you pointed out come from that book?
        • Fix your reference citation and ISBN. Your bibliography says you're using a (iirc) London edition with a particular ISBN that doesn't relate to the german hardcover. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
          • I am using the London edition (as I noted above). That's why I'm confused as to why the page numbers differ between my copy of the book and what you used to check them. The German pages were linked just to show that the information is there on the pages cited, though using a different language source to demonstrate this was probably not the best example. I ask again, what are you using to check 4a-d, 6a-c, and 9a-d? I really don't understand how my edition and your spotcheck source differ so wildly. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
            • (Fucking Amazon "Just so you know... This view is of the Paperback edition (2009) from It Books. The Hardcover edition (2006) from HarperCollins that you originally viewed is the one you'll receive if you click the Add to Cart button on the left.") I apologise, I didn't expect such seriously fucked up behaviour from a bookseller. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
              • Oh, no worries at all! I knew something wonky was going on, but didn't have a clue where in the chain of events it was. I'm glad that page discrepency has been resolved; I was beginning to wonder if I'd spaced out and entered the wrong page numbers! Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm not really sure how Stokes (FN 5a-f) and de la Parra (FN 8a-d), both of which are (partially) used in the paragraph describing Carroll's death, constitute primary sources as neither author worked with or on behalf of the band; certainly neither are 'insiders' (as WP:PRIMARY puts it). The Stokes book is mainly the author's take based on multiple interviews with the band by (other) music journalists. The de la Parra book is mostly used to source the dates and, as far as I'm aware, he never even met the band. The McCormick citations in that paragraph are undisputably Primary; but at the same time it is used primarily (heh) to relate the state of emotions felt by the individual band members at the news, and in no other source do they discuss it so candidly. PRIMARY states "A primary source may only be used on Knowledge to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source ... any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." As there is no analysis or interpretation occurring based on these primary sources and in this paragraph they are almost exclusively used for quotations (the one exception I saw being 9d), I would think that FN 6 and FN 9 meet the acceptable use of "straighforward, descriptive statements". Can you please clarify? Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
        • If the first two paras of inspiration are so essensial, why are they cited to Primaries, if they're not essensial, why are they there. The story has been constructed, and weighted, out of primaries. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
          • I still believe that the use of primary sourcing in the secondary paragraph, used only for quotes which I believe to be an acceptable use per my reading of PRIMARY, is not of any particular concern (especially because in no other source available have the feelings of the band members been discussed in any detail). As the quotes are "straightforward, descriptive statements" and I am in no way analyzing, synthesizing, interpreting, or evaluating said quotes, I think that their use is fine (save for 9d, which is covered also in the de la Parra source and shall be immediately removed).
          • Though we disagree on paragraph 2, I concur that the primary sourcing in paragraph 1 is of concern. I don't have my books on me right now (only came home last night, won't go back to my apartment until the New Year; argh!), but I'll try to find some alternate sources for those details and ping someone who does have access to a fair few U2 books so that those primary sources can be replaced with appropriate secondary sources. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
            • You don't even need to replace the primary sources, you simply need to demonstrate that the weight and emphasis is that findable in a secondary source. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
              • Oh, okay. That makes it a bit easier. Since I don't have access to my books at the moment I've asked another member of the U2 WikiProject if he would be able to check through his for some corroborating citations. It's getting late here (minutes away from midnight), so I'll try to get to a search through my school's online library for appropriate secondary sources tomorrow. Cheers, Melicans (talk, contributions) 05:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
                • I've added a few sources to the first paragraph based on a check of Google Books. I hope this makes it somewhat better. Scrolling through the Google Books pages it looks like Carroll's inspiration on the song is discussed fairly often; but alas, they are all limited to "Snippet view"! Frustrating! Melicans (talk, contributions) 06:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 20:56, 22 December 2011 .

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to introduce to you an article about the premier rare livestock breed conservation organization in the United States... After a lot of work on this article, I feel that it is finally ready for FAC. It was promoted to GA status in January of this year, and since then has been through a great peer review, as well as being read and commented on by a number of knowledgeable and helpful editors. This is not a field with a lot of coverage on WP, and this is the first organization article that I have completed significant work on, so I am looking forward to any comments on the structure, sources, etc.! Dana boomer (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander
  • Perhaps add "see also" links to articles on similar efforts for plants (Heirloom plant, etc)
  • In general, see also links should be integrated into the body of the article in FAs, because anything that is important enough to be mentioned in the see also section is important enough to mention in the body of a comprehensive article. At this point, I'm not sure how I would work this into the body of the article, especially as it's very tangential to the subject of the article. The article does mention that not just livestock is at risk of disappearing with the description of the work that the ALBC has done with Slow Foods USA, Chefs Collaborative, etc. If you have a better way of working this into the article, I'm all ears.
Thanks for the tip on See Also, I didn't know that FAC had that expectation. --Noleander (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
It's not a hard and fast rule - obviously there are exceptions to everything. Mainly just something to keep in mind; in other words, why is a term important enough to link in the see also but not important enough to mention in the body of the article... Dana boomer (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Section title "Organization and history" ... consider change to "History and organization", because that is the order the material is presented within the section.
  • Done.
  • Wording: " ... expenses stood at almost US$490,000, coming mainly from ...". To me, revenues "come from", but expenses "go to", or are "spent on" or "allocated to", etc.
  • Done.
  • There are two red links Chefs Collaborative and American Grassfed Association. Red links are permitted in FAs, of course, but this FAC process may be a good opportunity to create start-level articles for those topics. You probably have some sources ready to go. Just a suggestion.
  • I actually don't have much source information on these two, and hadn't heard of the first until I started writing this article. I'm a little iffy on whether the AGA is actually notable enough to have its own article. It is a growing organization that is becoming better known, and so if there isn't source material in existence there probably will be within a few years, but at this point there's not much third party stuff on them. The CC isn't really within my field of interest... I would like to point out that Rare Breeds Canada, SVF Foundation and National Animal Germplasm Program are all articles that have been created (by three different editors) during the development of this article, so we have been working on the redlinks!
Cool. I'm preparing an article for FA, and I created 7 smaller articles to eliminate the red links. I think those 7 smaller articles are more important for WP readers than the FA improvements I made to the one article. --Noleander (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Large paragraph: "The preservation of various pure breeds .... rare livestock breeds in the US" has a single cite at the end of the paragraph. If that cite supports all the sentences in the paragr, it may be wiser to repeat the cite after every sentence, so in future years, if the paragr is modified, the connection of text-to-source is not lost. See WP:INTEGRITY.
  • The source at the end of the paragraph does reference the whole paragraph. However, I am reluctant to repeat the cite after every sentence, as none of it is really contentious and all it would do is create a sea of little blue numbers. If there are particular sentences that you would like to see referenced because you feel they are contentious or likely to be challenged, please let me know.
Sounds good. --Noleander (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • You write "the premier rare livestock breed conservation organization" ... if there are other similar livestock organizations, they should be listed either in the body, or in a See Also section.
  • There are a few other livestock conservation organizations in the United States, but they are all very small, "kitchen table" organizations. They are not notable enough for articles at this point, nor will they probably ever be (unless something major changes). The ALBC is the force for livestock conservation in the United States, and listing the others would be giving them undue weight, IMO.
Okay. --Noleander (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

End of Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Noleander, and I have interspersed my replies above. Some of the points I disagree with, but am willing to enter into discussion on them if you wish. Thanks again, Dana boomer (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
No discussion needed: it is a top notch article. I'm new to FAC, so I'm reluctant to express a "support" opinion, but that's what I'm thinking. --Noleander (talk) 03:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
  • Done, I think.
  • FN 1, 10, 24, 25: page(s)?
  • Done.
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • I looked back through all of the refs and didn't see any, but I obviously could have missed some.
  • Be consistent in how magazine issues covering multiple months are notated
  • Done, I think.
  • Again, I can't see any that are inconsistent, but I could be missing some. The only thing that I can see that might be different is in the Mother Earth News references, where some are from the MEN magazine and others are posts on the website - the former are formatted like journal articles and the latter like web pages. If you think I should do this differently, please let me know...
Thank you for your comments, Nikki - they are much appreciated. Dana boomer (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I stumbled on that as a follow-on to my "See also" suggestion above for Heirloom plant. It seems to me that there are several efforts around the world to preserve a wide variety of strains of plants an animals for future generations. Some are based on bio-diversity concerns; others on health issues; others on sentimental value (heirloom tomatoes), and others on "if there is a nuclear war, we'll need a seed bank in remote Norway to start our crops over again". I'll bet lots of advanced countries have efforts comparable to ALBC for their own farm animals. One can view American Livestock Breeds Conservancy as just one example of such an effort. That is why I was looking for a see also section, or a footer NavBox on "plant/animal breed/variety preservation" so that readers that were curious could navigate into those other articles. --Noleander (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not enough of a coding guru to want to work up a navbox, although I wouldn't scream if someone built one and added it to the article. Articles do not need to link to every article on a given topic. The ALBC article already links to many organizations and terms that work with or pertain to maintaining genetic diversity among our food supply - including Rare Breeds Survival Trust, Rare Breeds Canada, National Animal Germplasm Program, SVF Foundation, Slow Food USA, Equus Survival Trust, Ark of Taste, The Nature Conservancy, heritage turkey, rare breed (agriculture), cryopreservation...the list goes on. Through these links, readers will be able to find other articles, such as those to do with heirloom plants and seed banks, that are really tangential to what the ALBC does. The ALBC works with livestock, so in reality, every government branch around the world that works to preserve rare breeds (and believe me, there are a lot of them, especially in Europe) would actually be more central to the point of this article than links to organizations that work with plants. Yes, they all work with preserving diversity in the food supply; however, in reality, there are thousands of organizations worldwide that do so in various ways, and we cannot provide links to all of them. We provide links to the relevant ones, and let readers wend their way through the series of articles in whatever pattern they wish. If we shoehorned in links about every organization that works with every aspect of things that the ALBC does, the article would be nothing but a sea of blue with random factoids that were added just to get another link in. Dana boomer (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
My two bits here is that is what I think the purpose of a see also section is (full disclosure: I like see also sections, I think they're handy) -- related articles that may not need to have a random link within the text. Avoids that random factoid shoehorned in just to make a link. Montanabw 02:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments – Just a small batch of prose and formatting nitpicks. Overall, it was a nice article.

  • History and organization: WP:MOSNUM (the most confusing document on this website) says that two-digit decades (like the '70s) are discouraged. A minor point, but might as well follow the MoS.
    • Done.--MTBW
  • "while monitoring of the status of endangered breeds continuing between surveys." I would think "continuing" should be "continues" here; it doesn't read the way it's intended to now.
    • Done.--MTBW
      • And I tweaked this a bit more. Both of you feel free to revert me if I just made it worse. - Dana
  • Conservation Priority List: Second paragraph has a couple "also"s in pretty close proximity. Since the word is unneeded much of the time, it would be nice if at least one could be chopped; the one before the rabbit breed discussion looks like a prime candidate.
    • Done, but in the process did some reworking of the paragraph. May not have helped, did last so easier to revert if I screwed it up.--MTBW
  • Horses: Redundancy present in "After the rescue a conservation plan was developed and small breeding groups developed in cooperation with technical advisors." Try to change one of the "developed"s.
    • Done, but had to go to source to review content, resulting in minor rephrasing (hope it's OK, Dana).--MTBW
  • Sheep and goats: "then undertook action to remove some goats from the island in order to preserve the bloodlines from threatened extinction." In general, "in order to" can be shorted into "to" most of the time to make writing a little tighter.
    • Done.--MTBW
  • Since Mother Earth News appears to be a printed publication, it should be italicized in ref 6. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    • This one is in a citeweb template and the "publisher" apparently doesn't want to italicize. The article itself appears to be from the online content, not the published magazine, so the citeweb template is the right one. I'll leave this to Dana to figure out, as I don't know what the solution is here..--MTBW
      • Some MEN website content is also published in print form and some isn't. For those articles that I could verify in a print form (or those I could find only in print form, ref 39 for example), MEN is italicized as the journal. For those that I could only find on the web and couldn't verify every appeared in print form, I treated them as any other typical web content, and so MEN is not italicized. - Dana

Thanks for the comments, Giants2008 - much appreciated! Dana boomer (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Support – Another lovely equine-related article. Writing, sources, etc. all appear up to FA standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your support, Giants2008! Dana boomer (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support and comments: generally very good, but a few possible nitpicks... Steven Walling • talk 21:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The lede feels a little thick compared to the rest of the article. I wonder if we might find ways to simplify it for skimming.
      • WP:LEAD recommendations for an article of this length is three to four paragraphs. - Dana
    • In the interest of stating the obvious, I didn't see an explanation of why the Conservation Priority List exists/why it's important. The CPL is widely referenced in the U.S. as an explanation for what breeds are at risk, so that might be good.
      • I've added a bit to the CPL section - see what you think. There's also a bit in the General programs section about the SVF Foundation using it. If this wasn't the direction in which you were aiming, let me know. - Dana
    • Could we put level 3 headers in General programs, either by topic or date? Just a suggestion, for easy reading.
      • I've added one. I don't really want to add more because: 1) I can't really see a good place to do so and 2) I really don't like short choppy sections. - Dana
    • The first sentence feels a little off, since the ALBC promotes rare breeds even if genetic diversity is sound, and it promotes genetic diversity in the animal side of food supply in general, not just among rare breeds. Perhaps, "...is a nonprofit organization focused on preserving and promoting rare breeds of livestock in the interest of genetic diversity." Or even just "...is a nonprofit organization focused on preserving and promoting rare breeds of livestock." What do you think?
      • Changes per your second suggestion. Good point.

Thank you very much for your comments and your support, Steven. I think I've answered everything above - please let me know if you have any further thoughts! Dana boomer (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Has there been an image review yet? Ucucha (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Image review

  • Thanks again, Nikki. I think Montana got the first one, and I tweaked the second one. It now says "This is a logo owned by the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy for American Livestock Breeds Conservancy." Does that work? I think this might be the first article I've worked on with a fair-use image, so I'm not really sure on all of the legalities. Dana boomer (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
We had one on on our last big FAC too, I'll check the lingo and tweak. Montanabw 20:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 20:56, 22 December 2011 .

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... it is a comprehensive account of a relatively obscure medieval bishop. However, don't let the fact that he's not well known today bore you... he was definitely a mover and shaker in his time period. His brother was an important royal official and his nephew was Gilbert Foliot - one of Thomas Becket's implacable foes. Chesney played little part in the Becket controversy, but he was an important royal official in his own right. As usual, I've beaten the bushes for all the available sources - and Malleus has done his usual impeccable job of smoothing out my rough prose and finding bad spots where I didn't explain myself well. I give you - Robert de Chesney - Bishop of Lincoln - builder, clergyman, and royal official. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Image licensing is unproblematic.
  • Volume title for Barrow doesn't match between footnotes and source listing
  • Saltman title also doesn't match
  • Check capitalization on FN 49
  • Nitpicking, but be consistent in whether "UK" is preceded by a comma in locations, and indeed whether UK is included at all for Cambridge. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Support with a list of nitpicks that I'm sure you already know about but left in to make me feel useful. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Mix of BritEng and AmEng, and given the subject should probably use the former - so no "traveled", for example
  • "Educated at Oxford or Paris" - later you say "in", which has a slightly different meaning
  • Why "Roger, Bishop of Salisbury" but "Nigel, the Bishop of Ely"?
  • Why wikilink Normandy in the second section and not the first? Similarly, why link Henry II in the fourth paragraph of "under Henry II" but not the first?
  • "mentioned the unanimous nature of the Chesney's selection"?
  • "witnessed a charter...attests a number of Henry II's charters" - why the shift in tense?
  • "Chesney witnessed a charter of Henry fitzEmpress' before his succession to the throne" - okay, this becomes obvious later, but is it Chesney or Henry succeeding to the throne? At this point it isn't clear (except from a piped link) that Henry fitzEmpress = Henry II.
  • "In 1155–1156 St Albans secured papal privileges" -> "had secured"?
  • At what point was the forged charter discovered as such?
  • "The two Welsh princes and the Scots' king" - why not "Scottish king", to match "Welsh princes"?
  • We might need a little more background info on the dispute between Henry and Becket
  • "Chesney left a number of books to Lincoln Cathedral. at least ten, of which seven survive"? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Malleus got the first one, the second doesn't seem to be an issue - as the body of the article says "Chesney probably attended schools in either Oxford or Paris..." which doesn't seem to conflict in my mind with the lead statement of "educated at Oxford or Paris" - it'd be slightly misleading if I'd linked that lead to either Oxford or Paris universities - but neither had yet truly formed. Inserted "the" between Roger and Bishop of Salisbury. Fixed the linking issue. Extraneous "the" removed before "Chesney's selection". Malleus got the shift in tense. Fixed the throne/succession issue. Fixed the St Albans issue. My sources don't state when the forged charter was discovered to be fake - presumably it was in modern times. I do not touch the vexed issue of whether they are Scottish or Scots - no matter what I use, I'm going to get someone pissed off. I'm hesitant to put more into the article about the Becket dispute, as it really wasn't important to Chesney. The main interest is that he wasn't involved that much. I've added "....which dealt with the growing dispute, now known as the Becket controversy, between the king and Becket." to lead readers to the dispute if they want more details. Malleus got the last point. Sorry for the delay on this ... it's been a wild week in real life... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
    I've recast the Scottish sentence. But what do you mean by But Matilda was less sanguine? placable, perhaps? If this is literal, surely phlegmatic is closer to her allies' disposition. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
    I think "sanguine" was my choice of word, but I certainly didn't mean it to be taken literally. Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
    It was indeed your word, Malleus, but this does bring up an interesting point... Henry II's temper is always blamed on his Angevin father ... but given the tales about his mother Matilda... I think it was probably an even deal on the inheritance! Any suggested other word choices here? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
    Then what do you mean by it, Malleus? It's not clear to me, and it may be less clear to other readers. Amenable? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
    Settled for Matilda being "less patient," which is at least clear. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


Support, with one minor concern:

  • In "Bishop under Henry II", second paragraph, you write: "The result of the case, a precursor to the later Becket dispute, aroused King Henry's anger, but the death of the king's brother Geoffrey meant that the matter was eventually dropped." It's not clear to me how one relates to the other. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
    Now reads "The result of the case, a precursor to the later Becket dispute, aroused King Henry's anger, but the death of the king's brother Geoffrey and the king's subsequent travel to the Continent to deal with that issue meant that the matter was postponed and eventually dropped." which hopefully makes it clearer. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, thank you. I thought that's what it meant, but wasn't sure. I enjoyed reading the article -- good luck with the nomination! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A few points:

  • William de Chesney remained a layman, and became one of Oxfordshire's leading landowners. His own article adds that William was a royal official; but how did he become a great landowner? Inheritance? Grants? Marrying well? (I.e., here, was Robert of great family to begin with, or were they a pair of successful climbers?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
    The implication is that William was granted lands by Stephen, but there isn't a comprehensive article on the family, unfortunately. Charter evidence appears to be mainly from the Chesney's rather than grants to them, and the surviving grants to them are obscure (thus the difficulty in determining if the d'Oilly manor that William ended up with also included the whole of the d'Oilly lands or only that one manor...) This is the main reason I'm not bringing William to FAC - I wanted to, but the secondary sourcing is just a bit too sparse for my taste. They both (William and Robert) appear to have been not "men raised from the dust" but not high noblemen either - they are related to Gilbert Foliot after all, and his origins were never denigrated as base. William's career isn't helped by the fact that there is another William de Chesney active at the same time who does not appear to have been a close relative - many of the references to William de Chesney in Henry II's Pipe Roll accounts are impossible to determine which one is meant (plus Robert and William also had a nephew William de Chesney ... for added fun.) Owen says of the family "a minor knightly family of Anglo-Norman extraction with lands in the midlands, especially Oxfordshire." and that's about all the space she devotes to his family's landholdings. And of course, William doesn't even have an ODNB entry. Suggestions for further clarifications are always welcome - this is a time period I know so well that sometimes I just know things and forget that others don't and leave out important details. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Much of this belongs in the article; after all, you know it from sources. The reader should too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Support: Another excellent and thorough article. Covers the topic comprehensively but remains clear to the non-specialist. A few points, which you may feel free to ignore if you don't agree. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

  • "Chesney was active in his diocese; more than 240 documents relating to his episcopal career survive.": For those unfamiliar with the period, could it be made clearer what "active" means here?
  • The first sentence of Historical background is very long and contains a lot of elements. Could it be broken up? Possibly move the part about William to the beginning of the sentence near Henry's death then begin a new sentence about the succession.
  • "she returned to her father, who married her to Geoffrey, Count of Anjou": Is the part about returning to her father necessary? It suggests that she had left him in some way which hints at some sort of discord. And incredibly fussy point, the sentence suggests that Henry performed the marriage himself.
  • "Stephen himself was captured in February 1141 by Matilda's forces, but Robert's subsequent capture by forces loyal to Stephen later that year led to him being exchanged for Stephen in November 1141." Captured…capture and three Stephens in one sentence. Also "later that year led to him being…" makes the sentence a little cumbersome. What about "…later that year allowed his exchange for Stephen in November 1141"?
  • "apparently freely": Again may not be clear to anyone unfamiliar why this should be phrased in such a way.
  • "the 1156 Pipe Roll has the sheriff of the county accounting": I think this could be phrased more effectively.
  • "Chesney is reported by his nephew Foliot to have had an interest in Roman law, as Foliot wrote to Chesney that Foliot had ordered a copy made of the Digest for his uncle" Although I don't see an obvious way around this, the repetition of Chesney and Foliot in this sentence sounds slightly strange.
  • "Chesney was a builder in his diocese, where he was involved in the construction of the episcopal palace" This rather suggests he built it personally. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
    I got most of these - I didn't change the first point because I'm not sure that anything other than "active" would describe it well. He was .. active ... as a bishop, as opposed to some bishops who were ... not active. (grins). Nor did I fiddle with the Pipe roll bit - I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the "phrased more effectively" part - as this is pretty much the bare bones of what's given in the pipe roll. Nor did I fiddle with the Foliot stuff as I agree - it's repetitious but it's unfortunately not something lending itself to being rephrased. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
    I did the last, I think. Having one paragraph on their correspondence instead of two saves most of the work of introduction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 20:56, 22 December 2011 .

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

In 1863 the youthful Georges Bizet presented his opera Les pêcheurs de perles ("The Pearl Fishers") to a scornful parade of Parisian critics, who buried the work for 30 years. Nowadays, Les pêcheurs is widely recognised as a work of quality, if not from the top drawer then well placed in the second rank of the operatic canon. And its "big" tune, the "Pearl Fishers Duet", was top of the list in a 1980s Guardian newspaper poll of the public's "best tunes". This is a thoroughly reviewed article, which I hope is up to scratch...but you will let me know, I'm sure. Brianboulton (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


Comments from Noleander - What a well-written article. Absolutely brilliant prose. A few minor comments, mostly just phrasing issues that struck me:

  • " …one of the best-known numbers .." Also in the section title "Musical numbers." Numbers seems slangy to me. Maybe "pieces"? Perhaps "numbers" is more standard in the world of opera.
  • "Since 1950 the work has been recorded on numerous occasions, in both the amended and original versions. …" - perhaps also mention " … often performed in repertory of major opera companies .."
  • " ...he wrote or part-wrote…" "co-wrote" seems better
  • "… the libretto of Les pêcheurs de perles reflects little credit on either writer." - seems overly euphemistic: some readers may not grasp the point. Recommend plainer language: ".. is relatively poor quality" or "… in the lower ranks of librettos".
  • "…in the majority of the press notices.." - Notices to me is something that is published before a performance. Would "reviews" be better here?
  • "… had won admiration from his peers." - "… of his peers"?
  • ".. was not performed again until 20 March 1886, …" - Why make the reader do a subtraction to get the import? More dramatic to say "… until 23 years later in 1886 .."
  • Section "Roles": table of roles: can the "Ref" column be eliminated and the footnotes just put in the "Premiere cast" column? As is already done with the conductor? Surely the footnotes are supplying the initial cast, not the voice type?
  • Is it true that it did not become popular (the 1880s revivals) until after Bizet died? If so, it may be worth pointing out (in the Early Revival section) that he did not live to see it widely performed.
  • "The duet's theme has become the opera's principal musical signature, and is repeated in the work whenever the issue of the men's friendship arises, though in Dean's view the tune is not worthy of the weight it carries." - Good information, but the word and seems to improperly connect two separate points: the concept of a signature piece is a matter of perception, established by audiences and commentators; the repetition as a motif is something the composer did. Separate the two notions?

End of Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the review and for your helpful comments. Where I have not commented I have incorporated your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Support – I was one of the peer reviewers of this article, and my few queries and quibbles were all dealt with at that stage. The article is well balanced, highly readable, well illustrated and impressively sourced and referenced. This is top flight and a credit to its nominator and to Knowledge. Tim riley (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for support and kind words - and for help at the review stage. Brianboulton (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I had my say at the peer review. The only significant thing I found on re-reading was that I would delete from the lede "in the English-speaking world" in favour of something like "often called". I think it is understood they do not call it that in Budapest although no doubt there is a similar expression in Hungarian.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources review but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I see that, although Au fond du temple saint is a redirect, Au Fond du Temple Saint isn't. It contains the lyrics and a translation (taken from where?), and I've added it to Category:opera excerpts. If it's to be retained and linked from this article, the over-capitalisation needs to be fixed, the blank lines in the text need to be suppressed and French/English words ought to be alongside each other rather than one on top of the other. --GuillaumeTell 17:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing attention to this. Quite aside from the errant capitals, the Au Fond du Temple Saint page gives no indication of who sings what, and the translation has no reliable source. It doesn't look a particularly well-prepared page, and I am unsure that linking to it is of any benefit to this article—which incidentally has an external link to the French libretto that is the source of the song article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


Comment. Very nice article, deserves the proposed promotion. I see the images don't have alts - is it not desirable to add them? though it doesn't seem to be a requirement. Would it be overloading the background to mention that at the time of writing Bizet was a student of Halévy ? (B went on to marry Halévy's daughter, and to complete his unfinished Noé). (Just part of my lone campaign to raise awareness of Halévy with the 150th anniversary of his death coming up next year :-}}--Smerus (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your kind words. Prsonally I am unconvinced of the value of alt text, though I accept that there are other views. I don't normally include alt text, though will do so in response to a specific request, and have added it here. As to the Halévy stuff, that is of course covered in the Bizet article. The information is not really relevant to this opera. Brianboulton (talk) 11:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The one blind Knowledge user that I've actually talked to in person stated that one of his pet peeves was our excessive use of alt text in featured articles, especially alt text that was redundant to the caption. I would avoid paragraph-long descriptions for the images (like the one in the Music section, for example) and keep the alt text concise. If the caption is sufficiently descriptive, you can even put "painting" or "photograph" as the alt text. Basically, we just need to make sure that any important information conveyed in the images is accessible to blind folks, but we don't want to bore them to death with minute descriptions. Kaldari (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. I was one of the peer reviewers, and all of my concerns have been addressed. Finetooth (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Image review: Images are verified to be in the public domain and stored on the proper servers, or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


Support Comments: Having reviewed Georges Bizet previously, I am treating this article as a standalone article and on reading through.

  • Background
    • "... but the failure of his 1858 Te Deum helped convince him that his future lay primarily as a composer for the musical theatre."
      The failure of Te Deum should be elaborated a bit here. Read on its own without knowledge of Bizet's history, one would be left puzzling why the failure of a piece of music (by assumption of seeing the italics as a sign of a musical work) would convince its composer to stick with the musical industry. As a minimum, it should be stated that Te Deum is a religious musical work (and its failure would point Bizet to look to another sector of the music industry for success).
  • Writing and compositional history
    • "A recent critic, ..."
      This can be a dated statement if more critics start to look and publish their thoughts of the opera in years to come.
  • Premiere and initial run
    • "... castigated ... Bizet's audacity in appearing on stage."
      It seems strange on first reading that he would be castigated on this, considering that the audience called for him to go up. Is it against protocol for any of the production member to appear on stage, or something else? Readers unfamiliar with opera traditions would be puzzled to read this. Perhaps Bertrand's remarks should be moved more to the front (switch around with the "One writer surmised that ...") to make it immediate why this sort of thing was not cricket at the time?
Just the above for the moment. Jappalang (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for these comments. I have dealt with the Te Deum and the "recent critic" issues. On your third point, I have tried rearranging the prose as you suggest but I can't make it work. I have settled for a slighter reorganisation, and have changed "audacity" to "lack of modesty"; with other minor changes in phrasing, I think this works. I look forward to any further comments you may have. Brianboulton (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The changes work for me, Brian. I am happy to support this well-written article about a resurgent opera. I think it gives me a pretty good idea of its history and current circumstance. Jappalang (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the support, and most particularly for your continued help over image questions, which does much to remove the sting from this sometimes problematic area of article preparation. Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment I'd be interested to see the list of instruments that were in the original orchestration (or reffered to in the main body), as Bizet did not always stick to the conventional orchestra; most notably in L'Arlésienne (Bizet), with the use of the saxophone.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 18:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have not been able to ascertain this information from the sources I have used. If you have a source that provides it I will be glad to include it if it indicates anything notable or unconventional. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Support Comment from Voceditenore The caption for File:Pearl-Fishers-Paris-1863.jpg in the Music section which states "An illustration taken from the 1863 premiere", needs to be changed. This was an extrapolation from the erroneous 1863 date given by Gallica. The same illustration appears in Teatro La Fenice's programma di sala (programme book) for their 2004 production of the opera (See , p. 253) with a caption stating that Bonamore's engraving was published in Teatro Illustrato April 1886, on the occasion of the Italian premiere at La Scala (20 March 1886) and was based on the orignal set design by Giovanni Zuccarelli (1846-1897) for the La Scala production. Note that both Bonamore and Zuccarelli would have been teenagers at the time of the Paris world premiere. Voceditenore (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 14:52, 17 December 2011 .

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Nominating this article because I believe it's a comprehensive look at a particularly interesting figure in Australian aviation, born in England of a Scottish father and joining the French Foreign Legion as a pilot in World War I before transferring to the Australian Flying Corps. Something of a jetsetter (if they'd had jets in those days!), he was clearly well-known in his own time but less so now, despite his legacy of the still-extant Oswald Watt Gold Medal for outstanding achievement in aviation. This piece achieved GA and MilHist ACR some time ago but I felt that before FAC it needed a little more detail, since added. Enjoy! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

  • "grazier" isn't the most common word in AmEng; could you say something like "before raising cattle" instead? I don't like to force people to click in the very first paragraph (or worse, not click and get the sense that the article is over their head). - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I see Legion of Honor and Croix de Guerre in M-W ... let me know if Macquarie's makes a different call, please. I made the edit. - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Well I don't know what Macquarie says and it wasn't a serious consideration for me anyway. I like to see consistency so it made sense to have both French awards in the original language -- the fact that I'm part French of course has nothing to do with it... ;-) We now have one in English and one in French... Also you've committed the ultimate faux pas by using the US "Honor" instead of the Commonwealth "Honour"! Lastly if we keep the French language for "Croix de guerre" then I'd have thought we should retain the French case as well, i.e sentence not Title. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Fixed "honour", back later today for more. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
        • I had a chance to think about this on the drive to and from Thanksgiving dinner. Short answer: I'd prefer not to tout authorities and push standards until and unless it's causing a problem that I'm not. I think Legion of Hono(u)r and Croix de Guerre appear more often than other names in both journalistic and scholarly English, and I'd prefer to go with those, but feel free to revert, and if you do, I'll try to hunt up a bunch of authorities for you. - Dank (push to talk) 21:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
          • No, it's okay, don't trouble yourself re. authorities -- "Hono(u)r" was the main thing. Oddly enough, I used to always use title case for Croix de Guerre until various editors started changing it to sentence case, pointing out that the case should match the language conventions, and I agreed. So I'd be surprised if someone doesn't do the same here if we leave it as title case, but I'm not fussed either way... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
            • It depends whether the phrase has crossed over ... if it shows up in general-purpose dictionaries (especially in M-W), copyeditors usually take that as a clear sign it's crossed over (and sometimes you can make the case if it's in only specialized dictionaries). If it's in the dictionaries, then all we have to do is look it up (for capitalization, meaning, and even to help us decide whether to use the English translation or the original.) Disclaimer: copyeditors are conservative by nature, which means we engage in a lot of ass-covering. - Dank (push to talk) 23:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "fired by the widely held conviction": Does "fired" mean "fired up" here?
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Going through it again since this has been at FAC a while ... and finding almost nothing to fiddle with, of course ... but I've made one edit, to "Fired up by the widely held conviction that Britain would stay out of a European conflict, Watt offered his services and his plane to the French government on 2 August, the day France declared war on Germany." I'm having to be a little fussier these days to get articles through FAC ... I changed "fired" to "fired up", and reviewers sometimes describe the sentences as "too complicated" if there are two long phrases or clauses before the main clause. - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't want this to drag on but, looking at it again, I have to disagree with "fired up" -- "fired" by a conviction is quite a normal expression in my experience. Also while I have no issue with the re-sequencing of the sentence clauses I think we've now got too much space between him offering himself and his plane, and "these" being accepted by the French government; reckon we need to alter the following sentence to "This gesture was accepted" or some such -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "its complement of Airco DH.5s were handicapped": "were" sounds wrong to some and "was" sounds wrong to others, so it's best to reword. Options: "the Airco DH.5s in the squadron were handicapped" or "the few Airco DH.5s were handicapped". I went with the first option; feel free to tweak. - Dank (push to talk) 18:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Done with the second copyedit. Still supporting on prose of course. - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Images appear unproblematic per pre-1955 Australia rule. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Tks again, Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Support

  • Why does the infobox say "Commonwealth of Australia" Don't we normally just say "Australia"?
    • I think it was a stage we went through in Oz military biographies when I first wrote this -- altered to "Australia".
  • Interesting that Watt thought that Duntroon was a suitable site for an air training, with Mount Ainslie right there. One source told me that Point Cook was chosen because seaplanes could use it as well, but a blue orchid told me that the aircraft of the day had trouble with the altitude. Any sources on Ozzie logic?
    • Well, being able to fly higher than nearby mountains was a bit of a consideration then... ;-) Actually, both your sources are correct. Henry Petre selected Point Cook because it was good for both land and sea planes, and rejected Duntroon because of the altitude and the terrain -- added.
  • Any idea why he wanted to move the training wing to France?
    • I assume to be closer to the action again, but the source doesn't elaborate.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 .


Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I put this article together because I couldn't find much of the information it contains elsewhere on the web or, without prolonged digging, in print. I have duly dug, and this is the result. Gabriel Fauré's piano works are not so very numerous, and I think a single article covering them all is probably better than a series of short articles on the various pieces. The article has been peer reviewed, and revised in accordance with suggestions there and on talk pages. I believe (and certainly hope) it now covers the works in enough detail for FA, and I have tried to keep technical musical terms to the unavoidable minimum. Tim riley (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Support - I feel this well written article provides an attractive and genuinely useful resource to which music lovers can refer when listening, playing or studying Fauré's piano music. I agree it's handy to have well sourced background information on all these miniatures available in one place—especially when such material isn't always readily available elsewhere.--MistyMorn (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I did some copy editing on this article and made some suggestions and comments to Tim riley, to which he was very responsive. Tim's work here, as is typical of him, is extraordinary: Thorough research, careful referencing, delightful illustrations and images, and engaging prose. I doubt there is a better article of its kind on WP. As MistyMorn said, I think this article will be useful to students and classical music fans. It is much more useful to have information collected this way than to have a series of very short articles on each of these piano pieces. This is certainly the kind of work to which Knowledge should aspire. Thanks, Tim! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Gosh! Most grateful for the very kind comments above. Tim riley (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Image check: All images appear correctly licensed and captioned. The term "secondo" in the last caption may need explanation. There seems to be no suitable wiki target. As the images are PD they should be transferred to Wiki Commons. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Source check:
    • Ref #32 links to an audio source. This should be made clear and the time where the source supports the statement should be made clear as this is quite a lengthy piece.
    • All other on-line sources check out. No dabs, no dead-links, assume good faith for off-line sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the checks. Glad they were satisfactory. Tim riley (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC) And thanks for your support, below. Tim riley (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
How about the comment on the photo caption above? Jezhotwells (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I could rephrase it as "playing the accompaniment for..." though that's not quite as precise. Alternatively, just "duetting with", but that does miss the (I think) charming point that the composer was taking the subordinate piano part and letting the little girl play the star part. Thoughts welcome on this. Tim riley (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
How about ] which produces secondo linking to the Wiktionary definition. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Good! You're way ahead of me. This will do splendidly, and I'm most grateful. Tim riley (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: An excellent article, prose reads very well, thoroughly sourced. A good example of the best of Knowledge. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: As another of the peer reviewers I can confidently vouch for the quality of this article. I'll just mention a couple of tiny issues. First, the images of Fauré at various points in his life are all dated, until the Elgarish one in a bowler hat. According to the image description that is from 1918 - perhaps add this to the caption? Then, the final image shows Fauré playing the piano "for a young friend". It is possible, in these less than innocent times, that the phrase "a young friend" may be misinterpreted. The girl is named in the image description as Melle Lombard, and it may be politic to say "for Melle Lombard, a family friend" or some such. Only a suggestion, though. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the support and comments. I have acted on the latter precisely as you suggest. Tim riley (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the support and your charming comment. Tim riley (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Not bad, but I think it is rather a list than an article. As the article concerns his work, it should be probably renamed to "List of works by Gabriel Fauré" or anything similar.--♫GoP♫TN 18:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Interesting. I see your point, and I was originally in some doubt about whether to follow the list rather than the article route, but I think the expository detail for the various works takes the page into the "article" rather than the "list" category. Tim riley (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Tim's comment; the question of list versus article arose at peer review and it was agreed that the article route was the one to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Tim and Brian. There is much analytical detail here, as well as discussion of the relationships among these pieces and the historical and biographical context. Note that there is a separate List of compositions by Gabriel Fauré, which has a very different focus from this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment (just a quick one): I read through the article; this is really good work. The tone of the writing startled me for a minute; I'm used to every word in an article having a large sign over it shouting "NPOV!!!", so this was a very refreshing read. One thing to correct, though: the ISBNs should be consistently formatted (hyphenated or not). ClayClay 05:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Hyphens now attended to. Tim riley (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Quite a good compilation. Because I am not much good on musical terminology, I will say I did not try to read it in as much detail as usually I do, although I did read it through twice looking for anything egregious. My comments are all from the front end of the article.
    • Background
I'm a bit dubious of the title of the section, given the broad nature of the contents.
How difficult headings can sometimes be! I'll ponder this one and see if I can come up with a better. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Now done. Tim riley (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about your drawing the "charm" comparison from two different sources, with one a quote. Since human charm is, I assume rather different than charm in music, is there some risk of SYNTH?
Good point. I've gone back to the sources to check that it is reasonable to speak of Fauré's personal charm and the charm of his early works in the same sentence. Nectoux, pp. 32–33 reassures me. (Nectoux, p. 473, also comments on the charm of Fauré's piano playing, but perhaps that's a charm too far for this article.) Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
"It is not always possible" This paragraph seems rather out of place. Can't it be footnoted?
I'll experiment. I agree that this para rather pops up out of nowhere. I'll see how it looks as a footnote. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Footnoted looks good, I think. Shall leave it so unless anyone objects. Tim riley (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Nocturnes
"Chopin's model, in contrasting serene" Strike "in"
OK Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
"Fauré did not intend the eighth nocturne to appear under that title". Perhaps "designation" rather than "title"?
Better. Done. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Well done, obviously a labour of love.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks indeed for the support and for these very useful comments. Tim riley (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I generally admire authors who can put up an interesting article out of something that could simply be compiled as a list. Deserves FA status by all means. - ☣Tourbillon 12:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for this support. I hope the article will indeed be found useful as more than just a list. Tim riley (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, and I'm grateful for the amendment and the support. Tim riley (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support – I am really rather an amateur concerning this kind of music but I found this article thoroughly well-written, very informative and also very accessible for people, like me, who are not well-acquainted with the subject. Judging from the responses above, it also meets the standards for enthusiasts and keen listeners of Fauré's music. Pictures are well-chosen, accompanied by concise, unintrusive captions and given appropriate alternate text, further improving the article's accessibility. The article is very well organised, which as MistyMorn says above makes this an overwhelmingly useful companion for somebody listening to, playing or studying Fauré's music. Although the article is quite long, it does not seem to be, always appearing refreshing and interesting. It is thoroughly sourced, properly annotated and well-presented throughout. I enjoyed reading this immensely and am therefore posting a firm "support". I hope each of you will join me in congratulating Tim Riley on this fine achievement. —Cliftonian 16:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Gosh! Thank you so much! Tim riley (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 .

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 02:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC); Mitch32 02:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a truly unique state highway in Michigan. It is the only state highway in the United States where cars are not allowed, and until a few years ago, it had never had an automobile accident. Only pedestrians, bicyclists or equestrians use the roadway around Mackinac Island, Michigan. This is article has been a collaboration of sorts with Mitchazenia (talk · contribs), who is co-nominating it with me. Imzadi 1979 → 02:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, its been two years since I've been here, when Tropical Storm Marco (1990) was promoted, and I've been drooling for a while to get back to FAC, but have had nothing to nominate. Finally, after persistent nagging of Imzadi, and me having taken a weekend vacation in Bennington, Vermont, I'm finally back. This article was a work in progress in 2008, that sort of died out, became active again in 2010, and finally now in 2011 is up for FAC. M-185 is my first time nominating a non-northeastern roadway for featured article status, considering all my other nominees have been in New York (or one in Rhode Island that ultimately failed.) Because my college schedule this week, after taking Thursday off, will be nuts, I'll try my best to get most of the stuff listed. Great to be back though. Mitch32 02:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers
  • FN 5: retrieval date?
  • FN 13: "pp. 28M+"?
  • FN 25, 26: page(s)? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
    • All fixed except the last two bullet points: that article from The Detroit News spans several pages (28M, 30M and 31M), and the archive database does not indicate which of those three pages in the print edition contains the specific information. As for the other two footnotes, my copies of the articles lack page numbers; MDOT used to assemble a newsletter called Who's Talking about Michigan Transportation that includes photocopies of newspaper and magazine articles, usually without page citations. Until such time as a library that contains copies of the papers replies, I can't supply any page numbers for them. Imzadi 1979 → 06:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support with a minor change. The article is well written and is consistent with my recent trip/trek on about 2 miles of the highway.
  • Comment: Basic information seems to be missing from the lead; there is no clear indication given of where Mackinac Island is, what lake or sea it's in, what mainland town or city it's near, etc The map is unhelpful as it carries no indications of geographical location and could be of anywhere. I see a reference in the lead to the Lake Huron shoreline, but that's not enough. Please remember that most of your readers won't know where the Straits of Mackinack are, and they should not have to use links to other articles to find out. Links should be for pursuing additional detail, not for finding out basic facts. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment from a co-nominator: I will be out of town with family for the American Thanksgiving holiday, and I will be offline starting on Tuesday morning as a result. I should be able to check back in while on the road in a few days, however Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) should be able to deal with anything related to the article in my absence. Imzadi 1979 → 02:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Has there been an image review? Ucucha (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Not as far as I'm aware. Mitch32 21:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Cycling_(road)_pictogram.svg: description doesn't seem to mesh with claimed licensing, can you double-check this?

Otherwise, images appear unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Lede
"a popular tourist destination on the Lake Huron side of the Straits of Mackinac" — is "a popular tourist destination" really necessary?
"and is accessible from elsewhere only by passenger ferry" — tighten by removing "from elsewhere"
"and Lake Shore Road everywhere else" — "everywhere" isn't very professional, but that's only my opinion
"Until 2005, it was the only state highway without any automobile accidents." — needs clarification; was it the only state highway in Michigan to not have any automobile accidents, or was it the only one in the United States?
Route description
"the generally accepted starting point is at the mile 0 wooden marker" — this sounds a bit strange; shouldn't it read "wooden mile 0 marker"?
"originally a U.S. Coast Guard station, operated by the MISPC" — slightly distracting details
"The highway uses wooden, not metal" — change to something like "The highway uses wooden markers instead of metal..." or something like that. IMO, that sounds better than the current wording
"a network of roadways important to the country's economy, defense, and mobility" — slightly distracting details here again
"according to an article in The Grand Rapids Press" — this is similar to the "author says" problem. If you cite it, there's no need to say that.

HurricaneFan25 19:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed most of the comments, pardoning the first one, the US Coast Guard and the last two. I want to defer to Imzadi1979 on the rest. Mitch32 21:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
In the past, we've been told in previous FACs to explain the significance of an NHS listing, which is the exact details that you asked to be removed, HurricaneFan. As for the description of Mackinac Island, I feel it's needed to put the location in perspective. I have to say that I'm leaving that in the article for that reason. The sources either do one of two things: M-185 is the only state highway without cars (car accidents) in the US, or they omit a geographic restriction on the statuses. As for the others, either Adam or I have addressed them in some fashion. Thanks for the review! Imzadi 1979 → 22:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments from Floydian
Overall, the article is excellently sourced, comprehensive, and just about ready for that featured status... But there are a lot of grammatical nuances. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 01:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, a series of edits has covered this suggested changes. The only thing that wasn't addressed in some fashion was the inflation-adjusted numbers, because there is some debate over using the templates for that with capital expenses. (The text is there, but commented out waiting for a resolution of the issue.) Imzadi 1979 → 03:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Support - Everything looks good, and all the grammatical issues I had are now resolved. As I cannot find any issues to deter me otherwise, I support the promotion of this article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  ¢ 03:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Support - I've re-looked through the article and don't see anything worth opposing over or commenting on. --Rschen7754 04:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 .

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The ruins of Warkworth Castle are a spectacular sight to match their owners' interesting history. Founded sometime in the 12th century, but extensively remodelled later, the castle belonged to one of northern England's most powerful families, the Percys. The article is primarily based on the two most recent English Heritage guidebooks, written by authoritative authors: Summerson wrote many of EH's guidebooks and worked on the monograph for Brougham Castle, and Goodall recently published The English Castle 1066–1650 which has been widely praised. Hopefully, if you can wade through the army of people called Henry in the article you will find it worth your time. Thanks to Martin of Sheffield for helping out with the polishing, and to anyone who takes the time to review the article. Nev1 (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Specialist content

  • In terms of covering the specialist literature on the castle, the article does a good job. The key authors are all present and the article reflects the different perspectives on interpreting the building. Support from this perspective. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Spot checks

Comments
I think I read everything. I might check it over again once the issues are addressed. For the prose, I just gave some examples. That doesn't mean its all there is.
  • Wikilink
  • Parliment (parliment comes up several times in the article)
  • Bamburgh Castle
  • Anglo-saxon period (Anglo-Saxon England)
  • Scottish Wars
  • coat of arms
  • Why is John Lewyn redlinked, but none of the other nobles who don't have an article not redlinked?
Bamburgh Castle and the Anglo-Scottish Wars are already linked. John Lleywn is linked because as architect of Bolton and Warkworth Castles ad Durham Cathedral he is notable by Knowledge's standards, and ideally would have an article. Which other people do you think should be linked? Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Roger fitz Richard is probably the one that came clearly to mind as he was mentioned several times. However, I do not claim to be an expert in knowing which of these people are notable or not, just wondering why you thought only John Lewyn was.∞陣内Jinnai 18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
There was originally a link to his article as it happens, but if you check the article's talk page there some background as to why I chose to remove the link. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • A little info on what the Treaty of Durham would be nice. The reader shouldn't have to click on it just to find out the basics.
  • The info about when the castle was presumably founded by Henry II should be moved to right after the declaration. The sentance at the end of the first paragraph seems out of place at the end.
Could you be more specific, which sentence are you referring to? Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how the sentence is out of place at the end, but I think it makes more sense prefixed by a "though", and I made the edit: , "though it is possible that Henry II founded Warkworth Castle in 1157 to secure his lands in Northumberland ...". - Dank (push to talk) 12:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that's an improvement. Nev1 (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
"When the castle was founded and by whom is uncertain, though traditionally Prince Henry of Scotland has been held responsible." - That sentance seems to be acting a the intro for the remainder of the paragraph and yet it leaves out a crucial info about the possible date mentioned much later. IE, the final sentance contradicts the assertion that there is no ideas about what dates "may" have been the founding while making the asertion that Henry is recognized which is explained later and thus the reader is not suprised when there is info about the founding at the end by Henry, but would be by relative and more speicifc date.∞陣内Jinnai 18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You're right, that statement does act as an introduction of sorts, but an introduction doesn't need doesn't need to summarise what comes next. It does not say "there is no ideas", just that there is uncertainty. The various possibilities are then laid out, so there is no contradiction. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
However, when reading that first sentence it makes it sound like no actual dates are known, but the last sentence gives at least 2 possible dates. That may not be a direct contraindication in fact with the summary sentence, but it gives the uninformed reader the idea that there are no clear dates period.∞陣内Jinnai 01:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
It shouldn't do given that it says uncertain, which is different to unknown. A reader doesn't need to be knowledgeable about Warkworth Casltle to know that uncertain means there could be a range of possibilities. This isn't a situation that can be painted in black and white terms and I'm going to stick with the current wording. Nev1 (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.∞陣内Jinnai 03:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The Catholic Thomas Percy joined the rebellion". Either remove the descriptor Catholic or explain before this why its important to note he's Catholic
It's important that Thomas Percy was Catholic because it was a rebellion of Catholics, as made clear by the previous sentence. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess it must be the lack of the info on Queen Elizabeth I's religion that makes the statement seem off.∞陣内Jinnai 18:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess I took it for granted that readers would know Elizabeth was Protestant, I've now clarified that in the article. Nev1 (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I knew that, but not everyone is Christian or knows about the Catholic-Protestant wars.∞陣内Jinnai 01:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "d (he was fined £30,000 and held in the Tower of London)," - is that relevant to the article?
Yes, because it illustrates that Percy was in financial troubles and not free to directly control his property. Without that, when the earl's financial troubles are mentioned later the reader would be unaware of the cause. Nev1 (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • I've not noticed it in any other FAs, I just thought I'd try something different to avoid making the table of contents too long, but I'm more than happy to switch to conventional subheadings. Nev1 (talk) 14:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Ownership of Warkworth Castle continued to descend through the family when Robert fitz Roger died in 1214 and was succeeded by his son, John. When he in turn died in 1240, his own son, Roger, inherited.": This is mentioned above. Personally, I'd go with: Ownership of Warkworth Castle continued to descend through the family when Robert fitz Roger was succeeded by his son John in 1214, who was succeeded by his son Roger in 1240.
  • "The now-ruined 15th-century building replaced an earlier hall on the same site, dating from about 1200,": This is mentioned above. The previous paragraph deals with another structure from around 1200, so per WP:Checklist#chronology, I recommend you move the information on the earlier hall that's in this sentence up to the end of the previous paragraph. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Warkworth Castle was undefended. Its defences at the time were described as "feeble".": I'm not sure I know what it means for something to be undefended with feeble defenses. - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "when his son Robert was one-and-a-half": It's not wrong, it's just that it's not often that the "half" is significant enough to mention, so, "... was one year old", maybe. But if the historians think it's important, I'm not in a position to argue. - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "A year later, John made the Crown inheritor.": I'm not positive people will understand. Also, did he leave everything to the Crown in his will, or just the family estates, or just the castle?
  • As it happens I posted the relevant bit from Godall on the article's talk page. I'm cautious of saying John wrote the king into his will because that not what the source says, but it's pretty much what happened. I've clarified that it was all of his property that John gave to the king and it now says "A year later, John made arrangements so that on his death the king would receive all of his property." Nev1 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The years between roughly 1310 and 1330 were characterised by the inability of the English ...": I'd prefer that you either attribute that or shorten it to: "Between roughly 1310 and 1330, the English were unable ..."
  • Yeah, I see the problem here, I've changed it to "Between roughly 1310 and 1330 the English struggled to deal with Scottish raids in northern England". Nev1 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • " would be paid 500 marks a year in perpetuity in return for leading a company of men-at-arms. In exchange for the annual fee, in 1328 Percy was promised the rights to the Clavering's property.": I don't follow, unless "would" is in the sense of "would have been" here. Was he in fact paid 500 marks a year for life? - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • He was, "would" was a result of me using the wrong tense there. Is the bit about exchanging the fee for the Clavering's property clear? Nev1 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I don't really follow. - Dank (push to talk)
      • I expressed myself poorly, the bottom line is I changed it to "Henry de Percy ... was in the service of Edward III and was paid 500 marks a year in perpetuity in return for leading a company of men-at-arms". Nev1 (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "In the 1380s John of Gaunt, a rival since 1381 and son of Edward III, rebuilt the nearby Dunstanburgh Castle which may have driven Percy to enhance his own main castle. On the other hand it has been suggested that the earl was spurred by a programme of building at the castles of Brancepeth, Raby, Bamburgh, and Middleham, and Sheriff Hutton by the House of Neville, a family becoming increasingly powerful in northern England.": I'd structure this along the lines of: Percy may have enhanced his main castle to compete with John of Gaunt, who rebuilt (was rebuilding?) the nearby Dunstanburgh Castle, or the House of Neville ... - Dank (push to talk) 20:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "similarities between the keep and work at Bamburgh Castle": If "work" means parts of Bamburgh, which parts?
  • I've clarified the situation by changing the sentence to "Architectural similarities between Warkworth's keep, Bolton Castle, and the domestic buildings at Bamburgh Castle". Nev1 (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The earl's 14-year-old son claimed to be a loyal to the king but that he was not to be able to formally surrender the castle,": There's probably a way to say that in fewer words.
  • I've had a go at rephrasing it and have temporarily undone your further change. The thing is the surrender hinged on the son's claim not to be able to do it formally, ie: giving an exuse rather than flat out refusing. The quote from the source is below. Nev1 (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

At Warkworth, the king's officer was met by Percy's 14-year-old son, who declared himself a loyal subject but regretted that he did not have the ceremonial trappings necesssary to surrender the castle formally to the king, and on this absurd pretext kept control of it.

What does "ceremonial trappings" mean here? - Dank (push to talk) 00:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Good question, but unfortunately Goodall doesn't explain. Nev1 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Towards the end of the century the curtain wall was pulled down around 1752 was rebuilt.": ?
  • "Moving from the bailey east of the tower, turning south took a visitor to the castle's chapel.": From the bailey towards the east, or the bailey that was east?
  • I've changed it to "Entering through the east of the tower from the bailey", hoping that it makes it clear the bailey was on the east of the tower. Nev1 (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The northern door led to the great hall, and west to a cellar under the great chamber.": I don't follow.
  • I've changed it to "The northern door led to the great hall, and the western door to a cellar under the great chamber", does that clarify things? Nev1 (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

*I still think the sentence about the 14-year-old son raises a question it doesn't answer (see above), but I'm out of time, and on balance, I have no problem supporting. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

  • That certainly makes sense, although I've changed it to a more general "missiles" than "stones" as what the defenders could throw at atttackers through machicolations wasn't limited. Nev1 (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "Entering the east side of the tower from the bailey and turning south, took a visitor to the castle's chapel.": Fix this if it's wrong, I went with: Directly south of the east side of the tower was the castle's chapel. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Warkworth_Castle_plan.JPG: what type of source is this?
  • File:Plan_of_Warkworth_Castle's_keep,_1909.jpg: page number? Also, I had to laugh when I saw the "Do not copy to Commons" tag immediately above the "Now available on Commons" tag - that's probably worth sorting out. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, headdesk. A similar issue regarding plans from Gotch's work arose during Peveril Castle's FAC and I asked that it should be deleted. I've asked again. The online source give "pp.82ff" as the location of the plan so that's what I've added to the file description. Nev1 (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comments nicely written, I made one small tweak, hope you like it. If not its a wiki..... Information about the materials used and the size of the place would be nice. Heights of walls, area enclosed and types of stone would all be relevant if they are available, and perhaps a comparison with other castles? Also a slightly larger map showing it in the context of the loop in the river might make clearer its defensibility. ϢereSpielChequers 19:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I saw the change and moving the clarifying statement about the House of Neville earlier made sense. The suggestions you make are good. I might be able to stitch together a map from Vision Britain; Martin of Sheffield made a similar suggestion about adding a map but I only recently remembered the website. As for heights, area enclosed etc, Summerson and Goodall didnt dwell on measurements (in fact I can't remember sseing a single one), but I should be able to get some rough measurements from one of the plans they provide, though not heights. What kind of comparison are you expecting to see? Castles come in all shapes and sizes, so while some elements may be compared to other sites (ie: the brief mention of Bolton Castle) it's not always easy. Events at Alnwick are mentioned occasionally to contrast the fortunes of Warkworth, although the article doesn't delve into specifics of design. Nev1 (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
If the sources don't cover this then I'd be surprised, but for FA we only need to check if facts are available. If they aren't available in reliable sources then we leave that for some future editor after such info becomes available. However a slightly different picture might make some of my points visually. What do you think of File:River Coquet with Warkworth and the Castle in the background - geograph.org.uk - 538130.jpg? ϢereSpielChequers 22:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The problem with that photo is it's pretty poor quality. Though not quite as clear, the Turner picture adds something similar, showing the river below the castle, and has the added value of being by a notable painter. The main sources are not exclusively technical, so it's probably the authors felt it unnnecessary to weight down the text with excessive numbers, especially when plans are available in each from which such measurements can be taken. It's not that measurements are not available as such, more that the authors haven't included them in the prose. That said, I think it would have been nice if they had added a handful. Nev1 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
What do you think of this? It's part of an Ordnance Survey map published in 1945. It's covered under Crown Copyright which expires 50 years after publication so licensing isn't a problem. The scale is 1 mile to one inch, so you can't see any detail on the castle, but I think it works at putting it within its immediate landscape. Nev1 (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks that certainly gives local context. If possible it would be good to have a sentence or two on strategic importance if you can source it. If that A road is the old coast road then this castle would have been sited at the junction of the coast road and the river. ϢereSpielChequers 22:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
This sentence " The Office of Works was given custody of the castle in 1922." is a bit too short in the lead, and I can't tack it onto anything easily. Can you add some info that makes it a tad longer? I feel it'll make the lead flow better.
Fair point, it now reads "Alan Percy, 8th Duke of Northumberland, gave custody of the castle to the Office of Works in 1922." Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
..... traditionally Prince Henry of Scotland has been held responsible - " held responsible" to me has a somewhat negative connotation which makes it sounds a little odd here. Funnily enough, "thought responsible" doesn't, so I think is a better fit...?
I like the suggestion so I've made the change. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
... and surrounding manor to Roger fitz Richard. - I think an adjective or descriptor of who/what Roger fitz Richard is. If we know nothing, then adding "one" before his name will intimate that nicely.
Quite handily I'd put some information on the talk that helps with this. I changed it to "Roger fitz Richard, a member of a noble Norman family." Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Twice in 1327 Scottish forces besieged the castle without success - any idea why they didn't succeed?
I'd love to know, but the secondary sources don't go into much detail, my guess would be because the primary sources don't either. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
From the great hall was a door to a chapel and beyond that was a great chamber, a formal room where the lord would meet guests. - hmm, I think it needs a rewrite as doesn't scan well to my eyes, but an alternative isn't jumping to mind straightaway.
How about this? "A chapel off the great hall led to a large formal room ..." - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
That works for me too. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
is there anything on current annual visitors, facilities or functions it is used for?
Where possible I like to give some recent visitor numbers. This site, the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions, is handy but not comprehensive. So far I've had no luck looking for figures for Warkworth. Regarding facilities there are information boards and guided tours but not really what you might call a museum. I wouldn't be surprised if re-enactments of one sort or another were put on for visitors (it happens at Kenilworth Castle for example), but the English Heritage events page is giving nothing away. Nev1 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Otherwise looking pretty good on prose and comprehensiveness grounds Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The change from 'considered "feeble" so when the Scots invaded in 1173 it was undefended' to 'considered "feeble", and was left undefended when the Scots invaded in 1173' is a change of meaning. In the former the feeble state _caused_ the castle to be undefended whilst in the latter there is no such implication. PS, as I posted to Nev's talk page, the map makes things much clearer. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, this gives me a chance to talk about one of the harder Checklist items, WP:Checklist#because. Please tell me if that, and the related section on the talk page, shed any light. - Dank (push to talk) 12:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with the checklist entirely, but that's a different issue. Without access to the sources I can't make any judgement on this instance, it was just that when I read the differences it seemed to be more than a simple gramatical or stylistic change. Your judgement call! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 .

Nominator(s): Harrison49 (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Corrected for new nomination SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, based on prose and thoroughness of referencing (spotchecks not done). However, I noticed an issue with "... the 1969 film Battle of Britain were photographed in the 11 Group Operations Room, ..." Photographed seems odd as it implies that they were stills; if it was actual film, why not "shot" instead? Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, as a suggestion, perhaps making the short references linked to the correct entry in the bibliography using something like {{harv}} family of templates would make more it user-friendly. Citation style, as long as it is consistent, isn't a criteria so this is just a suggestion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll look into that. Also, thanks for spotting the mistake with the Battle of Britain filming. I think it had been changed during a copyedit. Harrison49 (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, "photgraphed" is often used as a synonym for fliming, e.g. you have a "Director of Photography", even though it might be better expressed as "Director of Cinematography". Anyway "shot" would take care of it nicely... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since the previous FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Page numbers have been added, external links have been reduced and the full title of AIDU (Aeronautical Information Documents Unit) has been included. Harrison49 (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Support, also Spotchecked -- Reviewed, copyedited and spotchecked at MilHist ACR, after which I was happy to support. Having looked through changes since then and finding only a couple of minor things to correct, I believe FAC criteria are also met -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Link to ACR with spotchecks: WP:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/RAF Uxbridge. - Dank (push to talk) 01:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Has there been an image review? Ucucha (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Image review

  • Check grammar on captions. Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • File:RAF_Uxbridge_Crest.jpg: not required, but generally good practice for the FUR to mention this is the lead infobox image
  • File:Government_Ensign_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg (the source for the infobox flag) appears to be based on a deleted page
  • File:Southern_entrance_to_Hillingdon_House.jpg: if this was created in the early 1900s, wouldn't it be PD in the UK by now? If the FUR is kept, should specify who the copyright holder is. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the image review.
  • Full stops have now been added to captions.
  • I would argue the crest was required as it is an intrinsic part of the station's history and identity and is described within the article. An additional note has been added to the rationale.
  • File:Government Ensign of the United Kingdom.svg appears to have been remade based on File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg. The deleted images seem to have been earlier names for the files.
  • The fair use rationale for Southern_entrance_to_Hillingdon_House.jpg cites the source publication and image credit from within the book, which is the available copyright information. The only UK PD licence as far as I'm aware is for UK Government works, which this is unlikely to be. Harrison49 (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • There is also a PD-old template for the UK. If I'm not mistaken, 50 years after the death of the creator. If it was first published before 1923, it is PD in the US and at the very least can be marked as such at Knowledge; Commons only accepts images that are PD in both the source country and the US. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for checking. I have no other information relating to the creator other than their name so wouldn't be able to use the PD-old template. Would it be best to leave it with the historical fair use template instead? Harrison49 (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
  • To my understanding, if it were published before 1923 it could be licensed using {{PD-US-1923-abroad}} and kept on the English Knowledge; unlike Commons, En-Knowledge allows files that are free in the US but not the country of origin. Of course, to be safe (especially if the year of publication has not been ascertained) you could keep the fair-use template. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I've got to be able to get through the lead at least without prose concerns :) The second sentence is labored, but then I hit this:

Until the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939, the station was open to the public, and a public footpath ran across the site until 1988; it reopened in 2011.

I can't tell what's happening here (what was public when) and when I search the article for "footpath", no hits. I eventually find text about a right of way (which I think should be hyphenated-- not sure though). Here's another example of labored prose:

The station cinema is also Grade II listed. The Battle of Britain War Memorial is a scheduled protected monument. While not listed, several other buildings on the site were identified within the plans for possible retention. These are the Sick Quarters, the Officers' Mess, the gymnasium, the carpenters' block in the grounds of Hillingdon House and a building near the Battle of Britain Bunker.

Wouldn't it be more straightforward to say:

The station cinema is also Grade II listed. The Battle of Britain War Memorial is a scheduled protected monument. The Sick Quarters, the Officers' Mess, the gymnasium, the carpenters' block in the grounds of Hillingdon House and a building near the Battle of Britain Bunker are not listed, but were identified for possible retention.

Tough going, and when adding in the military jargon, hard for a layperson. Please get a non-Milhist person to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. I'm sorry it wasn't presented clearly, but a search for "path" would have found the information about the footpath. I've made changes based on your suggestions. Harrison49 (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comments: Oppose, at least for now. this article still needs work, as even a cursory look at the lead demonstrates. The muddle over the public footpath still hasn't been sorted out. A few more specific comments follow:
Lead
  • "A footpath that had traversed the site until 1988 was reopened in 2011." So in 1988 it ceased to traverse the site?
Going with "A footpath through the site that had closed in 1988 was reopened in 2011". - Dank (push to talk)
Much better, thanks. Harrison49 (talk)
Early years
  • "The Marchioness of Rockingham, widow of Prime Minister Charles Watson-Wentworth, 2nd Marquess of Rockingham, purchased the house from the Chetwynd family in 1786 for £9,000". When did the Chetwynd family acquire the house? Last we were told it was in the ownership of the Duke of Schomberg. And are you going with delimiters in four-digit numbers or not? In the next section we have "the Royal Flying Corps Armament School which moved into Hillingdon House with 114 officers and 1156 men, making a donation of £2289 12s 9d to the Canadian Red Cross".
Got rid of the comma. If the Chetwynd family wasn't significant, we could always just omit their name. - Dank (push to talk) 23:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
There are other occurrences of commas in four digit numbers throughout the article. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Harrison?
I was going with delimiters. The only exception had been the old money that the RFC's donation was made in, but that has now been changed. I've removed the Chetwynd family. None of the comprehensive sources I have consulted have any information of owners between the Duke of Schomberg and the Chetwynds. Harrison49 (talk)
  • "Cox & Co, as the company was then known, was formed after Richard Cox was appointed agent to the Foot Guards (later the Grenadier Guards), providing banking services for many regiments of the British Army by the end of the 18th century". The ending of that sentence doesn't match its beginning: "Cox & Co, as the company was then known ... providing banking services for many regiments of the British Army by the end of the 18th century".
Went with "and provided".
First World War
  • "Needing a site for the training of recruits in ground gunnery, the RFC used parts of the estate not required by the Canadians, and established a firing range." That's rather strangely written, as it implies that the RFC did two things: used parts of the estate not required by the Canadians and established a firing range, whereas they presumably established a firing range in the parts of the estate not required by the Canadians?
It might be correct as written. Harrison, use Malleus's suggestion if that covers what you're trying to say.
It is correct, but I've made some changes to the sentence. Besides the ranges, the RFC would have needed other areas for barracks, physical training and similar requirements. Harrison49 (talk)
Inter-war years
  • "... as was the RAF Officers' hospital". Strange capitalisation. Is it called the "RAF Officers' Hospital"? If not, then why is "Officers'" capitalised?
I lowercased it.
  • "On 1 March 1929, the Headquarters of the Royal Observer Corps (ROC) was established at Hillingdon House". Why is "Headquarters" capitalised?
Harrison, is "Headquarters of the Royal Observer Corps" the usual name of the unit?
The military would officially have called it "Headquarters, Royal Observer Corps", but I've removed the capital. Harrison49 (talk)
P.S. I've covered from Post-war years down and the first third, so as not to edit-conflict with Malleus. Done for now. - Dank (push to talk) 23:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Over to you now, I've promised to look at something else this evening. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Second World War
  • "A series of one-day training courses for pilots in the organisation of Group Control took place throughout November." I have no idea what that means.
Me neither. - Dank (push to talk)
It wasn't that important so I have removed it. It meant they were taught how a fighter group was controlled. Harrison49 (talk)
  • "... only the garden wall and door was retained". The subject (garden wall and door) is plural.
Fixed.
Sorry, should have spotted that. Harrison49 (talk)
  • "Churchill was again present at RAF Uxbridge on the fiercest day of fighting of the entire battle – Battle of Britain Day – 15 September 1940." Punctuation needs looking at. Consider: "Churchill was again present at RAF Uxbridge on the fiercest day of fighting of the entire battle ... 15 September 1940."
I went with: ... the entire battle: Battle of Britain Day, 15 September 1940
  • "Luftwaffe pilots became confused at this unexpected landmark that was not on their maps, and so it is believed this contributed to the small number of bombs which fell on the station." That's pretty ugly, especially the "and so it is believed ..." bit.
I went with: "Few bombs fell on the station; Luftwaffe pilots may have mistaken the glass greenhouses at the Lowe & Shawyer plant nursery west of the station for a large body of water not on their maps."
  • "On D-Day, the 11 Group Controller became responsible for ensuring sufficient air patrols of the United Kingdom, the main shipping routes and the beach landing areas". Was that just for D-Day, or from D-Day onwards?
Harrison? - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Just for D-Day. Harrison49 (talk)
Post-war years
  • "The restored Operations Room in the No. 11 Group Battle of Britain Bunker". "A museum was created within the bunker and the operations room opened for group visits." Which is it to be? Should "operations room" be capitalised or not?
    Both. The bunker houses the Operations Room and a museum. I'm now going for capitals throughout. Harrison49 (talk)
  • "In March 2003 the Under-Secretary of State for Defence was prepared at Uxbridge for a visit to the Gulf." How do you prepare an Under-Secretary of State? Give him a good wash and brush up and clean set of clothes?
    My source said "prepared" but I've changed it to "briefed". Harrison49 (talk)
  • "Over 20,000 people watched the parade, which started from Uxbridge Magistrates Court, passing through the High Street to the RAF station." As "High Street" is capitalised then it must be a proper noun, the name of the street. Therefore prefixing it with "the" is inappropriate; you wouldn't say "passing through the Acacia Avenue" for instance. And what does "passing through" mean in this context anyway? How do you pass through a street?
I changed it to "passing along High Street". - Dank (push to talk) 23:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
It is common to describe a High Street as "the High Street". A High Street is generally a focal point for a town and the site of main shopping parades, so is treated differently to other streets. Using just "High Street" doesn't look or sound right. "Passing through" meant they went from one end to the other. Harrison49 (talk)
Understood, I just couldn't think of a solution as good as the one you adopted: "passing along the town's High Street". - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I've thought for years that that was correct, but it's not in M-W or the Cambridge Dictionary, it must be "service members". Fixed. - Dank (push to talk) 00:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I prefer the original "servicemen and women". Harrison49 (talk)
What I understand of FAC style would make it "servicemen and -women". "Gender-neutral" writing is all the rage in the US ... I trust Malleus's judgment more than mine on which version we want for this article for FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll go with "service members" then. Thanks again for your edits, Dank. Harrison49 (talk) 19:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
My pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, picking up on Dank's gender-neutral point, we have "... support group meetings began at the station for the families of servicemen serving during the Gulf War." Was it really only males sent to the Gulf War? "Servicemen serving" sounds a bit awkward in any case. What about something like "personnel serving ..."? Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Have gone for "station personnel". Harrison49 (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus Fatuorum 23:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 .

Nominator(s): Auree ★ 21:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC) and 12george1 (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a complete and factual account on this large and devastating storm. Since its previous state, the article has undergone major changes and expanded greatly in both size and comprehensiveness. It has also received an extensive peer review, which helped improve in particular its prose. In addition, the article contains a well-balanced amount of both reliable English and Spanish sources, and I believe there are no significant omissions of coverage. Auree ★ 21:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Confirming that User:12george1 is co-nomming. Auree ★ 21:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • "it proceeded through Central America, and reorganized" — shouldn't that have a hyphen so it reads as "re-organized"?
  • "The high terrain quickly disrupted its organization, and Gert entered the Pacific" — link Pacific Ocean?
  • "The rain, combined with saturated soil due to previous Tropical Storm Bret" — change to "due to the recent Tropical Storm Bret" or something
  • "The deepening convection consolidated over open waters, and by 0600 UTC the next day Gert once again became a tropical storm under weak wind shear" — change to "under the influence of wind shear" or something; you might think differently
  • "No redevelopment occurred" — add a hyphen between "re" and "development"
  • "for coastal regions on September 14, which was upgraded to a tropical storm warning along the Atlantic coast by the following day." — remove "by"
  • "A warning was also posted for the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua on September 15, extending south from Puerto Cabezas and including the adjacent islands." — any specific type of warning?
  • "A maximum of 17.8 in (452 mm) fell at Corinto; other high totals include 17.6 in (447 mm) at Chinandega and 17.5 in (444 mm) at León. The capital of Managua recorded 9.8 in (249 mm) of rain during the event." — combine into one sentence, preferably using a semicolon
  • "The rains triggered scattered landslides across bridges and roads, causing additional damage and disrupting transportation." — the bridges and roads caused landslides? Or the landslides went onto the roads? :P
  • "Tuxpan, very close to where the eye moved ashore" — I don't like "very" here, sounds unencyclopedic
  • "Immediate reports of impact were due to high winds" — seems to imply something I don't think you mean to imply. Change it to something like "The first immediate reports of impact resulted from high winds"
    • The current wording still sounds a bit strange. "The first reports of impact were of high winds" — shouldn't that "of" be "from"?
  • "The Pánuco River rose to its highest water level in 40 years" — IMO you don't need "water"
  • "Urban areas of Madero and Altamira were also hard hit by the flooding" — "hard hit" > "hit hard"
  • "Emergency crews were accordingly dispatched to assess the damage" — remove "the"
  • "In its wake, the disrupted road network across the affected regions impacted the local agriculture, tourism, and commerce." — add "industries" at the end of the sentence?
  • "The obstruction of a major highway connecting the central region" — it it possible to specify which highway?
  • "After the President of Mexico" — specify the president? like "After Mexican President ______..."
  • "Schools served as public shelters, and $27,000 in milk powder was purchased for the sheltered children, elderly, and pregnant or lactating women." — what does milk powder have to schools being used as shelters?
  • "After two weeks, over 65,000 people were accommodated in shelters, and most of them remained" — change "and" to "of which"
Thanks for the comments and support. The ones I didn't reply to have been addressed per your suggestions. Auree ★ 22:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Multiple pages should be notated using "pp." not "p."
  • check publisher for FN 17
I believe the rest has been addressed. Thanks for the review as usual Auree ★ 22:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Comment on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. - right, reading through now (well, not while I type this) and jotting notes below (I'll make straightforward copyedits as I go - revert me if I inadvertently change the meaning): Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
where as much as 31.41 in (798 mm) of precipitation was measured - just a query as I'm not familiar with these articles, is it usual to go to this degree of accuracy in precipitation?
Yeah, if such a specific total is available. It's even preferred most of the time (for meteorological accuracy). Auree ★ 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't get what a circulation is in this context.
How does "wind circulation" sound?
sounds fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Its cloud pattern continued to organize - does "organize" have a specific meaning here, if we just mean "gather" then I suggest "coalesce" might be better...?
Hmmm... I'm not too sure about this one, since it is a pretty common term in meteorology. I really like "coalesce" though, and I'm all for using it since it conveys the same meaning. I'll ask around at the WPTC chat Auree ★ 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
ok. cool. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
radio stations broadcast warning messages to aware the public - hmm, can't use "aware" as a transitive verb like that (?) - I'd go with "radio stations broadcast warning messages to alert the public"
Very true! Good call Auree ★ 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Gert showed signs of intensification - why not just " Gert showed signs of getting stronger" or "intensifying"
I don't see much of a difference, but would "strengthening" work? Auree ★ 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
yup. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Although Gert's center remained off the coast of Costa Rica, its large circulation produced brisk winds and heavy precipitation across the country. - why not just "rainfall"? Is there a meaning in precipitation that is not in rainfall. I always try to use a plainer word as long as meaning is not compromised.
Rainfall would work better here, yeah. Auree ★ 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Overall nice work - surprisingly little to nitpick about. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank ya for the review! Your edits were fine as well. I'm not sure if you're done, but the comments have been addressed.Auree ★ 18:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


  • Comment, some nitpicks:
    • The high terrain quickly disrupted its structure, and Gert entered the Pacific as a tropical depression by September 21. — can you be more exact as to where Gert re-emerged over the sea? It could have been over the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, or over the Sea of Cortez, and this sentence is arguably correct. Please be more specific, as not everyone can look at the track map and see it emerged near Cabo Corrientes.
    • A tropical wave, or a trough of low pressure oriented north to south, moved off the African coast well south of Dakar on September 5 and tracked rapidly westward across the tropical Atlantic. — use em dashes here, they work better for the interruption to explain "tropical wave"
    • Owing to favorable tropospheric conditions aloft, the system began showing signs of development, — did the source mention anything about what made the upper-level conditions favorable (e.g. an anticyclone)? Also, link "development" to tropical cyclogenesis
    • Its cloud pattern continued to coalesce, and the NHC upgraded it to Tropical Storm Gert on September 15. — the lede mentioned that Gert briefly attained named-storm status, so add a timestamp here, so the reader can compare it to the landfall time you mention in the next sentence.
    • The storm's duration over water was short-lived; it moved back inland near Belize City by the next day, allowing minimal opportunity for development — get rid of "by", and would "redevelopment" be better in this case?
    • Inland, a ridge of high pressure forced a weakening Gert to turn back to the west-northwest. — this sentence made me think at first that there was a mesoscale ridge of some sort over Central America, which sort of goes against the requirement for ridges having to be synoptic-scale features. Please reword this to something like "Once a weakened Gert was inland, it began to feel the effects of a high-pressure ridge, and turned back to the west-northwest" or something similar.
    • The deepening convection consolidated over open waters with light wind shear, — you just said that the storm was weakening, so this makes no meteorological sense. (Yes, I know what you are trying to say. You need to explicitly say that Gert began to re-intensify once it entered the Gulf of Mexico.)
    • On September 20, data from an air force aircraft indicated that the storm had evolved into a hurricane — Mexican Air Force? (I know it's not, say it was a USAF plane explicitly, as the lay reader doesn't know that.)
    • Once inland, the storm accelerated and rapidly weakened over the mountainous region; — mention the Sierra Madre Oriental explicitly, as you mention it in the Impact section by name.
    • Gert entered the Pacific Ocean later that day, where it was reclassified as Tropical Depression Fourteen-E. — why didn't it keep the same name? (Link to the relevant article, tropical cyclone naming.)
    • After confirming the development of a tropical depression, authorities in Costa Rica issued a green alert for coastal regions on September 14, which was upgraded to a tropical storm warning along the Atlantic coast the following day. — can you really say that the warning issued by the RSMC is an upgrade to the alert issued by the national meteorological organization? I like how you mention both, but I don't think that saying it is an "upgrade" is correct.
    • National television and radio stations broadcast warning messages to alert the public, while emergency crews were dispatched in case conditions would warrant. — "would" is the wrong tense.
    • Gert was a large and tenacious tropical cyclone for most of its lifespan, — "tenacious" is a borderline WP:PEACOCK term. (Never thought I'd say that in a hurricane FAC…)
    • There, the flooding affected 24,000 people and made communication with surrounding areas with limited road network nearly impossible. — "limited road network" sounds awkward. I suggest "limited connectivity to the road network" or something similar.
    • Perpetual heavy rain in the wake of the storm aggravated the situation, — it's still going on? o.O (Use "continued" here.)
    • The federal governments of Japan, Canada, Switzerland, Norway, Germany, and Spain donated over $300,000 in aid. — each, or in total?
    • Although most of the affected population was aided within days, the limited road network caused a large delay in relief efforts to the hard-hit Mosquitia Region. — "received aid" would sound better here, and you used "road network" in the previous paragraph before. "Highway system" or something is equivalent and adds variety.
    • The governments of Japan, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom provided $310,300 for the purchase of relief items. — again, is this a lump sum, or a contribution by each?
  • Most of my complaints are stylistic, but there are some accessibility and jargon complaints in there as well, and I would like to see these addressed before supporting. Titoxd 03:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, all my points have been addressed to my satisfaction. Titoxd 02:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see an image review and a spotcheck of the sources for this article. Ucucha (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Where could I request these? Auree ★ 22:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Woot, thanks! Auree ★ 02:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. There are far too many errors in the "publishers" of Spanish-language sources for me to determine quickly if these sources are reliable (every single one I checked was wrong). Also, when listing some obscure national commission, you should give the country. Auree, do you speak Spanish or are you using an online translator? When you find a PDF in Spanish, you sometimes have to follow that PDF back to where you got it to figure out who published it, and if the case is some student at some University, that may not be a reliable source. You haven't identified the CRID as a publisher, and it even has an English section of its website. Unless Titoxd (who speaks Spanish) has time to get to all of this, I will have to do it ... Please ask Titoxd if he can have a look with the aim of fixing the publishers, adding locations when they are country-specific entities, and checking that Spanish-language sources are accurately represented in the article. If he does so, he can ping me-- if he can't, pls ping me next week and I'll get to it myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Auree knows Spanish, so he can probably double-check himself. YE 15:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Thanks, YE (excess bolding removed). OK, following on Nikkimaria's original comment (above), here's the first one I found-- the rest are similar and need attention:
        (in Spanish) "Las inundaciones causadas por el Huracan "Gert" sus efectos en Hidalgo, San Luis Potosí, Tamaulipas y Veracruz" (PDF). El Sistema Nacional de Protección Civil. p. 1. Retrieved 2011-10-26.
        This is publshed by www.crid.or.cr -- they have a website, and they have an English-language section of their website, hence they have an English-language publisher name. On the other hand, our readers will have no idea what "El Sistema Nacional de Protección Civil" is or to what country it pertains. Next, if this was in fact actually published by some Costa Rican entity and then merely re-published by CRID, is it reliable? Should we have a "work" parameter as well as a "publisher" parameter on these sources? Titoxd will know, but the citations need to be cleaned up for two purposes-- should links go dead, our readers need to have enough info to know where to find them, and we need to know if these sources are reliable (that is, who actually published them, including the first publisher, what country etc). I found another one that was accessed on some library (El Salvador I think, but can't remember now) that appeared to be some sort of student publication, but I didn't check closely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
        For the record, real-life commitments prevent me from doing anything substantial in Knowledge for the next month. (A couple of conferences and finals will do that to you.) I can't check the citations in a time frame that is reasonable for the purposes of this FAC. Titoxd 19:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for replying and pointing this out, Sandy. First off, I would like to clarify that I can fluently read/understand Spanish (I grew up with the language). Admittedly, I'm not the best at citation formatting, and I will have to check out the publisher issue. I'll ask others like Titoxd to help Auree ★ 15:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Glad to know you speak Spanish, that helps-- PS, I haven't looked closely enough, but I'm also wondering if the CRID is hosting copyvios? Do they have the rights to re-publish those PDFs? Similar on others-- I'm sure you all can sort this without me, then. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Here is everything we need to know about CRID, which seems pretty authentic. The document on the effects in Mexico was originally published by CENAPRED, so I'm not sure how to format this. Auree ★ 20:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Titoxd helped me with some of the issues offsite, though I'm not sure if they have been fixed properly. It would be great if you could take another look. Auree ★ 21:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I looked at your diff of changes, and it still needs more ... not all have locations, and there are multiple (different) websites that indicate the same publisher. Are some of these being republished? For example, the CRID one is, I think. You may solve some of this by listing the original publisher under the Work parameter, and the website where you found it hoseted under the Publisher parameter-- remember that if those links go dead, folks need to know what to search on, and in many cases, the website you found it hosted on is not listed as the publisher. Give it another go, and I'll have a look later ??? Are you sure none of those websites are hosting copyvios? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
By the way (unrelated to whether this article meets FA standards), if you all are going to be using Centro Regional de Información sobre Desastres a lot for citation, it needs an article at either there or Regional Disaster Information Center, and CRID needs a hatnote at top. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Alright, I'll have a go at it once more. How would I best go about adding locations (if required) to those that apply to Central America/Latin America in general?
Edit: I've implemented your publisher/work suggestion to the sources, though I think I went a bit overboard with the locations... Auree ★ 00:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Auree, I'll continue this on talk here so we can get it sorted without filling this page-- it may seem minor, but since you are likely to use these same sources often, we should get it sorted once and for all-- that will aid your future articles. Our goal is to make sure that if any of these websites go dead (government entities have a way of doing that in Latin America :), future editors and readers can still figure out where to find the original reports. Continued on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I've struck my oppose for now, but remain frustrated at the way citations are written in this article. I don't have time to sort this further, but my concerns extend beyond the Spanish-language sources, and I suggest pinging in Fifelfoo (talk · contribs) for a look with an aim towards achieving a more professional citation standard for future hurricane FACs (he's good at this sort of thing, and may have better feedback than mine). I'm on a slow connection and am having a hard time loading the sources, so I'm afraid I'm not helping much. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, Sandy. You did help a lot, and I appreciate your determination to improve the citation formatting for this article. I will continue working toward achieving a more professional standard of sourcing. Auree ★ 20:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comments - Excellent article. Undeniably the best account of this storm available anywhere, which is my #1 criterion for FA status. That said, I have some comments regarding the met. history.
  • A tropical wave—or a trough of low pressure oriented north to south - if you're going to describe it in the context of a "trough", you should mention that an EW is an inverted trough.
    I'll chime in here. Saying that easterly waves are inverted troughs raises the question, "What is an inverted trough?" Answering that is not the point of this article, and is too off-topic for my taste. I'd replace it with "area of low pressure". Titoxd 19:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Due to its position at a relatively low latitude, interaction with the Intertropical Convergence Zone - dangling participle as far as I can tell, unless I'm interpreting this line incorrectly.
  • the system began showing signs of development, as the deep convection organized into well-defined curved rainbands. - "as", here, is irritatingly vague. I'm not sure whether to interpret it as "while" or "since/because". It doesn't make a huge difference, but it's disconcerting to read something and not know its intended meaning.
  • By that time, it had retraced toward the north-northwest under the influence of a mid- to upper-level trough over the eastern Gulf of Mexico. - I'm having a hard time visualizing this. "Under the influence of" could mean any number of things.
  • The storm's duration over water was short-lived; it moved - grammatically, "it" modifies "the storm's duration", which I'm sure isn't the intended meaning.
  • Once Gert was inland, it began to feel - example of a phrase that could be simplified. "Once inland, Gert began to feel..."
  • After crossing the Yucatán Peninsula and decreasing in organization, it entered the Bay of Campeche as a tropical depression late on September 18 - I wouldn't use the pronoun "it" in a sentence that doesn't mention the subject by name or type ("Gert", "the system", "the cyclone", "the storm").
  • that the storm had evolved into a hurricane with winds of 75 mph (120 km/h) - "evolved" is incorrect here; it simply strengthened.
  • Its forward motion had slowed slightly due to a shortwave trough to its north, allowing the hurricane more time to organize over water. - weird sentence structure in general. I still don't like using "it" in the absence of an immediately preceding subject. Also, you should try to explain why the shortwave caused the storm to slow. Did it suppress the storm? Lend extra vorticity to the hurricane causing it to deepen vertically and in turn become embedded in a different steering pattern? Spin up a superstorm akin to 1993 which phased with two other sources of upper-level energy and encircled the globe, ensuring Gert couldn't gain latitude?
  • Gert subsequently attained its peak intensity as a Category 2 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson scale, reaching winds of near 100 mph (165 km/h). - "near" is confusing, since 100 mph is the exact unit used elsewhere in the article.
  • with its eye moving - poor structure; see if you can rephrase.
  • Although deep convection waxed and waned in intensity, satellite observations - another dangling participle-type thingy...
  • No redevelopment occurred due to cold waters - this is more obvious, but I still don't like "due to" without any indication of cause and effect.

Overall, I feel like this section in particular is a bit knotty and disjointed, and could afford to be polished up. Feel free to point out where I'm off-base. Juliancolton (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Julian Auree ★ 18:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - enough of my concerns have been addressed to justify supporting. The information and quality of presentation in the article is very consistent with FA status. Juliancolton (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment the nominator solicited my involvement in relation to citations, and I will be commenting at this FAC's talk page. In brief summary: I'm a bit disturbed that some high quality reliable sources aren't sufficiently well referenced; given that this is a gnomish problem I might just muck in one day and fix it. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm going to sort out any citation problems here and then sign off; after this weekend when I have to go do something rather important to my personal life. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Support on 47/47 citations for citation formatting and source quality (yes I also checked source quality and approve) problems noted and being fixed all fixed Fifelfoo (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Update All the citations have been given a thorough look-through. I've made changes per User:Fifelfoo's suggestions and comments, and he will later double-check for any further mistakes. Auree ★ 21:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I'd like to thank Hylian Auree for doing so much work on such complex citations. I really am just cleaning up fiddle! Fifelfoo (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
          • I hope Auree plans to become our next resident expert on citations :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
            • Thanks to both of you for all your effort and great help! And who knows, Sandy—I do appreciate high quality and meticulousness. :P Auree ★ 00:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
              • Thanks to Hylian Auree and thanks to Sandy Georgia. Sometimes you get dobbed in for jobs and they're tiring, hard, painful and worst of all: useless. This job was tiring, hard, painful and highly productive. It was good hard work and I was glad for it. Cite 31 handled brilliantly btw. Cite 36 was a doozy and the kind of bastard citation problem that calls for expert assistance (which was asked for correctly!). Cite 39 is also available as a PDF at the same location, and I suggest that the PDF be used over the .doc as PDF is a more "open" format, and I did that anyway by BOLDness. Cite 39 was a bastard too. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I totally forgot about this FAC. I reviewed it before it was sent to FA, and was quite pleased with it. I am confident that it is the best account on the storm anywhere, and I believe the sourcing problems (if there are any left) are minor enough for this to be promoted. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 .

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because, after passing a GA review, I believe it meets the qualifications. Coemgenus (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

  • I'm assuming from the different formatting of Fritsch and Kummer that in the latter both Kummer and Fox are editors; if that's the case, why not include both in shortened citations?
  • Location for Kummer?
  • Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated or spelled out. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Locations and state should be fixed now. As to the editors: Fritsch wrote a monograph that Butts edited. Kummer wrote an essay on the 68th N.Y. that was included in a larger work about all the New York units at Gettysburg, which Fox edited. I've changed the cite format on Kummer to better reflect that. I also added the second editor, Daniel Sickles, whom I had inadvertently left off. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Link check - no DAB-links, no dead external links, some wikilinks added. GermanJoe (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The 68th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment was an infantry regiment that served ...": Not your fault, you (and others) are following that awful advice in WP:LEAD ... but I just can't see it. "The 68th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment served ..." - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "Made up mostly of German immigrants, it was also known as ...": Just an idea, this would be a little tighter: "Mostly German immigrants, they were also known as ..."
  • "Cameron Rifles,": See WP:LQ
  • "1020 men filled the ranks when the regiment finished recruiting.": had finished
  • "Washington, D.C..": oops
  • "re-organized": hyphen in BritEng, no hyphen in AmEng
  • "They moved to Hunter's Chapel, Virginia, and camped there for the remainder of the winter. While there, Betge came into conflict ...": No big deal, but someone's probably going to complain it's not tight enough ... how about this? "They camped for the remainder of the winter in Hunter's Chapel, Virginia. Betge came into conflict ..."
  • That covers the first section, and I probably won't have any trouble covering the copyediting in my self-allotted two hours ... but run through the rest looking for similar problems before I get started, please. - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments. I do like my language to be concise. I've gone over the rest of the article with that in mind, but if you see any other problems, let me know. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your fixes. I get that there's an argument the other way, but I still don't like "In all, 1020 men filled the ranks when the regiment finished recruiting." If you don't like "had finished", it can be reworded.
  • "Colonel Betge protested against what he considered the mistreatment his regiment": something's missing.
  • "Frémont's force of 15,000 combined with the 10,000-man division of Brig. Gen. James Shields to converge on Jackson south of Massanutten Mountain.": most readers are going to read "combined with" as "along with", then they'll have to back up when they realize the sentence doesn't seem to have a verb.
  • "they did lose two men killed": a little informal. "two men were killed" works I think.
  • "April 2, 1863": WP:Checklist#second comma needed. Search for 1863 to catch the others.
  • "the 68th crossed the Potomac and arrived in Virginia on July 16 and took up guard duty": The two ands don't work.
  • "it and the rest of the XI Corps was": were; compound subject.
  • "As the 68th had no colonel since von Bourry was cashiered": one of the verb tenses is wrong ... it could be either one. - Dank (push to talk) 03:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Good work. - Dank (push to talk) 12:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • A little more: I removed "came into conflict with some of the other officers and" because it looks like what follows defines the conflict, but if there was some other conflict, perhaps it should be described. - Dank (push to talk) 04:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • After comments in other FACs, I'm putting more work into editing to match the style I think the delegates are looking for. Please check carefully, since I'm making a few guesses. I guessed "loyal" was a word in the source and put it in quote marks ... if they didn't say "loyal", what did they say, so I can paraphrase? - Dank (push to talk) 13:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Your edits are fine, but I don't think there's only one style that is acceptable at FAC. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Agreed ... but the style work necessary to get articles through FAC is diverging from the work necessary to get them through A-class ... and I've come around to thinking that that's actually a good thing. More on this later today at WT:MHC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
        • It's difficult to strike a balance between precision and clarity on the one hand and engaging, interesting prose on the other. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Quite. I'm actually going to put off that post til the weekly FAC update on Saturday night. The point I want to make is that too much fussiness at A-class is a bad thing, but the standards are pretty high these days at FAC ... particularly for Milhist articles that are a bit technical or involved. I'm putting in more work at FAC than I used to, and I don't mind, but it's going to be impossible not to come across as fussy. Feel free to revert or complain, we'll work it out. - Dank (push to talk) 21:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • "The regiment spent the first month on similar duty to the one it had left: guarding the railroads leading to Chattanooga.": Not sure I follow, how was it similar, or not? - Dank (push to talk) 21:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I just meant that after Gettysburg they guarded railroads in Virginia, then moved to Tennessee and guarded railroads there. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Okay, I went with: "The regiment spent the first month guarding railroads again, this time around Chattanooga." Slight change in meaning ... that won't be right if they weren't actually around Chattanooga. - Dank (push to talk) 13:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • There are a couple more "musters", which Kirk objected to.
  • Otherwise, done. Still supporting. - Dank (push to talk) 23:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Image review

  • Spotchecks clear 3/12 sources; 5/79 citations Fifelfoo (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I was concerned about your reliance on Fritsch, as it is a primary source. However, I note two things: 1) the text was edited prior to publication, not a great but better than nil; 2) Every thing solely cited to Fritsch is a matter of simple appointment or manoeuvre, no analytical content is cited to Fritsch, and the documentary analysis required to produce these statements would be trivial synthesis. (Grind teeth, accept use).
    • NYT at fn5;6 clear; Coffey fn4, 70, 76 clear.
    • From the style of summarisation of NYT and Coffey I have no doubts that this is clear of plagiarism and that the citations correctly support the sources.

Comments: This article looks very good and I would be glad to give you my support. However, there is something that you should improve before I do that. The lead has a single paragraph. Couldn't you enlarge it to at least three paragraphs? It's not that hard. All it would take is to copy and paste (practically) the most important facts. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I gave it a lot more detail. I think it should adequately summarize the article now. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Support. This is a wonderful article and I'm glad to support its promotion to FA. Dank did all the hard work of pointing and correcting the minor issues and I support all his improvements. Coemgenus, it must have been quite difficult to write it all by yourself. This is one fine work. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment

  • I second Lecen's comment - good work.
  • I dislike this phrasing The 68th was mustered out of federal service in November 1865. - its pretty close to the 19th century source and I think you could reword these in simple(r) English.
  • Similarly, ...sent them reeling....went their separate ways...reeling off the ridge...depressed by their defeat - Dank might have missed these; you should strive to use more neutral language.
  • Link picket duty or describe it (preferrable). Kirk (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks Kirk, and I agree with your particulars (as follows), but I want to make sure we're clear: FAC reviewers don't want paragraphs and paragraphs of "A moved here and did this, and then B moved there and did that", with never a hint of commentary or emotion. What we're trying to avoid are trite and confusing phrases and emotional language that is unexplained, unnecessary, or out of proportion to what's going on. So:
    • "sent them reeling. Sigel's forces held firm": I misunderstood this the first time ... now it feels like it doesn't paint a clear picture ... they were reeling, then they held firm, then they fell back.
    • "disbanded and went their separate ways": Yeah, good call, there's not much in "went their separate ways" that isn't covered by "disbanded".
    • "reeling off the ridge": Not sure ... what was happening, exactly?
    • "depressed" isn't always a "non-neutral" word, but there are conditions. It's not clear to me what made them depressed (there are several options ... or it could have just been the defeat, but the readers don't need help figuring out that that was depressing). I've just added a paragraph to WT:Checklist#A_little_more_on the_two_new_points that I hope covers the issue. (You'd think with everything that's been written about expository writing, I could find something somewhere that covers this, but I don't remember seeing it in any of my guides.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
      • On that last point, I lumped that one together with the others and its a separate issue. I read the source on google books and I think you are aiming for "demoralized" to describe the mental state of the men in the 68th. Keller does use that word on the page, but I think its the best adjective to use here. I would also mention the high casualties in this section. Kirk (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmm Traveling 1,800 miles (2,900 km) by rail, the 68th arrived in Tennessee on September 30 Its what the source says, but 1,800 miles by rail is St. Louis to Los Angeles; Warrenton to Chattanooga is about 500; they must have taken an indirect route but my best guess is around 1,000 miles unless they did some major backtracking - I'd find another source for this sentence. Kirk (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the comments. I'll try to tend to these today. --Coemgenus (talk) 11:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
    • OK, these all should be in order now, except for the last. I think the 1800 figure is correct -- the point of including it in the source, I think, was to demonstrate how round-about the route was, due to the dislocations of war, torn up tracks, etc. Fritsch also says the journey took seven days, which also suggests an indirect route. I'll look in the other sources, but I don't recall seeing anything to the contrary. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support looks good, thanks! Kirk (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Very good article, deserves to be a FA, it would be great if we had more articles like this one, nice pictures, good sources and well organized. The regiments from New York are very interesting, I was not familiar with this specific regiment, I knew about the Irish regiments and the Garibaldi Guard. I learned a lot, thanks. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 .

Nominator(s): DCI2026 21:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article for several reasons. The article has been much expanded by User:Magicpiano from the original, small one that I created a year ago, and is now a Good Article. It has undergone a peer review and is in a Military History A-class review that is progressing well (but somewhat slowly). I believe it to be a comprehensive, but not exhaustive, description of the uprising. DCI2026 21:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape search - This text from the Lead, "of provincial militia and citizens formed in the city, arresting dominion officials and adherents of the Church of England, who were suspected of being sympathetic to the dominion" is duplicated here: On that website, Knowledge is not acknowledged as a source. Could the nominator respond to this? Graham Colm (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no personal connection whatsoever with the Miner Descent webpage, and cannot recall. I do not believe that it is copied from the other site, and it doesn't look like any editor of the Knowledge article has listed it as a source. I'm willing to revise. DCI2026 22:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
By the way, the miner descent page includes a Lead that used to be on the article.
The "dif" might be adequate evidence of Knowledge's priority, but it won't do any harm to recast the text in question—it's a little convoluted in any case:-) Graham Colm (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Done. DCI2026 22:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments. Oppose, tentatively. I may have this wrong, but I believe User:Magicpiano (who has done most of the expansion) wasn't consulted before this article was put up at A-class (Sept 23) before the nominator had responded to comments from the peer review (Sept 4), and wasn't consulted before bringing the article here. Let's let the A-class review run before we tackle this at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 22:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand, but I would like to give this article its chance at an FA review. Could we at least wait to see what others say as to the article's quality? DCI2026 23:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Since Magicpiano appears to be a primary contributor, why don't you notify them of the FAC and see if they approve of it? If so, there's no problem. If not, I think this should be archived. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I have notified Magicpiano. DCItalk 00:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC) (DCI2026)
I have no issue with this article being at FAC (or in the A-class review). DCI is probably not aware that it is recommended to notify major contributors to articles when putting them into formal reviews. I will attend to review issues that seem to fall within my purview, but I am also going to be on a wikibreak in about a week, with generally reduced activity here for several weeks. Magic♪piano 00:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'll withdraw the oppose. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment from nominator The article's A-class review has ended. The article was not promoted for the reason that there is a review underway here. DCItalk 15:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Then clearly, we should decline to promote this article to FA status for the reason that it did not attain an A-class rating. --Kafka

Link Check - No DAB links, no dead external links, 2 minor wikilinks fixed. GermanJoe (talk) 10:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Quadell:

Completed issues moved to talk.
  • Support. This article meets our FAC criteria. The prose is clear and lively, the article is well organized, and the sourcing is reliable. – Quadell 12:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture. If anyone is curious as to demands for Andros to surrender, there is a Commons file called File:1689 surrender Andros Boston MassachusettsArchives.png. It is a picture of the posted letter signed by some rebel leaders, calling for the governor to give in. DCItalk 23:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Question. I am wondering if the demographics of those arrested in the revolt should be mentioned. The article currently seems to infer that the rebels rounded up any Anglicans they could find. They did not. Anglicans were arrested, but most of these were dominion officials and militia officers. A few town authorities, including the marshal and a tax collector, were jailed, as well. It seems that the only Anglican private citizens seized were a churchwarden and an apothecary.

I also have a question as to the aftermath of the revolt. The day after Andros's overthrow, a group calling itself the "Council for the Safety of the People and Conservation of the Peace" met in Boston to organize colonial government. Governor Bradstreet was appointed council president, and other members were magistrates, leaders of the rebellion, and some of Andros's council, the majority of which had supported the revolt. The council was disbanded after citizens expressed concern that "revolutionary" elements held sway over it. Should this be explained in the article? DCItalk 22:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Support Comprehensive, well-written and -sourced. One minor suggestion:

  • "At about 5:00 am on April 18, militia companies began gathering outside Boston at Charlestown (then a separate community), just across the Charles River, and at Roxbury (also then not part of Boston), at the far end of the neck connecting Boston to the mainland." ==> Could the bracketed information be moved into a separate note similar to the note about different calenders? I understand, the information is needed to avoid confusion about the locations, but it's a bit distracting in the main text. GermanJoe (talk) 20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure. DCItalk 00:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Images:

Comments –

Comment. So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down about halfway, to Revolt in Boston. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

It was probably me, when I attempted to reword the sentence. I was certainly wrong - Andros did not revoke the charters, and the dominion charter had already taken effect by the time he reached Massachusetts. DCItalk 15:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering - should any of the events listed in Webb's Lord Churchill's Coup be included in the article's "Aftermath" section? The book includes detailed descriptions of what happened after Andros's overthrow. DCItalk 15:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
No opinion, I'm just dealing with prose on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 12:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Continuing. "A boat from the Rose, of potential use in this escape attempt, was intercepted by militia": This doesn't feel right to me. If the boat was in some sense intended for his use, I'd prefer "A waiting boat from the Rose was intercepted by militia". If you want to be more specific, that's fine too.
  • "citing the mob of which they claimed to be "wholly ignorant".": If they knew about the mob, they weren't ignorant of it. Maybe they were claiming not to know where it came from. - Dank (push to talk) 23:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    • The mob was running rampant, hauling off dominion officials and trying to remove supposedly idolatrous objects from Kings Chapel, the Anglican church in town. The council was not a typical revolutionary body - it was a majority of Andros's council, with some old magistrates and officials removed from office because of the dominion charter. From what I can make out, the council was a little astonished by the speed of the locals' reaction, which is why they claimed to be "wholly ignorant" of their rebelling supporters. DCItalk 01:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Since this one has been at FAC a while, I did another copyedit; looking good. - Dank (push to talk) 04:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Has there been a spotcheck of the sources? Ucucha (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Quadell says the "sourcing is reliable", but I'm not sure what that means. There's a lot on the talk page. And, although it's not the question you asked, Magicpiano wrote most of the article in its current form, and he's got a solid track record at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
The sources are reliable, and most can be found on Google Books in an abridged "preview" format. Some (anything by Webb, for instance) can be found in hard copy in a library. DCItalk 16:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Of the sources used, Lustig's biography of Andros is probably the most difficult to access. I found only a few non-circulating copies (unless you are affiliated with the holding institution) in the Boston area, where one might expect it to be a little more widely available. Portions are available in Google Books preview. Magic♪piano 21:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Spotcheck clear 3/13 sources 15/59 citations. I am a modernist, not an early modernist. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Quality: Barns checked for claims that would be outdated, passes.
    • Palfrey passes (1 cite). Steele passes (2 cites).
    • Webb (12 cites): fn28 doesn't make sense to me, source says 10 January not 19 January, is this an OS/NS issue? It looks like a misreading of 1 January, 9 Days later, 10 January.
    • Webb 40a surely "As quoted in...?" This isn't a quote of Webb, it is a quote of a quote in Webb.
      • Are you suggesting that I have to go through all my other feature articles and add "as quoted in" language before such quotes? In context it is clearly not a quote of Webb. (A brief survey of some other FAs indicates similar sorts of quotations, and Webb furthermore does not identify who/what he is quoting.) Magic♪piano 14:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
        • Whatever solution is adopted here, I just want us to make sure we're all agreed that history is hard, and that an accepted style among historians of early modern history (certainly, and some later history, too) is not to insist on saying "I don't know for sure who said this first" every time they believe something is likely true but don't know for sure where it came from. This differs from more modern standards. - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
          • While I defer to Dank on matters of style relating to citation amongst early modernists, I'd suggest emending the text to indicate that we as readers ought to treat that particular quotation as from the "horse's mouth" but backed up by a historian as true, representative, important. I skimmed over the quotes going, "oh this is just a historian's opinion," rather than giving it the true attention it deserved. Perhaps instead of "There he was told that, "…"" we could use "There told him, "…"". I read "There he was told that, "…"" to mean that the quote was a historian's paraphrase.
          • (Humbly, I was raised on Turabian with the full chain of publications back to the person who cited the document indicated in the footnote, but my period has a luxury and even superfluity of primary sources) Fifelfoo (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
            • While I strugged at first to figure how to phrase this unambiguously given Webb's lack of source ID, Palfrey helpfully explains the document (see footnote on this page, quote is on next page). Magic♪piano 22:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
              • Is the issue the agentic noun who told Andros off? "The Council of the revolt told him, "…"" appears to be fully supported by the Riggs document in Palfray? As far as a citation, if Webb doesn't identify it, "As Quoted in Webb...; also found as John Riggs (Servant to Sir Edmund Andros) 22 July 1689 "A Narrative of the Proceedings at Boston in New England upon the Inhabitants seizing the Government there" as recorded in full in Palfray… ? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
                • I'm sorry, you've lost me (as in, I have no idea what you're asking for, or what your issue is, in the above). I've never been asked before to openly source quotes of this sort to this degree (and now wonder why the same level of explication is not being demanded of other quotes in this article). Referencing these sorts of quotations to reliable secondary materials seems to have passed muster in all manner of earlier reviews I've had to deal with. Magic♪piano 22:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
                  • Two separate issues, at this point they're merely stylistic and do not require action to complete the FAC. First issue: properly indicating where the quote is from for citation purposes: what style you use to cite quotes contained in the work you are quoting. If you are comfortable with your current practice, I am not concerned.
                  • Second issue: properly indicating where the quote is from for prose and reader purposes: making clear to the reader whether you're quoting the historian (Webb), or quoting primary material quoted by Webb (the Council of the revolt). As I noted above, perhaps confusingly, I misread this quote as a quote from Webb; it would vastly improve my reading experience if I knew it was a quote from the revolters which was merely contained in Webb. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    • 40b completely fails to support its assertion. No such man is named in the work. Suggest rewrite to match facts as put in Webb for the conditions of arrest.
    • I don't actually know what to do next with this. All observed issues were resolved, but they kind of imply another two undiscovered issues on the scale of "January 19" => "January 10"? How do we deal with a spotcheck that finds minor issues? FAC delegate, regulars, advice? Fifelfoo (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I am rather confused, as I have been away from this page for some time. I think that the details of the arrest are rather clear: Andros went to meet with the Council, which told him that they'd "have the Government in their hands." He was then taken to Usher's house. At some point (when the 1500 militiamen entered, according to Webb), Andros was taken to less comfortable confinement in the town jail. And, as for quotations, I think that it's fine to quote the text. As long as there's an inline citation near the quote, the reader should be able to tell what content is from primary sources and what is from secondary, eg. Webb. I also don't find it likely that a reader will be overly concerned with this matter. DCItalk 00:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support w/ comments
    • "Among the first to be arrested was Captain John George of the HMS Rose, who came ashore between 9:00 and 10:00, only to be met by a platoon of militia and the ship's carpenter, who had joined the rebels." - what was the Rose doing in the area, and why had George come ashore? As-is, it begs the question as to why the ship was not used in some way to counter the revolt. Also, what kind of ship was it?
    • Also, Rose should be linked, even if it's redlinked.
    • It sounds like the ship was captured at the end of the revolt. Make it clear what subsequently happened to it, as it was a notable piece of military hardware.
Just looking for a little clarity on that one detail in the article. —Ed! 18:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your support. HMS Rose (1683) was a 26-gun frigate. It seems to have been skippered by William Phips in 1684. On August 9 of 1689, during a period in which the rebel council still held sway over Boston, a group of merchants appealed to the council to restore Captain George to his ship. George wholeheartedly endorsed this plan (not surprisingly!). George sailed north to Maine, to defend locals against French and Indian attacks, and was killed during a clash with a French ship in May of 1690. I assume that the ship was the Rose, but do not know if it was sunk or badly damaged. I am inclined to assume that it was, and will search for info. DCItalk 00:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 01:26, 6 December 2011 .

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC) and The ed17

Completed during World War I, the ship did not actively participate in the war. She was used for a vacation by President Herbert Hoover and spent most of the 1930s assigned to the Pacific Fleet. She was berthed in Battleship Row in Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 and suffered the greatest loss of life during the attack when her forward magazines detonated and she sank at her moorings. The iconic Arizona Memorial was built over her remains in the 1960s and she has come to symbolize the attack. We're a little late, but we believe that if we can get prompt reviews we can whip this into shape in time for a WP:TFA appearance on the main page on 7 December, the 70th anniversary of her sinking. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose, at least for now. Sorry Sturmvogel, but this is currently well below the standard of recent battleship FAs - including the many you've brought up to this standard. My concerns are:
    • The lead isn't well structured, with the first paragraph dwelling mainly on dates and relatively minor details about the ship's construction and the subsequent paras not covering her inter-war service (which comprised most of her history, even if it was unremarkable) and being relatively short.
      • I also wasn't happy when I saw things like what kind of turbines she had in the first paragraph, but Sturm and I have a running disagreement over how fast to introduce details. "Boss" and "copyeditor" are two completely inconsistent jobs, so I have to sit back and let others argue about general structure and some usage and readability preferences. I think, for ships in particular, we need more reviewers at FAC to iron out all these questions. - Dank (push to talk)
        • WP:MOSBEGIN recommends that the first paragraph should provide a definition and overview of the topic of the article. In this case, that would be something like a very short summary of the ship's characteristics and career. Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
          • My personal preference is not to put any of that in the lede as it's very hard to summarize that sort of info. I've reworked the lede, how does it read now?
    • "Arizona sank with the loss of 1,177 lives during the attack on Pearl Harbor in World War II on 7 December 1941, and the United States immediately declared war on Japan." - this implies that the sinking of this ship alone led to war.
      • That was my language; I've put it back almost the way it was. I'm not taking a position on this one. - Dank (push to talk)
        • The new wording is a slight improvement, though it still implies that the sinking of Arizona alone led to war. I don't think that you need to mention the fact that the attack on Pearl Harbor started the war between Japan and the US in the lead as this is very well known. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • The statement that "Arizona retains the right, in perpetuity, to fly the United States flag as if she were an active, commissioned naval vessel" in the lead doesn't appear again in the text of the article
      • I'm thinking that it's better off in the main body; I'll move it there once I source it.
        • Done.
    • "was significantly larger than her predecessors of the Nevada class." - this implies she was a one-off rather than the second ship in a new class
      • Reworded.
    • How could the ship carry more oil than she was designed to carry?
      • Reworded.
    • What's the relevance of the launch taking 42 seconds? Was this much faster than normal?
    • "Though this traditionally involved smashing a bottle of wine over the bow of the ship being launched, Arizona's state government had banned alcohol, so the state's governor decided that two bottles would be used: one full of champagne from Ohio, and another filled with water from the Roosevelt Dam." - this is a bit confusing given that champagne is obviously both a form of wine and alcohol
      • Most people don't think of champagne as a form of wine. But I've reworded it slightly to satisfy the oenophiles among the readership.
        • The 'so' part is confusing: was this a protest against prohibition, or some kind of adaption to it? Given that wine was still involved, it was hardly in keeping with the ban. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Note that Arizona was a "dry" state, and this was a compromise between the traditional practice and Arizona's ban on alcohol.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
            • Yeah, I understand that. My point is that the current wording doesn't help readers to understand it. Why not word it as something like "To acknowledge the ban on alcohol which had been imposed by the Arizona state government, the state's governor decided that two bottles would be used: one full of champagne from Ohio, and another filled with water from the Roosevelt Dam" - this makes it a bit clearer to readers, though the governor seems to have not really acted in accordance with the letter of the law here ;) Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "Life for Arizona's crew was not all practice, though. In July 1918, the race-boat team from Arizona was able to win the Battenberg Cup by taking a three-length lead over their closest competitor, the team from Nevada, and holding it until the end of the three-mile race." - a sporting competition doesn't really justify being called "not all practice" as this implies that the ship saw some kind of service. Rowing competitions are a form of practice for rowing as well.
      • That's a pretty subtle distinction to draw. I read it as something that didn't involve preparing to kill people, or enabling those who do so.
        • Fast rowing was a core skill for sailors in the pre-outboard motor era. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
          • True, but it was regarded more as a sport than as realistic training for both the USN and RN based on memoirs and stuff that I've read. Remember that the rest of the crew didn't have to work while watching the races, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
            • My concern is really the use of the phrase "Life for Arizona's crew was not all practice, though." in association with this. When I read this at the end of a paragraph about the ship only engaging in training I expected it would describe some kind of operational deployment. Instead it discusses a sports event. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Why was the ship sent to Europe after World War I ended?
      • I think I remember the text saying that the ship was escorting President Wilson. - Dank (push to talk)
        • This still isn't really addressed - the escort was obviously an honorific only given that it lasted for a day and battleships would have been useless against any rouge German submarines. The fact that all the ships sailed for home after Wilson reaches France indicates that it wasn't a serious military deployment. Why did the US Government see fit to expand its battleship force in European waters after the peace, including sending at least this ship which was considered difficult to supply in the area? Was it a diplomatic maneuver or some kind of training cruise? Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
          • Probably more the former, but we're getting outside the remit of the article here.
            • I don't agree - the article discusses why the ship wasn't sent to European Waters during World War I, so it should also describe why she was deployed after the war. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
              • I believe she was deployed to protect American citizens and interests during the Grecian-Turkish War. If I remember right, there was a bit of speculation in one of Stillwell's interviews that she was deployed to protect Standard Oil's facilities, but there was nothing scholarly on that point. Also note that the oil shortage was due to problems supplying oil to the UK (a) during a war (b) over a route frequented by submarines and (c) when more useful items could be shipped. I believe all that eased with the war's end. Ed  03:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    • 'Grecian' should probably be replaced with 'Greek'
    • "İstanbul (then known as Constantinople)" - use Constantinople
    • Was the ship really 'idle' in the 1920s? - this seems a bit dramatic for what actually sounds like a fairly conventional peacetime training schedule.
    • The photo caption which reads "Arizona displays her new tripod masts, following her modernization during the 1930s." is a bit odd - she's actually sailing through a fairly heavy sea, and so isn't just being shown to a photographer, and the tripod masts aren't very clear from that angle.
      • True, the offending bit has been excised.
    • "During this time, the ship was more often anchored to save fuel than at sea." - this wording is a bit awkward
      • How does it read now?
        • Worse, to be frank. I'd suggest changing it to something like "The ship did not often put to sea during this period as a result of the Navy's limited supplies of fuel". Even modern warships generally spend more time in harbour than at sea, and this was particularly the case for ships of Arizona's era. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
    • It should be noted why the Pacific Fleet moved to Pearl Harbor in 1940
    • The paragraph which begins 'The preliminary report' seems overly complex - why not describe what the actual hits on the ship were rather than describing what successive assessments found?
      • Because some less than careful historians have repeated the statements from the preliminary report, especially that bit about a bomb going down the stack. I remember reading that as a kid.
    • The two-sentence 'Japanese credit for sinking' section and single para 'Awards and recognition' section should be merged into other sections
    • What's meant by "The US Navy still retains the title"? Does this mean that the 'USS' part of the ship's name is still valid or that the Navy still owns the wreck (or both)?
    • The footnote needs a citation Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support My comments are now sufficiently addressed, and I think that this now meets the FA criteria. Great work Sturmvogel. Nick-D (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC) "the only known color photograph from the attack" - source?

    • It's sourced already.
  • Be consistent in whether short citations are linked
    • Done.
  • Formatting for Gardiner & Gray (both footnote and reference entry), Wright and Wallin don't match others
    • I think that this has been cleared up.
  • No citations to Hone or Jones
    • Moved.
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
  • FN 27: linking
    • Done.
  • FN 23: italicization
    • Done.
  • Be consistent in which journal formatting you use
    • Done.
  • Be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced
  • FN 58: formatting, missing date
  • Combine duplicate refs like FNs 63 and 64
    • Done.
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
    • Hard to beat a picture of the anchor with the ship's name emblazoned as a source.
  • Further reading should use same formatting as References
    • Done.
  • Barber: page formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Did Arizona participate in all the Fleet Problems, and over what span of years?
    • A cursory look over her chronology says that she participated in just about all when she wasn't being modernized. Why?
  • "A highlight of the years came on 27 July 1923, when she participated in ...": Readers will assume you're only covering the important bits, so you can omit the "highlight" bit, unless we're talking about some kind of special honor.
    • I was thinking more about from the crew's POV.
      • "Fleet Problems as the highlight" is more or less equivalent to "the best part was the Fleet Problems" ... best in what way and from whose POV? What do the sources say about the crew's reactions or expectations? - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The battleship's last training was ...": Is a word missing?
  • "wrought devastation on the Battle Line": I don't know why "Battle Line" is a proper noun here.
  • These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Guys, I'll be happy to support this one on prose after my final pass, after other reviewers' issues get resolved. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks to me like Nick is almost happy, and everyone else is supporting. I did more tweaking; feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Spotcheck clear 4/7 sources, 8/64 citations clear and supporting. I did not check content coverage or weight, only sources supporting their assertions as indicated below. One citation fixit. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
    • 20e DANFS (MIL sources are not propagating to Australia correctly tonight, cached copy used) clear and supports
    • 49 Friedman clear and supports
    • 39 Wohlstetter clear and supports
    • 56 Stillwell clear and supports
    • 25 NYT clear and supports
    • 48 NHHC clear and supports; this is despite the complex opinion being made, the wikipedia article accurately reflects the complexity of the military opinion (well done)
    • 62 clear and supports. Miscited: cite the lowest level organisation responsible for production in a bureaucracy; in this case the student's union.
    • 63 is clear and supports. (and uses the right bit of that god awful source: the reliable bit that was edited, wow... I never thought I'd pass a source like this, but the editors correctly use only the reliable section, and the editors of the reliable section are experts at roadside attractions by dint of publishing)
  • Support Comments: a made a few tweaks as I saw them, but I also have the following suggestions (feel free to ignore anything you disagree with):
    • "and a full naval review by Secretary of the Navy Daniels". Per WP:SURNAME it can probably just be "Daniels" here;
    • "seven total battleships, eighteen destroyers and support ships". What's a "total battleship"? Would the fleet consist of "partial battleships"?
      • "In company with many of the ships of the fleet (seven total battleships, eighteen destroyers and support ships)," changed to "In company with six battleships and eighteen destroyers,". I don't know how many "many" is; I guess if it's "most", it wouldn't hurt to add that. - Dank (push to talk) 15:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
    • inconsistencies: "the navy" and "the Navy". In most cases, I think it should probably be "the Navy" as it is being used as a substitute for a proper noun, i.e. the United States Navy;
      • Most US style guides recommend lowercasing it, but there's some support for uppercasing, and it's uppercased more often than not on Knowledge. I'm happy either way as long as it's consistent.
    • inconsistent presentation: "before 8:00 am" and "08:00" and "07:55";
      • Fixed.
    • this seems a bit awkward to me: "Arizona was hit four times, plus three near misses". Perhaps try: "Arizona was hit four times; in addition she experienced three near misses";
      • "Near miss" is a really difficult phrase; it would be great if no one ever said it, since sometimes it means nearby or minor damage was done and sometimes it means the opposite, i.e. no harm done. In this case, you get a sense of what was meant by the sentence that follows this one. I went with: "The bombers scored four hits and three near misses on and around Arizona."
    • there is some repetition here: "The explosion killed 1,177 of the..." followed by "The explosion touched off fierce";
    • I'm not sure about this: "This theory is attractive because..." The theory is attractive, or is it "plausible"?
      • Fixed.
    • "The problem is that smokeless powder is..." The problem with what? Do you mean: "This theory is problematic, however, because smokeless powder is relatively insensitive to fire and the 14-inch powder bags would have required a black powder pad to ignite the powder, making this theory improbable. As such, it seems unlikely..."
      • I changed "the problem is that" to "however".
    • Passive voice: "Acts of heroism on the part of Arizona's officers and men were many". Maybe try: "There were many acts of heroism performed by Arizona's officers and men during the attack."
      • That's not passive voice. Since it's the topic sentence for the paragraph, and since the paragraph is about acts of heroism, it works for me to lead with that phrase, though your suggestion is fine too.
      • I like Rupert's wording better.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    • This seems tantalising to a layman like myself: "The latter battery fired its guns for the first and last time in August 1945". As a reader it makes me wonder at the circumstances: did they fire at a Japanese ship, or was it just in practice? If the sources are specific, may be you might consider adding a footnote explaining this (would only need a short sentence or two)?
    • this seems a bit flowery: "men of her crew lost that December morning in 1941". Perhaps just: "men of her crew lost at Pearl Harbor";
      • I think it's fine for two reasons: the phrase itself is not flowery (though it may sound that way in context), and this is the topic sentence of a section dealing with the memorial; a tiny amount of emotion is not out of place, I think.
    • "The Navy, in conjunction with the National Park Service, has..." The wikilink here for "National Park Service" probably should be moved to the mention in the previous section (link on first mention). AustralianRupert (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments

  • Are all the links in Further Reading really necessary? And couldn't you just cite Conway? NO DANFS?
    • I might be able to fit a reference to Conway's in somewhere, but I really don't see any necessity to do so. Your reference to DANFS is confusing as it's the third ref in the references section.
      • Whoops - read this one too fast...if you can't tell I'm not a fan of Further Reading sections.
  • Similarly, the first 4 links in External Links don't seem necessary (you could cite #1 but I don't think that source is credible enough and note #57 has the relevant info). The 5th link I would cite; the 6th is unnecessary, the 7th is unprofessional but have a semblence of citations and interesting photos, I'd cite 8 and drop 9. That leaves you with one external link which may not be worthy a section.
    • You have a higher standard for the external links than I do. I've kept a couple which offer pictures or something useful.
      • Pretty good I guess.
  • Merge one sentence paragraph in the Awards section.
    • Done.
  • I would expand citation 7 to specify which facts (number of rounds, 5" guns which were wet) came from which page. Same for 6. I suspect I would find more of these but I'm out of time, sorry! Kirk (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Friedman doesn't specify which 5-inch guns were wet, but uses a blanket statement that they were considered wet. I bundle page numbers together when citing from a single source as much as possible and see no need to break them out. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I understand that's the way you do things but just to be clear page 116 of Freidman is in Google Books so my spotcheck revealed it says the Penn. class in general had "wet anti-torpedo batteries." (Which reads: guns for shooting torpedoes...does anyone edit these books?). I don't know what's on page 440 - if its duplicated, I would switch to #3, but if not I would switch #7 to just page 116 and put another #3 on the previous sentence. Its a minor detail.
  • Support Overall, its very good. Kirk (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Image review—all images are from the US Navy, and as part of the US federal government, they're all in the public domain. All captions meet the appropriate criteria. Imzadi 1979 → 22:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia:

  1. On the first occurrence of "the annual Fleet Problems", we have to click to see what those are-- can't we somehow define that here (fleet exercises or something)?
    Done.
  2. Is "Unlike many of the other ships sunk or damaged ... could not be fully salvaged" supported by sources? It couldn't be salavaged or the Navy decided not to salvage it? What do sources say?
    Stillwell says, "The Arizona was considered to be so badly damaged that she would not be suitable for further service even if her remains could be salvaged. At that time the priority was to salvage ships that could be used in the war effort. In addition, the harbor bottom around the hull was so porous that Navy salvage experts didn't consider it feasible to build a cofferdam so that the hull could be pumped out and bodies recovered."
  3. Organization: Ship preservation is a subsection of Attack on Pearl Harbor-- that's not intuitive, and suggests article organization may need attention. How about combining Ship preervation with Memorial and honors?
    Reworked.
  4. Description: are the water-tube boilers oil fired? We later encounter mention of fuel oil, which leads us to believe so-- clarify in text? I've seen other ship articles mention that some coal-fired ships had oil added.
    If a ship uses mixed firing, I always mention it. Generally I don't specifically state if the boilers are oil fired or coal-fired, as I let the fuel storage answer that.
  5. Construction and trials: "The builders set a goal ... " and so on. I got all balled up in the chronology and long sentences here. Might you say, "... but the ship was only half done after 12 months, and not launched until 19 June 1915. Then the next thought about the naming should be a separate sentence.
    How does it read now?
  6. Construction and trials: "After acclimating the ship's magnetic compass ... ": do you think acclimating is the correct term for the adjustment of the ship's compass? Is that the term the source uses? How about "compensating" instead? Link to magnetic deviation for compensating.
    Good catch, my eyes had slid right over that. The term is actually declination.
  7. "She towed targets for Pennsylavania while outside ... " what's going on here? Why was she towing targets? For example, "she towed targets for Pennsylvania's training exercises ... or whatever it was. In other words, why does the reader need to know this?
    Deleted.
  8. The turbine could not be fixed --> repaired maybe better ?
    Agreed.
  9. the yard workers were forced to cut holes ... were forced to is redundant, they cut holes.
    Reworded.
  10. "World War I": "... the wreck was sometimes used as a target for the 14-inch guns." The reader doesn't know that the wreck refers to the San Marcus (we don't know it's a wreck). "She rarely ventured into the ocean", then we don't know is the Arizona (fix both at once).
    Done.
  11. "... easier to supply coal ... " wouldn't "obtain" coal be better here? Would the reader understand better if you point out that the ships that were sent were coal-burning? Is that what you mean to say?
    Good idea.
  12. The war did not end on 11 November-- the fighting did.
    True
  13. "1920s": "interspersed with a liberty visit" ... strange to use the word "interspersed" for one event ... seems to imply more than one thing going on.
  14. "... Greek ground forces arrived in transports and landed troops" ... the forces didn't land troops ... how about "were landed"?
    Rewrote the whole sentence.
  15. "Modernization": "... thickness of STS ... " do you think you should tell the reader what STS is so they don't have to click out?
    Done.
  16. "Attack on Pearl Harbor": To say that the Japanese struck, and that there were then two ensuing attack waves, is confusing. Why is that -- ... -- even needed? Especially since the Arizona was sunk in the first wave.
    Rephrased.
  17. "Ammunition magazine explosion": "Ironically, the blast ... ", why ironically, I'm missing the irony, sentence is fine without it.
    Few people expect a massive explosion to put out fires rather than create them.
    Changed to "Fortunately,". - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  18. "Ship preservation", see above, why is it part of "Attack on Pearl Harbor", and the last paragraph of the section discusses the National Park Service, which really begs to be in the enxt section.
    I've restructured these sections along the lines that you suggest.
  19. "Memorial and honors": "The wreck of ... ", three uses of the word "memorial" in one para-- suggest others like "commemorate".
    Agreed.
  20. The whole sentence, "As of 2011, 70 years after ... " is awkward. Suggest: Seventy years after ... oil leaking from the hull still rises to the surface of the water. The as of 2011 is implied.
    I like that phrasing better. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That's all from here-- I'll ping Raul to look in here per potential Dec 7 TFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

All good (and fast!). I found one wayward "that", and I suspect that Special Treatment Steel needs to be all uppercase, per The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia entry on Armor, which means that article needs to be moved. It's a shame that, if we run this article on Dec 7, readers will (hopefully) click through to USS Arizona Memorial, and find ... ugh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I mucked with a couple of these without seeing this here, but I think you'll be okay with anything I did. On the flip side, I did capitalize Special Treatment Steel. Now I'm going back to writing my paper because it's my 21st birthday and I'm going out tonight come hell or high water. ;-) Ed  09:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:03, 6 December 2011 .

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This plant is amazing to see in the Sydney bushland - like someone coloured in its leaves with green fluoro marker - and this was the one I'd meant to buff up to FA but got mental block so did another one instead. Am now unblocked mentally and reckon it's over the line. If not, should be easy to fix. I figure by writing about it I can actually germinate and grow the damn plant (magical thinking). Anyway, have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

PS, this is a wikicu...oh wait, never mind.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Note, permission for second nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Include both authors for Wrigley citations?
not sure how to do that with sfn template - will read up on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations
was one book. got it now Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
tricky one as the first of the periods is an abbreviation in the publisher ("co." for "company"), and the second one is a routine period. Theoretically it'd look better to only have one there but does one period do two jobs...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The cite book template documentation recommends leaving out "corporate designation such as "Ltd" or "Inc".", which solves the problem of double periods, so I did that here. Sasata (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Link check - no DAB-links, no dead external links, 1 overlink fixed. GermanJoe (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Images are great; File:Persoonia levis bark nowra email.jpg could do with an information template (any reason there's "email" in the title? If you took the photo, there shouldn't be a problem). J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I cropped it and just gave it the rename on my computer and forgot to change as I uploaded. I'm not an admin on commons so can't rename there and never bothered getting round to ask one. Am happy for anyone to do so. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking good. A few thoughts-

  • "coined the name Persoonia salicina in describing it in his 1805 work Synopsis Plantarum," Clunky
declunked Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Linkia levis" or "Linkia lævis"?
Cavanilles used "levis" in his original text, but some subsequent authors would sometimes say "lævis" (like "encyclopædia") and it is seen as an alternate spelling, however the use is dying out. I was just thrilled to be able to use "æ" in an article...a folly of mine which I will extinguish now....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • What does "geebung" mean? That's an odd word
it's a local aboriginal word which has been applied to the whole genus in eastern Australia.Was wondering whether to includ terminology on speices pages but your curiosity suggests yes... added now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Persoonia levis has seven chromosomes, as do most other members of the genus, and they are large compared to those of other Proteaceae." The chromosones of the genus are large or the chromosones of the species are large?
of the genus. will think how to unambiguify had a go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "and hybrids with P. acerosa, P. lanceolata, P. linearis, P. mollis subsp. ledifolia, P. myrtilloides subsp. myrtilloides (in the Upper Blue Mountains, these plants resemble P. lanceolata), P. oxycoccoides, and P. stradbrokensis" This seems incomplete; or are you using "hybrids" as a verb?
woops, + have been recorded Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The large green leaves measure 6 to 14 cm (2.2–5.5 in) in length, and 1.3 to 8 cm (0.5–3.2 in) wide, and oblong or sickle-shaped (falcate)." and are?
yup.added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The central style is surrounded by the anther and which splits into four segments, which curl back and resemble a cross when viewed from above." Rephrase?
rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It's evergreen, I assume? Is this worth mentioning explicitly?
interesting question - just about all species here are, with only a few notable exceptions. None of my guidebooks calls it such..and evergreen also has a connotation with conifers colloquially (?) Need to think about this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Weighing 1700 mg, the fruit are adapted to be eaten by vertebrates, such as kangaroos and possums, as well as currawongs and other large birds." Presumably, then, the plant benefits from its fruit being eaten?
I can't find anything specific for this plant - for lanceolata, analysis showed these animals excreted the seed intact (and the stomach contents somehow help the damn things germinate - I actuyally have some seed I will try to germinate and am thinking of how to facilitate this - they otherwise take up to 2 years to do so (!!!!)) whereas rats chewed the seed up and excreted fragments. That reference doesn't elaborate, but the implication is that generally fleshy berry-sized things are designed to be plucked by vertebrates and carried off or eaten.. Casliber (talk · contribs)
  • "P. levis is the food plant of the larvae of the weevil species Eurhynchus laevior." Feels a little tacked on. Not sure what to do with it, but letting you know anyway.
Yeah I know, that was frustrating to figure out where to go - how about this rearrangement? Not optimal but a bit better flow-wise maybe. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I also gave it some light copyediting, feel free to revert if you disagree. J Milburn (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I've had a look at your fixes, and it's looking better. I'm going to hold off support for now to see if anyone else raises anything. J Milburn (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay - I uploaded a few more photos which I took today onto commons (in the species category) too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Auree ★
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Although I'm no expert on the subject, the article appears to be very comprehensive. The images are quite supplementary and the prose is engaging, with a few qualms here and there. Auree ★ 00:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Lede
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • P. levis interbreeds with several other species where they grow together – the latter part could be reworded.
  • are likely to be consumed → are often consumed?
trimmed - often is actually redundant too Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • P. levis is rare in cultivation as it is very hard to propagate. – this sentence seems a tad terse compared to the rest of the lede's prose.
lengthened...better? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Much! Auree ★ 12:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Taxonomy
  • Persoonia levis has seven chromosomes which are large compared to those of other Proteaceae. – comma before "which"?
Now this is tricky. I left the comma out so that a reader could see that both bits also are qualified by the "Like most other members of the genus," - if you think a comma doesn't cloud the picture, I'll be happy to add it in....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. In that case, it'd be best to change it to "that are large," so the clause is also correct. Auree ★ 12:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
yep, done Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Is there an appropriate wikilink to Upper Blue Mountains? If so, it would help a lot to link it.
I found Blue Mountains (New South Wales). I'll add it to the article. Auree ★ 12:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The annoying thing here is, as a local, we all colloquially subdivide into Upper and Lower Blue Mountains but can't find a ref to support it.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Description
  • In this section, it might be useful to wikilink to bark
  • Within the bark are epicormic buds which sprout new growth after bushfire. – comma before "which"?
comma added Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The large green leaves measure 6 to 14 cm (2.2–5.5 in) in length, and 1.3 to 8 cm (0.5–3.2 in) wide, – "and 1.3 to 8 cm (0.5-3.2 in) in width"?
conformed Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Their asymmetrical shape is a distinguishing feature. – Distinguishing for whom, and according to whom?
If you see this official NSW herbarium key to the genus, it is a diagnostic feature - generally the most similar species is P. lanceolata which has smaller symmetrical leaves. I'll reword reworded. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The bright green foliage, particularly of new growth, stands out against the more subdued tones of the surrounding vegetation, and the stems which are reddish in colour → " stands out against the more subdued tones of the surrounding vegetation and the stems, which are reddish in colour."
Any luck on this? Auree ★ 22:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • and peak over December to February. – Peak in size? Or in color?
in numbers - there are the most flowers appearing in this time. I thought that was straightforward. Shall I rephrase? Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Nah, it's fine. This was probably my tropical cyclone nature speaking to me (peak in strength, peak in size, etc.), but I can see it being a common term in botany : P Auree ★ 12:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Does an appropriate wikilink exist for "style"? Style (botany) redirects to Gynoecium; are these terms synonymous enough?
bit messy but ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Distribution and habitat
  • The annual rainfall of the area it occurs in the Sydney Basin → "The annual rainfall of the Sydney Basin area it occurs in"?
the rainfall in the Sydney Basin varies more than this, this value refers specifically to the area within the Sydney Basin where the plant occurs Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Alright, just the "of the area it occurs in the Sydney Basin" read a bit odd. Auree ★ 12:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, in what way does this amount affect the plant so that it deserves a mention in the article?
It is parameter of the habitat of the plant, much like discussing soil or ecological community Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Ecology
  • Persoonia levis is one of several species of Persoonia which regenerate by resprouting from its trunk after bushfire – faulty clause, change to "that regenerate". Also, "regenerate" implies the subject (species of Persoonia) is plural, but "its" implies it's singular. Please reword it so it's not contradictory.
changed to "that" and "the" - "their trunk" sounds odd, and "their trunks" sounds like they are wearing swimming costumes... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Bees of subgenus Filiglossa in the same genus, that also specialise in feeding on Persoonia flowers, do not appear to be effective pollinators. – both commas seem unnecessary to me.
I removed them but I dunno...I suppose it is a short enough sentence not to get lost in one long clause... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's just that you cannot use commas with the restrictive clause (that). I agree that the sentence is a bit verbose without them, so it might be better to switch "that" with "which" and keep the commas, though that would alter the meaning of the sentence slightly. Auree ★ 15:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Weighing 1700 mg, – should there be a conversion to lbs?
Actually, it'd be silly to try and convert this to lbs. For consistency with the conversions to other US customary units, though, it might be convenient to convert it into grains (gr). In all honesty, I'm not too familiar with US units, heh Auree ★ 23:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The flowers of P. levis are self-incompatible, that is they are unable to fertilise themselves and require outcrossing to another plant. → "The flowers of P. levis are self-incompatible—that is, they are unable to fertilise themselves and require outcrossing to another plant." Either that or replace the em-dash with a semicolon.
I'll pay that - love mdashes Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Any change with these last three points? Auree ★ 22:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, my free time has been patchy - am getting to these. A good way to make the page clearer is to put a line though points that you feel have been addressed (or explained) satisfactorily like this Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been thinking about doing that. It's just that in some previous FACs, a few editors seemed a bit irked when I struck some resolved comments while the review was still ongoing. Don't worry, take your time on addressing the remain issues—I saw you reply to the FAC so I was just making sure you didn't overlook them. Auree ★ 01:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Cultivation
  • Well drained sandy soils in sun or part shade are needed for this plant in a garden situation." – hyphenate "Well-drained", and change "this" to "the".
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • although slowly → "albeit slowly"
heh, I get a chance to use "albeit" :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Plantsmen in England germinated seed there as early as 1795. → "Platsmen germinated seed in England as early as 1795."?
changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Images
  • The caption for File:Persoonia levis habit4 grnp.jpg seems insufficient to me. On a different note, I'm assuming the shrub also occurs in the Georges River National Park, but nothing is said about this in the article.
Aha, well spotted - the reference does not mention it. I will find a ref and add. found one and added. Regarding the caption, what else would you like it to say? I meant to link to Habit (biology) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Nice work overall, Calisber! I enjoyed reading about this unknown shrub species. The article is thorough and contains mostly wikilink and minor prose issues, so I'll be happy to support once these have been addressed. If you have time, I'd appreciate it if you could look at my own FAC. Auree ★ 00:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Support now. The comments have been addressed satisfactorily, and the article is a great read. Any remaining issues should be extremely minor and non-detrimental to this article's much-deserved FA status, so I am happy to support. Great work! Auree ★ 15:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - much appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment article should use a consistent citation method throughout (WP:CITEVAR), so you should use short citations and place full citations in a separate section (example), as you did for Wrigley's work, or place all full citations in footnotes. — Z 14:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Given there were only three pages reffed in the book anyway, tweaked to single ref now Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I just created this template to fix the lack of navbox, you can use that if you'd like, but the problem is red links, which usually should not be used in navboxes. — Z 21:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
(chuckles evilly) but zey von't be redlinks for long.....mwahahahahahaaaa. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
thanks (and ditto for two supports below)! Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
oops. unit conversion fixed and continent/country de-linked now Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Comments – In the interests of efficiency, I took the liberty of making several copyedits that I would usually bring up here and make you do ;) Please revert anything you don't like. I'm close to supporting, but have some minor issue first: Sasata (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Meets FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
"'look ok Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • the Westen 1995 source is over 50 pages, and I think it needs to be cited to individual pages to help the reader who wants to verify the claims
was the chapter on the genus - extracted the four pages specific to the species. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • the wiki Commons link in the references section prevent the refs from being two columns... nothing major, but it bugs me
tried rejigging - commonslink in cultivation segment now. 23:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It also bugs me that the Dist & Habitat header is pushed right by the image in the preceding section... perhaps move to the right?
I chose a flatter more horizontal image so it wouldn't jut down so much - does that help? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I think some of those old Latin texts cited in Taxonomy are available at Biodiversity Heritage Library, and directs links to the cited pages would be a nice touch
The cavanilles one was in some spanish website which I can't find now (frustratingly), but is on google books. I'm keeping looking. The botanicus.org site has Persoon (1805) and Brown (1810), but I can't link to page directly, however clicking on the page in the left-hand column links to the correct page there (so is two steps). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I added the direct links (you can copy the link given under the page listing when that page is being displayed). Sasata (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Aha thanks, I'll remember that next time....Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
?...oh redlinks Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Added months to lead (must be a blind spot of mine...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:03, 6 December 2011 .

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Truthkeeper88

Mid 1450s (probably) highly emotive but utterly bleak and sorrowful linen cloth painting by Dirk Bouts. I saw it during a visit to London last April and it has haunted me since. Sourcing the page has been difficult to say the least but I hope ok-ish. Thanks esp to Amandajm for much needed guidance, insight and expertise. Very helpful PR from Brianboulton here. Ceoil (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Support (following the comments and discussion below). Carcharoth (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments (first set of comments are on this version (05:03, 24 October 2011); second set of comments are on this version (07:06, 5 November 2011))

Several comments, mostly minor. Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Lead says "glue tempera" (first sentence) and the image caption (and the last paragraph of the lead section) says "Glue size". Even if technically correct, this could be confusing. The NG page for example says "The muted and translucent colours are due to the use of a glue medium applied directly to the sized linen. The effect would always have been far less brilliant than egg tempera or oils over a chalk ground on panel." But our tempera article talks mostly about egg tempera, so is glue size a form of tempera or what? Update: Since I wrote the preceding, these edits have been made to the article - but that doesn't clear up the confusion - the article now refers in various places to 'glue tempera', 'glue-size medium', 'Glue size tempera' and 'glue size'. The confusion arises from 'tempera' sometimes being used interchangeably with 'egg tempera', and our article on tempera doesn't really help clear up such confusion. I would work out a clear way of handling this and stick to it throughout the article. Also, the source cited says 'Glue tempera on linen', but only on the key facts page. The front page actually cited only says 'glue medium'. Updated at 22:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The cloth on which the painting was painted was treated with an animal based glue to prevent the paint from seeping through - it was sized with glue. The paint used was water soluble tempera. The technique, referred to in German as tűchlein, is glue-sized, because the sizing allows the tempera to be used, but this does need some clarification. Am thinking about how to word it properly and am working my way through a more technical source to be used, which refers to it as a glue-based medium. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC) Update: apparently the medium (paint) was mixed with glue (binder) and the cloth treated (sized) with glue. From what I've seen the terminology appears to differ, but from the source I have regarding technique, I belief that our description is correct. It is confusing. Will leave it to Ceoil to clarify more if necessary. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • article not posted, but the terminology is more standardisted now and the lead descriptor reads "soft tempera" which is at least mentioned in the tempera article. I do think though, that this article cannot be held accountable for confusion in linked articles. Ceoil (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • It has improved, but I'm not striking this point as the piped link of soft tempera to distemper (paint) threw me a bit (actually a lot). I know this article can't be judged on other articles, but you are linking to them and I fear readers will first read the distemper article (which says "The National Gallery, London distinguishes between the techniques of glue, glue size, or glue-tempera, which is how they describe their three Andrea Mantegnas in the medium, and distemper, which is how they describe their Dirk Bouts and two Edouard Vuillards.") and then they will read this article (which talks about glue sizing and tempera) and they will get confused (I know I still am). I don't have any good suggestions, but hopefully someone will.

    Though on re-reading the distemper article and the technical section in this article, I think I see one further point that might need explaining. At the distemper article, it says "Distemper is an early form of whitewash, also used as a medium for artistic painting, usually made from powdered chalk or lime and size (a gelatinous substance). Alternatives to chalk include the toxic substance, white lead." In this article it says "The whites are mainly chalk mixed with lead white", but it also says (later on) "there is an underlayer of white chalk mixed with white lead" (some of which was "left exposed in some areas" to form some of the white areas). So my question now is whether the entire linen sheet (after some poor sod spent ages weaving it) was: (i) treated with glue; and then (ii) covered entirely with this underlayer of white chalk mixed with white lead; and then (iii) the paint pigments mixed with a glue binder were then applied over this underlayer (leaving white bits exposed or adding more white if needed)? If so (and please don't assume I've got it right), there must be an easier way to say that in plain English. At the least, if there was a complete underlayer applied, the technique section needs to mention this - currently it only mentions an 'under-paint' without explaining that. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks. The new article on glue-size helps a lot. I hope someone will at some point try and make all these articles consistent, but that is more than enough for this FAC. Possibly removing or reducing the number of links later on, from this article to sizing, would help guide readers towards the glue-size article instead. Carcharoth (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The link in the lead section to an image is slightly jarring (I see it was added following a comment made at the peer review) - I'm of the view that this use of an external link tends to surprise readers and that is usually a bad thing. I would personally put a link to the image in a footnote, or direct readers to the image in the gallery at the end of the article, rather than sending them off to an image page on Commons. (actioned)
  • Venetian and patron are common enough to not really need linking, certainly not in the lead (and in the next sentence, Milan is not linked, so the linking is inconsistent). Linking purely to allow people to find out that a Venetian is from Venice isn't really a good use of a link either). (actioned)
  • The bit about "muted colours" in the lead seems to jar with "Its colours are now far duller than they once would have been." Does "muted colours" refer to the original colours or the present colours? (actioned)
  • Clarified. The colours of the figures would have been opaque and "dry" origionally but have since darkened from the accumulated films of dirt. The muted equally refers to the restrained conveyance of the figure's expressions, and that idea is reflected in the dour, spare colourisation. If this is not clear I can expand. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "The paint seems to have been thinly applied on the Z-spun and tabby linen thread support" - this is a bit jargon-heavy. Is it possible to explain a bit within the article what this means, rather than relying on links? The selvage, stretcher and warp and weft links in this paragraph are similarly daunting if the reader is not familiar with these terms. I suspect the majority of readers here will either skip past this without really understanding it, or will spend lots of time clicking back-and-forth to other articles to try and understand it, which will disrupt the flow of the article for those readers (the colours paragraph, in contrast, is easier to skim as from the context it is obvious that these are colours). (seems OK now)
There has been quite an amount of deliberation about this, with people mind who have clue about it (TK and Amanda); wheather it was too technical and eye glazing or not. The end result is a sub section with the more obscure bits and pieces now in the notes. Ceoil (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The first mention of Campbell is a bit abrupt. What I'd do here is introduce Campbell first as "art historian" or whatever Campbell's role as commentator here is. You do this later for "art historian Susan Jones", and you also do it later for Campbell when you say "Art historian Lorne Campbell". (actioned)
  • The Lamentation of Christ image caption makes a claim that should be sourced and/or mentioned in the main body of the article. (n/a - now removed)
Its obvious but claim removed. Ceoil (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "The work had been lined and restretched" - it's not clear what "lined" means here. (deferring on this)
  • All the sources I have access to simply use the word lined or lining without elaboration. Presumably this was done because of paint seepage through the linen. Am happy to link to lining (sewing) if that would make it more clear, although I doubt it was done to cover or hide seams as is the reason for lining a garment. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I found this paper (from the Tate) on what lining means in this case. It seems it was a way of reinforcing/restoring the existing canvas. It sounds fascinating, but like the stuff about the medium, not really something to worry about too much. I think a link to the 'lining (sewing)' article would be wrong in this case, as it looks like this is something different. Maybe someone will write lining (painting) at some point? Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Are there sources that tell us what Adoration of the Kings shows? (fair enough)
Yes, the Koch journal entry covers it in detail, but it might be off topic here. I could give an easter egg to Adoration of the Magi in the painting title, but dont really want to. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
I suppose it is obvious really (that is what I had guessed). It is something I'd explain in a footnote, only because there is no picture of it (unlike the other two), but it's up to you. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • There is one instance of the spelling "centre" and a few of the spelling "center". (actioned)
  • This bit: "The influence of the Miraflores Altarpiece can be seen in the representation of Christ's dead body, while a relief in the architecture of van der Weyden's center panel informed the positioning of Bouts' mourners." appears to repeat this bit: "The figuration and pose in The Entombment is probably informed by a relief seen in the arch of the central panel of van der Weyden's Miraflores Altarpiece." (actioned)
  • The article says the Miraflores Altarpiece is 1440s, while the gallery caption says "c 1440", which is not the same thing. Similarly, for Altar of Holy Sacrament the article says "c. 1464–67", while the gallery caption says "1464–67". The Transfiguration of Christ gallery caption is missing the year. (actioned)
  • Missed one. The lead still says: "Bouts' 1464–6 Altar of the Holy Sacrament". That not only misses out the "circa" but also gives a different end year for the range (and is not consistent either - it should be '1464-67' or '1464-66'). Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • When you say "The Guicciardi collection contained at least three other similar works", does this refer to the earlier bit where Eastlake is "made aware of three companion pieces"? In the earlier section, you name these companion pieces, but in the later section you are more vague, which confused me as it is not clear if you are talking about something different here, or the same thing. (taking this to the article talk page)
  • Yes, it is referring to the same thing. I've tried to tweak the wording without repeating the earlier sentence and introducing more repetition. Hopefully it's more clear now. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Still not clear. I think you need to name the three pieces again further down to make it clearer. There is also inconsistency in that the earlier section says 'He was made aware of three companion pieces, but told they were not on the market and so was not allowed to view them' versus 'Their tone and size were similar to The Entombment, suggesting that they were most likely pieces that would have formed part of the larger polyptych'. The first sentence seems to say they definitely were the companion piece, while the second sentence equivocates with the terms 'suggesting' and 'most likely'. You seem to have one source saying these are the companion pieces, and another source being less sure about it. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The external link to "Other works on permanent display in room 63 at the NG" seems gratuitous - readers can reach that page with one click from the more relevant link you already provide. It is fine to have just one external link. If you do keep it, you need to expand or explain the NG abbreviation. (actioned, and now removed in any case)
  • In the further reading section, the "Roy, Ashok. National Gallery Technical Bulletin. Volume 8, 1984" entry is a bit opaque. What is it within that bulletin that you are suggesting readers look at? The whole bulletin? Does the article by Ashok not have a title or did he write the whole bulletin? (removed)
  • Removed for now. Ashok was the editor at the time, the article appears in the biblo of a source I'd been using and looked interesting though I dont have a copy of it, I though it might be handy in the further reading section at least. Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, though I see now that you have something there instead from 2 years later. My view on further reading is that it is best really to have read, accessed, or at least flipped through the work you are pointing readers towards, as otherwise you risk sending them to something that doesn't exist (if you give the wrong reference) or something that is not very good. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
  • You have a reference to "van Veen, 297", but the work appears to be Borchert, unless you are referring to another work that is not given in the bibliographic listing (you later cite "Borchert, 203"). Also, one of your sources is: "Johnson, Charles. The Language of Painting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1949", but this is not used for any of the inline cites. Also, is there no author or article title information for "National Gallery technical bulletin, Volume 18, 1997. 25"? (partially done)
To finish, I'd like to echo Brian's comment at the PR: "I enjoy paintings articles, and always like to review them when I can find time". This article was a pleasure and a joy to read. Will check back in a few days and likely add my support then. Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Very good comments - thank you. Will take a couple of days to get through these. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Carcharoth thanks for the detailed review, very helpful and very welcome. Sorry for the tardy responce, something came up at work and I haven't been able to give the article any attention during the week. I do appreciate the time you spent. Ceoil (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
I hope what I've struck and replied to above is clear. I'll check back at the end of the weekend, and apologies for taking so long to get back to this one. Carcharoth (talk) 07:55, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Noting here (and above) that based on the comments and discussion, am happy to support. Carcharoth (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. More importantly, thanks for the time and giving us an in-depth review, which has resulted in a substantially improved article. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "the majority extant today were executed on wood using oil or egg tempera." - source?
  • "This low framing protected a portion of the canvas from deterioration and allows us to see some of the colours as they would have appeared originally." - source?
  • Missing bibliographic info for van Veen
  • Full bibliographic info for Davies appears three times, and is notated differently on each appearance
  • No citations to Johnson
  • Is the Davies source in French? Should note this
  • Use a consistent punctuation for retrieval dates
  • Be consistent in whether or not your provide publisher locations
  • Be consistent in whether volumes are notated in Roman or Arabic numerals
  • National Gallery technical bulletin or National Gallery Technical Bulletin or The National Gallery Technical Bulletin? Check for consistency
  • Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
All sorted now,. Though I admit I'm confused as to how to format pub locs for journals and might need guidance and a hand. Ceoil (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Just to add: I don't normally add locations for journal articles, only the title of publication, unless you want them for consistency? Am a little confused myself on this one. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
They are mostly from the Nat gall so mostly London, I'd b happier without. Ceoil (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't matter whether you include them or not, so long as you do it consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Found one that hadn't been removed and fixed. Should be consistent now. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Support: I gave this a detailed peer review; the issues I raised there have been adequately addressed, with further improvements as a result of the points raised in this FAC. Maybe further fine tuning would benefit, but I am satisfied that as of now the article meets the FA criteria and I am happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Brian, your review was of enormous help in the process. The remianing issues being discussed on the talk. Ceoil (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the support Brian. Truthkeeper (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Support - with a few minor issues:
  • I saw "dates it to between 1450-55", I think the en dash should be "and".
  • There are two occurrences of "the the". (one "the The" and one "the the").
  • I saw "an usual".
  • Should this be dirt, "Note the layer of dirth across the midground"?
  • There is a "Bouts's" in the sources, whereas "Bouts'" is used in the text. But perhaps, we can't do anything about this.
Thanks for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Ta Graham, fixed all but two; 1450-55 vs 1450 and 1455 reads better to me; and I'd say the source using "Bouts's" are fairly dated. The others were typos introduced yesterday; TK usually watches my back on these. Thanks again the look is appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
But there is "completed between 1440 and 1455" in the Lead, which is correct; and "between 1450–55" further down, which is not. The Manual of Style says, "Do not mix en dashes with prepositions like between and from". I agree with this because to me it reads between 1450 to 55, which sounds odd to my ears. Graham Colm (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I've changed to "between 1440 and 1455" because I prefer it that way, and per MoS and your suggestion. Ceoil is overruled here. Thanks btw for reading, the comments and the support. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I hope you don't think I'm anally retentive. Graham Colm (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
That would make two of us. I'll go through and make it as consistent as possible because now it's a little off. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
The article still needs an image review. Ucucha (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Ucucha. They're all centuries old; I'll leave it to Ceoil to find an image reviewer. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
8 images, none post 1500. All pd:old and pd:art, all attribute source, holding gallery etc. No deritives, or showing frame etc. Ceoil (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
The lead mentions it was purchased for the National Gallery by Eastland, but a reader digging in to the text at this point doesn't find any mention of the National Gallery:
  • Charles Eastlake purchased the painting for just over £120 in 1860 in Milan. During a period of aggressive acquisition intended to establish the international prestige of Britain's collection, it was acquired along with a number of other Netherlandish works from the Guicciardi family.
which makes that part hard to follow until one remembers (from the lead) that it was purchased for the National Gallery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC) There's an inconsistency in hyphenation of glue-size, not accounted for by whether it's modifying a noun. IN the lead we find "It is one of the few surviving 15th-century paintings created using glue-size, an ... ", but later in the text we found it used similarly without a hyphen-- pls review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting. Fixed both of these. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:03, 6 December 2011 .

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A minor but important action from the New Guinea campaign of 1943. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

  1. One source.
  2. Template issues. Corrected.
  3. He was there. Kelly was an RAAF Dakota pilot during World War II, and later served in Malaya and Vietnam. His three volume (so far) history compiles documents from the AWM, NAA and NACP. I regard it highly, and find it completely reliable, but if there is a problem, there are only two references, so I can replace them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
    I have removed Kelly from the sources. I still regard him as highly reliable as a historian. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  4. Left Chris' book out. Added a reference to Willoughby. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape review - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Images are all fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Toolbox checks

  • Alt text: Some images have it, some not -- should be consistent
  • External links: The New Guinea Offensives link seems to just go to the main Official Histories page at AWM rather than the book itself -- probably an old URL
  • Citation bot: Not checked -- timed out on me
  • Dab links, redirects, and ref links: No issues reported

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Support -- Referencing, structure, detail and supporting materials look good. Minor copyedit but prose generally seems fine. A few suggestions:

  • Situation
    • That subheading doesn't do much for me for some reason. I know "Military situation" might sound a bit obvious but it reads better to me, or perhaps there's something better still -- just a thought...
    • "airborne engineer aviation battalion" -- Seems an awful lot of adjectives, even for the military. Is there really such an animal? Can either "airborne" or "aviation" be dropped without hurting the meaning?
      • Yes, there was. The engineer aviation battalions were specially trained and equipped for building airbases, much like the RAAF's airbase construction squadrons. Of course other engineer units like construction battalions and general service regiments also built airbases, but these guys were the specialists. The airborne engineer aviation battalion was a special variant that was air portable for supporting airborne operations. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Prelude -- Not a nitpick this time, just wanted to say that I found the description of the independent company's characteristics succinct and useful -- that sort of context always helps.
  • Battle -- "new 208 radios" doesn't mean a lot, and passers-by might even think you meant 208 new radios, so I think I'd drop "208"; either that or make it clear that's it's a model, and better still briefly mantion what made them different from standard or older radios...
  • Aftermath -- Not trying to downplay the victory it but I wonder whether something like "significant" works better; failing that, perhaps "spectacular" (or the source's equivalent) could be quoted/attributed.

Anyway, well done -- I'd never heard of this action till now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 17:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Support, all of my concerns have been addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 04:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Comments Nice read! Needs some work on fit and finish. Some issues with prose, linking, and MoS are outlined below.

  • "capture of Lae" in the lead hyperlinks to "Landing and Lae" which makes no mention of any capture. Low-value link. Why hyperlink Lae later in the lead but not Nadzab?
    • The Landing at Lae article is on my work list. It's a stub at the moment, but will be expanded to a featured article. Nadzab was not linked because the article did not exist when this article was written. added a link. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "The Australian 2/6th Independent Company flew in ... in a special flight" sounds redundant.
  • Unclear language: First para of "Military situation", second and third sentences. Avoid beginning sentences with nebulous "this" and "it". Unclear what these are referring to. This problem occurs in several places throughout the article. Another example in Aftermath: "This was still a difficult approach, as aircraft had to land upwind while avoiding Mission Hill."
  • Linking strategy overall needs revisiting. I see at least three different links to "Ramu", all done in different ways.
  • What is the reason for having the Geography section where it is? It seems to interrupt the narrative you begin in "Military situation". You are reading a story, and then you are reading about geography, and then you are reading a story again.
    • Still wondering about this. I'm not necessarily asking for it to be changed—but I am wondering if there is a consensus order for military battle articles and if there is a rationale behind this order. --Laser brain (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
      • The geography section was something that I invented. I isn't required, although some other editors have adopted it. The alternative would be to merge it with the situation section, if you think that would read better. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "Prelude": What is a "warning order"? Explain or link jargon.
  • "To make the company self-supporting, it had its own engineer, signals, transport, and quartermaster sections." Needs rewriting.
  • "On 17 September 1943, it finally took off for Leron in a special flight of 13 Dakotas of the US 374th Troop Carrier Group." Clunky. Why not "On 17 September 1943, a special flight of 13 Dakotas from the US 374th Troop Carrier Group finally took off for Leron."
  • MoS work needed: I fixed one instance of a period being outside a complete-sentence quotation—there are others.
--Laser brain (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Support (Disclaimer) Interesting read, looks good to me. Please see the media review below though, as some things need tweaking. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Media Review A few minor things. First File:Markham Valley.jpg really should have a description of exactly what is going on somewhere, if not in the article, on the file description page. Second, I was going to ask you to put File:Bulldozer arrives on plane at Kaiapit strip 1943.jpg in a Template:Information template, but I decided to do that one myself. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following what you are asking for. What sort of description is required? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Red lines are who? Black lines are who? Who won what and when? Sven Manguard Wha? 13:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I have expanded the caption and the alt text to add this. I guess I am too used to military maps. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Spot check clear 6/10 sources 20/40 citations Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Update: (I'm going to have to read Dexter I think before I'll sign off) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Mellor (1/40 citations): excellent.
  • Kuzuhara (1/40 citations): has no page 123!!! It is 12 pages long!
  • Horner (1/40 citations) can't review, snippet view not working. Its a general SITREP style sequence of sentences that broadly set the ground, this is unlikely to be a) incorrect, b) poorly cited.
  • Craven & Cate (1/40 citations): First of all, this is miscited. But otherwise it is clear. You actually mean to cite: Richard L. Watson "Huon Gulf and Peninsula" in Craven & Cate
  • Bradley passes 3 randomised snippet searches for no plagiarism and correctly supporting statements
  • Dexter issues (12/40 citations) fn1 clear; fn3 clear; fn12 clear; fn17 clear; fn23 clear; fn25 clear; fn27 clear; fn29 clear; fn35 correct; fn38 correct Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • fn18c should be at p419;
    • fn22 What bunching? What Owen guns? The source actually says, "With bayonettes and grenades" re a MG post. In fact grenades seem to be the key part of the action after 7am.
  • Please consider the above depth of spot checking and get back to me about if you need to go over the sources I couldn't check Fifelfoo (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • I have rewritten the description of the battle. All issues should be resolved now. It would have been nice to have used Dexter's map of the action, but it doesn't become public domain until 1 January 2012. :( Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Support A very, very nice article. I got here very late and it seems that the other editors have already addressed all concerning issues. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Support

  • Support As a disclaimer, I started this article in 2008 but haven't had all that much to do with it since. I think that this article is now of FA class, though I do have the following comments and suggestions:
    • You are still the second largest contributor though, with a whopping ten edits. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Saying that independent companies were "Somewhat larger than a conventional infantry company" is an understatement - they were about twice the size
    • "As it came in to land, King spotted Papuan patrols in the area" - it's a bit unclear if you're referring to the PIB or local Papuans here. I'd suggest tweaking it to "As it came in to land, King spotted patrols from the Papuan Infantry Battalion in the area" to avoid any confusion.
    • "As the company advanced it came under light-machine-gun fire from foxholes on the edge of the village. A 2-inch mortar knocked out the machine gun." - the first sentence implies that there were more than one machine gun (through use of "foxholes") while the second sentence states that there was only a single machine gun - this should be clarified.
    • The account of the main clash between the Australian and Japanese forces seems a bit brief, though it is a good summary of the action. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Although some equipment was able to make the trek overland, ... Can equipment be "able to trek", or is that someting an individual does? WP:NBSP review needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Changed to "Although some equipment was carried on the trek overland,". FWIW, I just reminded people today in my weekly FAC update at WT:MHC that invisible codes in the edit screen are something I don't check for per my standard disclaimer, and gave them Ohconfucius's script that checks those. - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:03, 6 December 2011 .

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. This is the ninth and final article on the Great Coin Redesign of 1907-1921 (there may have to be an additional overall article to gain the Featured Topic designation) The Walking Liberty half dollar. Undoubtedly beautiful, but it caused the Mint a lot of grief for thirty years. This turned out to be one of the articles where an unexpected person runs away with the article, in this case Philadelphia Mint Superintendent Adam M. Joyce, who did not like all the new coins, and they were a terrible pain to produce, but he went to bat to have the new coin struck as close to the artist's conception as possible. I hope you enjoy it. It is a beautiful coin and the "heads" side has graced the American Silver Eagle for the past quarter century. Second nom posted with permission of Ucucha. A special thank you to BrandonBigheart for the beautiful infobox images.Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Can footnotes be in columns?
  • FN 50: publisher?
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods and dashed ISBNs
  • Be consistent in whether publishers/locations are included for journals. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I will work through these.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I like to use this for references: {{Reflist|colwidth=20em}}. I'll circle back later for a full review when i get the time. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll insert it. Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
That is done. I do not include locations when it is clear from the periodical title, but I see I was not consistent.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Support: More comments:

Nice catch! I had no idea there was such a link. I will make the changes shortly.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Those are done. Thanks for the praise btw. It's been a fun series.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Changed to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 11:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Thank you on both counts.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


Support, one suggestion Nice work. Personally, I'd prefer preoccupied to intensely busy, but no big deal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I tend to overuse that intensely busy phrase. I don't like preoccupied, that implies a mental state to me, rather than the physical manufacturing activities of the Mint. I'll work on an alternative phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments –

  • "Weinman's design of a Liberty striding towards the Sun proved difficult to perfect". Don't think the "a" adds anything here.
  • Background and inception: "and on February 23 met with Woolley in New York to make presentations of their work answer his questions." Seems like it's missing an "and" before "answer his questions".
  • Design: Try to avoid having a repetition from one sentence to another, like in "designed by Weinman. Weinman...".
  • Don't think another Walter Breen link is needed here after the one late in the previous section.
  • Preparation: "This permitted him to extend LIberty's head almost to the top of the coin". The I in Liberty shouldn't be capitalized. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I will work through these this morning.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Overlooked doing it, I'm afraid. They are done now. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to all for the reviews and supports.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Image review

Those things are done. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Support Can the image of the plaquette of Joyce be moved? Currently it causes an unsightly large gap in the text.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be difficult. As this is Joyce's moment in the sun, so to speak, I'd like the plaquette there. So I made the captions less wordy. That should do the trick. Thank you for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


Comment
  • There is info about clamor for a redesign before the minimum timeframe for a coin design, but no clear info on what that minimum timeframe is.
The second sentence of the article mentions the 25 year restriction; the body of the article leads off with the law which gives the 25 years (and also allows the Mint to hire private artists). That explains to the reader the situation and the discussion which did arise before 1916 is mentioned.
  • It's mentioned that Woolley wanted unique designs for each coin because of prior similarity. First off, the reason why is not answered here (I have an idea, but it could be wrong). The second is the wording doesn't make it clear if he just means the immediate prior design or all designs of those coins were similar.
We don't know. Mint records from that time, mostly owing to the "Hackel debacle", the shredding of many Mint records by Carter's mint director, Stella Hackel, are incomplete.
  • "...on February 23 met with Woolley in New York to make presentations..." - should probably Wikilink this as its not clear it means the state or the city.
Good point. It was actually at the New York Assay Office, so on "Mint territory" in NYC.
  • The article is heavily quote laiden. Some of these are great, but and I think some this one "evidently the haste called the engraving...." could be better paraphased without losing any context.∞陣内Jinnai 22:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I will look at the shorter quotes. Sometimes they are opinions, so I want to attribute them.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I've dropped three of them in favor of descriptions including the one you mentioned. Some of them are needed to give the reader a flavor for the times, or the people involved.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Another thing: about the Palladium coin, the date is from June. That's half-a-year ago. There isn't anything newer considering it was up in the air then?∞陣内Jinnai 23:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
No, I read Coin World or at least look at the headlines every issue and also I just ran a few google news searches. The eagles are in the news because of a special limited edition set that is getting a lot of interest, they would headline approval of the palladium coin. And I just checked the MInt website.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑