Knowledge

:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2012 - Knowledge

Source 📝

June 2012

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 GrahamColm 08:00, 30 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): Noleander (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is about a major episode of the Cold War. The title may seem a bit daunting, but it is a fascinating story. The article has Good Article status, and has been through three Peer Reviews: one, two, and three. My prior FA articles include W. E. B. Du Bois, Birth control movement in the United States, and π. I believe this article meets the FA criteria, and I'm ready to make any improvements needed. --Noleander (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 comments
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk
  • Support on prose and images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments: Supported below Alright, I've started my review. The prose looks like it is in pretty good shape, only a few small comments thus far.
  • "The defendants claimed that the instructions "I find as matter of law that there is sufficient danger of a substantive evil that the Congress has a right to prevent to justify the application of the statute under the First Amendment of the Constitution" were erroneous," Might want to add commas around the quote, not sure.
Hmmm. Not sure about that one. I tried putting in commas, but it did not look right. I think the quote marks themselves serve as sufficient delimiters here. But I can add commas if that is considered better. --Noleander (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "In his opinion, Vinson wrote" Might want to consider a block quote here.
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Check for repeat linking, a few terms are linked more than once after the lead.
I deliberately included a few redundant links in situations where the 2nd occurrence was far from the first, and the term was obscure. --Noleander (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fine, I just ran the tool on it and thought I'd mention it. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "The attorneys raised a variety of issues on appeal, including the purported misconduct of the judge, and the claim that they were deprived of due process because there was no hearing to evaluate the merits of the contempt charge. The attorneys argued that the contempt charges would prevent future CPUSA defendants from obtaining counsel, because attorneys would be afraid of judicial retaliation. The attorneys'" You start three consecutive sentences with "The attorneys..." here, probably want to rephrase for some variation.
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "The second-tier defendants had a difficult time finding lawyers to represent them: All five lawyers" vs "The attorneys' initial appeal to the federal appeals court was not successful: the court reviewed " Check for consistency wrt capitals after colons.
Done - The convention followed in this article is to capitalize after colons; I fixed the mistake you pointed out. --Noleander (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Some second-tier defendants were unable to post bail because the government refused to permit the Civil Rights Congress (CRC) legal defense fund to post bail." Repetition of "to post bail" here, is there a good way around it?
Done - Changed to "Some second-tier defendants were unable to post bail because the government refused to permit the Civil Rights Congress (CRC) legal defense fund to provide bail funding." --Noleander (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "After prison, Carl Winter resumed Party activities, became editor of the Daily Worker and died in 1991." I'm unclear here, did he become editor and die in 1991? Mark Arsten (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Done - Added 1966 date for Daily Worker job. --Noleander (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I've added some commas and changed some wording, feel free to revert if you feel I've messed anything up.
Looks fine. --Noleander (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Some possible overlinking here, consider delinking Russia, Bail, and Indictment.
Done - I delinked Russia; but left bail and indictment since those terms may be alien to english-as-second language readers. --Noleander (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Be consistent about introducing block quotes with colons, also an issue with non-block quotes: I see "A New York resident wrote: "..." vs "Another wrote "the trial".
Done --Noleander (talk) 21:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Ten days after the trial, Time magazine featured Medina on its cover, and soon thereafter he was asked to consider running for governor of New York." Might want to note if he ran or not.
Done - I added that fact (he did not run) in the footnote ... let me know if you think it should be in the body. --Noleander (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Should probably double check that you comply with WP:ELLIPSIS, since you use a lot of them.
Done - In compliance with MOS. --Noleander (talk) 22:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "The Moscow press wrote that Medina showed "extraordinary prejudice"; the London communist newspaper wrote" Are "The Moscow press" and "the London communist newspaper" names of publications here?
No, they are not the proper names of newspapers; and I do not have specific newspaper names. Those phrases come from the New York Times reporter which wrote a synopsis of the world-wide coverage; but they did not identify the specific international papers they were summarizing. --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Done - I delinked it; but added the link into the footnote so curious readers will have access. --Noleander (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You have "George W. Crockett, Jr.," with a comma in one part, and without later in the article.
Done --Noleander (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Third party presidential candidate Henry A. Wallace" Should there be a hyphen here?
Done - The sources seem to go both ways, but I added the hyphen since it seems better. --Noleander (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Check image captions, only complete sentences should have periods.
Done --Noleander (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I see a couple places in "Background" where you could probably abbreviate United States to US.
Done --Noleander (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You have "'']'' magazine" once, and then "]" another couple times.
Done --Noleander (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "After the first trial, the government prosecutors" should this be "government's prosecutors"?
Done - Changed to "After the first trial, the prosecutors ..." so the issue went away. --Noleander (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

..... Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reivew! --Noleander (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Alright, I'm ready to support this article on 1a, 2a, and 2b--the prose, presentation, and MOS compliance look fine to me. IANAL etc. so I can't comment on the aspects of whether the legal details are quite right/comprehensive. Overall, definitely a very good article, impressive work. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments - I think a good deal of work, mostly related to the legal issues, is required before this article can satisfy the Featured Article criteria. Trying to write an article about the trials that spawned half a dozen marque First Amendment precedents, without giving much background or analysis on the First Amendment issues, is like trying to write an article about Roe v. Wade that shuns substantive due process. This stands in start contrast the the orgy of Cold War context given by the article. Basically, any development in the Cold War on any continent, or any instance of anti-Communism anywhere in the United States, is mentioned, without regard to its nexus to the trial. I certainly think much Cold War context is warranted, but the imbalance is what draws my attention, given that this article is after all about legal trials where the only substantive defense raised by the defendants was the First Amendment. More specific comments follow: Savidan 19:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    • The link to “First amendment issues related to speech critical of government” (really a link to First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Speech_critical_of_the_government) is insufficient for a few reasons. In my view, this article needs to give: (1) the legal background on the First Amendment issue raised by the trials, i.e. a summary of the Supreme Court cases on "dangerous speech" prior to the these cases being brought. The article at times alludes to prior doctrine (to suggest that the trial judge or intermediate appellate court diverged from it in an effort to convict the defendants), but makes no concerted effort to summarize it; (2) analysis of the changes in First Amendment doctrine brought about by the appeals arising from these trials, i.e. citations to books and law reviews that note the way the Court's analysis of the First Amendment issues was different, if at all, from prior cases; (3) subsequent development of First Amendment doctrine by the Supreme Court on the precise issue raised in this trial (mostly Brandenburg, but also its progeny), i.e. an analysis of whether the law that permitted these convictions remains valid today. The existence of an article about the First Amendment itself cannot absolve this article of the need for such coverage, as that article is not tailored to be most relevant to the readers of this article (for example, by dividing the content into the three periods I have suggested, and summarizing only the narrow issue raised by these cases).
Not done - The article already contains a level of legal detail comparable with that found in the several secondary sources on the topic. Additional detail about First Amendment law is already present in WP in another article, First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution, specifically in the "Speech_critical_of_the_government" section. Because you raised this question at the GAN, I queried two Peer Reviewers (in the second PR and third PR), and neither reviewer suggested that more legal detail was needed. Until other reviewers, besides yourself, give persuasive arguments that the level of detail is insufficient, I'm inclined to leave it alone. --Noleander (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Done - I've added significant detail regarding the evolution of the first amendment law regarding speech critical of the government. It is in the section Smith_Act_trials_of_Communist_Party_leaders#Appeal_to_the_federal_Court_of_Appeals. It does not quite go into the level of detail found in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution article, but a link is provided to that latter article for readers that want more information. --Noleander (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
"Not done" was more accurate. In my view, in order to be FA-comprehensive, this article must show the state of the law before these cases, the evolution that came about from these cases, and the degree to which that evolution is an accurate picture of the current law. As for the level of detail in secondary sources, this is somewhat a product of which secondary sources are cited. As others have pointed out on the talk page, you have peculiar ways of searching for them. I assure you that the amount of detail I am advocating, and much more, could be supported by secondary sources. These could be found in at least two ways (and perhaps others): (1) using Westlaw or Lexis, see which secondary sources cite the Supreme Court cases mentioned in this article (using Shepardize or KeyCite); (2) put the names of said Supreme Court cases in quotation marks and search them on Google Scholar (example). As for the peer reviews, they were not given in the context of the FA criteria and no editor other than yourself appears to make a comment that is specifically in conflict with what I am saying. Savidan 01:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Done - Okay, I added a new section "Free speech" which supplies background information on free speech law vis-a-vis advocacy of violence: it stretches from 1919 up to 1949, and should let the reader get a feel for what preceded the Dennis decision. The amount of material available on the background is voluminous, and that section could be expanded indefinitely. Any additional detail can go into the First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution article, which is prominently linked-to. Also, I added a paragraph in to the Aftermath section, discussing Brandenburg. --Noleander (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • The article needs to give the text of the two operative Smith Act criminal offenses, the advocacy of violence clause, and the membership clause, that gave rise to these prosecutions. The article alludes to what the Act actually prohibited at many points, but never gives the readers a chance to see for themselves.
Done - The article already contained snippets of the law, but - per your suggestion - I put in the entire statute in a footnote. Let me know if you think it should go up into the body of the article. --Noleander (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
in my view, the footnote is not enough. It should be set out in the body. Otherwise, the article's explanation of the charged conduct, and the evidence at trial, has no context and makes no sense. Savidan 01:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Done - I added two excerpts into the body in the appropriate places; and the entire text is still available in the footnote. --Noleander (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • The article makes many claims about the judge’s mental state (e.g. "Medina came to believe that . . ." x 2; "Medina's attitude towards the defense . . ."), but provide no real foundation for what the source of these could be (e.g. the judge’s private letters, etc.) other than speculation.
Done - Several secondary sources make those assertions; but I see your point. The secondary sources do not say what primary source they used to draw that "believe" statement, so I have removed it. For the "attitude" statement, again, several secondary sources mention that, but I think they are referring to actions rather than beliefs, so there is not so much of an issue here. In any case, I changed it to "According to Michal Belknap, Medina's behavior towards the defense ..." --Noleander (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand why you say "done," when the article still contains the claim "Medina came to believe..." without giving any hint of a foundation for what could back that up. Savidan 01:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Done - Ah, I fixed one, but did not see the other one. I looked at several sources, and they all say that Medina believed there was a deliberate attempt to provoke a mistrial, but none of the sources say how they got that insight. So I changed the wording to: "Some historians speculate that Medina came to believe that ..." --Noleander (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Many of the Cold War events chosen seem to have no logical nexus to the trial. For example, the University of California requiring faculty members to take an anti-Communist oath. I can understand the relevant of including extremely impotant Cold War events to give a sense of the timeline, and less important events with a demonstrated connection to the trial (e.g., another anti-Communist trial in the same courthouse) but this seems like a relatively minor one. Similarly, NSC-68 was classified until the 70s, so the suggestion that it had anything to do with the public perception of the communism during the appeals seems like a stretch.
Done - Those examples were from the secondary sources (I suppose they were trying to give readers a sense of the state of affairs in the US at the time). I removed the UC example. But I think the National Security Council Report 68 example should be retained because a Peer Reviewer suggested that the article needed more examples illustrating that the government perceived communism as a genuine threat. But I can remove it if you think its absence would improve the article. --Noleander (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
How could a classified report have anything to do with public opinion? How could it have anything to do with the appeal? Do you have a source that says the appellate judges were privy to it? I regard this as being a more pervasive problem in the article. Just because the same book mentions a historical event and the trial does not authorize an open-season of cherry picking. I see two solutions. First, every piece of "Cold War context" should have an explained nexus to the trial. If you say you have found them through secondary sources, and if they are in fact relevant, the secondary source should say why. For example, if the prosecution or the defense referred to the event in the trial; or if the secondary source asserts there was causal relevance (in which case the same should be attributed). Second, if you are unable to supply a nexus for certain context that you regard as critically necessary, I suggest that it be moved into a single section at the beginning of the article, perhaps with a title like "Cold War background" and a {further} link. This way it would not interrupt the flow of the actual narrative of the trial. Further, it will not create the appearance of original research, for example by implying that the fact is causally connected to the other facts in the paragraph. Savidan 01:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Partially done - I moved the Cold War material up out of the Appeals section, so it mitigates the flow issues you mention. I considered moving it up to the top part of the article, but there is already a 1930-1945 background section there which serves as an intro to the indictments. The Cold War section here is specifically to describe the situation in the 1949-1952 time frame, so I placed it after the 1949 trial, but before the 1950 appeal. As for the "classified report", one of the Peer Reviews asked for more material to explain why the federal government pursued the prosecutions so vigorously: what information did they have? What other actions where they taking to combat communism? The idea is to show the reader that the federal government had genuine concerns about the danger of communism, and that the trials were not an isolated response. If you think the selection of background material here is not balanced in some way, let me know what is missing and I can round it out. --Noleander (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • ”depended on the precedent set by the 1949 trial” - this is an implausible claim, as trial court decisions (and especially not jury verdicts) do not set any kind of legal precedent.
Done - Thanks for catching that. Changed to "12,000 of those depended on the outcome of the 1949 trial." --Noleander (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This semantic change does nothing to remedy my concern. Since district court decisions do not set precedent, there is no way they could have "depended" on the outcome. What are the exact words of your source? What are the exact words of the primary source it is quoting? It is possible they are referring to the anticipated results on appeal, or merely saying that the cases would be analogous to this trial. Savidan 01:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Done - Reworded to "He testified that there were 21,105 potential persons that could be indicted under the Smith Act, and that 12,000 of those would be indicted if the Smith Act was upheld as constitutional" which more closely tracks what the source says. --Noleander (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • ”Courts had previously considered a "clear and present danger" test (first articulated in 1919's Schenck v. United States) to determine if speech could be prohibited.” This is unequivocally wrong. While the words “clear and present danger” did appear in the Schenck opinion, Schenck did not say anounce “clear and present danger” as an element that must be proved in any prosecution of dangerous speech. This came much later in Brandenburg. Between Schenck and Brandenburg, the clear and present danger test only existed in Supreme Court dissents by Holmes and Brandeis. While I have no examined the Dunlap source, assuming that it is correctly cited, it is a clear minority view. For one example of the majority view (as opposed to what I would characterize as the anachronistically optimistic view), see the “Expression that Induces Unlawful Conduct” section (pages 19 to 63) of Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet, and Karlan’s First Amendment casebook. Similarly, the suggestion that Hand fundamentally changed the clear and present danger test in his opinion, when such test was not even the prevailing doctrine, is just too implausible.
As I pointed out in the GAN, several secondary sources - law school professors included - support this text (see footnote #101). To take two at random: O'Brien page 7 (professor of Constitutional law as Univ of Virginia): "Reviewing the evolution of the clear and present danger test since Shenck, Judge Hand concluded that it was no more than a balancing technique. But he also ostensibly gave the test greater precision by adding that courts must consider 'whether the gravity of the evil discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danter.' … As refashioned, the clear and present danger test was sharper than Justice Holmes's initial formulation …". Another source: Belknap 1994, page 222 (Professor of law at CalWestern): "In recent years the Supreme Court had interpreted that constitutional provision as permitting punishment of speech and writing only if the utterance in question created a 'clear and present danger' of a substantive evil .... In order to hold the conviction of the Eleven constitutional, Hand formulated a new version of the 'clear and present danger' rule. ... ...". I have at least four sources that say a similar thing. I've looked but I cannot find a source that says anything different. Could you please provide me with quotes from any RS (I do not have access to the Stone source), so I can incorporate it into the article? I want the article to be accurate, and I'll be happy to incorporate any materials. --Noleander (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Done - I've added material to the article (in the Appeals case section) which gives more detail on the free speech law of the time; I've reworded the text to emphasize that "clear and present danger" was not a test which was formally adopted by the Supreme Court; and I've added text indicating that the law was "unsettled". --Noleander (talk) 18:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't doubt that some law professors subscribe to the minority view and claim that the Supreme Court had in fact adopted this extremely high level of First Amendment protection even though it had never reversed a single criminal conviction on this basis, and in fact that the two justices were consistently dissenting on this basis. Perhaps it is acceptable or desirable for the article to include their views as well, but not to the exclusion of the majority view, and not with a disproportionate degree of emphasis. I think if you search Lexis/Westlaw/Google Scholar as I have described above, you will find more than enough sources subscribing to the majority view (and, the fact that you have not found a single such source yet is highly troubling to me in terms of the comprehensiveness of the sources you have consulted). I do not intend to reproduce all 40 pages from the text book, but the textbook author's comments are quite clear (spaced between the excerpts from the cases) and they also serve up relevant excerpts from the leading secondary sources. Many libraries carry the Stone source, including every U.S. law library, so you should be able to get your hands on it (if in fact you cannot find sufficient sources in the first two ways I have described). I do not have the time to do the research for you, but I have pointed you to a tertiary source that also includes many secondary sources. It's not enough just to say that the law was unsettled; it would be more accurate to say that the law was settled that the present-day version of the clear and present danger test was not the law, although there were hints that the law was moving slowly in that direction and two persistent and emphatic dissenters. Savidan 01:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Done - Hmmm, I'm not 100% sure what you are driving at here. It sounds like you are concerned that the article is claiming that the C&PD test was formally adopted by the Court for all free speech cases? The article reads "Judge Hand adapted the clear and present danger test by treating it as a balancing test …" which simply asserts that the test existed which, of course, it did. But since you were apparently misled by the article, I've changed the wording to "Judge Hand considered the clear and present danger test, but his ruling adopted a balancing approach …" which should clarify that C&PD was not the law of the land in 1950. --Noleander (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Savidan 02:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
**The article explains the fact that the indictment only went back three years by referring to some minor change in the leadership of the CPUSA. This suggestion is implausible. The far more likely reason for this is a 3-year statute of limitations.
Done - I removed the speculation as to why 1945 was the cutoff date ... the sources are silent on the matter. --Noleander (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    • “The appellate decision regarding the jury selection methods is 83 F.Supp. 197 (1949).” Given the citation, this could not possibly be an appellate decision. This must be a district court decision.
Done - Thanks for pointing that out. I fixed it; and added the correct appellate case: 183 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1950). --Noleander (talk) 19:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
    • ”He instructed the jury that the prosecution was not required to prove that the danger of violence was "clear and present"” and ”The judge's instructions included the phrase "I find as a matter of law that there is sufficient danger of a substantive evil ..." which would later be challenged by the defense during their appeals” The article does not give the reader the context necessary to understand these sentences. “Clear and present danger” is a legal concept which was undergoing substantial evolution before, during, and after the time period of the trial. At the time, the concept primarily existed in the dissents of Justices Holmes and Brandeis. In other words, there was no Supreme Court case holding that proof of a clear and present danger was required. The claim of the defendants surely was that the statute was unconstitutional for permitting their punishment without proof of a clear and present danger. Given that the trial judge rejected their legal contention that the First Amendment required such a showing, it would have been only natural not to involve the jury. Thus, the (over)emphasis on whether the issue was submitted to the jury is a red herring, a product of lack of legal context.
The article contains an accurate representation of what several secondary sources say. If you can supply quotes showing another viewpoint, I'll be happy to incorporate them. --Noleander (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Done - I've added more text into that section, indicating that the clear and present danger concept was not established law at the time, thus giving more context to the reader, so they dont get the impression it was. --Noleander (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
    • The Supreme Court case upholding Dennis’ contempt conviction is not cited. It’s fine to cite the AP too, but the case itself should also be in the footnote.
Done --Noleander (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Prose
  • I'd like to see a through copyedit of this entry. One doesn't provide an amicus brief, one submits it. There are inappropriate characterizations like: "the New York World Telegram which eagerly reported..." Eagerly? Interesting information is wedged into parentheses: (in spite of the fact that the CPUSA had supported the 1941 prosecution of Dobbs under the Smith Act). And there are organizational issues. The section "Perception of communism in the United States" is a hodgepodge of government activity and international events, with little on the topic of perception. And padding like: "the Cold War continued unabated in the international arena". (emphasis added) Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Partially done - Thanks for your comments. The article has been through three peer reviews, and I'm sure that any remaning prose issues are manageable here in the FAC. Regarding your suggestions: I changed "provide" to "submit"; I removed "eagerly" although that is an accurate paraphrase of the secondary source (Martelle, p 76) who used "gleeful anticipation" - apparently trying to convey to the reader that much of the mainstream press was somewhat against the defendants. On the parenthetical comment: I removed the parenthesis, but that sentence is an accurate reflection of what the sources say. I removed "unabated". Regarding "Perception of communism in the United States": That section was added in response to a peer review which suggested that the article contain a summary of how the cold war was viewed in the US during the trials (even though the secondary sources don't give much detail on that) - but perhaps the section is a bit disconnected ... I'll see if I can improve it. --Noleander (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Comment
  • As the editor who did the the first GA review (there were two as well as at least two three peer reviews), I think this is a case of too many cooks stirring the broth. Noleander has attempted in every way to accommodate editors' comments, and as a result the article has swung back and forth, resulting in its current problems. I felt the article was too sociological and POV for a legal article when I read it for GA. Originally, it sounded like the trial(s) were blatant, unwarranted persecutions, the governments fear of communism was completely unreasonable, the judge was overly biased and misused the law and so on. Then some one suggested that the political climate of the times should be added (USSR exploding the bomb, etc.), so that was added. And so it went, back and forth on various issues. I originally asked Savidan to get involved because I felt a lawyer's expertise was needed, and both Noleander and I have poked him about it since. I think Savidan is right. The issues he brings up are what bothered me in the GA review, but I didn't have the brain power to lay it out. Noleander has worked very hard, but the legal subject matter is very complex and needs the input of legal experts, in my opinion. I know I nearly burst my brain doing the GA review. For what it's worth, this is my view. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. As you say, the article covers a complex and broad topic, but that is no reason we cannot get it to FA status. The article already incorporates all viewpoints that I've found in the numerous secondary sources. If additional viewpoints can be found, I'll be happy to incorporate them into the article. At this point, any additional viewpoints need specific quotes from secondary sources. I have no personal opinion on this topic (the trials, communism, the cold war, etc). I'm just a simple scribe, capturing what the secondary sources have written. If anyone can find something I've overlooked (although I doubt I've overlooked anything) give me a quote from a source, and I'll incorporate it. --Noleander (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
reply
  • My feelings on reading the sources for my GAN review was that too many were political historians with an agenda, and few if any were legal experts examining the legal aspects aside from a retrospective history of the politics of the times. That is why Savidan's imput is so important. He is looking at the law, and not speculating on how the judge "felt" etc., stuff for which there are only politically biased speculations. I urge you to get legal experts to evaluate. It's fine to have editors picking apart the prose, punctuation etc. but I don't think that is the fundamental problem with the article—although it definitely needs a good copy editor. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I think this is like writing a medical article without involving medical experts but only writers with views on medical issues. Again, please get input from legal experts. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
No, in fact, articles are best written by consulting reliable secondary sources published by reputable presses. Relying on material from non-published experts is not permitted and would constitute original research. Your comments are puzzling, because this article relies exclusively on top-notch reliable sources including:
  • Jerold S. Auerbach - Professor Emeritus of History at Wellesley College.
  • Michal Belknap - Earl Warren Professor of Law Chair, California Western School of Law
  • Paul Finkelman - President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy, and Senior Fellow in the Government Law Center at Albany Law School
  • John Earl Haynes - American historian who is a specialist in 20th century political history in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress.
  • Milton R. Konvitz - Professor at Cornell's Law School
  • David M. O Brien - Leone Reaves and George W. Spicer Professor of Government and Foreign Affairs at the University of Virginia.
  • Victor Saul Navasky - Journalist, editor, publisher, author and professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.
  • Richard G. Powers - Professor of History at CUNY
  • Martin H. Redish - Louis and Harriet Ancel Professor of Law and Public Policy at Northwestern University School of Law
  • Arthur J. Sabin - professor at The John Marshall Law School
  • Samuel Walker - Emeritus Professor of Criminal Justice at University of Nebraska
  • Roy M. Mersky - Harry M. Reasoner Regents Chair in Law at The University of Texas School of Law
  • Ellen Schrecker - professor of American history at Yeshiva University
  • William V. Dunlap - Professor of Law at Quinnipiac University School of Law
How you can claim that these sources do not include "legal experts" is beyond me. --Noleander (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
MathewTownsend reply
  • Sorry. I've not written clearly. I truly commend you for your range of sources and agree they include "legal experts". But I'm sure you'd agree also that it is what is picked and chosen, how sources are pieced together and presented in an article, that are also very important. Covering such a broad topic as the article does, with both historical, political and legal elements is a huge job, while avoiding POV. I'm just saying that much like MEDRS standards, something like that should be in operation here for legal articles. The sources used contain legal analysis but also person opinion and political slants, and all of this is mixed in. That is why Savidan's imput is so important. He is looking at the law clearly, and my view is that if this is to be a legal article on the law, than it should focus narrowly on the law, and leave the other stuff for another article. Just my view, and certainly no poor reflection on you, Noleander, as I think you've done a superhuman job in trying to put this together. I wish this to all turn out for the best and in my view Savidan's suggestions supply what I wanted to know when I read the article for GAN. There are many articles already on the hysteria of the "Red Scare", McCarthyism, the Hollywood Ten etc. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • p.s. And just as medical editors can't use the popular press as reliable sources, even reputable ones like The New York Times or the BBC to support medical facts, my view is the some should hold for legal "facts". MathewTownsend (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
No, this is not "a legal article on the law". It is an article describing a historical event comprising many threads: social, political, and legal. Historians may want to see more about the Cold War; politicians may want to see more about the CPUSA; and, yes, lawyers may want to see more about the First Amendment. But it would be wrong to single out the First Amendment for special emphasis especially when the secondary sources on this topic do not emphasize First Amendment issues. When readers want more detail on those topics, they can follow links to the related WP articles: Cold War, Smith Act, CPUSA, McCarthyism, and First Amendment to the United States Constitution. That latter article already has an outstanding section devoted to free speech issues related to criticism of the government. There is no reason to duplicate that section within this article: that is what wikilinks are for. However, in the spirit of conciliation, I've recently added quite a bit of material on the First Amendment into a legal section of this article. --Noleander (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with MathewTownsend's concerns. This is an article about a legal, criminal trial that spawned half a dozen important First Amendment precedents. The only substantial defense raised by the defendant's at all of the trials was the same: the First Amendment. I do not doubt that there are social and political issues that demand coverage as well, but that does not relieve the article of its duty to comprehensively cover the legal issues. Moreover, your claim that there are no secondary sources about the legal issues (when in fact they are legion, as you would see even by consulting the small subset that are included in the leading casebook) is very troubling to me. I agree that you have no duty to improve the First Amendment article in order for this article to receive FA status, but the converse is surely true. This article cannot be excused from comprehensively dealing with its subject-matter just because some other article exists on Knowledge. Moreover, this article must provide a summary of the First Amendment issues as they are relevant to this topic. Hence the idea of a freeze frame of the law before the trial, a spotlight on the changes brought about by the appeals arising from the trial, and highlighting the changes post-trial. No one is asking you to duplicate. Savidan 01:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko comments: I'm just responding to your request on the WPUS talk page. Here are a few things I noticed that I recommend.

Thanks for the comments! --Noleander (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The lede is a little too long IMO
It is a pretty standard sized lead for articles of this size. But if you can point out a specific sentence or two that seems superfluous, I'll be happy to remove it. --Noleander (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Done - OK no problem. Kumioko (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I think ref#4 is more of a note and probably should be split into a separate notes section.
See comment immediately below. --Noleander (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Also the note part of ref#70, 109, 126, 131, 137, 140 and 142
My preference is to merge notes and citations into a single, shared Footnote section. I find that that encourages editors to provide extra, sometimes important, details to readers. The WP MOS gives lots of flexibility on whether or not notes & citations are merged, and FA - to my knowledge - has not required one method or another. --Noleander (talk) 01:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Done OK, your right it is more personal preference on this. Kumioko (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Recommend using a consistent format for the citations. In some like 61 you shorten it and others like 6 you don't
Done - The convention used is: If a source is used 2 or more times, it is put in the References section, and WP:CITESHORT format is used. If a source is only used once, the full citation (not shortened) is put in the footnote. Some citations also include an informational note. For example:
  • FN #6: Belknap (1994), p 179. President Roosevelt insisted on the prosecution because the SWP had challenged a Roosevelt ally.
  • FN #61: Belknap (1994), pp 212, 220.
I think all the citations have a uniform format, following that convention, but I'll double check.

--Noleander (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Done - OK Kumioko (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Some citations don't have a date like 60, 120, 121 AND 122
Yes, the year is provided only when needed to resolve ambiguity. For example, since there is only one reference by author Auerbach, a short citation for that is "Auerbach, p 67"; but author Belknap has three entries in the References section, so a short citation must be uniquified as follows: "Belknap (1994), p 123". --Noleander (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Done Personally I think that using a standard format is best because it makes it easier to read but I don't think its required. Kumioko (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Are that many Further reading really necessary? I recommend trimming a few out if possible
That is a good question. WP:FURTHER says that the Further Reading section should contain a "reasonable number" of items. The items listed now are all directly relevant to the article, but if necessary, some could be removed. --Noleander (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Done Ok Kumioko (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Is there no good online links for an External link section?
There are quite a few external links within the footnotes, such as the Supreme Court cases. Another one is a Mike Wallace interview. Any informative external links I found are in the footnotes, but if you know of any more, we can add them. --Noleander (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Done - Fair enough. Kumioko (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • If you have a term linked in a section you don't have to call it out again as a see also link. An example can be found in the section for Yates v. United States. The term is already linked so you don't need to link it again in the beginning. Another example is in Dennis v. United States
Those two sections (Dennis and Yates) are using the {{main}} template, which tells the reader that there is an entire article devoted to that topic, which is an important fact that the reader may not notice if the target article link is buried down in the middle of the section. That is a bit different that a {{see also}} template which, as you point out, is sometimes redundant. --Noleander (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Done Ok. Kumioko (talk) 08:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really the prose guy but it looks like there are a lot of unnecessary thats and there are a few places where it seems to praise one side or the other and I recommend that be toned down a bit. Other than that a very well written article. Great job.

Can you point out a couple of places where something needs to be "toned down" ... I'll be happy to reword if you can point me in the right direction. --Noleander (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Kumioko (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

A couple places where there is a that, that IMO is not needed.
  • Line 2, a 1940 statute that set, I think it sounds better if you remove the that.
That sentence is: "... were accused of violating the Smith Act, a 1940 statute that set penalties ..." - I'm pretty sure the word "that" cannot be removed. --Noleander (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Line 3, The prosecution argued that
That sentence reads: "The prosecution argued that the CPUSA's policies promoted ..." - I don't think "that" can be removed. --Noleander (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Line 3-4, the defendants countered that they advocated a peaceful transition to socialism, and that the
I don't think the word "that" can be removed in either location. But if other reviewers think that these sentences should be entirely reworded to eliminate the use of "that", I can do so. --Noleander (talk) 12:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In general, there are a lot of places in there that to me removing some of the that'ss let the text flow more smoothly. There are quite a few more but I hope this gives you an idea what I'm talking about. Kumioko (talk)

Comment I did a peer review, and I will likely support, but I want to see how the discussion above goes and if it results in changes to the article. I should add that Noleander has worked very hard on this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. The article was in decent shape after PR but has been improved further still here. Echoing Wehwalt's note (and adding my own congrats) to Noleander's hard work here. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
MathewTownsend comment
  • I have reread the article. The two peer reviews and subsequent comments here at FAC have been extremely helpful in improving the article. My POV concerns basically have been addressed. (Don't like the Paul Robeson image and caption as POV but I'll shut up.) I believe my concerns about legal context have been remedied (though I'm no expert on this). I think the article is now quite good.
The hard-working Noleander is to be commended for being open minded and willing to address the comments by reviewers, rather than being defensive. The peer reviews were excellent. The coming together of this article is a model of collaboration that is the best of Knowledge. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Support My concerns were answered at the PR and I looked it over and it seems still worthy.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Oppose (withdrawn), per Savidan's comment of June 20. This the exact reason I felt the article was POV in my GAN review of the article, and why I solicited the input of someone expert in the law. I was counting on the peer reviewers and others with more legal sophistication than I have, as even I could tell there was something wrong if all the sources, who Noleander assured me several times included a broad search of legal scholars, supported what seemed to me the skewed view presented in the original article and that many, if not most, of the article's sources were POV. I've read many of Savidan's legal articles, and I trust his legal expertise. I know enough of the law that it is like medicine—very easily misunderstood by the nonprofessional, in fact usually misunderstood by the nonprofessional. I too questioned the methods used to search for sources for the article, as to me they seemed more bent on presenting a political POV than a unbiased explanation of the trials and their ultimate legal outcomes. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

MT: Thanks for the feedback. I want the article to conform to the highest standards of neutrality. In January, you pointed out some POV issues and, as you know, I already responded to those comments by (1) removing several quotes and observations sympathetic to defendants; (2) adding background material explaining why communism was perceived as a genuine threat; (3) adding material explaining why the judge had good reason to issue contempt charges; and (4) ensuring that all the sources (except Navasky, who is only used for few minor facts) were neutral. I am not aware of any remaining POV issues. I'll fix any issues that you identify. Can you point out some specific wording or material (or lack of material) in the article that concerns you? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
MathewTownsend reply
  • I'm reassured regarding the legal points by Savidan's comments having been satisfied.
  • re POV,
  • "Paul Robeson performed in a concert to raise funds for the legal expenses of the defendants." This needs a citation. Is there evidence that this concert was performed specifically to raise funds for the Smith trial defendants?
  • I think using the image of Paul Robeson plus link to the Peekskill Riots gives an unwarranted impression that Robeson's support and the riots were a major issue in the Smith trials. The Peekskill Riots (according to its wiki article) "were anti-communist riots with anti-black and anti-Semitic undertones". And "The catalyst for the rioting was an announced concert by black singer Paul Robeson, who was well known for his strong pro-trade union stance, civil rights activism, communist affiliations, and anti-colonialism." It was a "concert, organized as a benefit for the Civil Rights Congress".
  • According to Paul Robeson article, "A small riot broke out prior to the concert, which was principally initiated by local residents of the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars". To me it seems peripheral to the Smith trials, according to info available on wiki. It was an anticommunist riot and two Smith trial defendants were in attendance and were injured, but no evidence is supplied that the violence targeted Smith trial defendants specifically. Perhaps you could supply a citation supporting that the riots specifically and knowingly targeted Smith trial defendants.
  • Further, this statement is misleading: "The riots targeted a benefit concert for the Civil Rights Congress (CRC), an organization that provided funding for the legal expenses of communist defendants". According to Civil Rights Congress, it was a civil rights organization "known for involvement in civil rights cases such as the Trenton Six and justice for Isaiah Nixon", (e.g. civil rights issues) and it doesn't imply that raising legal expenses for communist defendants was its main focus, or that it specifically raised funds for the Smith trials, or that it would focus on raising funds for mainly white guy defendants. This trial was not a civil rights case. Only one of the eleven was African American. So citations would help so that the photo + caption doesn't seem UNDUE. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Done - I've removed all mention of the Peekskill riots & Robeson. They were initially inserted because the Martelle book (which is about these Smith Act trials) devoted an entire chapter to the riots. But, I'll defer to your judgement. Let me know if the article has any more POV issues, and I'll take care of them. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
a bit more
  • (I'm about worn out by this article, but I really admire your willingness to adjust! )
  • re ]
  • I thought in earlier versions this crowd outside the courthouse was characterized as supporters of the defendants who protested daily (and that somewhere it was said that there was little reaction from the general public). Anyway, now the crowd is not characterized in the caption (could be pro or con the defendants or just general, curious onlookers) and it doesn't seem to be mentioned at all in the article. So the reader is left to speculate what (about the crowd)? MathewTownsend (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Done - Improved the caption to "A crowd, consisting of curious onlookers and supporters of the defendants, gathers outside the Foley Square Courthouse during the sentencing phase of the 1949 trial." and added a citation. --Noleander (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
withdraw oppose


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 Ian Rose 00:34, 29 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is as comprehensive an article as possible about a cricketer who was incredibly controversial in his time. Mold played cricket for Lancashire and England in the 1890s and was one of the best bowlers of his time. But towards the end of his career, he was "found guilty" of cheating: he was judged to throw rather than bowl the ball, which then, as now, was a huge slur on someone's sportsmanship. There had been whispers for years, but opinion remained divided. His career was very publicly and humiliatingly brought to a close in 1901 and he faded away. This article has had a PR and is currently a GA. All comments welcome. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Support 1a; 2a, b, c; 3; 4 (not really in a position to judge 1b or 1c). I have no knowledge of the subject matter, and haven't even ever watched a complete cricket match, but I found the text understandable (thanks to strategically placed wikilinks) and the prose well executed. A few minor quibbles are listed below, but do not affect my support. Sasata (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  • "In 1894, he again represented the North and the Players, took 207 wickets in total at an average of 12.30." seems to me that "took" should be "taking"
  • "... by Lancashire during 1900 which raised £2,050" which-> that; add inflation conversion?
  • "the most high profile bowler" hyphenate high-profile?
  • "but continued to bowl with very little opportunity to rest." trim "very"?
  • "to produce a delivery which surprised the batsman" which->that

Support: I peer-reviewed this interesting article in April, and my concerns have been addressed. Finetooth (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment – Only thing I see is that there is a variance between "CricketArchive" and "Cricketarchive" in the refs, which should be made consistent. I have no other complaints to report. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments - as usual, an interesting and well-constructed article from Sarastro1.

  • "Mold began his cricket career as a professional playing ..." surely not, he must have played amateur cricket before this?
  • The Banbury link there just links to the town, is there a CC link, or should there be one (albeit red)?
  • I think linking to the town is better, simply as anyone following a link to the club (especially the red-link) will very possibly have no idea where Banbury was. I'd prefer to leave it, but would change it if it was a huge issue. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "playing for Banbury and Northamptonshire but by 1889" no context for "by 1889" since you haven't told us when he played for Banbury etc.
  • Not sure it's 100% clear that "the following year" is 1901 (if indeed it is), i.e. "avoided several games" could be over years (these days it would take a while to be umpired by the same guy several times).
  • "in which Phillips was umpire" -> "when/where Phillips umpired".
  • "after a few more appearances" never keen on "a few".
  • "ceased to be a problem" not sure on this. You mean it wasn't prominently reported or prominently identified? It could have been a problem for 50 years without anyone doing anything about it.
  • You don't mention in the lead how he bowled. The infobox says he was a fast bowler, the image (in my mind) of him begs to differ...!
  • First sentence: "who played first-class cricket for Lancashire as a fast bowler"! On the picture, I agree. Worth checking out the youtube footage of him bowling without really trying, as well. But he was undoubtedly fast at his peak. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • On that note, check his birthdate between lead and infobox.
  • Don't over link his birth/death location in the infobox.
  • "He began to play for..." -> "He began by playing for"?
  • " In his second year, a successful match against Free Foresters, a prestigious amateur team," is the prestige referenced anywhere?
  • Manchester Cricket Club has no link? Really?
  • " ten wickets in a game" do you mean "in a match"?
  • "a team from Surrey" was it a team from Surrey or was it Surrey CCC as you linked?
  • Yes, the county. It was Surrey Club and Ground; rather than include that cumbersome title, which is fairly meaningless to the general reader, I went for a team from Surrey. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "on 9 May 1889, taking one wicket in a drawn game." perhaps "on 9 May 1889, taking one wicket in a match which finished in a draw." to stop giving people the impression the match was a one day game (where a draw isn't possible....)
  • Don't overlink Australia in the infobox.
  • "first official County Championship" is there a better link to the specific county championship rather than just the generic article?
  • Just a query, if selected for a match but the match being abandoned with no play, does that count as a "cap"?
  • Not according to the stats; also, the Wisden article states that the final XI was not chosen, and that the final place was between Mold and someone else. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Do our normal readers know what a "representative side" is?
  • "Mold continued to increase his number of wickets in the next seasons" reads a little odd to me, maybe "Mold increased his wicket tally" (or something similar, but less American-sounding?)
  • "as an extremely successful fast bowler" a shade hyperbolic, is there a quote or a specific link to back this up?
  • "to 150 at 18.12" I would say "at an average of ..."
  • I'm not too sure of the best way to do this. I agree "at an average of" is better, but it gets awfully repetitive, so I try to add some variety with "at". Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • " £2,050, a record total at the time and worth around £173,000 in 2010." I think there's a template for this {{inflation}}?
  • This one is a minefield. I prefer to keep it simple like this as it is nice and clear and controllable and verifiable. I'd prefer not to use the template, and to be honest prefer not to use inflation at all. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "the Laws of Cricket." no need for the capital C.
  • Hmmm. All the sources (except our article, bizarrely enough) use a capital C. Should the sources or our article have precedence? (I imagine the MoS is the reason for our article) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "However, Phillips called the Somerset bowler Ted Tyler later in the season." called... called him what?
  • I was hoping that the idea was established by now (explicitly in the notes section) that "called" means "called for throwing". I'd prefer not to have to repeat the laborious "called for throwing"very time. The non-cricketers have not found it an issue so far, so I'd prefer to leave it unless someone explicitly says "what?" Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC)," you'd already abbreviated and linked this above.
  • "for a time shouting "no-ball" as every ball was bowled," just a comment, amazing this happened 100 years ago when we have football fans shout "hand ball" every time the ball is touched when a decision goes against them....! Plus ca change.
  • "without being no-balled," really? Do you mean without being no-balled for throwing, or no-balled in general? I find it hard to believe a fast bowler would be able to go without being no-balled for just stepping over the line etc...

That's all I could see at a quick look through. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the close eye and very helpful comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
No problem, I support the article to become featured now, my numerous picky comments have been addressed or satisfactorily considered. Great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Checked the images myself; licensing for all these old photos looks okay, although I'd have thought the Pardon image was just as good a candidate for Commons as the rest of them, no? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The only problem with that one is that the author is unknown and it might not be PD-UK. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) Not a stopper. Now, I recall at your last FAC I suggested that next time we'd better have a spotcheck of sources to maintain your "currency" in that regard, and since this is the "next time"...

  • FN3(a): "...and played a few non-competitive cricket matches for Lancashire. In the same season, Northamptonshire, which at the time had not been awarded first-class status, asked Mold to play for them." -- Understandable editorialising perhaps, but Northamptonshire's first-class status doesn't seem to be mentioned in the source.
  • FN3(d),(e),(f): Okay.
  • FN5(b): "He made his first-class debut for the county in a three-day match against Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) starting on 9 May 1889, taking one wicket in a drawn game." -- I may have missed something but I didn't see any indication that this was his debut (all else in the sentence is okay).
  • It's a bit obscure, I'm afraid. All the matches on the page have a reference number. Any beginning with "f" are first-class, and this is his first first-class game. There are other references available which would give this information, but I find it tidier to use this one as it includes a lot of detail. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • FN5(c): "His best performance statistically was seven for 35 against Yorkshire County Cricket Club, in a match in which he took 13 wickets." -- Again, I feel I must be missing something but I couldn't spot this (a date might've helped)!
  • Again, it's the source which takes a bit of getting used to. It was on 18 July (I've added a date to the text), and it is in the source as match 30 (or f3401). He took 6-76 and 7-35 in the two innings. This was his best performance in first-class matches in 1889, but I'm afraid the only way to see this is to check down the list. There are other ways to verify the information, but this is by far the tidiest in terms of referencing; however, I appreciate that the layout takes a little getting used to. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
  • FN40(a),(b),(d): Okay.
    • Aside from FN5(c), where I can't spot the supporting information at all, if my queries are valid it might indicate that statistical or primary sources are occasionally being credited for a bit more than is actually there, even if that additional stuff is quite non-controversial -- it's easy to do when one is very familiar with a subject. If I'm in error, pls point it out, otherwise, as well as the citations highlighted, best you go through similar sourcing and just check more isn't being attributed to the primary or statistical sources than is really there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2012 (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 Ian Rose 15:35, 28 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): MONGO 14:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

After a more than a year off and on of editing, which has taken the article from this version to the one we have now, I feel it is near Featured Article in quality. The article is quite long but also quite comprehensive and is backed by extensive referencing. One thing which was important to convey without drowning out the rest of the article was the fight to have the park established and expanded, which went on for decades, so the history section is accordingly lengthy. This has been a collaborative effort and thanks to the outstanding Peer Review (see this link) by experienced copyeditor Frutti di Mare (who has assisted me on several other FAs) and experienced FA writer Mav, the core improvements were greatly fine-tuned. Frutti provided comments and did a lot of copyediting and Mav discussed the need to split the mountaineering section into a history and recreation section. As an aside, I also wrote over 100 stubs in support of this article and created daughter articles to try and keep this one streamlined. We're hoping the community has further suggestions which will help this article gain Featured status. Thank you!MONGO 14:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Update...due to NPS changes to their webuser interface, there are now a number of dead reflinks which I will correct here shortly.--MONGO 16:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Update...checklinks is showing 12 dead or weak links..I'll finish updating these in next 24 hours...thanks.--MONGO 18:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments by Ling
    • 2 instances of "are dominate". is this some topic-specific adj., or should it be "are dominant"?
    • "Efforts to exchange federal land from other areas for inholdings was still in the negotiation phase in 2012" An effort was, or efforts were? – Ling.Nut (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
      Yes...it should be dominant...as an adjective and it should be were or maybe that sentence needs a better cleanup. Thanks!--MONGO 15:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments by Mike Cline
    • In the Organized exploration ... section, I believe this paragraph is inaccurate: Organized exploration of the region was halted during the American Civil War but resumed when F. V. Hayden led the well-funded Hayden Geological Survey of 1871. Split into two divisions, the expedition explored Yellowstone under Hayden's leadership while a smaller group under James Stevenson explored the Teton region. Along with Stevenson was photographer William Henry Jackson who took the first photographs of the Teton Range. The source link is dead and even a google search couldn't find a good link to the article. There is no mention of a split in Yellowstone and the Great West-Journals, Letters and Images from the 1871 Hayden Expedition, Merrill (.ed), 1999. I suspect if such a split did occur it was in a later Hayden expedition. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The Stevenson/Jackson split occured during the 1872 Hayden Survey. Am trying to find a source, but in All the Jackson photos of Grand Teton are dated 1872]. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I clarified and corrected this...here...how does that look? There is a reference for those three sentences one sentence later...--MONGO 18:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Don't know if you want to add this, but there was an organized expedition in the winter of 1876-77 by Lt. Gustavus Cheyney Doane through Yellowstone into Jackson Hole and down the Snake River. It was the first winter exploration of the Jackson area. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
      This detail was in the article earlier, but since we couldn't phrase it well and the history section was already so long, we removed it..it can be added back...still dealing with url issues.--MONGO 16:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
      Mike, you can see the Doane mention in this version. To keep the history minimized we decided to omit the matter since it wasn't possible to cleanup the mention without going off on a tangent.--MONGO 18:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

  • "on land that was traditionally a wintering location for the tribe" - source?
    rephrased and now sourced
  • "The park is not noted for large waterfalls; however, 100-foot (30 m) high Hidden Falls just west of Jenny Lake is easy to reach after a short hike" - source?
    reference now added
  • "Precambrian rocks in Jackson Hole are buried deep under comparatively recent Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary deposits, as well as Pleistocene glacial deposits." - source?
    source added
  • "as plans are made to possibly build a new facility" - source?
    I updated this information and added a reference
  • Use p. for single pages, pp. for multiple
    done...shall have to remember to check these better in the future.
  • FN11: range needs dash
    done
  • Check formatting of quotes within quotes in titles
    Saw that..thanks...and it's adjusted
  • Be consistent in how editions are notated
    Done...I think
  • Be consistent in how multi-author works are notated
    adjusted one I saw. Primary is last name then first name, seconday authors always first then last names...will double check
    Better, only issue now is with 3+ authors (whether you use "and" or just punctuation). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    I removed "and" from the only two references with this issue.
  • FN58 and similar: suggest using "at" parameter instead of page
    Done
  • FN68 and similar: chapter title should use dash, not hyphen
  • FN76: volume isn't edition
    adjusted this
  • Be consistent in whether author initials are punctuated
    This was tough, but I think I have it now. I removed most initals after rechecking the references and added real first names as I could.
  • FN130: ISBN leads to this source, which partially matches the citation given - can you verify?
    I updated this reference with chapter, the author of the chapter, a url link and moved added the editor. It's an annual journal with chapters written by various mountaineers discussing climbs made.
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    on your last point, I simply took the ref and sentence ending out as it is not significant (my responses all italicized)MONGO 14:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    Nikkimaria...still working on your points above...MONGO 11:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support now, Comments by PSKY
    • Image check. Licenses look good. most are National Park Service or released by owner, several are stunning, two are featured pictures...but the barn seems to be called both the John Moulton Barn and Thomas Moulton Barn. Do you know why? Just curious....
      Corrected..it's Thomas
      • Then why do some people call it John?PumpkinSky talk 21:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
        • I am glad you have brought this up. Apparently there are two barns, both very similar in appearance. I'll get to the bottom of this naming issue within 24 hours.MONGO 11:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
          • According to the NRHP documentation (all 332 pages of it), it's the John Moulton Barn as the photo itself describes. The T.A. Moulton barn has a different roof shape, confirmed by a HABS survey of the T.A. Moulton place. Moultondj (talk · contribs) created the T.A. Moulton article and someone else added the image: I'm investigating whether it can be moved to the correct title and re-linked to the GRTE article. Acroterion (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
            I've gotten it sorted out and inserted the appropriate image into T.A. Moulton Barn from HABS. The John Moulton Barn description is correct for the featured image. Acroterion (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
            • Super! So the name on this article was correct but it was the wrong image in the T.A. Moulton Barn page...thank you so much for helping with this.MONGO 16:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
              • WOW. So my innocuous question led to the correction of a photo identity error? TA's barn is a straight slant roof, John's is has a bend in it, otherwise they are very similar. They must be very close to one another as the moutain peaks in the background are identical. PumpkinSky talk 20:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
                • Exactly and thanks again for bringing this up. I read the two barns are .3 miles (0.48 km) away from one another, and they do look a lot alike, but if you check out this link, you'll see (now that I've doubled checked this too) that the John Moulton Barn and T.A. Moulton Barn do have some structural differences...but its the mountains which capture the image really, so it would be easy for many to make an incorrect assumption on those barns...oops!--MONGO 01:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Ref numbers...are not all in sequence, such as "Davey Jackson.", "Whooping Crane."
      Got those...anymore...I'm going blind
    • PDF refs...ref 2 does not have the PDF parameter, others do. Pls make consistent. Can you make them all UC as shown in Template:Cite_web?
      I think I got those all..all PDF links should have uppercase PDF now
    • Refs 103, 104, 106 have month and day. Where's the year? Also they have single digits without leading zero but other refs have leading zero (such as 118). 86 and 89 has no leading zero too. Pls make consistent if have leading zero or not have them.
      Will look at over next 48 hours
      Went and dropped the "0"...think I got the dates straightened out
    • Is there a reason retrieve dates are YYYY-MM-DD and other dates are Month Day, Year? The pattern does seem consistent though.
      Just a habit...helps me better differentiate between when the ref was accessed and when the ref was updated at the source..I guess
    • Refs 102 ND 143 are missing PDF parameter.
      Done
    • Ref 95 should be p. not pp.
      Done
    • ...will continue looking over. PumpkinSky talk 00:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC) PumpkinSky talk 00:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
      Thanks for your comments! I will resume effort over next day or two--MONGO 03:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support This article is comprehensive, well-written, and more than adequately referenced. I'm still concerned about length since it is a long read but that is a minor quibble given the complexities of the park's founding. --mav (reviews needed) 21:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment – a few concerns:
    • There are numerous instances of the non-restrictive "which clause" that should be preceded by a comma or changed to 'that'.
      Thank you for pointing this out. I have gone and adjust them all I believe
    • "...rocks found in the park are the oldest found...": double use of "found".
      Yes...eliminated the unneeded "found"
    • "Noted for world-class trout fishing...": what is "world-class" trout fishing? Perhaps "world-renowned" is what is intended?
      I changed this to world-renowned as suggested
    • "One of the tools is of a type associated with the Clovis culture which existed 11,500 years ago": this sentence seems awkward.
      It had bad flow so I altered this one as well.
    • "...were known within their culture as the "Sheep-eaters" or "Tukudika" as they referred to themselves...": please fix the redundancy.
      Take a look if you can as I think I have this better worded now
    • "The Colter Stone has not been authenticated to have been created by John Colter and may have been the work of later expeditions to the region": seems awkward. How about: "The Colter Stone may have been created by John Colter or by a subsequent expedition to the region"?
      This I did not change. I didn't want to go off on a tangent and make the history section even more extensive, but the issue regarding the Colter Stone is that there is disagreement as to whether it was carved by John Colter, and therefore authentic, or if it was done by later expeditions...the key word here is "authentic" that I can't seem to get around without.
    • "...many of the place names to some of the mountains and lakes...": which is it, many or some? Or do some of the mountains and lakes have many place names?
      Adjusted for better flow
    • "Main article: Teton Range" and "Main article: Canyons of the Teton Range" should be combined into a single main article statement. See {{Main}}.
      Done and thanks for pointing that out
    • "...from corresponding rock layers in it": some ambiguity.
      I went and removed that piece
    • "A great deal of erosion..." is vague. I think you can lose the "A great deal of" here.
      Reworded as suggested and made further adjustments
    • "...period of global cooling known as the Ice Age": here, "the Ice Age" is colloquial usage. The "last glacial period" would be more concise.
      I added Quaternary glaciation since the Tetons and Jackson Hole have apparently experienced several glaciations that created the landscape and not just the most recent one, but Ice Age was vague.
    • "which is the smallest bird species in North America as well as the Trumpeter Swan": please address the ambiguity.
      I reworded this and think it flows better now. I also moved up other waterfowl to keep Trumpter swans and other waterfowl mentions together
    • Some mention of overflight restrictions would be good, particularly with regard to the Jackson Hole Airport.
      I added more about this aspect as well as a solid reference
Otherwise the article looks pretty good and I'm in favor of its promotion to FA status. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Good eyes! I had forgotten about restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses and your other comments here are most helpful. Thank you!--MONGO 00:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
You can see the changes I made to address your concerns here.--MONGO 00:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I love MONGO's national park articles. They're always well researched, and so is this. The prose is pleasing and reader-friendly, further improved by the reviewers here, and the structure is clear and appropriate. Disclosure: I peer reviewed the article, with many a nitpick, and MONGO promptly addressed all my concerns, so I really can't think of anything more to complain about at this stage. Also I did some copyediting, so feel free to disregard my support if I'm considered too involved. There was little enough to it, though — I'm abysmally ignorant of the subject and its vocabulary — I'm not even American — so my editing has necessarily been rather superficial. People like me get to painlessly learn a lot by reading an article like this, though; not just about the Yellowstone area and the Rockies, but American history altogether. Frutti di Mare 20:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC).
when the first nomadic hunter-gatherer Paleo-Indians would migrate into the region during warmer months in pursuit of food and supplies - why not simply "migrated" here?
I think I was trying to include the reason they migrated...MONGO 13:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks

  • Article: In 2001, the Rockefeller family donated what remained of its JY Ranch for the establishment of the Laurance S. Rockefeller Preserve, dedicated on June 21, 2008.
  • Source: The Laurance S. Rockefeller Preserve is the former JY Ranch and served as a longtime summer retreat for the Rockefeller family.
I can't see the 2001 donation mentioned here.
Updated a bit...the intent to transfer the property was made public in 2001, officially transfered in 2007 and the location was dediacted in 2008...added a source.--MONGO 17:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Article: During the latter decades of the 20th century, extremely difficult cliffs were explored including some in Cascade and Death Canyons and by 2000, more than 800 different climbing routes had been established on the various peaks.
  • Source: Today one has a choice of some 80 routes and variations to the summit, with 15 more available on the adjacent Enclosure.
I can't see 800 routes mentione din the source and the exploration of cliff's in the late 20th century.
It's on the backjecket of the book...which indicates 800 routes are documented in the book "A Climber's Guide to the Teton Range"...the climbs in Death Canyon started in earnest in the mid 1970s and new routes were explored over the next several decades. I updated the info and added a reference...I am not familiar with embedded notes within references to clarify this, so I listed two different pages from that source in one reference.--MONGO 17:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Article: Efforts to exchange federal land from other areas for inholdings were still in the negotiation phase in 2012.
  • Source: Congressional wrangling has choked off the preferred funding source for the U.S. Interior Department’s planned purchase of state-owned inholdings in Grand Teton National Park. While Wyoming and federal officials say they still have a year to find $11 million to complete the purchase of a parcel near the Snake River, they have not yet figured out how to raise the money.
No issues.
Thanks for checking!
  • Article: The kettles were formed when ice situated under gravel outwash from ice sheets melted as the glaciers retreated.
  • Source: Material deposited by streams issuing from a glacier is called outwash; the sheet of outwash in front of the glacier is called an outwash plain. If the terminus is retreating, masses of old stagnant ice commonly are buried beneath the outwash; when these melt, the space they once occupied became a deep circular or irregular depression called a kettle...
No issues.
Thanks for checking!
  • Article: Sixty-one species of mammals have been recorded in Grand Teton National Park.
  • Source: (See List of Mammals) 61 are listed.
No issues.
Thanks for checking!
  • Article: In a study published in 2002, the Snake River was found to have better overall water quality than other river systems in Wyoming, and to have suffered virtually no anthropogenic pollution.
  • Source: a few anthropogenic sources, such as campgrounds, septic systems, and cultivated lands, do exist in the basins. Concentrations of trace metals and pesticides were low in samples collected from the Snake River.
I can't see where it says the overall water quality is better, and how does "virtually no" in the article reconcile with "low" in the source? Graham Colm (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll attend to this in the next day or two...thank you for checking things out.--MONGO 17:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I read the source as saying the Snake River has better water quality than other rivers in Wyoming...I adjusted the wording from "virtually no" to low impacts as per the source.MONGO 14:45, 25 June 2012 (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 Ian Rose 11:15, 27 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This article passed GA with flying colours a couple of months ago. It's been great fun writing it, and I hope people enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it. The topic is unusual to say the least but I believe it meets the FA criteria – and I look forward to nominating it for today's featured article next Valentine's Day. ;-) Prioryman (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment As a quick comment, the geographic coordinates in the article aren't correct - they take you to the British Museum in London at present! Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Why so many citations in the lead? Quotations need to be sourced, but other material usually doesn't
  • FN11: publisher?
  • Be consistent in when you provide retrieval dates
  • FN15: page(s)?
  • Comments: Supported below very interesting article, glad that I got around to reviewing it. The prose is in good shape for the most part, only a few small comments thus far. Hopefully one of our readers will be inspired to make a donation :)
Thanks for your comments! I've made some changes as outlined below:
  • "55 penises taken from whales, 36 from seals and 118 from land mammals, including a wide variety of domestic, wild, terrestrial, and marine animals" The use of the serial comma is inconsistent here.
I've taken out the clause that begins "including" - I didn't actually add it in the first place, and it doesn't work well in the sentence as originally written. Prioryman (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "though, as Icelandic folklore portrays such creatures as being invisible, they cannot be seen at all" could probably remove "at all" here.
Done. Prioryman (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "One particularly large penis has been converted into a walking stick." Which type of animal was this from?
A bull. I've added this. Prioryman (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "and has a bow tie decorated with phalluses that he wears on special occasions." Images of phalluses or the actual thing?
Good point. :-) Images obviously, I've clarified this. Prioryman (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Sigurður has also carved wooden phalli, which can be found adorning various objects around the museum, and has a bow tie decorated with phalluses" I'm curious about the use of "phalli" vs "phalluses" here.
I've standardised on "phalluses". Prioryman (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "The donor tattooed his penis with the Stars and Stripes to make it more attractive." Maybe move this after the bit about Abe Lincoln, keep the patriotic stuff together. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Good idea, done. Prioryman (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, fixes look good thus far. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Looking at the independent article I see a couple things you might want to add: a. the season range here "the museum has drawn up to 11,000 visitors during its May-September season" b. that they had to wait so long "It was donated by 95-year-old Pall Arason, a friend Hjartarson described as a "a pioneer in Icelandic tourism and a famous womaniser" who died in January but had promised his organ to the museum in 1996."
  • The Reuters piece mentions that "more risque displays stay under wraps", would probably be worth a mention.
  • This Salon piece mentions that it broke even financially in 2010, might want to add that. That piece also has an interesting quote from an anthropologist about Icelandic culture at the end.
  • Here it says that he only got 3000 visitors in the first year and a half, might want to mention that as a contrast with later numbers.
  • Do you think the bit about the handball team is significant enough for a mention in the lead? I'd consider it.
  • Otherwise, it feels pretty complete, my brief searching didn't turn up any good sources that were neglected. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Alright, I've reviewed the article and read most of the sources and I'm now ready to support the article's promotion to featured article. It's always great to see an unusual article get polished to a high standard. (The only remaining issue I see is that some of the foreign language sources should have a translation of their titles in the reference.) Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

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

  • Why don't we have more reviewers? This just screams "main page".
  • The second paragraph in Icelandic Phallological Museum#Human penis doesn't quite work for me. Even when the main value of the information is humor, you have to be able to read it with a straight face as well; it has to at least appear to have scientific value. The quirks of a crazy person don't quite rise to the right tone, IMO. It isn't enough to stop me from supporting, but I hope you'll have another look.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 19:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I covered the two donors - the American and the Icelander - because their contributions are, if you'll forgive the expression, star turns at the museum and they are both the focus of the Canadian documentary described in the last section of the article. They each have a paragraph in the article. Prioryman (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Note for delegates: the nom did make the most important edit I was asking for, by removing the "crazy" phrase. I still think that paragraph could be a little more professional, but my support stands. OTOH, if this is going to be our April Fool's Day article ... leave it :) - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments While somewhat light hearted (which seems appropriate, and reflects the tone of the sources) this article is in very good shape. My comments are:

  • "By July 2011, it had acquired 276 penises from 46 species" - can this be updated?
I've added an updated figure from the museum's website. Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "including a polar bear shot by fishermen who found it drifting on pack ice off the Westfjords." - too much detail for the lead (and this also isn't in the main part of the article)
I've moved this to the main part of the article. Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "In July 2011, the museum obtained its first Homo sapiens penis" - replace 'Homo sapiens' with the more common 'Human' (which is the name of the article) give that this isn't an article on a scientific topic
Done. Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "The museum is open every day, all year round" - I can't see where this is in the source
It's actually from the museum's website. Referenced accordingly. Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "It attracts up to 12,000 visitors annually" - ditto
Sorry, the figure should have been 11,000. Corrected. Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "sixty percent of whom are women" - this is from a different source, which says that "We had 6,000 visitors last summer", so it's difficult to associate it directly with the 12,000 figure.
I've tried rewording this, see what you think of it now. Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Sigurður was also able to obtain testicles and a foreskin from two separate donors" - this seems to pre-date the material on the first complete human penis being donated, and needs to be properly integrated with this.
I've reordered it to fit into the chronological sequence better. Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Nope, it's correct as it is - "Hjartarson" isn't a surname, it's a patronymic. Most Icelanders don't have surnames; it's incorrect to use the patronymic as a surname and the proper style is to use the first name throughout. See the article on Iceland's Prime Minister for a comparison. Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support My comments are now all addressed. I did vaguely remember something about Iceland having unusual naming conventions when making that comment, but I thought it was that children took their mother's last names for some reason. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Support - I read through this while it was nominated for GA and was impressed, and it has only improved since then. I found nothing to complain about in a second reading, so am supporting the article without further comments. Can't wait to see this on the main page - possibly a good April Fools Day article? Dana boomer (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- I can only assume that no-one's recorded an image check above because they were too intrigued by the pictures' subject matter to bother about the licensing... ;-) Never mind, it all appears to be in good order (the licensing I mean) so I think we can call 'time' on this one... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2012 (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 Ian Rose 04:14, 26 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): Giants2008 (Talk) 18:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, my fellow reviewers. After over four years of editing, I've finally found a topic that I wanted to work on enough to bring here. I think this person is interesting, but I'm a sports nerd so of course I would. Doc Adams is a "lost to history" type of figure from mid-1800s baseball. He was one of the sport's early rulesmakers, and led conventions that resolved several notable issues, including field dimensions. In addition, he's been given credit for coming up with the idea for a new position on the field: shortstop. After his death he was quickly forgotten, at least before researchers discovered more on what he did; now the hard-core baseball historians consider him important. There isn't a ton of information about Adams, but what's out there gave me enough to write a decent-sized article that I think is comprehensive. It has been through a peer review, GA review, and another peer review, improving at each stage. I believe it meets the criteria, and will be around to handle feedback. Thanks to everyone who takes a look. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Support: I commented at some length at the peer review and continue to regard this as an excellent piece of work. As very much a non-baseballer, had no difficulties with the article and it seems to be as comprehensive as possible on such a subject. Just a couple of queries which do not affect my support. I have performed some light copy-editing on this article. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Is it worth mentioning in the lead when he began to be recognised as an important historical figure?
  • "The called strike rule, however, was not applied often in the next few years.": Not sure about "however" here. Maybe "otherwise"? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Added a mention of the 1980 New York Times letter from the legacy section to the lead, and found a newspaper article that discussed how research on him was published in a 1993 book (one of my sources, as it happens). That is now in the lead and legacy section, and I think it helps explain that he was gaining recognition. That's about as good as I can do in providing specific dates.
    • I incorporated the suggested word, and this now reads, "Otherwise, the called strike rule was not applied often in its first few years of existence." A minor wording change toward the end, but the source supports it well enough. Thanks for your help! Giants2008 (Talk) 03:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • Would be nice if the images have WP:ALT, unless you see reason not to
  • "He remained the team's president in 1857, and after not being named as a officer " → an officer
  • "an imprecise and varible measure..." spot the spelling mistake -- Lemonade51 (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Source spotchecks (using random generator)
  • Ref 37, material covered, no plagiarism and factually correct
  • Ref 6, mentions that Adams did graduate from Yale in 1836 but does not include the academic degree he gained; this is backed up in Ref 5 I would imagine. Otherwise no plagiarism, and content covered.
  • Have no access to Ref 31 or 35's book.
  • Ref 43 notes that Adams was considered a big figure in the sport, likewise on the following page.
  • Ref 22, 42, 48, 54 covers material, no plagiarism (the most used book in the article)
  • No issues with ISBN's. I'm guessing the extra full stop in 'Blanchard Printing Co.', and 'Claremont Manufacturing Co.' are forced by the templates? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Turns out that the degree was from a source that dead-linked on me before FAC, which I thought I had replaced everywhere. I added another cite to Husman to verify the degree, as ref 5 was there mainly to cover him transferring.
  • The extra periods are forced by the templates. To get rid of them, I removed the periods from the "Co."s; I also found a couple of other double periods that are now gone. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose and clarity, having conducted my review. A very interesting read. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Quick note to everyone here: I'll be going on vacation tomorrow and will be back next Friday. I will have network access while away from home, and will do my best to keep up with whatever is posted here. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comments: Supported below glad to see a baseball article up for FA. I don't know a whole lot about the early years of baseball, other than what Ken Burns has told me. FWIW, I found this pretty interesting too, so it isn't just you. Only small comments thus far:
  • For these two: "upon his graduation in 1835 or 1836" & "indicated in a letter penned in 1832 or 1833" I'd suggest using "mid-1830s" or "early 1830s".
  • "the New York Dispensaries." What is that?
  • "whose players were selected by William H. Tucker" What is the significance of naming Tucker here? I'd consider removing it.
  • "winning by scores of 21–11 and 22–20, respectively" I'm not sure you need the "respectively" here.
  • Generally speaking, I think you want to add a comma after they year when using mdy dates, i.e. "July 1, 1900, ..."
  • Also, I think you want two commas in the "city, state, ..." formation too.
  • "Adams had a long playing career with the Knickerbockers; he remained a player with the team until 1859. He did not limit his play to shortstop; he played at every position except pitcher." Might want to try for some more variation here, I see "playing... player... play... played" within a couple sentences.
  • "Thorn speculates that Adams may have been "the best player of the 1840s" because of his lengthy playing career." I'm confused here, does the evidence of Adams' lengthy career cause Thorn to believe that Adams was the best? Or is it that Thorn believes that the way that Adams became the best was through a long career?
  • "as they would otherwise have had difficulty finding balls to play with." I think you probably can remove "to play with" here. *"In later years Adams gathered rubber from old galoshes for the insides of baseballs. A tanner then used horsehide to create the balls. As late as 1863, he was one of the three most prominent makers of baseballs in New York" Who does the "he" in the second sentence refer to, Adams or the tanner?
  • Do we know why he supported the "fly game" style?
  • "but was forced to abandon it in 1865 due to health issues" His health issues, or health issues among his patients?
  • "In 1871, he accepted a job with the Ridgefield National Bank as president, the first for the company." The first what?
  • "Adams served as a legislator in the Connecticut House of Representatives for the town." Do we know which party he was? Mark Arsten (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review, Mark! I changed the dates to ranges as you suggested. Didn't see anything wrong with having more specific dates, but if you think the ranges are better that's fine.
    • Added a brief explanation.
    • Removed Tucker from that sentence.
    • Removed "respectively" too.
    • I didn't see any more dates with the issue. I think you got them all.
    • Added one comma after a city-state that I found. Not easy to find such details from a laptop!
    • Took out two of the similar words. If you think a third needs to go, let me know and I'll see what I can do with it.
    • The former, which should be more clear now.
    • It refers to Adams, which is now fixed.
    • The source doesn't go into detail about his personal reasons for supporting the fly game. The sentence after the description of the rule is meant to clarify the supporters' rationale. If more is needed, there's a quote in the source about the fly game being more "manly", which I can add if more on the supporters' views in general is desired.
    • His health issues, which I made clearer.
    • First president, which is also fixed.
    • Unfortunately, none of the sources give any further detail on his political career than what is in the article. I wish I knew what party he represented, but if that can't be sourced it can't be added. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Also, "to play with" is now gone from the ball sentence. Missed that one when I first went through the comments. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Alright, I'm satisfied that this meets the FA criteria at this point, good job. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegate notes

  • Image check revealed no concerns, all US pre-1923 or government, plus one diagram by an editor.
  • I tweaked the opening sentence, it just reads better to me this way but no strong feeling on it.
  • It may be a cultural thing but I don't get this sentence: "He started at Amherst College for a two-year period" -- how does one "start" for two years; do we simply mean "studied"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
    • It wasn't really a cultural thing. I meant that he was starting his college years, but didn't phrase it well. Your suggestion is much better than what was there before, and I went with it. Thanks for the image review and edits; they are appreciated. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 26 June 2012 (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 Ian Rose 15:23, 25 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 11:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the second nomination on one of the most crucial conflicts in Byzantine history, perhaps the one that can be credited with finally gutting the venerable empire. The first nomination back in 2009 failed on prose issues, but the article has been considerably expanded and extensively rewritten and copyedited (thanks to Auntieruth55 and Philg88) since then, so it is time for a second try! Constantine ✍ 11:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

  • "a small, but compact" - why the brackets here?
  • File:Andronikos_III_Palaiologos.jpg needs US PD tag, as does its source image
  • File:Byzantine_empire_1355.jpg: page?
  • File:John_V_Palaiologos.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:Anna_of_Savoy.jpg needs US PD tag, as does its source image
  • File:John_VI_Kantakouzenos.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Alexios_Apokaukos.jpg needs US PD tag, and source link returns 404 error
  • File:Eurse1340b.gif needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments: by DemonicInfluence

  • Is the link to the resurgence of the civil war supposed to redirect back to this article?
  • Is "Serbsian ruler" a typo for Serbian ruler or on purpose?
  • I'll check this more thoroughly laterDemonicInfluence (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Again, thanks for taking the time! I fixed the typo, and no, the "resurgence of the civil war" was initially not a link at all; it was added by User:LlywelynII back in September. I am not too happy about it either, as it serves no purpose in its present form. Constantine ✍ 07:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Some more comments:
  • The rebuilding of the navy by Andronicus III perhaps should be mentioned, along with the fact that it was destroyed. The successful capture of Chios under Andronicus followed by its loss during the war seems important.
  • The fact that much of Kantakouzenos' support was specifically Thracian aristocracy might be useful to mention. And that he himself was part of a very wealthy family.
  • The movements of the Bulgarians seems to be confusing. In the 2nd section they are described as threatening war whereas in the 5th section they have already besieged Demotika. Perhaps the point where they have joined the war nominally on the side of the regency should be mentioned
  • Perhaps fact that the Catholics strongly opposed Hesychasm should be mentioned as opposed to the aristocrats disliking Catholics.
  • Maybe it should be earlier that Manuel was give the Despotate of Morea, instead of at the very end to solidify it was done during John VI's rule.
  • Seems pretty good overall--DemonicInfluence (talk) 22:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the suggestions! I've included the rebuilding of the navy and expanded the section on Chios and Lesbos, and I've corrected the "Bulgarian" siege of Didymoteicho on the 5th section, the Bulgarians were supposedly sent to aid the city, but they pillaged on their own account. I'll take care of the other points over the next few days. Constantine ✍ 17:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Your points have been addressed, I added some info on Kantakouzenos' fortune and his role as the poster boy of the aristocracy, plus that Hesychasm won out under Kantakouzenos and that the Catholic Church regarded it as a heresy. I also rewrote certain sections to give a more balanced view of Apokaukos. On Manuel and the Morea, I can't really find a good place to include him earlier, and prefer to leave it there at the end. Constantine ✍ 09:04, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
      • The nationality of Andreolo Cattaneo/Phocaea should probably mentioned unless they were totally independent.
      • Dynatoi should perhaps be defined when it is first mentioned instead of slightly after.
      • Those are minor things. I'm willing to support.--DemonicInfluence (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments:

  • the dab link checker reports a couple of links that redirect back to this article ("Byzantine civil war of 1352-1357"). It might be an idea to create a quick stub at that location, rather than having it redirect back to this article;
  • the external link checker reports one link that might be dead:
  • the duplicate link checker reports a few possible instances of overlink: Thessalonica, Serres, Manuel Kantakouzenos, Sarukhanids, Ottoman emirate, Matthew Kantakouzenos, Republic of Venice, exclave;
  • I see a mix of US and British English variation. For instance "center" and "recognized" (US), but "harbour" and "favoured" (British). There may be other examples. This should probably be made consistent (either variation would be fine, IMO). AustralianRupert (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review! I've removed the dead ext. link. I'll go through the text to fix overlinking etc. I prefer British English, but the "-ize" forms are not, contrary to popular belief, US English. On the civil war of 1352-57, I'll write something during the weekend. Constantine ✍ 18:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, although I can't say I agree with your assessment. Writing style guides in Australia (at least the official one used in my profession) are quite firm on the issue of "ise" as opposed to "ize" in British/Australian English. It's your call, though, and I don't see it to be a major issue. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the link: interesting read and I see your point. As you've fixed "center", I think the article is consistent in its language variation now based on your reasoning. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about the comma here: "when the heirless Andronikos III (John V was born in 1332) fell, ill he insisted" (I suggest removing it as it doesn't really work where it is);
  • this seems like inconsistent capitalisation (Emperor): "a cousin of the Emperor" and "with the deceased emperor";
  • this sounds a bit too conversational: "To quote the Byzantinist Angeliki Laiou, "after the end of the second civil war, Byzantium was an empire in name only."". Perhaps something like this might work: "According to Byzantinist Angeliki Laiou, "after the end of the second civil war, Byzantium was an empire in name only."";
  • inconsistent capitalisation (empire): "accelerated the empire's decline" and "remaining in the Empire";
  • this sounds a little awkward: "In 11 June 1345, while undertaking an inspection of the prison". "On 11 June 1345, while undertaking an inspection of the prison" might sound better. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, there is no commonly used proper name for the war, and IMO the dates are an integral part of the name. Personally, I don't support the use of parentheses for wars. I mean, when one wants to refer to one of a series of wars, e.g. the Russo-Turkish War (1877–1878) specifically, one always includes the dates, while parentheses imply that it can be left out. Just to clarify, I've no problem with a move, if it is judged to be necessary (AFAIK, WP:NCE does not prescribe the parentheses). Constantine ✍ 09:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

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

  • Looks good so far.
  • Link the first occurrence of "r." - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Adding commas between independent clauses is getting tedious; I'd like for you (or someone) to go through and add these before I resume copyediting. Most style guides require these commas except when the two clauses are very short and connected in meaning. (I don't always insist on them, because standards are changing, but they're clearly missing in this article in places where pretty much any copyeditor would require them.) An independent clause is a clause that could be a sentence itself; for instance, I stopped at "The relationship between the two remained close and in 1330, when the heirless Andronikos III (John V was born in 1332) fell ill he insisted that Kantakouzenos be proclaimed Emperor or regent after his death." A comma is needed after "close", before the coordinating conjunction "and". - Dank (push to talk) 19:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I am not sure I understand what you mean. This is in the same way as including any other internal link, wither directly or via a {{main}} or {{details}} template. A mirror site may not have an article on Andronikos III Palaiologos either, so how am I to resolve that? Constantine ✍ 08:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    • SELFREF was the wrong link, sorry. "See (whatever)" is more common in textbook-y Knowledge articles. In history articles, we generally credit the reader with knowing what they do or don't need to read in order to understand the text. It would be better to work "Hesychast controversy" into the text so that the reader can see that it's important, so that they'll click if they need to. If this article really can't be understood at all without some of the material from that article, then insert the necessary text into this article. - Dank (push to talk) 12:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "reportedly": That's not really working for me, because it doesn't give me any clues as to what it was that makes you question the number. - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "a force of 1,000 "picked" men": I don't know what the quotes around "picked" mean; maybe "an elite force of 1,000 men" would be better.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Nicely done. The reading level is a little higher than I like to see at FAC, but I don't think we can avoid that in these articles. Excellent work, dense but flowing. - Dank (push to talk) 23:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments Support on prose and comprehensiveness grounds - reading through now, and will make straightforward copyedits as I go. Please revert if I change the meaning. I'll post queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
''This event was imitated over the next weeks in town after town throughout Thrace and Macedonia, as the people declared their support for the regency and against the despised forces of "Kantakouzenism" - surely you mean "repeated" rather than "imitated" here?
Kantakouzenos was however able to take fortress Melnik, where he met with Hrelja to conclude an alliance. - "conclude" means "finish" - is this what is meant here? Maybe "forged" is better.....
...Dushan opened negotiations with the regency and concluded a formal alliance with them in the summer of 1343 - same as previous
Meanwhile, Kantakouzenos and his army camped outside Thessalonica, hoping to take the city through treachery. - rather than use the emotive word "treachery", might be better to let sequence of events speak for themselves.
Once again Umur of Aydin came to the rescue with a fleet carrying some 6,000 men - somewhat flowery, maybe just, "Umur of Aydin came to John's assistance with a fleet carrying some 6,000 men" or something similar
In 1344, the regency concluded a further alliance with Bulgaria - ditto.

Otherwise looking ok - last section is good and nice conclusion to article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time! I've implemented some of your suggestions. On "concluding", AFAIK it is a standard verb to use when an alliance deal is, well, "concluded". It means the agreement is finalized, while for instance "forging" does not necessarily mean that the negotiations were successful. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 07:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but then you'd say you concluded the deal - to me, concluding the alliance sounds like winding up or finishing the alliance....but I concede I am not a military reader or editor, so not a biggie. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Hi Constantine, correct me if I'm wrong but I think it's been some time since you last had an article at FAC and an associated spotcheck of sources, in which case we'd better organise one here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's been more than a year. Go ahead. Constantine ✍ 10:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Will do if nobody else does it first. I may not be able to get access to the source books till Monday, though on the other hand they may be available this afternoon. Tim riley (talk) 10:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Tks as ever, Tim. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Spot check. I have spot checked for accuracy and for innocence of close paraphrase against:

  • Bartusis: refs 2, 3, 9, 10, 13, 16, 28, 44, 58, 83, 84, 97, 106, 107 and 112
  • Fine: refs 21, 28, 40, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 58, 59, 62, 65, 69, 70, 71, 72, 76, 87, 91, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 106 and 107
  • Nicol (1993): refs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 28, 32, 33, 40, 46, 47, 50, 51, 62, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 93, 94 and 107

Of these, my only queries are:

  • Bartusis: I could not find on the pages quoted the information mentioned at refs 16c and 44. (I may have failed to see what was there, of course.)
  • Fine: ref 42 should cite pp. 294–95, not just 294.
  • Nicol: ref 5 – I think the paraphrase might perhaps be a touch too close for comfort, but I don't press the point.

I found some of the bundled citations fiddly to check because the citations do not say which statements in any sentence are from which source (see WP:BUNDLING) but I quite see that although this was a problem for me it won't trouble any other readers.

In passing, I can't find "underage" (second para of lead) in the Oxford English Dictionary, which prescribes "under-age"

I enjoyed this article, having known absolutely nothing of its subject before now. It's well written and indeed most readable, and I look forward to seeing it on the front page. – Tim riley (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. I am glad you liked it, and especially that you thought it readable even without any prior knowledge on the period. On Bartusis in ref 44, the information is there: Synadenos and his attempted surrender of Thessalonica (Thessaloniki in the text). I removed ref 16c because I don't have access to the online version right now (nor to a printed one, alas), and the statements are supported by the other refs either way. Otherwise I fixed Fine 42, and added the dash in "under-age". Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:27, 25 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 12:16, 24 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert (talk) and Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Rupert and I collaborated on improving this article, which has passed GA and MilHist A-Class reviews. The World War II Battle of Milne Bay has a special significance in Australia, as it was the first time that a Japanese land offensive was halted and thrown back. This victory was especially memorable came at a time when the news from all the theatres was equally bad. The base at Mile Bay became an important naval base and staging area, and it remained in use until September 1945. In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of Australian and American troops passed through. The article incorporates and great deal of scholarship to provide the reader with an account of how and why the battle was fought, and how and why it ultimately was won and lost. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Comments by Ling
    • Just kinda skimming at the moment; will try to cover carefully later. but have already seen two or three sentences that were "snakelike" (Tony1's term) or were otherwise awkward.
      • "In response to this sighting, after the initially poor weather had cleared, 12 RAAF Kittyhawks were scrambled at midday and, after finding the barges beached near Goodenough Island where the 350 troops of the 5th Sasebo SNLF, led by Commander Tsukioka, had gone ashore to rest, they proceeded to strafe the barges and, over the course of two hours, destroyed them all and stranded their former occupants" run-on
      • "As the Australians attempted to break contact, the Japanese stayed in close contact with them, harassing their rear as they withdrew towards a creek line where they hoped to establish a defensive line as darkness came" Ambiguous: too many they's etc.
      • "Approximately 600 naval troops were drawn from the 5th Kure Special Naval Landing Force (SNLF), led by Commander Masajiro Hayashi, who were scheduled to land on the east coast near a point identified by the Japanese as "Rabi", along with a 200-man company from the 5th Sasebo SNLF, led by Lieutenant Fujikawa." Who was scheduled... the 5th Kure, or the subset of troops drawn from the 5th Kure? Why didn't you put "led by" after "troops"? Etc.
        • Because, when Rupert did that, it then became ambiguous as to whether it was the Hayashi or the troops who were from the 5th Kure. You're confusing the 5th Kure with the 6th Sasebo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
      • "Nevertheless, the major advantage that the Allies possessed was intelligence." OK, this is paragraph-initial, which means that "nevertheless" has scope over the entire preceding paragraph, which it obviously doesn't. Reorganize sentences/paragraphs, or change "nevertheless" to some other rhetorical device.– Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
      • "Nevertheless, the Japanese were still pressing..." OK, this one is kinda almost acceptable. You see, if you put NTL in paragraph-initial position at that point in the text, it signals that the entire preceding paragraph describes reasons why we wouldn't expect the Japanese to be advancing at all. That is almost.. nearly.. mostly an accurate summary of the preceding paragraph. It might need tweaking, but... almost OK.
      • "Making slow going amidst considerable resistance, the Australians nevertheless reached KB Mission late in the day and after carrying out a bayonet assault in which 60 Japanese were killed or wounded, they were able to firmly establish themselves there" NTL seems kinda OK-ish there (although "slow progress" anticipates the proposition preceded by NTL, making it... somewhat less than impeccably correct), but the sentence still seems kinda run-on-ish. It might be tolerable to have one or two arguably run-on-ish sentences in an article of this length, but I think I see more than one or two. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
      • "eventuate " low-freq word + not really correct here anyhow. Doesn't mean "occur"; means "occur as a result"). – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
      • "However, in the wake of the battle, Milne Bay suffered an epidemic of malaria that resulted in two deaths, that posed a threat to the base as great as that from the Japanese attack." ambiguous. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
      • "with 'D' Company in the van" I don't know what his means. vanguard? Rear position? – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
      • "and by March 1943 the crisis had passed and it was similar" ambiguous – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
        • G'day, thanks for the review. I appreciate you taking the time to look over it. I think I've rectified those points you raise above. How does it look now? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
          • This is the moment when I should apologize for not having chunks of time. I pop in and out for a few minutes; sometimes several times per day but sometimes only once or twice. I do appreciate your swift response to my comments. I hope to look more deeply soon. Tks. – Ling.Nut (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • "The arrival of quantities of the new drug atebrin" Could you put a date (even a general one, which in fact might flow more smoothly) and change it to active tense? "In late December quantities of the new and more effective drug..." or something like that. – Ling.Nut (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Atebrin was phased in. It had even been used in the Middle East; but in SWPA the Army was forced to rely on it because of the loss of the sources of quinine. In became the official suppressive drug in December, so I have inserted this fact. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • ""Japanese operations within the region were constrained... The effect that the victory had on the morale..." Can we put these things in perspective... provide a sense of perspective for both of them? How severely hindered were the Japanese by their defeat? Was the effect short- or long-term? How large and lasting was the boost on morale? If the boost was "profound" (your words) then to my mind you haven't quite hit this point with a big enough hammer yet. Was it on war posters at the time, in speeches, etc etc etc? Is there an additional high-quality quote that says it helped the fighting spirit of the Australian forces..? – Ling.Nut (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
      • It has a high quality quote from Field Marshal Slim that talks about its impact world wide. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, but that quote is framed more as an admonition to "remebr Milne bay!" rather than an objective, nuts 'n bolts assessment of the impact that the morale boost had on later combat. Perhaps more importantly, the lack of an objective explication of the battle's relative strtegic importance is puzzling in a MILHIST article. In my opinion, at least this section of the article does a better job of lionizing the Australian combatants than of seems to gloss over the two most important points of the article rather than providing an analysis of cold, hard facts. I could be persuaded to change my mind, since I am often wrong about things (especially since I often have only time for a quick skim/scan), but as I am typing this now I feel strongly enough on the issue that I might decide to Oppose per (1b). – Ling.Nut (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
          • G'day, I had a go at reinforcing the battle's significance. Would you mind taking a look at my changes and letting me know what you think? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
            • What beer is popular in Australia? You deserve one. That is exactly what I was kinda hoping for. Now about that morale thing... Looking at it again, that section says more than I thought it did. I expressed myself a bit too strongly. But... well, any posters or stamps or anything celebrating it? Buy Australian war bonds, remember Milne bay, etc., that kind of thing? If there wasn't, then of course it's OK, but I would've guessed that there was...?– Ling.Nut (talk) 12:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
              • Cheers. Regarding beer, it depends where one lives in Australia. I currently live in Adelaide where the local brew is West End or Coopers. IMO, West End is awful, but Coopers is okay. Before I was posted, I lived in Brisbane, where the local brew was mainly XXXX, which I believe gives West End a run for its money in terms of its awfulness. But anyway, to your question of posters, I haven't found anything yet. In regards to stamps, there is this from 1992: , this and this from 1967 . William Dargie also painted this: I'm not sure if they are significant enough to warrant mention in the article though, particularly as I don't have any reliable sources that mention them in detail (none of the sources I used mentioned them) and the images themselves probably couldn't be uploaded due to copyright. I'd like to get Hawkeye's opinion on this, though, as he may have different ideas. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
              • Being from Victoria, the beer was Foster's Lager. Coopers was what was consumed when there was a strike at Carlton & United Breweries. I've added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
                • As for stamps and all... It's your call as to whether you want to add post-war stuff. That would expand the scope of this article, and doing so is a judgment call. I as thinking of things that may have happened during the war (or shortly thereafter, perhaps, if it is very directly relevant). I guess stamps wouldn't have been reasonable until considerably after the war. But... during the war... was the battle used in any recruitment efforts, bond drives, etc.? This bears directly on the whole issue of morale, both among the soldiers and at home. I'm just guessing at possibilities... fishing for "tangible effects of morale boost" – Ling.Nut (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
In terms of recruitment efforts/posters etc all I've found is this: . Again, I'm not really sure it's significant enough to warrant inclusion as it is not an iconic poster. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • My patch of free time is about used up. I think the key point of milne bay was that it stood *in contrast* to the "morale-shattering" crushing defeats (esp. arakan) in jungle warfare before it.
      • Fighting the Enemy: Australian Soldiers and their Adversaries in World War II Mark Johnston cambridge university press "defeat of the japanese at milne bay and kokoda track damaged the image of a japanese 'super soldier' p. 106
      • War in Pacific Skies Charlie Cooper , Ann Cooper zenith press p. 44 morale throughout the pacific climbed several notches
      • British Infantryman in the Far East 1941-45 (Warrior) by Alan Jeffreys and Kevin Lyles (Apr 20, 2003) Osprey Publishing p. 21, 13: the intellectual foundation for the increase in morale included the belief that they were capable of defeating the Japanese. This could be shown by example, with the defeat of the Japanese by Australians at Milne Bay in New Guinea in September 1942.
      • I like this quote as it seems to show the victory actually being explicitly used as a morale booster, but it's snippet view so I can't extract it: The Second 28th: the story of a famous battalion of the Ninth Philip Masel, 1961 - 196 pages - Defeat Into Victory, these words: "We were helped, too, by a very cheering piece of news that now reached us, and of which, as a morale raiser, I made great use. In August and September 1942 Australian troops had, at Milne Bay in New Anyhow, cheers. – Ling.Nut (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Happy to Support I added that shtuff above, then looked at the article and much the meaning behind the quotes I found was already added recently. I am happy to +Support. As a small personal favor, would you please actually look at all the crap I posted above, and see if anything at all is useful. If it isn't that's OK of course (esp. since the bit about "turning point" and "psyche" in the article is exactly what I was trying to say). Tks. – Ling.Nut (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your time. I will look into all of those. I was planning to write an article on the 2/28th Battalion to accompanying my current work on the Battle of Wareo, so the book by Philip Masel will come up eventually (plus I can get it through the Defence library at work). I imagine I can access the others from the same source, so I will request them on Monday. I will be heading away on a bush exercise on Monday for a week, though, so probably won't be able to add anything to the article until Tuesday evening (12 June). I appreciate the effort you've put into this review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I've got the Masel book out of the library now. I couldn't actually find the quote mentioned above in that book (I might have missed it, though). My understanding is that it is actually the start of Slim's quote, which is in the quote box in the article already. I've expanded it now, using p. 187 of McCarthy as a ref. I trust that this is okay. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Excellent work, Ling. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Spot-check: Geography section.

  • Trivial, but needs fixing: the main and converted units seem to alternate. And could "a 4–12-metre (13–39 ft) wide track" be "a track 4–12 metres (13–39 ft) wide"?
  • This is not a good sentence: "The main area of firm ground suitable for construction and development is found directly at the head of the bay and in 1942 this area was occupied by plantations of palm oil, coconuts and cocoa, as well as a number of jetties and villages, that were connected by a "modest 'road' system" which was, in actuality, a 4–12-metre (13–39 ft) wide track." Not sure what "directly" adds. Perhaps a comma after "bay", and no comma after "villages"? Can this snake (he-he) be split?
  • How can an area intercut by many tributaries of rivers and mangrove swamps be suitable for airstrips?
  • Optional comma after "(9.9 mi)", since there are two ands; but maybe you might judge this on-the-fence one.
  • Fuzzy back-reference: "Due to the high rainfall (about 200 inches (5,100 mm) per year) and swampy lands, the area is prone to malaria and flooding; during these periods" ... the last three words don't refer to "malaria"; they might refer to "flooding", and there's "high rainfall" hanging around too. Is it that the ground is unsuited for development just during flooding? I'd ditch the semicolon and clarify (", during which ...").
  • "The villages along this track were (from east to west): Ahioma, Lilihoa, Waga Waga, Goroni, KB Mission, Rabi, Kilarbo and Gili Gili." So these villages are no longer there, I presume. Can the colon be removed for greater smoothness?

I haven't looked at the rest. Since I'm being critical, I don't need to declare CoI in that I met Hawkeye7 at a wiki meetup last weekend! It's fascinating talking with him about MilHist. Tony (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

*comments by Gnangarra Very good read, i made one minor adjustment to the text outside of that its looks fine to me. The only issue I came across is with File:Japanese type 95 tank at Milne Bay.jpg the description in the article says Type 95 Ha-Go light tank near Rabi, bogged in the mud and abandoned. yet the image description says This picture shows a Japanese type 95 Ha-go light tank knocked out during the Japanese attack two very different events. The to descriptions should be telling the same or similar stories. Evne allowing for that which I presume will get fixed you have my support in it being promoted. Gnangarra 12:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

  • G'day, thanks for the review. I've tweaked the caption, but I wasn't sure about using the AWM's terminology of "knocked out". I'm not seeing any battle damage on that tank, so I'm not sure if it would be accurate to use that term. It really just looks bogged. Anyway, I went with something generic. Does that work? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I've updated the photograph on Commons. The article is correct. The AWM's picture captions are sometimes inaccurate, being what was reported at the time. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I've reverted to the original text as I agree with Hawkeye's assessment, since both the image text and image decription now the similar no issues there either. IMHO all set to request a TFA for its 70th aniversary in a couple of months. Gnangarra 14:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Spotcheck: citations
I have never done an FAC before so I'm not sure if this is the correct format but I've spotchecked the fol refs (as I had the books in my library). Overall they look fine but I found a few issues which I have highlighted below:

  • 1. Coulthard-Clark 1998, p. 227 - 8,824 pers checks out.
  • 3. Coulthard-Clark 1998, p. 229 - figures for Australian and US pers killed and wounded checks out.
  • 5. Brune 2004, p. 266 - 200 inches of rainfall checks out.
  • 7. Keogh 1965, p. 185 - Stirling ranges, kunai and scrub land broadly checks out with out paraphrase:
    • Issue #1: Keogh says the arms of the ranges are 3,000 to 4,000 feet high, the article says at points it rises to 4,000 to 5,000 feet (action required)
    • Issue #2: Incidently the wikilink here is incorrect - it points to the ranges in Western Australia - not PNG (action required)
  • 9. McCarthy 1959, p. 155 - citation doesn't support the information in the article:
  • 10. Thompson 2008, p. 338 - Japanese attack airfields and engineers checks out
  • 15. McCarthy 1959, p. 112 - garrison for Boston, mission and unfavourable reconnaissance checks out without close paraphrase:
    • Issue: McCarthy says Elliott-Smith was then serving with the Papuan Infantry Battalion, the articles says ANGAU (action required).
  • 18. Gill 1968, pp. 115–116 - Karsik, Bontekoe and Warrego and ANGAU labour checks out without close paraphrase.
  • 23. McCarthy 1959, p. 157 - augmentation of engineers by infantry and papuan labour checks out.
  • 37. Walker 1957, p. 53 - 600 RAAF personnel at Milne Bay checks out.
  • 47. Brune 2004, p. 287 - strength and identification of Japanese 10th Naval Landing Force and 2nd Air Advance Party checks out without close paraphrase.
  • 67. McCarthy 1959, p. 164 - Australian withdrawal to creekline checks out without close paraphrase.
  • 81. Bune 2004, p. 341 - withdrawal of 2/10th, relief of 61st by 25th, dispositions of 25th around airstrip and mining all check out without close paraphrase.
  • 96. Gillison 1962, p. 613 - return of the Kityhawks on 29 August checks out without close paraphrase.
  • 113. Gillison 1962, p. 615 - source broadly supports text but seems to have been misinterpreted:
    • Issue: Gillson wrote: "Six Beauforts from No. 100 Squadron... arriving on 5th September these aircraft were joined the next day by three Beaufighters from No. 30 Squadron..." As such it was the 6 Beauforts that arrived on 5 Sep and the 3 Beaufighters on 6 Sep. The article has this the other way around currently, with the 3 Beaufighters arriving on 5 Sep and the 6 Beauforts arriving on 6 Sep (action required).
  • 120. McCarthy 1959, p. 180 - 2/9th Battalion action Elevada Creek on 3rd Sep and loss of 34 men checks out with out close paraphrase.
  • 132. McCarthy 1959, p. 183 - isolated skirmishes in the main Japanese base area on 6 September checks out without close paraphrase.
  • 149. Brune 2004, p. 297 - Japanese sexual assault of Papuan of a number of Papuan women checks out without close paraphrase.
  • 154. McCarthy 1959, p. 187 - effect of Milne Bay dispelling notions of Japanese invincibility check out without close paraphrase.
  • 155. Keogh 1965, p. 230 - Japanese plans at Guadalcanal and in Papua check out without close paraphrase.
  • 165. Maitland 1999, p. 142 - battle honour "Milne Bay" awarded to 9th, 25th, 61st, 2/9th, 2/10th and 2/12th Infantry Battalions checks out. Anotherclown (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Source review

  • FN165: location shouldn't be italicized
  • Use consistent wikilinking, and be consistent in when you provide states (compare for example Bleakley and Bullard)
  • Bullard: what was the date of the original being translated?
    • Steve translated extracts of:
      • Bôeichô Bôei Kenshûjo Senshishitsu (ed.), Senshi sôsho: Minami Taiheiyô Rikugun sakusen <1> Pôto Moresubi – Gashima shoko sakusen (Tokyo: Asagumo Shinbunsha, 1968): pp. 1–230, 335–384, 514–532.
      • Bôeichô Bôei Kenshûjo Senshishitsu (ed.), Senshi sôsho: Minami Taiheiyô Rikugun sakusen <2> Gadarukanaru – Buna sakusen (Tokyo: Asagumo Shinbunsha, 1969): pp. 196–218, 324–362, 577–601.
    • Do you want them added to the Further reading? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • If you're not going to include country for London, I wouldn't do so for Tokyo either
  • Webb: what is NAA ACT? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    • NAA = National Archives of Australia, ACT = Australian Capital Territory. I've expanded these out. The ID number will allow you to access the report when you get to Canberra. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

A few comments. - Dank (push to talk)

Delegate note -- Image licensing been checked out? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment: All the B&W photos are from the War Memorial and correctly tagged as such. Map at the top is CC 3.0, and the lower one is from the Reports of General MacArthur. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • PD-Australia template asks that you indicate when/where the associated image was first published. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • We do not have that information. It is not necessary for establishing copyright expiration. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
      • G'day, as per Hawkeye's post, I also haven't been able to locate this information for the AWM images. They don't seem to articulate this on their image pages. The images all appear to me to be pre-1946, so my understanding is that they are fine under both Australian law (as per the sources' "copyright expired - public domain" description), and the US URAA issue/ruling. Apologies, other than that, I'm not sure how to approach this issue. Does anyone know what has been done in the past in this situation or have any suggestions about how to overcome it? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
        • If I'm reading the template history correctly, that request for publishing info has been there for some time and has never been an issue; it isn't phrased as a requirement, after all, and in any case the operative point re. the pre-1955 rule is when a photo was taken, regardless of when it was published. For that reason, I'd be ready to promote the article at this point, given it's had its requisite checks and more than enough support. As an Australian MilHist editor with a vested interest in such images, however, I'm going to defer to my fellow delegates. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Support from Noleander - A few minor thoughts:

  • Hyphen? - "A bitumen surfaced second runway was built at No. .." - Should it be bitumen-surfaced second .."?
  • When? - "Some time after this, two of the small water craft .." - Within minutes? hours? days?
    • G'day, it was later in the evening of 25/26 August, but unfortunately neither Thompson, Keogh nor Dexter seem to say exactly when, as far as I can see. I have clarified the sentence to try to make it clearer and will keep looking to see if any times are mentioned. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Any trials? - " In 1944 this was submitted to the United Nations War Crimes Commission, which .." - Did this result in any war crime trials after the war?
    • Good point. I've added what little I've been able to find so far, but none of the sources I've seen so far seem to articulate the results. It may be that this was one of the incidents that didn't get specifically tried (although as I have now added, the incident appears to have been raised in relation to painting a general picture of war crimes during the Tokyo Tribunal. I will keep looking. I have a feeling that it will be in the AWM or NLA some where, but may be it requires a trip to Canberra to view the primary sources, which is unfortunately not something I'm in a position to do at this stage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Japanese viewpoint? - Regarding the war crimes: do any of the Japanese sources comment on this in any way? If so, it should be included..
  • Clarify: "Unfortunately, some equipment was lost or ruined in transit, and the danger from malaria was not yet appreciated." - The "not yet appreciated" is a bit confusing: the prior sentences imply that there was a great deal of concern.
  • In the References: author McNichol, Ronald is red-linked. I presume he is a notable author that may have a WP article some day? No big deal, it just stands out a little.
    • Thanks for pointing this out as it highlighted that the name was spelt wrong. I've fixed that, although it is still a red link. We currently have an article on Ronald McNicoll's father (Walter McNicoll), and I think the presumption is that Ronald himself is notable given his role in the Australian military (a major general) and as an author of a number of works. Happy to remove if you think necessary. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • In the Results section: any insights into Japanese reaction? Either by the Japanese leaders or public?
    • I haven't found anything on the Japanese public's reaction. My belief is that they probably weren't told a whole lot about it, but that is just my opinion so I can't really say it. I will keep searching, but at this stage nothing I've read articulates this perspective. My understanding is that broadly the official reaction was to change their tactics and shift their focus to Guadalcanal in the hope of rectifying the situation there before turning back to New Guinea. I have tried to articulate this in the article, but maybe it needs to be clearer. I will see what I can do. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Why quote? - "... connected by a "modest 'road' system" that was, in actuality, only a dirt track 10–12 metres (33–39 ft) wide." - Not clear what the source or purpose of the quote is. Perhaps there was an overly-optimistic military report which turned out to be incorrect? If so, clarify that so the reader can appreciate the irony/humor.
  • Outstanding article, with superlative prose. Good job.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk)


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 GrahamColm 14:22, 23 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria and hope the community will agree. Avery Brundage was Mr. Olympics to a generation; one source jokes that it was popularly thought he came down from Mount Olympus with the gods. He's not well regarded today, for a number of reasons, but is a man who dominated the Olympics as perhaps no man will ever again, and was also a major builder and art collector. My thanks to the University of Illinois for making the Avery Brundage Collection available to me on my visit there earlier this spring.Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Comments by Ling
    • NOCs or NOC's? – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Anal nitpick moment of the week: I don't like the dangling blockquote that wraps up the legacy section. Surely you can add some more text after it? – Ling.Nut (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Hey the "communist/capitalist nations different goals re amateurism" bit in the legacy looks like an interesting thread of thought. I skimmed the "amateurism" section and didn't see it developed. Did I miss it? If not, moderately unacceptable to introduce new points in the conclusion. – Ling.Nut (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Soviet Union subsection.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I found that section slightly scattered, though as always I may be flat wrong. I reorganized things slightly in User:Ling.Nut3/sandbox, basically consolidating the "ain't those Soviet athletes da bomb" text and the "but it's cheating/not amateur" text as well. Would you look at it? If you don't like it, that's OK. – Ling.Nut (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
            • I think you've hit it fine. There is a LOT more that can be said about the Soviet involvement in the Olympic movement. I tried to hit the high points, with a worried look at the 100K I think the community expects me not to exceed in an article which is not about a head of state or government (I consider the limits for those about 130K). At that time, the US-Soviet relationship was on very shaky ground and people were sensitive to anything that made the Soviets look good. And of course the Olympics was a major forum for US-Soviet rivalry.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
              • If you think the sandbox text is OK, then should I copy/paste back into the article? Especially beware of separating ideas from their cited references... – Ling.Nut (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
                • I had assumed that you had carried references along with the text. I will have to look at it in a bit more detail, then. The text is fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
                  • I actually think everything is OK, but my butt cheeks are still stinging from a couple paddlings I've received lately on this score, so I am being circumspect. – Ling.Nut (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
                    • People can be touchy around here :). I will look it over, make any necessary adjustments and cut and paste in probably within the next couple of hours, and will leave a note here when I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
                      • Compared it to the text I had by pasting into your sandbox, and not saving, but "show changes". I saw no problems, but I did split the final paragraph. Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – Ling.Nut (talk) 13:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Image comment: several extra images have been added since I peer-reviewed the article. One of the new ones is File:Brundage 1916.png which is an excellent action shot. It is, however, very large (even though I have slightly reduced it via the "upright" instruction), and I feel that it overcrowds this part of the article with images. The one that follows it, File:Brundage 1932.png, could be removed; it is not altogether necessary, as you have a pic of AB in 1936, as part of a group. The removal certainly would clear the decks a bit - I've tried it out - and I would recommend that you do this. A few more general comments will follow shortly; I had my main say during a long peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It's gone. Thank you for reviewing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I want to have a look at this article at some point, but don't want to step on Brian's toes if he's about to give a full review. Please ping me when his review is finished so I can give one of my own. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  • No, please go ahead. I've done my full review at PR. I only have a handful of final points which I don't think will bring about any major changes to the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


Support: I did a very detailed peer review on this article, and most of my recommendations were incorporated into the final version. I am very impressed by the depth of research that has gone into the article, and also by the extent to which Wehwalt has produced an even-handed account of a rather unsympathetic subject. I have just a handful of points to raise now:

  • On an issue raised above by Ling, I generally share his antipathy towards ending articles with blockquotes. On this occasion, however, I think it's OK to do so, as the quote has a suitably final air about it. I am less happy, however, that overall the article contains seven blockquotes (three of which are used to end earlier sections). I think that the overuse of blockquotes (rather than paraphrase or brief, embedded quotes) is an issue that needs addressing in featured articles generally.
  • On images, does File:Brundage 1941.JPG really add anything to the article? This is the fourth of six successive images either of Brundage or including him. In all the others he is doing something; in this one he simply stares bleakly ahead.
  • I wonder if the Legacy section should begin with a summary judgement? Maybe readers should draw this conclusion for themselves.

These points don't detract from my admiration for the completion of what must have been a very tough job. Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the support and the comments. I will look into reducing the blockquotes by a couple, anyway. I do prefer tham, that is the lawyer in me. The 1941 image, I felt, was the clearest image I had of the middle-aged Brundage. He is wearing headgear or is partially obscured in the two from 1936, we do not see him again until 1960, when he has morphed into the wizened man those of us of a certain age recall from television. I will look into padding the legacy section slightly where you suggest, but surprisingly few of the sources I found (and I at least looked at probably at least a hundred sources on Brundage) were willing to offer a historical judgment on him. It was hard getting the tone right for the 1936 part especially, obviously what he said and did was repellant, and he was somewhat extreme even for his times. To present it dispassionately was difficult.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I have eliminated two of the blockquotes, both of which were section-enders, leaving only Red Smith's quote as a section-ender before the end. That's needed to balance "the Games must go on" that due to its length must be a blockquote.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments – All of the following are relatively small points; from what I've read, the content itself is definitely FA-worthy.

  • In the lead, the 1936 and 1972 Summer Olympics don't need multiple links; the ones in the first paragraph are sufficient on their own.
  • Rise to leadership: Very minor point, but it feels like there should be a word ("stated") between "and" and the "You know..." quote.
  • Berlin: Again minor, but the semi-colon before "and the matter remains controversial" is better off as a regular old comma.
  • Road to the IOC presidency: Comma after "to build a new German embassy in Washington" needs removal.
  • I'm mildly confused by "Brundage was elected by a vote of 30 to 17 for Burghley on the 25th ballot." Sounds like the voters were choosing Burghley, not Brundage. I'm not sure the "for Burghley" is helping the sentence at all.
  • Amateurism: Don't think "Alpine skiing" needs the capitalization.
  • South Africa and Rhodesia: "decided to allow the Rhodesian to compete as British subjects." Not sure about this, but should it be "Rhodesians"?

I'll try to come back to look at the remainder of the article within the next day or two. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments; I have made those changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Political demonstrations at Mexico City: Comma before "in one incident" should be a semi-colon instead.
  • Relationships: "She had a strong interest in classical music, an interest which may not have been fully shared by her husband". The use of "interest" is redundant here. Getting rid of "an interest" would appear to make no difference in the meaning while making the sentence tighter.
  • For the newspaper and magazine cites without authors, some of the dates have en dashes in them and some don't. I wouldn't use dashes here, but either way their usage should be consistent. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the review, the support, and the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger comments
Yes, I had two reviewers and figured you'd find it here!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
There remain some instances where 3 in a row are on the left or the right. If the middle of the three were moved to the opposite side that would help.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Can you move File:Brundage 1941.JPG down one paragraph and to the left side?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
He'd be facing off the page then ... MOS issue. I agree, that's the one that's difficult.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Early life; athletic career
Thank you for reviewing, and on Crane. I generally don't link in a quote unless it's a "stopper" but if someone questions that, I tend to accommodate. I'll link that and Big Ten as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Unlink as you please, but find a way to link it in some prose. We should link his school affiliations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, which beyond Illinois and Crane?
I just meant to link Crane.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, you piped Crane. I could put it in the infobox, but I'm not sure that's customary. Regarding Alger, the only thing I find on a hasty search is in Guttmann, calling Brundage "like the lucky, plucky heroes of Horatio Alger" (page 3)--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
I will, but as a Chicago expert, your input would be valuable.
I am frustrated with the Monroe Building. Not sure if it is the New York Life Insurance Building, Chicago or something else. Have no clue about National Biscuit Company Building.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
You might want to look ahead a the "Construction executive" subsection, it's just filled with Chicago sites.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
AAU-sponsored. Really, they ran the show at that stage in track and field, I'll stick that in. Unhappily, we lack an article on the all-around, which seems to have died out in the 1920s.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Not for fair use. It does not contribute enough to the reader's comprehension of Brundage. The main article has it on fair use..--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Construction executive
I'm inclined to say that would be overlinking, but I welcome the comments of other revieweres. I am working my way through your comments this morning, Tony. Thanks for the links.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Back up to date. I moved a couple of images left, but there's a slight bias right because of MOS or positioning. I want to keep the images in the sections they are now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Nothing more than two in a row on either side now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    • All of my issues have been addressed. However, as WP:CHICAGO director, I do not get involved in the GA or FA promotion decisions for works within our project due to conflict of interest. I do however feel that this is one of the best articles on WP and would otherwise Support it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I greatly appreciate it. I worked hard on it and put about 1,500 on a fairly new car for it, so I was determined to make it good. With your help, we may just have succeeded.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Support. I took part in the peer review, where my queries and suggestions, such as they were, were dealt with. Since then the piece has been made even more impressive, and to my mind clearly meets all the FA criteria. I am particularly impressed that I am still not sure, having read the article three times now, to what extent Wehwalt actually likes or approves of Brundage – that's an impressive example of neutrality.

One curious point about the layout. If I access the article using Firefox it looks fine, but if I access it through Internet Explorer 9 I get several inches of white space between the section heading "Early life; athletic career" and the start of the text ("Avery Brundage was born in Detroit…"). I have tried this on two computers: a laptop and a desktop. Moving the image of AB in 1916 to the left-hand side between the first and second paragraphs eliminates this problem. – Tim riley (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I've made those changes. Thank you, and Ling.Nut3, for your reviews and support. I really don't have a strong view about Brundage, so neutrality was not difficult. And he was very good at what he put his hand to, which I admire, despite his deplorable views.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Image review from Crisco 1492
File:Olympic Rings.svg - PD tag for on-Knowledge copy is invalid. According to the commons tag, the rings were designed by Pierre de Coubertin (1863-1937). May be PD-Simple.
File:Brundage clip.JPG - needs the original publication year as well. Also, please double check that the entire publication lacks a copyright notice.
File:Avery Brundage Signature.svg - looks fine.
File:Brundage 1916.png - Looks fine.
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-2004-0309-500, Bremen, Avery Brundage eingetroffen.jpg should be cropped to remove the image description from the file. See WP:WATERMARK. Also, needs English description.
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-2004-0309-502, Berlin, Olympia-Vorbereitung.jpg - Same as above.
File:Brundage 1941.JPG - Looks fine, although doublechecking that there is no copyright notice on the entire publication would be appreciated.
File:Brundage at AAU 1963.jpg - Same as above.
File:Squaw Valley medal ceremony.png - Looks fine, but for some reason I can't access the PDF to double check.
File:Parc Mon-Repos Villa Mon-Repos et fontaine.jpg - Should have an English description. Also, as France has no Freedom of Panorama, proof that the copyright on the building is expired may be needed.
File:Brundage at Squaw Valley.png - Looks fine, but for some reason I can't access the PDF to double check.
File:Olympiastadion Muenchen.jpg - Looks fine.
File:Brundage Corbally.jpg - Looks fine, but to be safe please double check that the entire publication lacks a copyright notice.
File:La Salle Hotel main.jpg - Needs a US PD tag. Also, I can't access the source.
File:Saturnism.jpg - Looks fine
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk
Thanks. Few do. But he is nevertheless important enough to deserve a quality article.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Gnoming by Br'er Rabbit ;)

I have been through this pretty carefully over the last few days. Wehwalt picked-up the {{sfn}} system from my work on his other FAs, but he did this one on his own.
  • I dropped the ISO dates on journal/newspaper footnotes as unneeded; the full dates are in the linked citations and disambiguation is not needed (the Sun-Times already had title-snippets for disambiguation).
  • Also dropped the year on the Brichford sources and used title-snippets for disambiguation.
  • I did some earlier tweaking, too; further back in history…
Both of the above were done in the context of the article not using years for the other footnotes, since there is little ambiguity and less repetition this way.
Spotchecks done on sources:
  • I reviewed the Sports Illustrated piece and checked the parts of the article cited to it and all are supported by the source.
  • Also reviewed both Brichford PDFs and checked that the cited portions of the article are supported. All is fine.
This is a nice article on a not-nice person (he's dead, so I could call him for what he is;). I read this at several stages of development including the old version before the rewrite. It has come along nicely and will serve as a fine example of what a Knowledge article should be.
Thank you for the review and the praise. We seem to have ample support and checks done. If for some reason someone thinks something is missing, I'd be grateful for a heads-up.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 22 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 14:10, 23 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): Niagara ​​ 00:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the necessary criteria. Horseshoe Curve was, and still is, a tourist attraction and important rail link. This article was previously reviewed by Arsenikk and DThomsen8. Niagara ​​ 00:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Drive by comments As a war-nerd I'd like to offer the following comments on this article's World War II material:

  • "Horseshoe Curve's importance in the transporting of goods and passenger lead it to be targeted by Nazi Germany in World War II as a part of Operation Pastorius." - "in the transporting of goods and passenger" is poor grammar and is written in the passive voice
  • "During the war, Horseshoe Curve became an important lifeline for the Allied war effort" - that sounds like an overstatement. The North Atlantic was an important "lifeline" for Britain, but individual railroads in the US were much less significant.
  • Was the curve guarded for the entire war?
  • The 'Construction and sabotage' section seems miss-titled given that there was no sabotage
  • Did the curve play any role in the Civil War? Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done, missing first name on FN31. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Oops, typo in ref. Thanks for catching that. Niagara ​​ 00:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments: My main concern is over comprehensiveness; the article is quite short (1500w) and at times seems to deal rather superficially with the subject. There are also a few prose issues, both of style and clarity. Here are some specific areas for attention:

Lead
  • Clunky: "It was added to the National Register of Historic Places and designated a National Historic Landmark in 1966. Horseshoe Curve was designated a National Historic Civil Engineering Landmark in 2004."
  • No justification for beginning the second para "Although...", which connects contradictory statements. Thus: "Horseshoe Curve has been a tourist attraction since its opening, and a trackside observation park was completed for visitors in 1879."
  • Last sentence: "Access to the park..." is detail, not lead material.
Design section
  • The section includes information about function and location, so perhaps a broader section heading is required.
  • "Horseshoe Curve has 9 degrees and 15 minutes of curvature and a central angle of 220 degrees." Is there a way of explaining this in less geometrical terms? Not everyone will be able to follow.
  • The following seems overcomplicated: "Horseshoe Curve descends at rate of 91 feet per mile (17 m/km), or grade of 1.73 percent, from an elevation of 1,650 feet (500 m) on the southern side to 1,594 feet (486 m) on the northern." The total descent is 56 feet; wouldn't it be simpler just to say that, rather than give all the info about feet per mile etc?
  • Can you say how frequently the rails were "transposed" for the reason you describe? It sounds like a very disruptive process.
Construction and use
  • Some lack of clarity in the first paragraph, which ought to mention specifically the decision to build the curve. The second paragraph, beginning "The curve took three years to complete..." would then follow naturally.
  • You say when the line opened, but not when work began. It would be interesting to know how long the construction took.
  • I think you should have at least an estimate of the present-day values of the construction cost.
Post-war
  • This section is rather bitty, without much sense of organised presentation. It is not always clear what the significance of the information is, e.g. "The Pennsylvania K4s steam locomotive 1361 was placed at the park inside the curve on June 8, 1957" – to be replaced later by a different train. Some of the information seems disctinctly trivial, for example "The Altoona Curve, a minor league baseball affiliate of the Pittsburgh Pirates, was started in 1998 and derived its named from Horseshoe Curve".
  • I'm thinking it could be possible to add a paragraph on the effect the curve has had on the region (e.g. the baseball team) and on the railroads that use it. I'm not sure exactly where to place it, but it would remove the triviality. Niagara ​​ 03:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Current operations
  • You have provided a little information on current operations, but have given no details about the level of operations over the lifetime of the curve. Was it once busier that it is now? In what years did its traffic peak?

Despite these criticisms, I think this is an interesting and very nicely illustrated article, though it probably needs further ballast and polish to meet FA standards. Brianboulton (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough review; I shall be working to address all of the criticisms you've brought up. Niagara ​​ 03:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Later comment: Can the caption to the lead image be made a bit more informative? For example, what are the structures near the ball of the curve, and what is the large, blank, green area? Brianboulton (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support subject to resolution of Ruhrfisch's outstanding concerns, below. I am happy with the treatment of the issues which I have raised. Brianboulton (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Image review I will review the article next, but wanted to review the images first. The images are all freely licensed, but I would like to see a link for the source of File:Horseshoe Curve aerial photo, March 2006.jpg if at all possible. Ruhrfisch ><>° 03:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

SupportComments by Ruhrfisch. This looks good overall and I am leaning towards support, but I have some concerns that need to be addressed.

Lead and Infobox
  • I think I would mention/describe the reservoir, park, and highway in the aerial photo as they are pretty clearly visible and it would help the reader understand the layout better
  • United States is linked in the first sentence, but generally is not linked anymore
  • Would this sentence in the lead It formed an important part of the region's transport infrastructure during World War II, and was targeted by Nazi Germany in 1942 as a part of Operation Pastorius. be better as something like It has formed an important part of the region's transport infrastructure since it opened, and during World War II was targeted by Nazi Germany as a part of Operation Pastorius. Otherwise it sounds as if it was only important in WWII
  • Missing word? Since its opening, Horseshoe Curve has been a tourist attraction, with a trackside observation being completed for visitors in 1879.
Location and design
  • Tighten? Horseshoe Curve is a 3,485-foot (1,062 m) segment of the Pittsburgh Line, the Norfolk Southern Railway's main east–west route in its Pittsburgh Division between Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
  • This was pretty unclear to me until I looked at a map - I think one problem is that only one dam / reservoir is visible in the aerial photo, and looking at a map it is clear that only one of the three is anywhere close to being located inside the curve: A set of three dams, each descending in elevation from the apex of Horseshoe Curve, form reservoirs owned by the Altoona Water Authority and supply water to the city of Altoona. I think I would say something like "Within the open eastern end of Horseshoe Curve is a dam and lake, the highest of a series of three reservoirs along the valley which are owned by the Altoona Water Authority and supply water to the city."
  • The lead says the elevation change is 122 feet, but here it says Horseshoe Curve descends from an elevation of 1,650 feet (500 m) on the southern side to 1,594 feet (486 m) on the northern with a grade of 1.73 percent. which is only 56 feet - which is it?
Construction and use
  • Add one word for clarity? Using surveys done several years earlier, the state's engineers recommended a route from Lewistown that followed the ridges, ...
  • This may just be because I am a creek freak ;-) but I would identify the two ravines (and note the NRHP nomination form cited does so): Kittanning Run at roughly 11 o'clock, and Glenwhite Run at about 8 o'clock. This becomes important later too - see below
  • I would clarify this - add the names of the ravines, etc To reduce the grade by increasing the distance between the points by using a curve, engineers constructed an earth fill over the first ravine , cut the point of the mountain , and filled in the second ravine.
  • I was surprised that there was no mention of when the reservoirs were built, or when the road along / tunnel under the track was built, so I looked at the historic PennDOT maps for Blair county. The oldest is from 1915 and shows the road amd its tunnel under the tracks, and the reservoir / dam. It also shows two small railroads branching off Horseshoe Curve (!) and going up each of the named ravines. I think these need to be mentioned...
  • Was able to find years for the reservoirs, was not able find a year for the tunnel (I suspect it was built with or shortly after the Curve). Niagara ​​ 01:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • ... so I looked on Google books and found this 1915 report on both the small railroads (Kittanning Run Railroad and Glenwhite Coal and Lumber Company). Note these both used the Kittanning Point station too
World War II and post war
  • What I believe is the museum's website here says operation of the park was given by the PRR to Altoona in 1957 - should this be included? Not sure this is a RS, but something to look for
Current operations
  • I would add a year to the 51 trains a day sentence (2008 is the ref, so "as of 2008")
  • Can more explanation be added to the panorama caption? The historic locomotive is at center, the funicular station is at right (with the reservoir visible behind), but what is the stone building at left?
  • I was at a store yesterday and looked through a copy of the paperback book "Railroads of Pennsylvania: Fragments of the Past in the Keystone Landscape" by Lorett Treese and on page 203 it says that visitors to the park inside the curve "...can see a watchman's shanty dating from around 1900..." and the locomotive. Full details for the book can be found on Amazon. Ruhrfisch ><>° 20:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps include the Altoona Curve baseball team as a See also link?

Hope this helps, thanks for a very interesting article. Ruhrfisch ><>° 03:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for reviewing it. I believe that takes care of everything. Niagara ​​ 23:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Everything has now been addressed to my satisfaction, and I have changed to support above. Thanks again for the article, which I beleive now meets the FA criteria fully. Ruhrfisch ><>° 03:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Support by Finetooth. I've never been to the park, but I've seen the curve through the windows of the Pennsylvanian. I made a few editorial changes to the article a few days ago, and here are two more minor suggestions:

  • In the second paragraph of the lead, a sentence begins: "It formed an important part of the region's transport infrastructure since its opening... ". I would either change "since" to "after", or I would change the verb from "formed" to "has formed".
  • In the "Construction and use" subsection, I would unlink "pick" and "drag" since they appear inside a direct quotation. Alternatively, you could paraphrase instead of quoting directly if you'd like to keep the links. Of the two, "drag" is probably the more unfamiliar to most readers.
I believe the article meets all the criteria. The two panoramas are especially fun to look at closely. Finetooth (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Changed "formed" to "has formed", and unlinked "pick" and "drags" in quotation. Glad you liked the panoramas, it would have been neat to recreate the 1934 panorama but that would have been nearly impossible. Niagara ​​ 19:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

  • In Construction and use, what is supposed to be citing the last sentence of the second paragraph?
  • "A reservior was constructed at the apex of Horseshoe Curve in 1887 for city of Altoona". Add "the" before "city"?
  • Feels like a word is missing from "The Pennsylvania also went to great lengths...".
  • I believe you are referring to "The Pennsylvania also...". In an attempt to avoid repeating "the Pennsylvania Railroad" incessantly, I dropped the "Railroad", but if its confusing it can be re-added. Niagara ​​ 16:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • World War II and post-war: "in 1968 forming Penn Central. Penn Central...". Try to avoid this repetition from one sentence to another.
  • In "by American Society of Civil Engineers in 2004", should there be a "the" before the organization's name?
of a new visitors center - apostrophe in "visitors"?
Grammatically that is correct (and I've fixed that), but it appears alot of places dropped the apostrophe. Niagara ​​ 01:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
...a former "watchman's shanty" is located in the park.. - does this need to be in quotation marks? I'd have thought not....
"Shanty" did not seem like the official term for the building and I elected to keep in quotes to indicate a direct quotation. Niagara ​​ 01:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise looking good on prose and comprehensiveness grounds (though I concede I ain't no train expert...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at the article; hopefully it was still an interesting read. Niagara ​​ 01:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks

  • Article: At its widest, the curve is approximately 1,300 feet (400 m) across.
  • Source: The rails reached the ridge on the other side of the valley in a great semi-circle 1,300 feet across Horseshoe Curve.
  • Article: Surveys done east from Gallitzin had already determined a suitable route on the opposite side of the valley that would keep the grade manageable. Traversing the valley using a bridge would have created a grade of 4.37 percent, which was too steep for most trains. To reduce the grade by increasing the distance between the points by using a curve, engineers constructed an earth fill over the first ravine encountered while ascending, formed by Kittanning Run, cut the point of the mountain between the ravines, and filled in the second ravine, formed by Glenwhite Run.
  • Source: After a resurvey in 1850, it was decided that the new line was to mount the east slope with a grade of not more than 1.8$, or a rise of 1.8 feet for each 100 feet of distance. Crossing low ridges southwest of Altoona, the line came to a valley running westward and followed it along the side of the ridge on a 1.75% grade. But about 5 1/2 miles from Altoona the valley was found: to split into two ravines, divided by another mountain. Across the valley at this point lay the ridge which could carry the rails on toward the summit at a 1.73$ grade. To have crossed the valley from one ridge to the other would have required a great bridge with a grade of 4.37% much too steep then, as now, for practical railroad operation.
  • Article: The military intelligence arm of Nazi Germany, the Abwehr, plotted to sabotage important industrial assets in the United States in a project code-named Operation Pastorius.
  • Source: The idea of sending saboteurs to the United States was the brainchild of Walter Kappe, a high-ranking Nazi official ... Kappe code-named his mission Operation Pastorius, after Franz Daniel Pastorius, the leader of the first group of Germans to settle in Colonial America, in Germantown, Pennsylvania, in 1683.
  • Article: Starting in June 1990, the park at Horseshoe Curve underwent a $5.8 million renovation funded by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and by the National Park Service through its "America's Industrial Heritage Project".
  • Source: Total cost ofthe renovations begun June 1, 1990, is more than $5.8 million.
  • Article: The Blair County Veterans Memorial Highway (SR 4008) parallels the valley west from Altoona and crosses under the curve via a tunnel.
  • Source: ...at the Horseshoe Curve National Historic Landmark is hereby designated and shall be known as the Blair County Veterans Memorial Highway.
No issues. Graham Colm (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2012 (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 Ian Rose 06:06, 23 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): Acdixon 13:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Recently acquired Harry Ward's biography of Scott to bring this article to FA standards. It has just passed a MILHIST A-class review. Most of the biography is his military career, which spanned the French and Indian War, the American Revolutionary War, and the Northwest Indian War. He was then elected governor of Kentucky and died soon after the expiration of his term. I look forward to addressing concerns in a timely fashion, but please note that I will be away from much of my source material the week of May 13–19. I should still have Internet access during that period, however. Acdixon 13:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead is good to go:

  • The lead adequately summarizes all of the major sections of the article. Good!
  • As far as I can tell, all statements in the lead are covered by citations in the body. Good! (spotchecks not done)
  • "The 5th Virginia joined George Washington in New Jersey later in 1776" There are lots and lots of years given in the lead. In this instance, how about changing "in 1776" to "that year" for some variety?
  • "After the war, Scott visited the western frontier (present-day Kentucky) ... He resettled near present-day Versailles, Kentucky" I don't think it's necessary to mention the present-day location twice in consecutive sentences. I suggest dropping "(present-day Kentucky)".
  • "St. Clair's main invasion, conducted in late 1791, was a failure." How about changing "in late 1791" to "later that year"?
    • Sure. I really want to use some seasonal descriptors here (e.g. St. Clair's main invasion, conducted in the fall/autumn, was a failure", but I know the MOS advises against that for the benefit of our friends south of the equator! Acdixon 17:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "the primary concern of his administration were the increased tensions" Subject-verb disagreement. How about "the primary concern ... was the increased tension"?

Other than those points, the lead is written quite well. Thanks for putting together such a comprehensive and meticulously-researched article; I imagine it wasn't easy. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I hope you will have time to review the rest of the article and register a !vote at some point. And you are right that it wasn't easy for a guy who typically writes political articles to get into the nitty-gritty details of a military career, but it will be a labor of love if it eventually gets me to my goal of a Governors of Kentucky featured topic! :) Acdixon 17:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments.

  • AC, you mentioned in your last FAC that you tend not to get any reviewers until the last minute, and also that you never review at FAC ... I don't know if there's a connection, but there might be. There's a simple but vital reviewing task you might want to consider ... see WT:GOCE#FAC, Wikidata. - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I've thought about that. In fact, I've been considering getting more involved at WP:PR because it takes the whole !vote component out. I tend to have a lot of questions that may or may not have answers in reliable sources as I read through articles. I don't want my noting them at FAC to be interpreted as an unresolved actionable objection by a closing admin. When you register them at PR, they are considered more "things to try and find" or "food for thought". For some reason, I'm more comfortable with that. WRT copyediting, I'm a big proponent of WP:SOFIXIT; it usually takes me just as much time to fix it myself as to note it in a review. I'll take your note under advisement, however. Acdixon 18:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Reviewing at PR is every bit as good. - Dank (push to talk) 18:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll trade you: if you'll do any peer review or FAC review, I'll review this one. - Dank (push to talk) 22:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, right after we had this conversation, I peer reviewed Big Dan Mine, if that counts. If not, I've been meaning to have a look at bacon ice cream. I also told TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) I'd try to take a look at Juwan Howard, but it's so long, I'm afraid I won't get finished with it. Acdixon 13:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Went ahead and did the bacon ice cream review for good measure. Acdixon 19:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I saw it, beautiful work. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

More comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. Here are some things I changed: - Dank (push to talk)

No issues with any of the changes so far. Will be watching to see when my intervention is required. Always appreciate your copyedits. Acdixon 14:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "18th century American soldier": 18th-century American soldier
  • "and joined Josiah Harmar for an expedition against the Indians. After Harmar's failed expedition ...": ... Harmar's Defeat - Dank (push to talk) 01:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't generally think about refs when I'm copyediting, but please don't do this: "Scott spent most of 1759 conducting escort missions and constructing roads and forts. During this time, Virginia's forces were taken from George Washington and put under the control of Colonel William Byrd. In July 1760, Scott was named the fifth captain of a group of Virginia troops that Byrd led on an expedition against the Cherokee in 1760. Scott's exact role in the campaign is not known.". One ref is sufficient to cover all those sentences. - Dank (push to talk) 23:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Not the first time I've received this feedback, but I really prefer to keep citations on every sentence so I know where each one came from in case I (or someone else) moves them later. I don't think it impairs readability nearly as badly as many folks contend. Acdixon 17:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Crap, I had a bunch of comments here and my computer crashed before I could save it. Could you go through looking for obvious repetition? It's as simple as looking for words that are repeated when they don't need to be, like saying "Scott" 3 times in 2 sentences. Give it a shot, and I'll come back to this later, I'm getting behind. - Dank (push to talk) 02:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Per WP:DASH, replace spaced en-dashes by commas in each sentence where there are no commas. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Where, specifically, is this mentioned in WP:DASH? This is the first time I've received this feedback, and I can't find the relevant guideline. To me, the en-dashes sent off a parenthetical better than simple commas. Acdixon 17:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
      • "Use dashes sparingly ... Dashes can clarify the sentence structure when there are already commas or parentheses, or both." Garner's is more nuanced, but I think MOS's advice works better in general for Wikipedians, and specifically in this article. I made the changes .... are there any that don't seem right? - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
        • My impression of the guideline, given the example that accompanied it, was to use them sparingly within the same sentence. Oh well; your changes look fine. I was under the impression that you just wanted me to substitute commas for the dashes in every instance, which I don't think would have worked. The way you've done it, though, restructuring the sentences to avoid the need for the harder pauses indicated by dashes, works for me. Thanks. I'll understand this better if it comes up in other reviews now. Acdixon 18:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Thanks. Paired dashes don't indicate emphasis when more commas would be a little confusing. In other cases, they generally do indicate emphasis, which you want to avoid if there's nothing that particularly merits emphasis. - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Some people like to include the year often ... "In February 1780, in March 1780" ... it's not forbidden but most publishers frown on it. You might want to go through removing years where the year is obvious. - Dank (push to talk) 12:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I think I got dinged for not including the date often enough once and started doing it too often as a result. It felt awkward repeating it so many times as I was writing it. Removed several. Acdixon 13:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "the 4th Virginia Brigade stubbornly resisted the advance of General Charles Cornwallis, but were ...": Be consistent; are you saying "the brigade were" in other parts of the article? - Dank (push to talk) 00:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "Fort Greeneville": The linked article doesn't show that spelling.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I finished up. - Dank (push to talk) 00:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments: Supported below looks good thus far, a few small issues:
  • Some overlinking: parole, veto, and Great Britain probably don't need to be linked.
  • Some repeat linking: Kentucky Court of Appeals, Captain (United States), Colonel (United States), William Woodford, and Ohio River.
  • " a group of Virginia troops that Byrd led on ] against the ] in 1760." I'd try to avoid the easter egg link here.
  • The use of the serial comma is inconsistent, "Edward, Joseph and Martha." vs "a horse, a firearm, and 500 pounds sterling" Mark Arsten (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "In June 1787, Shawnee warriors crossed the Ohio River and scalped his son, Samuel, while his father watched helplessly." Why was he helpless while this happened? Is it that he was outarmed and outnumbered? Or was he tied up or something?
  • 'Scott was one of 37 men who founded the Kentucky Society for the Promotion of Useful Knowledge in 1787." What did this society do? i.e., what kind of useful knowledge were they concerned with?
    • Primarily agricultural stuff, if I remember correctly. I need to start an article on this one day if I can pull together enough information. I'll confirm my memory and elaborate as best I can. Acdixon 19:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    • This source doesn't say. I know I've read it somewhere before, but I have no idea where at the moment. Acdixon 12:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "In June 1790, Harmar and Arthur St. Clair were ordered to lead another expedition against the Indians." Easter egg link here.
    • How would you work in the link to the Harmar Campaign, then? It seems like too valuable a link to leave out, but it seems odd to say "In June 1790, Harmar and Arthur St. Clair were ordered to lead the Harmar Campaign against the Indians." Acdixon 19:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Might want to note the year at the beginning of the St. Clair expedition section. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Because it's a new section, or because the narrative doesn't flow well from section to section? I was hoping the reader would follow the raids of mid-1791 (from the start of the previous section) all the way through to here. Acdixon 19:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • There are some short sentences in the first paragraph of "Later political career", might be worth trying to combine some of them. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "As the celebrations in honor of Scott's military career continued across Kentucky, he began to consider the possibility of running for governor in 1808." Might want to note the general date of the celebrations here.
    • I'm pretty sure they started at the end of the Northwest Indian War and kept happening periodically until his election as governor and beyond. That's why I used "continued" here. Acdixon 12:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Might want to think about the location of the first paragraph of the governor section, I'm not sure if that's the best way to open the section--I don't feel too strongly about it though.
    • It's easily enough moved. Only hesitation was to keep the image on the left side for better image balance, but that's a trivial concern. Moved. Acdixon 12:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Well researched, well written, impressive article. I have no qualms about supporting. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support A well written and interesting article with good sources. --Khanassassin ☪ 15:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Hi all, can someone just check that image licensing is in order? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Image review

  • Source link for File:4thEarlOfDunmore.jpg appears to be broken
  • File:Josiah_Harmar_by_Raphaelle_Peale.jpeg needs a US PD tag
  • File:General_Green_Clay.jpg: is the artist known? What is the source of this image?
    • Most likely, it came from here, since this site is linked from Clay's WP article. However, there is no author information available on that site. I can try and contact them about it, but I may or may not get a response. In the meantime, I found another picture of Clay for this article so we don't have to wait. It isn't as good, but it will suffice. Acdixon 14:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The permissions text on the seal and flag isn't reflected in the licensing tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • I've had this raised before, and frankly, I don't know enough about copyright to sort it out. I'm unwilling to remove the templates from this article because of their relevance. If you have concerns about the images, could you raise them on the image talk page, the template talk page, or at WP:FFD? This issue touches a lot of articles, as you can see here and here. If it's that big of a deal, it needs to be addressed WP-wide, not just by derailing this one nomination. If the images get deleted, they will be removed from the corresponding templates, and it won't be a problem here any longer anyway. Acdixon 14:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Tks Nikki for your prompt review. I think you raise a very valid point re. the permissions for those emblems, however given that they're in templates I'd agree that the concern can be addressed elsewhere, particularly since any change that occurs will automatically flow to this article and similar ones. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 23 June 2012 (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 Ian Rose 22:37, 22 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): Pesky (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is likely to meet the criteria; it's just been reviewed by Malleus for GA and he says he thinks it has a "good chance". Pesky (talk) 08:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: As I have just reviewed a different horse article I gave this a quick once-over. I have not carried out an in-depth prose check, but here are a few mainly minor points:-

Lead
  • Awkwardness in the first paragraph, around the phrasing "all heights are to be..." What happens if they happen not to be?
  • That's from the official breed standard; The New Forest pony is a pure breed, with a closed stud book. (Not all ponies grazing on the New Forest are New Forest ponies.) If they "happened not to be", they would be a very poor example of the breed.
  • Changed to "should be". I think that reads better.  Done
  • Paragraphs should not begin with pronouns, as in "It is indigenous..."
  • Can fix, no probs.  Done (I think!)
  • Why "only" 50 miles? There is nothing in the text to explain why 50 miles is considered to be a notably short distance. In British terms, a radius of 50 miles would normally be considered a large area
  • 50 miles is a short distance in terms of wild animal populations, which is what we're talking about here (prehistoric horse remains very close to where the current breed originated).
  • "fairly steadily" is a bit vague; I'd drop the "fairly"
  • I'll think about that one; "steadily" has nuances (for me) of no drops at all in population, whereas there were minor fluctuations. Done
  • I'd rather you said what an Agister was, than forcing use of the link.
  • OK, I can tweak that. Done
Outside the lead
  • Rather too many paragraphs begin: "New Forest ponies...", sometimes in succession. A little variety of expression would be good.; maybe more use of the alternative name "New Forester"?
  • The official breed name is the New Forest pony; "New Forester" is a colloquialism.
  • Query: if we can't use a colloquialism, and sentences shouldn't begin with pronouns, and too many paragraphs begin with "New Forest ponies" ... what are possible solutions?
  • Tweaked those about.  Done
  • I notice one paragraph ending without a citation
  • Ahh, I'll take another look!
  • Is that the one about other countries having their own breed societies and stud books? I did have a "See external links" there, but it was removed. Not sure quite how to deal with that one; it's obvious that it's verifiable just by clicking on the many different countries' organisations in the external links section, but finding a RS for something as obvious as that may not be as simple as it sounds!
  • It was me that tossed the link to the external links (can change and can't really cite to in-wiki) so I just now made a footnote with a bunch of the links. Hope the formatting is OK for that. --Montanabw
  • There is sometimes a clash between your use of "The New Forest pony" (singular) and "New Forest ponies" (plural). For example: "The New Forest Pony has free, even gaits, active and straight, but not exaggerated. They are noted for their sure-footedness, agility and speed." "They" is applicable to the plural form
  • Yup, I'll fix any of those I find! Done
  • In the last horse article I reviewed, I questioned whether the noun "gait" could be pluralised as "gaits". It still reads very oddly to me; does a single horse have more than one style of walking?
  • Horses have more than one gait. Walk, trot, canter and gallop for the New Forest ponies; other breeds pace, amble, tölt, etc.
  • And within that, sometimes more than one form, particularly in the trot. --Montanabw. I think it's OK as is.
  • Nitpick: In the references we have "retrieved" and "Retrieved"
  • OK, I'll go through standardising those. Well, that's very strange. It appears that different citation templates capitalise it differently, so standardising those is not a simple job! Has nobody encountered this before? Done
  • It's the {{citation| ...}} template which throws the lower-case "r". The {cite ***| ...}} templates throw upper-case "R". Someone needs to fix the "citation" one!

Brianboulton (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian! Pesky (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Neutral I just don't know. It is missing taxonomy data and other info, but it is well written so I will !vote neutral. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The infobox includes Equus ferus caballus (same as Appaloosa, which is a FA, etc.) Just clarifying – New Forest pony is a breed, not a subspecies. All modern horses with the exception of Przewalski's horse are Equus ferus caballus.
  • Agreed, not a species. --Montanabw
  • Comments: supported below Will try to do a full review over the weekend, a couple small things I saw at a glance:
  • " Hyland, Ann ((1994)). 'The Medieval Warhorse: From Byzantium to the Crusades'. London: Grange Books. p. 99. ISBN 978-1-85627-990-1." Why the double parenthesis around the date?
  • Heh! There were parentheses inside the citation, which also adds them. D'oh! Fixewd.  Done
  • I don't see any citations to the Daniel or McIntosh sources, might want to put them in a Further reading section.
  • Ah, yes, they were in a paragraph which I cut (on other prehistory stuff). I've removed those. Done
  • Oooh, not sure about those. The fact that several other countries have their own breed societies and stud books is mentioned in the article, and I'm racking my brains as to whom to exclude without giving the appearance of any unintentional favouritism, etc.! Suggestions welcome!

    Thanks very much for your input, much appreciated. Pesky (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Don't worry about the ELs too much, that wouldn't affect my support. It's just more than I'm used to seeing at FAC. Also, I don't see any links to the Hedges, Saville, and O'Connell source now. (Ucucha's HarvErrors script lights up like a Christmas tree when there's an unused bibliography source, that's why I keep nitpicking about this.)
  • The Lead looks ok, the only nitpicks I have there is that the serial comma use is inconsistent ("all heights should be strong, workmanlike, and of a good riding type" vs "they are valued for hardiness, strength and surefootedness."). Also, is the capitalization of "Forest" correct here: "The population of ponies on the Forest has fluctuated"? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I will standardise the serial commas throughout, too. Yes, "Forest" should be capitalised (it's a shortened form of its official name "New Forest"). Pesky (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)  Done (I think I got all the serial commas, but if I missed any, do feel free to put them in!)
  • Almost done, will hopefully finish tomorrow. A few small points for now:
  • "to be checked for health, wormed, and tail-marked" might want to consider explaining what "wormed" means, unless you think its common enough that the reader will know.
  • I think it's probably common enough; any pet owner (as well as farmers etc.) will be familiar with the concept of worming animals.
  • I linked it. --Montanabw
  • "Drifts to gather the animals are carried out in autumn." Might want to consider rephrasing per WP:SEASON.
  • I think "autumn" is best here; foals (born in the spring) have to be old enough to be weaned from their mothers, so it's specifically relevant to the season rather than any particular calendar month, etc.
  • I'll hunt those down and deal with them.  Done
  • "exported in 1507 for use in the French wars" Might want to wikilink "French wars" to the specific conflict here.
Hmm; have to work out which particular French wars we're talking about!  Done
  • "Marske was sold to a Ringwood farmer for 20 guineas" May want to link "guineas" too.
  • I'll find something about that.  Done
  • There is some inconsistency here with commas after date expressions, ("By 1956, 1341 ponies" vs. "In 1905 the Burley and District NF Pony Breeding and Cattle Society was set up"). I'm not sure which way you prefer (although I know Malleus hates having the comma there).
  • OK, I'll hunt those out and real with them, too.  Done
  • Yes, really. It's an ongoing situation; is currently the case, has always been the case.
  • Support pending spotchecks. The explanations and replies have satisfied me. I'm unfamiliar with the subject, so the best I can offer is that the prose/presentation/MOS compliance looks FA quality to me. Hope you nominate some more articles soon! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

  • File:Bayeux_horses_boats.jpg: suggest using estimated completion date rather than upload date  Done
  • "New Forest Pony Breeding & Cattle Society" or "The New Forest Pony Breeding and Cattle Society" or "NFPB&CS" or "The New Forest Pony"?  Done
  • Publication names should be italicized  Done (I think)
  • FN7: PMID?  Done
  • FN11: you've got the italicization reversed - journal name should be italicized, article title should be in quotation marks  Done
  • Don't need retrieval dates for Google Books links  Done
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books  Done (I think)
  • FN17: stray punctuation on title?  Done
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?
  •  Done Removed ref (not really needed)
  • Formatting of Bibliography should match that used in footnotes
  • Given that Xlibris is a self-publishing company, what makes this a high-quality reliable source?

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

  •  Done Changed refs.
  • I'll get onto all of those as soon as I can. Real Life is taking priority at the moment (my mother is expected to die within the next 24 hours or thereabouts, so I may not be around on the 'pedia). Pesky (talk) 06:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done all those (I think!) Pesky (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all your work and input, guys. I appreciate it all. I'm just working-up another article to give y'all, but it will be on the back burner for a couple of weeks now. Pesky (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I do have time to do any remaining tweaks on this one ;P We have a bit of a quiet patch now until the funeral. Pesky (talk) 21:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Samurai, could you please be more specific as to which references you're questioning? As far as I can see, all of the references used meet WP's guidelines for reliable sources, and Nikkimaria (above) did a check for reliable sources and the ones that she was concerned about have, I believe, been replaced. (Pesky, as an aside, templates like the "done" checkmark are frowned upon at FAC because they make the archives exceed template limits). Dana boomer (talk) 11:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
("Self-published sources (online and paper) Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.
"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG.
Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.,")
Please let me know what you think, it is better to find out now than later, if there is any doubt run it by Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard just to be sure. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Samurai, that is the website for the breed registry, which is obviously a recognized expert on the breed (not to mention this is not exactly contentious information). This is not some backyard breeder's blog, it is the website for the government-recognized organization in charge of the breed that has been in place since, I think, 1905. Breed registries have been found to be a reliable source in many previous FACs and GANs - I can point you to specific links if you want, but there are a lot of them. Dana boomer (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I have asked for an opinion on this matter at

Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#newforestpony.com, I think its best to get an independent third party opinion on this reference as it may be a valid reference for certain types of information such as this work and history of the registry but maybe not the history of the pony.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry this bled over here, people. I have been having some trouble with Samurai again over on the tack articles, and I guess he's after you guys because he's trolling my contribs. Note this and especially this behavior, which is not helping improve wikipedia. Montanabw 16:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, OK, I'll admit to being a bit pee'd off about this. Samurai, you and I have crossed paths before, and I had to ask you not to post on my talk as a result of your battleground behaviour there. You're only the second editor in my over 17,000 edits who I've had to ask this of, and the other one has been reprieved. The official Breed Registry in the UK is most definitely the most reliable source for basic information on the breed itself. I'll wander over to the RS noticeboard when I can, but right now I have to go over to the ponies as we're waiting for the vet, and my mother died only a week ago today, so I'm sure you'll understand (at least I hope you will) that Knowledge stuff is not my highest priority right now. I cannot for the life of me see your input here as anything other than unnecessarily confrontational and disruptive. Pesky (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Pesky (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone want anything else done to this? – I have another one I'd like to bring here soon! Pesky (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments by MistyMorn (talk):

Will comb the prose of this attractive article and make some tentative suggestions:

Lede
  • "all heights should be strong..." Suggest, perhaps: "ponies of all heights should be strong..."
  • "...good riding type; they are valued..." Suggest: "...good riding type. New Forest ponies are valued..."
Already dealt with I see. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "...but today only ponies whose parents are both registered as purebred in the approved section of the stud book can be registered as purebred." Suggest something like "...can in turn be registered as such."
  • "... and competes successfully against larger horses in horse show competition." Regularly or mainly at at the 2010 London International Horse Show? (Could be read as puffery perhaps?)
  • Regularly; the NFPEC only rides New Forest ponies, and they compete against all the other British Riding Club teams in all disciplines (and regularly beat them). Most British Riding Clubs riders are mounted on horses, not ponies.
  • Then the lede seems to be fine. Perhaps a few more details (and/or ref?) in the opening sentence of the relevant para in the main article to avoid any impression of puffery to the unschooled footman? —MistyMorn (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Now done by Montanabw (see below). —MistyMorn
  • "Ponies grazing..." To mark the change of focus, suggest "All ponies grazing..."
  • "...over the Forest lands; an annual marking fee is paid..." Suggest full stop instead of semi-colon (following the dash).
  • "...fluctuated in response to demand..." Suggest, perhaps: "...fluctuated in response to varying demand..."
  • "fewer than 600 in 1945". Might (though not sure about this) be neater if written out as "...fewer than six hundred in 1945"?
  • "...the Beaulieu Road pony sales." To contextualize, suggest: "...the Beaulieu Road pony sales, which are held several times a year."
Characteristics
  • "The breed standard for the New Forest pony is set by the New Forest Pony Breeding and Cattle Society." Suggest something like: "Standards for the breed are stipulated by..."
  • I feel the use of TEMPLATE:Hands is impeding some copyediting, such as removal of WP:OVERLINK. Would suggest transcribing the text generated by the template, as appropriate.
  • Yes. —MistyMorn
  • "They are normally shown in shown in two height sections..." For a general readership maybe, suggest something like: "In shows, they are normally classed in two height sections..." (Is this clearer, or just more wordy?)
  • "New Forest ponies are to be ...; the body is ..." Suggest: "New Forest ponies should be ...; the body should be ..."
  • "Smaller ponies, though not suitable for heavier riders, often have more show quality." To avoid repeating the structure of the previous sentence, suggest: "Smaller ponies may not be suitable for heavier riders, but they often have more show quality."
  • "...may be any coat colour..." Or "...may be of any coat colour..."?
  • On hyphening: "pure-bred", as here, or "purebred", as in the lede? Page style decision needed perhaps?
  • I killed all the hyphens. It's a style issue, but "purebred" is the more modern form and used in most other WPEQ articles (though a UK vs US English argument perhaps can be made, not a moral issue, and now at least easier to do a search and replace in either direction). --Montanabw
  • Drastic action, but consistency is satisfied... ;) —MistyMorn
  • "White markings on the head and lower legs are permitted, except for those behind the head and above a line parallel to the ground from the point of the hock in the hind leg to the top of the metacarpal bone, or bend in the knee in the foreleg." Unnecessarily detailed perhaps? Would suggest: "White markings are permitted only on the head and lower legs."
  • No, we have to have the detail; where white markings exist is linked to genetics and it's a BIG DEAL in horse land. Open to smoother phrasing if it's possible, but the breed standard is what it is. (Maybe we could do it as a direct quote, Pesky?) --Montanabw
Fair enough. (The syntax of the original leaves something to be desired, imo.) —MistyMorn
  • "...to the X-register" Would "...to the appendix X-register" be more informative (if technically correct)? I also feel it might actually be helpful to incorporate the information in the following sentence as a parenthesis here: ie "...X-register (this in turn means that their offspring cannot be registered as pure-bred New Forest ponies, as the stud book is closed and only the offspring of pure-bred registered ponies may be registered as pure-bred)."
  • "They are on the whole a sturdy and hardy breed, but congenital myotonia..." On balance, I'd suggest splitting in two sentences to avoid compromising the general observation with an apparently isolated (albeit genetically relevant) finding.
  • Done, with some minor rewording --Montanabw
  • Fine now, imo. —MistyMorn
  • The novel finding itself (ie "congenital myotonia, a hereditary muscle disorder, was identified in 2009 in a New Forest pony foal by researchers in the Netherlands, the first time the condition had been identified in equines") needs to be directly supported by the refs at the end of the paragraph.
  • It was in the set of cites at the end of the paragraph, but pulled one and duplicated it where you needed the pinpoint. --Montanabw
  • Yes, I think that's more reader friendly. —MistyMorn
  • "It is associated with a missense mutation on the CLCN1 gene, which is the causative gene for the condition in goats and humans. As the gene has a recessive mode of inheritance, for a foal to show clinical signs it must inherit the mutated allele from both parents." Would suggest: "This finding was associated with a missense mutation on the CLCN1 gene (the causative gene for the condition in goats and humans). As the mutation has a recessive mode of inheritance, both parents would have to be carriers for a foal to be clinically affected."
  • I personally loathe parentheticals when not needed, but I rejiggered the sentence for clarity, hope it was an improvement. --Montanabw
  • I still have issues with the ambiguous (and repetitive) "It". How about: "Since the inheritance pattern is recessive, both parents...? Pedants corner: I appreciate the practical reasons for the focus on clinical signs in the foal (is "ensuing" necessary, btw?), but offspring who don't inherit the mutated allele from both parents shouldn't be clinically affected at all throughout their life. But perhaps this is implicit... so OK, anyway. —MistyMorn
  • The changes made earlier (and I made one more) seem to have addressed this? I'm sort of into study of this genetic disease in purebred breeds stuff, and it is a tough call when to mention the implicit (carriers do not have clinical signs -- hence foals who inherit only one allele are carriers just as the contributing parent is a carrier), as then it gets complicated; carrier-to carrier matings (for any simple recessive trait) statistically produce 25% clear, 25% affected and 50% carrier. So it's a "how far down the rabbit hole shall we travel? Particularly in this case where we have a new and pretty rare problem (though the stuff added about reduced genetic diversity in the forest hints at WHY this has cropped up; but to correlate this would be SYNTH at the moment) --MTBW
  • I kind of retweaked per the abstract from the peer-reviewed article. It's important to neither catastrophize nor downplay the significance of this discovery, the study covered one foal, but the gene was found in a family line, so presumably will recur. --MTBW
  • That is my understanding too. So we completely agree on the substance here. -Misty
  • I think so, if you agree that a recessive needs to have a genetic test available so it can be nipped in the bud quickly, before it becomes an endemic problem in a breed, because most breeders are quick to put their heads in the sand and just keep on linebreeding if you don't. (smile) For example, HERDA now is carried by nearly 25% of all cutting and reining horses, it's a HUGE problem for them. --MTBW
  • Yes, this sort of issue is both relevant and insidious. I don't think it would be undue to include some of the information in this quote in the main text. What do you think? Also, a small editorial query: Are the implied broader concepts about the inheritance pattern of other CLCN1 mutations sufficiently supported by Wijnberg 2012 (I've only accessed the abstract), or do we need to insert another supporting ref? —MistyMorn (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I like keeping the quote in the footnote, not the main text. At this point, too much emphasis might be WP:UNDUE. Compare, for example, the way we handled the blindness issue at the FA Appaloosa. I'd say as far as the recessive inheritance bit, at least in horses, the statement in the abstract is pretty strong, particularly backed by the article in The Horse (which is an AAEP publication and thus generally quite reliable) but I can look at the whole article. Montanabw 20:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • splitting the points for clarity:
    1) I agree the footnote is informative as it is and The Horse pinpoints the broader issue quite neatly here. Having worked in prevention, I feel the ongoing research effort is a relevant initiative which deserves due weight. My concern regarding our main text as it stands is that finishing the paragraph with "...both parents must contribute a copy of the mutated allele for a foal to develop clinical signs" could appear overly reassuring to readers not familiar with the underlying issues. could we perhaps add a short concluding sentence about the ongoing initiative without being WP:UNDUE?

    2) Regarding the details specifics:
    a) This was not "the first time the condition had been identified in equines" (see ]; two reviews I haven't accessed, , ).
    b) "A missense mutation (c.1775A>C, p.D592A) in CLCN1 is the causative allele for the condition in goats and humans..." - many different CLCN1 mutations can cause the disease (see ).
    c) "...thus proposed as the cause in horses." Per Wijnberg, "The mutation showed a recessive mode of inheritance within the reported pony family. Therefore, this CLCN1 polymorphism is considered to be a possible cause of congenital myotonia."
    d) "The gene has a recessive mode of inheritance in the foal's family..." Again, per Wijnberg, "The mutation showed...
    (Hope this helps clarify the details of our edit misunderstandings.)

    —MistyMorn (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to MTBW's considerations on my talk page and latest changes here:
I agree about the relevance and delicacy of this topical issue. For the reasons you've stated I think it's important to ensure that the content of this paragraph is correctly expressed and that it can provide breeders with the sort of information they need to be able to access should they take the Knowledge article into consideration when responding to requests from the Swiss team for genetic testing of their ponies (a good response from owners will obviously be a key factor in the research project and a premise for the success of the prevention initiative). To this end, I've tried (here) to deploy my professional experience as a medical writer to clarify and contextualize the material (while avoiding, I trust, any unnecessarily technical bloat). On encyclopedic grounds, I hope the text is now accurate and that it provides readers with appropriate information and resources to get to grips with the genuine issues without provoking any undue drama. I agree that retaining the quote from The Horse is helpful: it vehicles a key message. Can we now maybe reach consensus on this paragraph? Cheers, —MistyMorn (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I think we are real close. I replaced the word "benign" as though it may be medically accurate, it is understood differently by laypeople, and a horse with a muscular disorder that can fall down is definitely a danger to a rider and for that purpose may be considered seriously disabled. Montanabw 18:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Have some other hacks, moved to talk page for this project page so we can hash on the text without further bloat elsewhere. Montanabw 19:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll have another read-through of the material, and the various chat bits, and see what I think (though I should surely be able to trust you guys to get it sorted without me!) Once again, my apologies for having been semi-absent for a while. Misty, the interesting thing is that the pony this cropped up is wasn't a Forest-run pony (and AFAIK wasn't a near-generational-descendent either). The Forest itself is remarkably clear of genetic disorders or adverse traits of any kind; the harshness of the environment itself obviously weeds real weaknesses out pretty thoroughly, and with all the animals being in the same place, and the stallions producing so many foals each, each year, if a stallion were carrying something nasty (which showed up, obviously) it would be very clear, very quickly, and he'd be removed from the breeding stock and de-registered as a stallion. A few of our local pony-people are genetics-savvy to one extent or another (and getting more so, with the occasional nudge ;P), and it's likely that (in that event) many of his offspring would then be tested, too. - Pesky
There is a rewrite of the paragraph at the talk page for this page, see if it works for you. Utrecht speaks well of NF pony breeders. If you can find us a source that says the foal wasn't run on the forest, do let us know. The lab analysis of relatives found the allele in a maternal great-grandparent, BTW. Montanabw 21:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I've read through the entire study here, and added the (I feel important) information that Wijnberg et al. believe it's a recent(ish) mutation. The proposed founder stallion appears on both sides of the foal's pedigree, and all animals tested so far which test positive for the mutation trace their ancestry back to this stallion. It would be good to know the exact breeding of this foal (does anyone know its identity for sure?) New Foresters have been being bred in the Netherlands for quite a while now; between 20 and 30 champion-line ponies were exported to the Netherlands in the 1950's as the founders of the Netherlands breeding stock. (That's a fair few horse generations back). So ... who has access to this particular foal's pedigree? Pesky (talk) 06:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
A bit more info elsewhere; major point is that everything which now can go in, on this, is in. Other stuff will have to await published, independent third-party sources ;P Pesky (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
History
  • "There also is a tradition..." Perhaps better to postpone these two sentence until after the Renaissance wars? The first of the two sentences could be more simply phrased. Suggest something like: A popular tradition linking the ancestry of the New Forest pony to Spanish horses said to have swum ashore from wrecked ships at the time of the Spanish Armada has, as the New Forest National Park Authority states, "long been accepted as a myth."
  • Tweaked. --Montanabw
  • Yes. —MistyMorn
Check out the gap between the Isle of Wight and the New Forest coastline, in the Solent! It's tiny!
I'm not sure about reversing the order of that one; the kinda point is that locals have said for generations that Spanish stallions contributed to the breed, then that was believed to be a myth, but now modern research has pointed out that there are close genetic ties with two Spanish breeds. So - it might not be as much of a myth as has been suggested in the past. I know there are a lot of "Spanish Armada stallion" myths about, but around the coastal areas of the UK it's not as unrealistic as it might sound (the Armada certainly had conflicts in the Solent, which is a pretty narrow strip of water (only about 3 to five miles wide, depending on where you measure it, and only just over three-quarters of a mile total at the pinch point between Hurst point and Yarmouth) between the mainland and the Isle of Wight, and the New Forest includes part of the Solent coastline). So any animal which went over in that stretch would have been easily within visual distance of the New Forest coast. What do you guys think? - Pesky
I reversed the order of those two sentences again, and concatenated them with a semicolon. (Note: anything which went overboard (or was chucked) in that stretch of water is highly likely to have come ashore on the North Solent marshes, which are part of the New Forest)- Pesky
  • Haha! Yeah, okay, that'll do! - Pesky
  • "In the 1850s and 1860s it was noted..." By whom? There appears to be a shortage of supporting references in this paragraph, although the main source is presumably Tubbs, 1965 (note: the url in the reference isn't working).
  • Yes, Tubbs is the source for all of that stuff; I've also updated the url to where it currently is!
  • "...financial incentives to the owners..." Suggest "...financial incentives to encourage owners..."
  • The mix of four figure years and counts in this para makes for uncomfortable reading, imo. Would suggest using a comma to highlight thousands (eg 3,589) throughout, as contemplated by MoS.
  • As part of ongoing efforts... in the 20th century..." This sentence covers rather a lot of retrospective ground. I'm also intrigued by the apparent contradiction between purebred inbreeding and the encouragement of hardiness.
Hehe! Yes, it's a fine balance! There are various schemes being tried out, including one for breeding stallions from mares which have a history (personal and pedigree) of successfully surviving / thriving on the Forest with minimal human input.
Perhaps worth mentioning? I think this is one point on the page where some rewriting/expansion is needed to clarify the recent history and avoid the appearance of mixing concepts. It would seem that over the period there has been some tension between the biological need to reinforce the "breed" by bringing in fresh blood (enriching the gene pool) and the cultural drive to perpetuate the "purebred" phenotype. I would suggest chronicling the various interventions one at a time (perhaps one sentence each?). Other thoughts? —MistyMorn (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll take another look and see where I can clarify. - Pesky
Uses
  • "New Forest ponies are used for gymkhanas,..." Suggest: "...compete in..." (or "...take part in..."). also suggest moving the entire sentence down to the end of the paragraph.
  • Tweaked --Montanabw
  • Thank you, —MistyMorn
  • "in the past,..." When roughly?
  • "The ponies can not only carry adults, they can compete..." To avoid puffery, would suggest: "The ponies can carry adult riders and can compete..."
  • Tweaked --Montanabw
Ponies of the New Forest
  • "...owned by commoners (local people with common grazing rights)..." Suggest removing the wikilink to commoners, which is already present in the lede. ...Though, on reflection, not so sure. How about Agisters? Maybe a bit distant to delink?
  • "...by the Verderers of the New Forest – the Verderers are a statutory body..." Suggest: "...by the Verderers of the New Forest – a statutory body..."
  • Rephrased entirely and made two sentences with some rewording. --MTBW
  • "The ponies living full-time on the New Forest are almost all mares, although there are also a few geldings." Suggest perhaps: "...with the exception of a few geldings."
  • Did minor rephrase, slightly different, did it help? --MTBW
  • Would this secondary source (Putman 1986) be worth consideration here? Note: This source cites Tyler's 1972 dissertation study -- a primary source which isn't readily accessible (sneak peek here)
  • "...called a haunt." Inverted commas round the "haunt"??
  • Added air quotes. --MTBW
  • "Stallions... do not run free" or "Stallions... rarely run free"?
  • Made some tweaks to emphasize the importance of the seasonal aspect of management. --MTBW
  • "Drifts to gather the animals are carried out..." Round-ups, known as "drifts", are carried out..."? Scarcely an 'uncommon' term perhaps, but as yet no illustrative wikilink that I could find. Maybe a case here for providing an easily accessible ref, such as this?
  • I tweaked the wikilink, a drift IS, basically, a roundup or a muster. If Pesky wants to add the link, I'll defer to her on that. --MTBW
  • I'm not fussed either way. So long as you guys are happy to agree, either way, I'll go with your decision. - Pesky
  • "In addition, in the spring..." Suggest: "Additionally,..."
  • Rephrased entirely. --MTBW
  • "Other than this..." Suggest: "Otherwise,..."
  • Rephrased. --MTBW
Bibliography
  • Suggest adding Putman 1986, chapter 3 (see above). I feel this also provides a slightly different perspective on the breeding stock issues.

Note: I also stumbled upon a couple of scientific primary sources which probably aren't especially suitable for citation, but which I'll link here anyway, just for info: Putman et al 1987; Pollock 1982.

References

(I'll insert any queries/suggestions here as and when I find them)

External links

Perhaps worth grouping thematically (with subheadings)?

  • I personally dislike that format, in general I don't think we need to lengthen the TOC with EL list subheadings, and here the links are only of two types, one the UK organizations relevant to the breed and the other a list of organizations in other nations. And they are already arranged in that order. --MTBW
General consideration

A nagging question I'm left with is how much we really don't know about changes to the breed over the centuries. I suspect rather a lot! To provide readers with some sort of overall perspective, feel it would be good to insert a sentence specifically acknowledging the limits to our current knowledge in this regard.

  • True of all the really old horse breeds, actually. If you want to compare, take a look at the FA article Andalusian horse as an example of what is probably the best-documented breed out there (Carthusian monks got put in charge of tracking pedigrees), and even they have a LOT of conjecture, myth, romantic nonsense and political controversy. The NF pony actually has a decent amount of history for these UK pony breeds. Open to ideas you may have of precisely what to say where, of course. --MTBW
Yes, I accept that there's no ready way of addressing the question. —MistyMorn (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Overall

I feel this would make a very interesting and attractive FA on the main page. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll get on to all those and deal with as appropriate. Pesky (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Made a few tweaks from the last round and fixed a couple more phrasing issues. Pesky can trout slap me if I messed up anything. Montanabw 19:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Support —MistyMorn (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comments by Sasata (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • is a citation really required for the opening sentence? Is it controversial? Is this fact not cited later in the article? Also, it isn't really clear to me how this sentence is supported in the source.
I think we can ditch the citation there.
  • Actually, we have to keep it, there is no other mention of being a Mountain and Moorland breed elsewhere in the text, and would be awk to insert it anywhere else. It isn't controversial, but some other editor will probably whine that it's unsourced if we don't keep it in there somewhere. --Montanabw
  • An article about an English breed should not use miles as the primary unit when conversions are given
But we Britishers always use miles! It's what we do ...
I inserted the convert template into the offending areas. If someone else wants them to go the other way, it's whatever the source says, I guess. --Montanabw
Sorry, was not aware of this. Sasata (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • the use of two semicolons in the second sentence seems like … too much :)
  • Done --Montanabw
  • Done. --Montanabw
  • "(only about 50 miles from the heart of the modern New Forest)" don't think "only" is needed; to me it makes it sounds like you're trying too hard to convince us it's a short distance. Does "the heart" mean the centre?
Yup, the heart is the centre; we Britishers often use "heart" for an area.
  • Done. --Montanabw
  • B.C. (lead) or BC (History)?
  • Done. --Montanabw
  • I think "and colleagues" is a better choice than "et al." in the article text
  • I just tossed the name in the text, it's in the ref, all that's needed. --Montanabw
  • link Lyndhurst
  • Done. --Montanabw
  • "Royal Stud" lol … I wonder if Prince Charles calls himself that
ROFL! --Montanabw
  • "In the 1850s and 1860s it was noted that the quality of the ponies was dropping as a result of poor choice of breeding stallions, and it was recommended that Arab blood be introduced to improve the breed." Who noted it? Who recommended it?
Noted by pretty much everyone dealing with the ponies: commoners, buyers, etc.
Noted by Williamson (1861) and Spooner (1871)? Sasata (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Profits from the sale of young ponies affect the number of ponies that commoners are prepared to breed." Seems a bit odd to have this sentence in present tense in the middle of a paragraph about century-old history
Yeh, MF queried it at GA, but it's an ongoing situation. It's always been the case and still is the case.
  • "The ponies can not only carry adults," -> "The ponies can carry not only adults," (? not sure)
  • the phrase "turned out" is used quite often, but I don't quite know what it means. Well, ok, maybe I do from the context, but am wondering if it's horsey jargon that might be glossed in the first instance?
It means the same as depastured.
Which means the same thing as "pastured" -- LOL for horsey terms of art.--MTBW
  • "… when they are usually taken off the Forest." taken off? taken out of? removed from?
Yes. --Montanabw
  • I can't access ref #6, perhaps a subscription template is needed? Surely University, Utrect isn't the author?
  • I thought I fixed that. It goes to The Horse Online, yes? - MTBW
  • Ah, IIRC it's just registration (which is free) which is needed, not an actual suyb. You just sign up and read. - Pesky
  • Formatting for ref#7 is wonky: pubmed is not the publisher … please format as a journal citation, and give all author names (note that ref #15 gives all names, and does not truncate with et al. after one)
  • are there no page numbers or issue #'s for ref #9, #10, #11
  • author format is inconsistent; compare Wijnberg ID vs Checa, M.L; Dunner, S.
  • ref #13 should be formatted like a report, and #16 like a journal citation
  • ref #15 could have an issue #
  • no ISBN for Morillo 1996?
  • Not sure why there's a publication date of 15 December 1992 for ref #24; nor why 18 December 2010 is given for ref #30 (Helen Campbell should be credited as author, btw)
  • I'm not quite sure the comprehensiveness criterion of FA has been met. The following suggestions for additional sources are from a quick search of the first two pages of Google Books. JSTOR turns up 87 article in a search for "New Forest" pony, have these been checked?
    We have looked at some peer-reviewed literature. The issue here is how far down the rabbit hole we need to go. Did you spot something in particular we should consider that's not here already? --Montanabw
Here's a few suggestions. The first one in particular seems like a significant omission: it is a lengthy monograph on the subject, and is very highly-cited. The rest, I'm not sure, but I think they should be checked. Sasata (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I've added DOIs where available. Is New Forest pony research so cutting edge that decades-old literature on social organization and ecology are outdated? Sasata (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Title: The behaviour and social organization of the New Forest ponies.
Author(s): Tyler S.J.
Source: Animal Behav Monogr Volume: 5 Issue: 2 Pages: 85-196 Published: 1972
  • Title: The New Forest Pony. (a book chapter)
Author(s): Pigott Sir B.
Book Author(s): Berlin, J.
Source: The New Forest. Pages: pp. i-x, 1-201 Published: 1961
  • Title: Use of Habitat by Free-Ranging Cattle and Ponies in the New Forest, Southern England
Author(s): R. M. Pratt, R. J. Putman, J. R. Ekins, P. J. Edwards
Source: Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Aug., 1986), pp. 539-557 doi:10.2307/2404035
  • Title: Food and Feeding Behaviour of Cattle and Ponies in the New Forest, Hampshire
Author(s): R. J. Putman, R. M. Pratt, J. R. Ekins, P. J. Edwards
Source:Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Aug., 1987), pp. 369-380 doi:10.2307/2403881
  • Title: The Distribution of Excreta on New Forest Grassland Used by Cattle, Ponies and Deer
Author(s): P. J. Edwards, S. Hollis
Source: Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Dec., 1982), pp. 953-964 doi:10.2307/2403296
One of the problems with the academic papers is that they are referring to all the ponies which graze the Forest as "New Forest ponies". What they're studying is the behaviour of semi-feral ponies grazing on the Forest, many of which are not New Forest ponies! The breed "New Forest pony" doesn't behave any differently from any other breed living in feral, wild or semi-feral conditions: all equines have the same social behaviours. What the academic studies should have made clear that they were referring to (and been appropriately titled) was the behaviour of semi-feral ponies grazing on the New Forest. So, nothing in that literature is actually specific to the New Forest pony as a breed, which is what the article is about. - Pesky
Have you actually looked at the papers? Pratt et al. (1986), for example, state the "The verderers records show that in 1980 there were 3430 ponies on the Open Forest."; this statistic is similar to those presented in the article (do those statistics also include non-Forest Forest ponies?). It seems to me that most "semi-feral ponies grazing on the New Forest" are New Forest ponies. Am I wrong in my assumption? (If I am, why isn't this in the article?) Regardless, these papers contain information about the ecology of New Forest ponies in their natural habitat (i.e. feeding and grazing interactions with other species) and I don't understand why they should be dismissed. Sasata (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The majority of ponies grazing on the open Forest are New Foresters and their crossbreds, certainly. One can't put precise figures (reliably sourced!) on how many are or aren't purebred NF ponies. I suppose really it's a question of just how much depth one wants to go into about equine interactions with other species, which are basically the same for all wild, feral or semi-feral herds, as opposed to things which are specific to the New Forest pony as a breed. It's very tempting, certainly, to include a lot of extra information (and one could go on forever with that one!) and I'm not "dismissing" that information, it's just that it applies (as I said) to all equines in those conditions, and I think we should (insofar as it's possible) keep the article mainly on the subject of New Forest pony breed. Could you suggest, maybe, a short sentence or two on precisely which information from those papers you think should be included in this particular article? Personally, I'm not sure that we should go into too much detail about semi-wild equine behaviour in general. - Pesky
I would add that much this stuff on herd dynamics IS discussed in horse behavior (and if it's not, that IS where it should be), so we may want to just add a cross link to that article. I am interested in whether there is something in their unique to the NF ponies, and to that end I agree with Pesky that it would be good to know what might be unique to this breed and for that reason worth adding? --MTBW
I've never seen anything in terms of herd behaviour which is unique to New Forest ponies, and I don;t recall anything ever having been said by anyone else, anywhere, which would suggest such a thing. I've been in close contact with the Forest-run herd for quite a while now, and I have quite a long personal history of expertise in horse behaviour in general. The Forest-run ponies do exactly what other wild-running equines do, in all circumstances. Of course, they're easier to study than many other equines iun similar situations – researchers can study thousands of animals, none of which are too far from a decent road (and car park!), and all of which are in a relatively small geographical area! - Pesky
  • this book has 5 pages on the breed, is there nothing that could be added from here?
  • Not really, we do use this reference in some of our breed articles, it is superior to the Hendricks book, but in this case it is mostly a rehash of the same material available from the breed societies. If you think we need this to support other sources, we sure could add some stuff, but please offer suggestions as to where. However, this is a general work; I think Pesky's more specific sources may be superior. Montanabw 17:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • There seem to be several interesting tidbits from this source that are not in the article:
  • "Owners find that feeding and stall cleaning finishes a lot quicker because the ponies are not usually messy in their stalls."
  • Mere Puffery, I suspect. If I were a reviewer with no involvement with this article, I'd slap that out in two seconds. Speaking as someone who has cleaned a LOT of stalls, horses of any breed include both the "neat freaks" and the "stall slobs." (big grin) --MTBW
  • "... no outside blood has been permitted since the mid 1930s."
... that's already in there. - Pesky
  • The second paragraph of the "Uses" section could be expanded with details from p. 506 (ponies are shown in Devon; present at the ISR/Oldenburg inspections; approved and registered at the American Warmblood Society)
  • One could go on forever with examples of New Forest ponies in competitions; they compete all over the world, in all disciplines, and I feel that including specific examples (other than such notable events as winning a National Final) might lead readers to believe that New Forest ponies' competition performance is actually less widespread than it is. Pretty much every major horse show in the UK has classes for New Forest ponies, and every show with a Mountain and Moorland showing section does so. - Pesky
  • Yes, it's a dilemma in all the breed articles, how much do we promote the competitiveness of a given breed against others (just had to face an edit dispute not long ago with someone who wanted to claim the Percheron was good at barrel racing oh gawd...). And, I have to note, getting approved by the American Warmblood society is pretty much "send us $50 and we'll send you a pretty certificate," so no importance to that. --MTBW
  • There doesn't seem to be any information about the history of the breed in the US, starting with the importation of 22 purebreds in the 1950s (see most of p. 506)
  • Same issue. Once we go down that road, we first get a "lacks worldwide focus" tag and claims an article is too US-Centric (I say this as an American, by the way) so then we have to add bits on Australia, on South Africa, on Germany and wherever else in East Nowhere someone imported a critter or two. Then we get some troll claiming that we left out South Asia or Siberia, or South America - even if there are no imports there at all. I don't have an answer here, but I'll defer to Pesky if we should add more. I hesitate to do so. --MTBW
  • I'm in total agreement with MTBW here; once we start mentioning the history of the breed in other countries, we'll hit the challenges MTBW mentions. The links to the breed societies for the other countries will give readers any information they want about the history of the breed in that area. - Pesky
  • this source claims that the Burley and District NF Pony Breeding and Cattle Society was started in 1906, not 1905
  • That's Hendricks, we only use that source for horse breed articles when there's not much else, as it is not a particularly good reference book, riddled with overgeneralizations and some errors. Mostly takes material from the breed societies at face value with little analysis. --Montanabw
Different sources give different dates both for the founding of the Society and for the merger of the two societies; I think I went with the majority.
Ok, I wont even mention that JSTOR 4004970 says the New Forest Pony Breeding and Cattle Society was formed in 1938, not 1937 :) Sasata (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • this source mentions that over a hundred ponies are killed in traffic fatalities every year.
  • I question this stat; if true, with fewer than 5000 animals on the New Forest, the breed would be practically extinct by now. And the breeders would be freaking out. Pesky? Can you cross-check? --Montanabw
  • the NPA site mentions animal fatalities; the figures include cattle, donkeys and pigs, as well as the ponies. Since the use of reflective collars began, the number has reduced quite a bit, but there are still far too many fatalities (stupid, thoughtless drivers; almost never tourists, almost always local commuters, usually in the dusk hours – they drive over the Forest every day and get blasé about it). I can include something on this. Probably not today, as it's my mother's funeral today. - Pesky.
  • I've added a bit in about traffic fatalities; and yes, we do get up in arms about it! It doesn't seem to matter how many warning signs are put up, there are always idiot drivers who either ignore the speed limit altogether, or just drive unsafely for the conditions, or who seem to think that 40 mph is a target, rather than a limit. The numbers killed in traffic accidents don't exceed the numbers born, of course; and with the numbers of New Forest ponies bred elsewhere, of course, traffic fatalities on the open Forest itself aren't going to lead to extinction of the breed. - Pesky
  • this source says that the NP is "one of the largest pony breeds", which does not quite agree with the article.
The NF pony is known as a larger breed pony as their heights go right up to 14.2hh (and beyond, though they're not eligible to be registered if they've gone "over-height". In the UK, we have the large pony breeds and the small pony breeds, and the NF is counted as a large breed. Small breeds are things like the Welsh Section A and B, the Shetland, etc.
And nothing particularly remarkable about a pony breed that touches the edge of 14.2, many do. Only the UK pony breeds have so much variety they make a significant deal about classifying them. --Montanabw
  • I've seen several sources that suggest that the pony has an iconic status, which does not seem to be clearly conveyed in the article, e.g. see this for one example
It's iconic of the New Forest itself; something that all Britishers associate with the Forest (it's the only area in the UK where thousands of ponies graze out on common land.
Yes, but is this expressed in the article? Sasata (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I've added a bit in there about that. - Pesky
  • this source says all colors except cremello are allowed
Yup, the source falls into one of the common UK traps of calling all double-cream-dilute animals "cremello", but cremello is actually double-cream dilution on a chestnut base coat, and no double-cream dilutions are allowed in New Forest ponies. So, no perlinos (double-dilute on a bay or brown base) or smoky creams (double-dilute on a black base), either. On the whole, the Brits are not good at coat colour genetics (most breed societies are still calling buckskin ponies "dun", for example.)
Agree with Pesky that there has been a lot of work done in coat color genetics that laypeople and breed registries haven't caught up with. There at least five ways to genetically get a horse that looks like a blue-eyed cream, which are all lumped together by laypeople as "cremello" (even in the USA). And it is just a summary paraphrase of the breed standard anyway. They got their material directly from one of the registries. --Montanabw

I'll get onto most of that stuff, but would appreciate more thoughts on my responses here. Pesky (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked a few things, my eyes are a little fresher. Pesky can trout me if I killed too many hyphens. Montanabw 17:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Montana and Dana and all, many thanks for your help with all this! Do feel free to continue with the good work during my absence ;P I couldn't really care less about the hyphens, you may kill as many as seems appropriate. Re the various other sources around, many of them are either inaccurate or out of date; I've tried to stick with the best / most accurate ones. Can anyone other than me try to deal with the fixes needed in the citations? I doubt if I could get my head properly around them right at the moment. Pesky (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I think Dana got the citations, I did some language tweaks and wikilinking. REVIEWERS: What do we still need to address? Montanabw 19:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
As I'm finding this kilometric page increasingly difficult to navigate for reply/feedback purposes, I propose putting BRD type edits into the article to facilitate the process. Obviously, feel free to revert and discuss. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I've been looking through the numbers in the penultimate para of the History section. It is unclear to me to what extent variations in the total numbers of depastured stock can be considered informative for variations within the pony subset. For example, the source (Tubbs 1965) says "Mounting market prices after 1917 are reflected in a corresponding rise in stock numbers-mainly cattle-to a peak of 4,550 in 1920." On a separate matter, I also think it should be made clear that the pony numbers cited in this paragraph refer, presumably, to all ponies depastured on the New Forest (not just purebreds). —MistyMorn (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
*Well Pesky'll love me for that! Some minor rewording tweaks should help I guess. Back tomorrow, I hope. —MistyMorn (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Misty, I love you anyway, you know that! (Pesky's granny-love distributed to all and sundry on regular basis, lol!) I'll have to re-tweak the bit about the introduction of other native breeds, though, as it wasn't done to increase genetic diversity (which most people knew little about in the early 1900's), but to increase hardiness and bring the ponies back to a more "native" type, using the other native Mountain and Moorland ponies, to get away from the less-hardy Araby/TB-ish input, which (although it had made the ponies more "refined" and appealing to the Victorian idea of what a "pretty pony" should be) had adversely affected their ability to thrive on the open Forest and also reduced their weight-carrying abilities, etc. Dainty, delicate-looking little animals may be all very cute for the show ring or the park, but not so good for living "wild" on rough, wild (wet, marshy, poor-pasture) land, with no extra feeding and so on. I'll have another look through everything after the weekend. Pesky (talk) 09:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Just adding: prior to the introduction of the stud book, the New Forest ponies (by which I mean commoners' ponies running out on the Forest) weren't a recognised breed, they were just the ponies of the area, which had degenerated in "type" for several reasons. One was that all the better ponies tended to be sold on (as they attracted higher prices), leaving the poorer-quality stock being the only ones breeding on the Forest. The hardiness and quality of the Forest-run stock was improved by the introduction of good animals from other British native Mountain and Moorland breeds. This continued until 1930, when the stud book became "closed" to outside blood, and the official New Forest pony breed was properly established. So ... prior to the "invention" of the breed, nothing on the Forest was an "official New Forest pony", as such; they were all just ponies running the Forest. Is this clear? What this basically means is that the pony numbers from before 1930 applies to all Forest-run ponies, as the official breed hadn't at that point become established. If you look in a lot of pedigrees, many of them have ancestors described simply as "Forest horse" or "Forest mare", indicating that both parents were Forest-run ponies (often without names of their own). It's only since the breed was officially named and established, with its own stud book, that one can distinguish between purebred NF, part-bred NF, and "other-breeding" ponies. For instance, this one ("The Ghost Forest mare") only has a known pedigree on the sire side, the dam side were just ponies running out on the Forest. ( Pesky (talk) 09:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Which is, incidentally, common in many breeds, the notion of a purebred animal with a stud book and all is basically about 300 years old, tops, (though some written pedigrees go back to the 13th century) and most efforts at establishing closed stud books are at best 150 years old, other than for the Thoroughbred. Montanabw 21:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
"long been accepted as a myth" - interesting segment - to my eyes, I don't necessarily see myths as untrue, so if the gist of the message is supposed to be that the spanish armada ancestry is not thought true I'd reword - also, quotes can be a bit jarring so I'd rewrite as....actually damn if I can think of how to reword it, "long held to have no credence"?...hmmm.
  • I think we'd just best keep the quote, can't find a backup source that has, say, the peer-reviewed study proving the negative. LOL! --MTBW
I still reckon it's far from impossible, given the distances (or rather the lack of them) involved! ;P I'm hoping that it will turn out to be one of the (several, so far) things that I'm ultimately proved correct on ... Pesky (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Meh, no problem, not a dealbreaker anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs)
Probably the most notable stallion in the early history... -aaargh, I'd lose the "probably" - "Arguably" is a better adjective but can we leave it out altogether? Or even just "A notable stallion....". Incidentally, the article doesn't indicate why he's a notable horse. So a word or two to that effect would benefit here.
d'oh! missed the sire bit - no problems. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Support Otherwise looking on-target prose- and comprehensiveness-wise. nice article Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked the tweaks a little, hope no problems. Montanabw 20:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
The article does mention that Marske was the sire of Eclipse, who (obviously ;P) has his own article, which describes him thus: "Eclipse (1 April 1764 – 26 February 1789) was an outstanding, undefeated 18th-century British Thoroughbred racehorse who was later a phenomenal success as a sire." Do we actually need to go into any more detail on Marske, as both he and Eclipse are wikilinked? I'd be happy to ditch the "probably" qualifier (and will do so). Feel free to tweak. Pesky (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Not knowing a lot about Marske, the sire of Eclipse is needed to make me want to click on the link, otherwise, I'd say "who cares?" (grin) Montanabw 20:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from PumpkinSky....

Refs 34, 44, 49 do not use the same date retrieved format as the other refs, please make them consistent.
will keep reviewing. PumpkinSky talk 13:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Leaning support with queries and nitpicks. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

  • In parenthetical conversions, why are you spelling out "inches" but abbreviating "cm"?
  • ... that's what the hands template does! To change that, we'll need a change in the template. - Pesky
  • "within 50 miles (80 km) from" - would expect "within...of" or "less than...from"
  • Done. - Pesky
  • New Forest Pony or pony? Be consistent
  • Done. - Pesky
  • "Excellent temperament makes it an ideal children's pony" seems a bit POV, particularly as it isn't attributed
  • Tweaked. - Pesky
  • "competition type A...and competition height B"
  • Done. - Pesky
  • Any idea how much 20 guineas was at the time, relatively speaking? Probably wouldn't try using inflation, but comparative measurement might work if you can find sourcing for it
  • A guinea is £1.05 (guinea is wikilinked for clarity - I don't know if there's any comparative measurement). - Pesky
  • "New Forest Pony Breeding and Cattle Society" or "New Forest Pony Breeding & Cattle Society"?
  • Done. - Pesky
  • "sound good sense"?
  • tweaked to "sound sense". - Pesky
  • What is the "drift season"?
  • The season during which the drifts are carried out; though article says this is done in the autum I;ve tweaked this anyway to read "autumn drifts". - Pesky
  • "in 2010, the NFPEC won...in 2010"
  • Done. - Pesky
  • Why are we wikilinking and explaining commoners in the second para of "Ponies on the New Forest" when we've used the term with neither as recently as the preceding para?
  • Moved to above para. - Pesky
  • "an animal can be "ordered off" the Forest at any time during the year" - why might this be done?
  • Most commonly for being in poor condition; they can also be ordered off if the owner loses their common rights, or if they become vicious. - Pesky (No, the pony ... not the owner! ;P)
  • Ranges should use endashes, and be consistent in whether they're shortened or not.
  • Not sure where you mean - please can you clarify? - Pesky
  • fn 6 and 13 now the same as each other - Pesky

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Hi all, are any reviewers vouching for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing re. sourcing? If not we'll need a spotcheck... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Spotchecking:
    • CorenBot negative - OK.
    • Spotcheck Breed Standard of the New Forest Pony: There are some repeated phrases:The upper height limit ... There is no lower limit ... may be of any coat colour except piebald, skewbald or blue-eyed cream. Palominos and very light chestnuts ... Blue eyes are not permitted. Although technical specifications are being detailed here, passages/structures mirrored from copyright material may require attention per WP:PARAPHRASE.
      • I'm not at all sure how "far away" from the "technical specifications" we can word this without actually misrepresenting the breed standard, which it's very important not to do! The first phrase could be changed to "Animals may not exceed ... in height", and possible "Blue eyes are forbidden" instead of "not permitted", but that's really about as far as it can be taken. (I've done those two.)- Pesky
        • Yes, it does seem a bit silly, but that's sometimes the way of such things... I've attempted a few more variations on the theme. See what you think. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
            • It's sort of like legal pleadings, if you depart too far, you get the whole meaning changed. If there is a concern, we could put a direct quote into quotation marks, but that looks kind of geeky. The other FAs on English breeds, the Cleveland Bay and Suffolk Punch (FYI neither I nor Pesky were heavily involved on these two) had no concerns citing breed standards in this area. A longer article, also FA is Appaloosa, similar review of breed standard. Montanabw 21:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Fear 2006 is not readily accessible to me for spotchecks - Query: Is it OK?
      • It should be OK; I was mainly hunting through it to find verification for things I already knew and had pretty much written-up beforehand! (You should buy the book anyways, it's gorgeous. Incredible photographs, and just the sort of thing you want to leave lying on a coffee table for your guests to oooh and aaaah over ;P )- Pesky
    • Other spotchecks all seem OK. —MistyMorn (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2012 (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 Ian Rose 22:03, 22 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): Mark Arsten, MathewTownsend & Livit⇑/What?

William S. Sadler was an author and psychiatrist who was one of the best known skeptics in the U.S. in the 1920s, until he came to believe that aliens were communicating with him through one of his patients. The result was a 2,000 page book that launched a new religious movement featuring otherworldly theology. Although Sadler never received a great deal of publicity, enough has been published about him in the past decade to piece together a decent article. This article has passed GA and been peer reviewed, and I think it now meets the FA criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Crisco 1492 comments
(Disclosure: I participated in the article's first PR)
"While attending medical school, Sadler worked as a chemistry tutor and became an elder in the Adventist church. In San Francisco, he served as the "superintendent of young people's work" for the church's California conference and the president of the San Francisco Medical Missionary and Benevolent Society." - I don't think the second location conjunction is necessary (in San Francisco)
  • Image review:
Images are fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
SupportComments
  • Lead
    • "phenomena" – is the plural form wanted here? It seems as though there is only one phenomenon being observed.
  • Early life and education
    • "Samuel, a music teacher, did not enroll his son in public schools" – this sentence seems to couple two unrelated points.
    • "bellhop" – not a familiar term in these parts; perhaps a blue link?
    • "after John Harvey Kellogg was excommunicated in 1907 after a conflict" – too many "afters"
  • Career
    • "he authored magazine articles" – couldn't he just write them? (and again at later mentions of "authored")
    • "one of the best paid Chautauqua speakers" – I think best-paid needs a hyphen here as it's being used attributively
  • Urantia revelation
    • "he did not write, nor extensively edit" – I'd write "or" not "nor" here, but this may be a matter of UK-v-US usage.

All minor points, and I'll be adding my support for FA when they're addressed. – Tim riley (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

    • All right, I think I have taken care of your points, good observations. I didn't know that bellhop was an Americanism, interesting. Also, I can't seem to recall why I wrote "authored" so many times, odd. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Excellent article. Well proportioned, fully referenced, very readable prose, admirably illustrated. Clearly FA class. Tim riley (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Support
  • The opening sentence is a bit ambiguous who "he" refers to (either Sadler or the sleeping man). Did the sleeping man think that he was communicating with aliens? Or only Sadler?
  • "These revelations were published in The Urantia Book, spawning the spiritual and philosophical Urantia movement." - did the revelations or the Book spawn the movement? If the book, you might want to change "spawning" to "which spawned", since that would clarify better.
  • "He baptized William into the denomination in 1888; William became devoutly religious" - any way to make this simpler to avoid using "William" twice in the same sentence?
  • "In 1889, Sadler moved to Battle Creek, Michigan" - is this William or his family in general? He's only 14 there, so it's unclear, considering the end of the previous paragraph is about William's father.
  • "and specifically promoted prayer, arguing that prayer " - cut down on redundancy?
  • "In addition to forty-two books" - per WP:MOSNUM that should be "42 books".
  • I notice you have these two sentences in "Career". Any reason? They seem kinda similar.
    • "His students later recalled him as an engaging and humorous public speaker"
    • "Audiences found Sadler to be an engaging and witty speaker"
  • This may be a dumb question, but I take it that the man who Sadler was interviewing about coming from another planet... that his name was never revealed? I saw - "He also feared that the patient would face criticism if his identity were known" - but has it ever been published?
  • In "Urantia revelation" section, you should emphasize more that Salder isn't confirmed to be the author of the Urantia Book .Right now, it seems like Salder was the one who wrote it.

Those are the main things after a first read. Good work overall! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- I feel the prose could do with another run-through by someone; per my copyedits, the lead contained some niggling things and although the first section of the main body was an improvement, it still gave me some cause for concern... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments from Noleander

  • Clarify 1st 2 sentences: "William Samuel Sadler (June 24, 1875 – April 26, 1969) was an American psychiatrist and author who compiled the conversations he had with a sleeping man through whom he believed extraterrestrials were speaking. The man's statements wer..." - the 1st sentence has 3 persons in it, a bit confusing. Also the "he believed" is ambiguous: is it referring to Sadler or the sleeping man? How about something like: "William Samuel Sadler (June 24, 1875 – April 26, 1969) was an American psychiatrist and author who published the Urantia book. The book was a compilation of conversations Sadler had with a sleeping man through whom Sadler believed extraterrestrials were speaking."
  • Grammar ambiguous: "There he met the physician and health food promoter John Harvey Kellogg, co-inventor of corn flakes breakfast cereal who became his mentor, and married Kellogg's niece, .." - It sounds like JH Kellogg married his own niece.
  • Double date: " - " ...his father-in-law in 1907. Also in 1907,.." - that doesnt read real smoothly. Reword such as "Sadler and his wife became speakers in 1907 ..."
  • Ambiguity: "Back in the United States, he attempted to treat a patient with an unusual sleep condition, starting in 1911. .." - What started in 1911: the sleep condition or the treatment?
  • Tough word: "Notwithstanding his lack of formal education, Sadler read many books about history ..." - Many readers wont know what "Notwithstanding" means. Reword as "In spite of ..." or "Despite ..." or best is just eliminate entirely: "Sadler read many books about history ..."
  • Clarify: " that sought to enforce the Comstock laws. ..." - add a word or to so readers dont have to click on the link, e.g. " that sought to enforce the Comstock anti-obscenity laws. .."
  • Clarify: " the couple traveled to Europe to study psychiatry ..." - Did the wife also study Ps?
  • Ambiguous : "The Sadlers later joined other former Adventists..." - Who is the "other" referring to: was Sadler a former? or was Kellog a former? or both?
  • Wrong word: " Sadler rejected some Adventist teachings, such as the status of Ellen G. White as a prophetess and the importance of Saturday as Sabbath, although he retained a positive view of White ..." - The "although" is not correct, since it implies the following text should contradict the prior text, but it does not. Recommend just replace "although" with a period.
  • Wealth? - "Sadler and his wife moved into an Art Nouveau-style house—the first steel-frame residence in Chicago—on Diversey Parkway in 1912...." - It sounds like they were rich, if they were, it should be mentioned.
    • I don't recall reading about them being particularly rich, although presumably Lena was an heir to the Kellogg fortune. Interesting, I hadn't thought much about that. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Details: "historian Jonathan Spiro deems Sadler's The Elements of Pep a "quintessential book of the 1920s". - Sounds like a cool book :-) I'd like to see a few words explaining its essence.
  • Explain: "In 1907, Sadler began giving Chautauqua adult-education lectures, .." - explain what a Ch lecture is ... clearly it is not just a town/location; dont make the reader click on the link.
  • Explain: "Sadler presumed that the documents were the product of automatic handwriting, but changed his mind after further analysis" - First, add a couple of words to define "automatic handwriting" so reader doesnt have to click on the link; second: what did he change his mind to? The paragraph ends there .. his new view should be in the next sentence.
    • Added a few words about AH, hope that works. He didn't really settle on an opinion after that, he approached it as an open question for several more years. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Unneeded words: "which could accommodate up to fifty guests." - just say "which could accommodate fifty guests."
  • Who? "The group often held a forum to discuss the patient and devise questions for him." - What patient?
  • What? "In 1935, Sadler concluded that the papers were not a hoax," - I presume this is refering to the papers mentioned 1 or 2 paragraphs above, but it should be restated that they are the papers obtained from the sleeping-speakers house.
  • Clarify: " believes that Sadler sought to replace White with Wilfred Kellogg." - Not quite sure what "replace" means in this context.
  • Ambiguous: "One member wrote that Sadler's personality changed after her death, and objected to his leadership." - Did the wife object to the leadership? If the member objected ... why did he object?
  • Online versions of his works: In the Selected works section: if any of the books are online, it would be better if the book titles linked to ext links where the books are online (even if it is just Google Books preview mode).
  • Book title caps: Most books in the Ref section have leading caps; but "Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery" is all caps. No big deal, but for FAC maybe they should all be consistent. I'm not sure if there is a WP MOS guideline on this or not.
  • Pics: it would be nice to have a pic of the U book cover. I know that fair use rules are pretty strict, and generally limit book covers to the one article about the book; but I think an exception is made for a second article if the article analyzes the book in some significant way. See WP:NFCI which says: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." Since this article talks about the book in detail, I believe that fair use is supported. NOTE: if you use it, you must add an entire Fair Use justification into File:The Urantia Book Cover--Urantia Foundation, Publisher.jpg ... cannot just piggy back on the existing justification for The Urantia Book article.
  • NPOV: Overall, the tone appears very neutral, not promoting Urantia/Sadler, nor skeptically deriding him.
  • Citations: Generally one per sentence, hence in compliance with WP:V. No problem there.
  • Images: All images seem to meet WP free standards.
  • Overall, it looks very close to FA status. Leaning to Support. If you implement the above suggestions, let me know and I'll make another pass through the article.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I went through the article again, and could not find any prose issues. Images are checked. I have not done a source spot check. Changed to "Support". --Noleander (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks for all the helpful comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2012 (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 Ian Rose 23:34, 21 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 18:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Generally considered the watershed moment in The X-Files, when the series moved from being The Invaders in the 90s to develop its own unique identity, "Squeeze" is probably the best way to introduce yourself to the show—and the best start to WP:TXF's long term goal of bringing you many more articles from the project's scope. "Squeeze" has undergone a Good Article review in July/August last year, a Peer Review in September, and a GOCE copy-edit just this month. I'm satisfied that comprehensiveness has been demonstrated as a range of production, thematic and reception sources have all been collated; further reviews for the episode do exist but are essentially redundant to those already used and would simply add to the largely-positive reception which has, in the PR, been seen as something to perhaps avoid. If anyone performing spot-checks on sources would like copies of the print sources used I'll be happy to email over some scans. Image use is admittedly spartan but I've simply not seen any free files which would seem relevant (File:Doug Hutchison.jpg does exist but frankly at that size it's next to impossible to fit any real caption under it). Thanks in advance to anyone giving this one a looking over. GRAPPLE X 18:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • Any reason why the en dash is used in one quote box description and em dash in the other?
  • Independent ref was published in 1994, not 1993
  • Published date for the Vancouver Sun article was July 25, 2008, not September 12, 2009.
  • Why is Fox Broadcasting Company stylized as 'FOX' in Ref 23, yet 'Fox' in Ref 14? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for spotting those, I've sorted them out now. GRAPPLE X 23:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • In Ref 14, I assume it should be 1993–94 going by WP:YEAR? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    Do you mean ref 19? It's the one with the year range present, though I could add years to ref 14 and the other video cites, based on the DVD's release if you think that would be of benefit. I've fixed the range in ref 19 to read 1993–94 instead of 1993–1994 though. GRAPPLE X 14:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Support My mistake, was Ref 19 indeed. Nice work and would serve as a great introduction to readers who have not seen the series. -- Lemonade51 (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Comments: Supported below Ok, started a read through. Hopefully I don't take too long.
  • "the overarching mythology, or fictional history, of the series." Might want to shorten this link a bit.
  • "However, "Squeeze" earned a Nielsen household rating of 7.2, was watched by 6.8 million households in its initial broadcast; and has received positive reviews from critics, mostly focusing on Hutchison's guest performance and the resonance of his character." I'd suggest breaking this sentence in two. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    For the first point, I've just shortened that to "mythology" as that's the term used most often by sources (primary and secondary). Previous reviews of other articles had suggested to clarify that term though, so if you think something else would be better then I'm open to suggestion. For the second, I've broken the sentence at the semi colon. GRAPPLE X 02:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, I tweaked it a little, hope this works.
  • "The investigation into Usher's murder—the latest of three—is assigned" The latest of three investigations? Or murders?
  • "At the crime scene, Mulder finds an elongated fingerprint on the air vent, which he also finds are similar to some documented in the X-Files." Is there a good way to avoid the repetition of "finds" here?
  • "Briggs shows them some old photographs of Tooms—showing Tooms has not aged—and gives" ditto for "shows... showing"
  • "takes Scully's necklace from around her neck" Is there a good way to avoid the "necklace from around her neck" repetition here here? Mark Arsten (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    Diff of how I've addressed these, let me know if you think these need further tweaking. GRAPPLE X 15:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "Although actor Doug Hutchison was 33 years old when he auditioned for the part of Tooms, the producers initially considered him too young for the role;" I'm not sure "Although" works well here.
    Have removed "although" and instead used a "however" between "Tooms" and "the producers". GRAPPLE X 22:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "fter tasting foie gras during a trip to France, Carter came up with the idea to have the villain consume human livers. The idea to have Tooms use a nest for hibernation came from Morgan and Wong, who liked the hibernation idea, since if the agents were not able to catch Tooms, he could return after weeks of hibernation." Maybe try for a little more variation, "came" and "the idea" are used in each sentence.
    Have changed the first sentence to "After tasting foie gras during a trip to France, Carter suggested that the villain should consume human livers". GRAPPLE X 22:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "David Duchovny was asked to play his role as being more emotionally involved in the case, although Duchovny decided that his character should seem more detached." Repetition of "Duchovny" here. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    Changed the second instance to "the actor". GRAPPLE X 22:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The only issue that I can see in "Filming" is that the sentence in the second paragraph follow a similar structure, using ", and" to break the sentence in two. It's a minor issue, but maybe try for some variation.
  • Might want to break "Post-production" into two paragraphs.
  • "Themes" looks good, I trimmed a little out though--I think people realize when and where the September 11 attacks were. No problem if you want to reinsert though. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    I've made a few changes based on your comments, let me know if you think they work. GRAPPLE X 22:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ok, just a couple small comments on the last section:
  • I'm not sure you need the ellipsis at the end of the quote here: ""remains one of the scariest things ever seen on television ... "" ditto for a couple quotes later on.
  • " Christine Seghers listed Hutchison as the fourth-best guest star of the series in a top ten countdown" Should "top ten countdown" be hyphenated?
  • "and called it "simply brilliant!"." Is the double punctuation needed here? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
    Missed these earlier. Have removed the ellipses; they were added in a copyedit and I wasn't sure whether to keep them or not. Have also removed the exclamation mark after "brilliant" as I prefer to keep terminal punctuation after a quote. As for hyphenation, would you prefer "top-ten countdown" or how would you put it? GRAPPLE X 01:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, I probably would put "top-ten countdown", hope that's right.
    I've hyphenated "top ten" as "top-ten". GRAPPLE X 02:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support pending spotchecks etc. I think this is the first time I've reviewed an FAC about a tv show episode, though I've read quite a few of them. This looks to me like an example of our best work for television coverage. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Image review
Comments from Crisco 1492
Comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

Comments –

  • Plot: "At the crime scene, Mulder notices an elongated fingerprint on the air vent, which he also finds are similar to some documented in the X-Files." Not sure where "are" is coming from, since the fingerprint is a singular items.
  • Pre-production: Is it "Monster-of-the-Week" or "monster-of-the-week"? This section and the lead differ in the capitalization.
  • In the first side quote, Duchovny's name is misspelled as "Duchonvy".
  • Background and production: "Glen Morgan was very pleased with Hutchison's performance in this episode, calling him their 'ace in the hole'...". Who's "their"? The producers?
  • There's an issue with the formatting of a reference to Shearman and Pearson in the third paragraph of this section.
  • Missing word, "of", in "listed Tooms as one his favorite monsters".
  • I think the sentence starting with "Writing for Den of Geek" is a run-on in terms of its length; it goes on and on and on. I'd split the Matt Haigh quote into its own sentence.
  • Reference 7 is to a Wordpress page, which is not usually considered a reliable source. I'd have concerns about whether the site has the right to republish this magazine article. Perhaps an offline reference to the publication would avoid the issue of using a questionable website. Also, the magazine's title should be italicized. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    Thanks for having a look at this. Have addressed these points; I had kept the link to a copy of the magazine article for the purposes of verification but have removed it since you mention the issue of copyright, which hadn't occurred to me. GRAPPLE X 01:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Comments from Ruby2010
  • A little context on the episode's ratings might be helpful due to the way you phrase this: "However, "Squeeze" earned a Nielsen household rating of 7.2 and was watched by 6.8 million households in its initial broadcast". It implies that regardless of difficulties, the episode was watched by a lot of viewers. I think readers might like to know how it compared with other television shows for that week (to help gauge what a large audience looks like).
  • Eugene Victor Tooms has red link in plot section
  • "The idea to have Tooms use a nest for hibernation came from Morgan and Wong, who liked the hibernation idea, since if the agents were not able to catch Tooms, he could return after weeks of hibernation" - your repeated use of "hibernation" looks a little sloppy
  • "Actor Doug Hutchison was 33 years old when he auditioned for the part of Tooms, however the producers initially considered him too young for the role" - however -> but
  • No need to link United Kingdom (common word)
  • Make sure to italicize any mentions of The X-Files in the reception section
  • The 3rd paragraph of the reception section can probably be turned into two.

I'll return to give it another look-over. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 05:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I was unable to find any context for viewing figures beyond the raw numbers so I tweaked that section to place an emphasis on its critical reception rather than its viewership. I've corrected everything else mentioned; including italicising a mention of "The X-Files" not italicised in the source, if that kind of correction is too much I can reverse it. GRAPPLE X 13:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • The third para of lead could use some links: post-production, Nielsen ratings.
  • The lead doesn't capture at all the importance of this episode, something you've managed to do quite succinctly in the first sentence of this FAC. :) Maybe you should move the "monster of the week" sentence to the third para, and add a quote from somebody (Carter?) about the significance of this.
  • Add free pics to the article to break up the text?
  • "Tooms" seems to be excessively used in the last two paragraphs of the Plot. Cut down to increase readability?—indopug (talk) 15:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    Have wikilinked post-production, and replaced the ratings information in the lead with some quotes about the episode's legacy to help emphasise that. I managed to copy-edit a few Toomses out of the plot section too; and created User:Grapple X/Squeeze pics to test out a few possible pictures. I could also feasibly add any of the free images from Jack the Ripper based on Morgan and Wong's admission that he was an inspiration for the episode; the "From Hell" letter seems most appropriate as it was sent along with a human kidney. Let me know what you think works. GRAPPLE X 21:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments Maybe you could add a picture of Foie gras to break up the text, since free images of other aspects of the page aren't available.--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment In the second paragraph of the lead, maybe it would be worth it to explain that Mulder is a believer and Scully is a skeptic intended to debunk his work, especially since that plays a role in the episode. Also, I don't see that the themes section is represented in the lead. Glimmer721 23:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Have added this to the lead; how does that look? GRAPPLE X 23:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Looks fine. Something from this could probably be added to the themes section (providing it is considered reliable; I think it is, as it is a division of Tor Books) as there is some discussion about Scully having to choose sides, teamwork, etc. Also some reception on Tooms there. Glimmer721 23:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
      Have incorporated that as best I could here; though it serves mostly as a recap of the events of the episode without much depth of commentary so I could only really squeeze a few lines out of it. GRAPPLE X 00:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Support - All the issues have been cleaned up nicely and the free pics are great.--Gen. Quon (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Support - ditto. There is really nothing more to add. Would make a good TFA candidate for its 20th anniversary.Glimmer721 16:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Hi Grapple, I'm guessing you haven't had a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing at FAC yet -- if that's the case we'd better organise one here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Not had a thorough spotcheck before but Graham Colm performed a Copyscape search for Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Manhunter (film)/archive3. If anyone wishing to perform a spotcheck on some of those print sources used I should be able to provide scans but it might not be very prompt as I'm currently working from limited computer access. GRAPPLE X 21:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd be willing to help with this as I have all of the books, sans the The X-Files Declassified.--Gen. Quon (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Further comments

I did a copy-edit of the post-Plot sections of the article, mainly to prune out extraneous and redundant wording. I found some more issues:

  • Lead
  • Direct quotes always need to attributed to sources.
  • "the series' quest for political, rather than epistemological, truths": too vague without elaboration. Replace with the "balancing act of truth vs convictions" thing (from Themes)?
    Removed one quote, attributed the other; have rephrased the final sentence to use the focus you suggest. GRAPPLE X 15:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Plot
  • Don't have time now to copy-edit this, but I think it can be trimmed a little by removing some excessive detail and redundant wording.
  • "takes the necklace Scully is wearing" - how, after a confrontation or sneakily without Scully noticing?
    I've clarified this latter point by adding "stealthily" to the sentence to explain that it's done without her noticing; I'll try to trim the section down some more soon. GRAPPLE X 12:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    Have trimmed the plot down some more but I'm not sure what else to take out from here. GRAPPLE X 23:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Production
  • Maybe succinctly describe foie gras in the caption? Any idea why it inspired Carter? Just the appearance or anything more?
    Have added a brief description to the caption ("the liver of a fattened goose"), but as for reasoning I believe it's just a case of eating liver and then imagining it was human liver instead. GRAPPLE X 12:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I think two big blue quote-boxes in quick succession is overkill. Remove the Duchovny one, and add the relevant bit to pad the Pre-production sentence about playing his role detached?
    Have added it to "Filming" as it made sense to follow it on from the other information about Longstreet and the disagreements others had with his approach. GRAPPLE X 12:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Who is "Beck"?
    Could have sworn this was in there at some point before, but I added it in now; he's Mat Beck, visual effects supervisor for the series. GRAPPLE X 12:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Themes: I think this needs the most work. There are too many quotes. They disrupt the flow and often aren't easy to understand. Also the sentences appear very long-winded and should be broken up.
  • "Air Force" quote is completely unclear to me.
  • The last sentence is also extremely confusing, and that it features three quotes doesn't help.
  • Break into two paragraphs?
    Clarified things, rewrote things to convey the meaning of the quoted material rather than simply quoting it, and split into two paragraphs. GRAPPLE X 15:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Reception
  • Could possibly lose a paragraph-worth of info as so much is repetitive. Tooms was scary, creep and skin-crawling; the episode was first stand-alone one. This is repeated too many times IMO.
  • For the above, consider cutting out less-known publications, like The Star, which already features in the lead.
  • The Neil Gaiman photographs puts undo emphasis on the fact that it was just "one of his favorite monsters". I know I had asked for more pictures; but aren't there more suitable free ones—of Mulder, Scully, Tooms or any of the producers or creators?
    There's a terribly small picture of Hutchison that would be difficult to use well; aside from that I'll see what could be relevantly slotted in from amongst the pictures available of Anderson and Duchovny perhaps. GRAPPLE X 12:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
    Killed two birds with one stone and cut this section down by removing the Den of Geek material whose notability had been questioned. I've replaced the Gaiman picture with a multiple image of Hutchison and Anthony Hopkins, alluding to Hutchison's inspiration while mentioning his reception; the new pictures don't look as good but are much more relevant to the article I guess. GRAPPLE X 22:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree with anything I've suggested or edited. I will be watching "Squeeze" over the next few days and will pipe in again.—indopug (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I've addressed everything you've raised here, though you might want to look at the plot section again in case your uninvested eyes see something as extraneous that I haven't. GRAPPLE X 23:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Final comments

I finally saw the episode, and think that the article is pretty much good to go. Just have a few stylistic/preferential suggestions:

  • I meant that, even in the lead, quoted material needs to have citations. Also, on second thought, it appears a bit weird that you quote a Malaysian source right away in the lead.
    Added a citation; the quote was used because it seemed the best context-free summation of the episode's reception, didn't matter to me what its origin was. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Infobox: can the two "list of episodes" article links be removed to cut down on the infobox's length? The season 1 article can be piped above at Season 1 Episode 3, and IMO the overall episodes list is unnecessary.
    Removed the whole "episode list" parameter and piped a link to season 1 in the earlier "season" field.
  • Plot: a few technicalities,
  • "she and Mulder wait" - doesn't only she wait while Mulder just comes to visit her (because he believes the whole exercise is futile)?
    Scully does go there before Mulder, but I wasn't sure whether it was worth the extra wordage to explain this given how minor it seems. I could add it in if you feel it's important enough though. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Mulder questions him" - wasn't him that did the questioning. You might want to clarify the whole part of the polygraph a bit more I think. How Tooms aced the test, how the others decided Mulder was mental...
    Clarified things there a little more. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Fingerprints - clarify as "by digitally elongating and narrowing Tooms' fingerprints, Mulder finds that they match the prints at the crime scene"?
    Added. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • is there a better term for Scully's chain than necklace, which brings to mind a larger, more-gaudy image?
    Added a link to cross necklace, one of the prominent images there is a more elegant type of necklace similar to Scully's gold cross. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Mulder and Scully stake out the apartment - don't they assign that for somebody to do?
    Changed to mention that they have it put under surveillance to remove the inference that they do it personally themselves. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Scully tries to call Mulder - actually she does reach his voicemail. When he finds the locket and tries to call her, it's been cut... (I suggest to re-watch these bits if possible)
    Reworded the first few sentences here to reflect this. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The new pictures look fine. I recommend you crop the Hopkins pic (similar to the Tooms pic).
    I'll look into cropping this now. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    Have uploaded a cropped version of similar dimension ratio to the Hutchison one, images look a bit better side by side now. GRAPPLE X 14:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Themes: still a couple of confusions.
  • How can colleagues represent models of reality? Do you mean that they believe in an inst. model of reality?
    Clarified that it's their mindset which follows this model; could change to "beliefs" or "attitudes" instead if preferred. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "prior to the September 11 attacks" indicates to me that there will be some comparison with the post-9/11 FBI. But there isn't, so maybe you should consider "during the nineties" or "upto/until/at the time of the show"? Also clarify "previously seen itself"; previous to what?
    "Previously" had been pre-September 11 attacks, but I've removed that for "during the series' tenure" instead. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Last sentence confusion: do the public believe that the FBI is the investigator of the truth, or that the courtroom is?—indopug (talk) 12:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    Tried to clarify this a little but I wasn't sure where the sentence was vague (too close to it, I guess). It's that the public perceive the FBI as investigators of truth, and the courtroom as a place where this truth is revealed as a result. If the sentence as is doesn't reflect that, I could change it if you have a suggested wording to reflect the intention. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments on this one. This is a diff of the changes based on your last set of comments if you want to review them more easily. GRAPPLE X 13:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Support Yay, nitpicks all done. Great work on this, and other Season 1 articles as well. I hope one day soon (while you still have the enthusiasm :P) you tackle the big daddy article itself. :)—indopug (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Support. TBrandley 14:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - I did a factcheck using the books I have. I only made a few minor changes here. I don't have access to X-Files Confidential or The X-Files Declassified, so someone else might need to do that.--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi Quon, a spotcheck by nature doesn't require that all refs be checked, just a sampling, and reviewing your changes does not ring alarms bells regarding the overall quality of the sourcing -- tks for that.
  • I notice we've finished with more images in the article than we started with but all licensing looks acceptable. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 05:39, 21 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it provides a comprehensive overview of the life and work of William Burges, an important Victorian architect. I am grateful to all those who contributed to the article, in particular User:Tim riley for his absolutely excellent Good Article review and User:Dr Blofeld for first suggesting that it might be possible. I look forward to improving the article further by addressing the comments made at FAR. KJP1 (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Support as co-writer. Article is comprehensive and provides an excellent insight into his works and legacy.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I have only looked in any detail at the lead. A quick glance at the rest suggests a very comprehensive study of Burges and impressive use of the available sources. I doubt I will have time to venture much further, but here are a few points for consideration:-

Re infobox
  • I personally dislike infoboxes, but when they are used they should be briefly informative about the main aspects of the subject. This one doesn't even include the information that Burges was an architect.
Agree completely, infobox added no value either. Removed. If there is no further objection..♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Loud cheering! A most excellent decision. Tim riley (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The removal of info boxes is good. Very happy with that! -- Cassianto (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Mmm an TFD for infobox person...♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Re lead
  • Citations: I don't think it is necessary to cite in the lead the statements that Burges was considered one of the greatest of the Victorian art-architects and that his career was illustrious. These points will surely be made, and should be cited, in the article. More seriously, the last lead paragraph includes: Burges's position as "a wide-ranging scholar, an intrepid traveller, a coruscating lecturer, a brilliant decorative designer and an architect of genius" is again appreciated. This exact wording, and citation, is repeated in the Legacy section. You should replace the wording in the lead with a brief paraphrase.
Removed all citations.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Removed quote, as repeated later, and re-worded. KJP1 (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • You should avoid long lists in the lead, e.g. the nine or ten buildings given in the second paragraph. Such lists are tedious to read - give two or three examples at most.
I've trimmed the number listed but I would have to say given that a substantial amount of the article discusses his works that it is reasonable to highlight a few of them in the lead to effectively summarize the article. His most notable by far were Cardiff Castle and Castel Coch but I think it would be wrong not to mention a few of his others.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Many of his designs were never executed or were subsequently eradicated." It's an odd choice of word, "eradicated" (dictionary: "to obliterate, stamp out, to pull or tear up by the roots"). And it's not clear who did the eradicating.
Changed to demolished. Hope this clears it up.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "For most of the century following his death, Victorian architecture was universally despised..." Surely, that's an overstatement? It may not have been fashionable during parts of the 20th century, but universally despised?
Agreed, reworded and toned down. Although it is appears to be true that the majority who would have been likely to be passionate about architecture hated Victorian architecture, especially in the first half of the 20th century, I suppose much like many of us look back on the 80s and its Fashion faux pas!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Other point
  • According to MOS:HEAD, section headings "should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings". Thus the forms "Burges and Bute" and "Study of Burges" are in breach of MOS. The earlier could be "Work with Bute" or some such, the latter "Scholarly studies", perhaps.
Have re-worded the above, and others, but am not sure I've made them any less redundant. Nor really sure I understand the MOS point here. The sub-headings summarise the content of the section and I can't really see how to do that without summarising the content. Would appreciate advice. KJP1 (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Really grateful for your very helpful suggestions and will be pleased to further revise the sub-headings if I can better understand what is wanted. KJP1 (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, having read MOS, which I should have done earlier, I see the point being made. It is the mentioning of the subject of the article, i.e. Burges, which is redundant. Shall now go and change. KJP1 (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Done, now. KJP1 (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I hope these points are helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Yes, this nomination was put back several weeks primarily because I wanted to google book research each of his works and ensure it was as widely read and researched as possible. I wouldn't have felt comfortable with it being at FAC otherwise. Thankfully the most prolific article writer KJP did a wonderful job so only gaps need to be filled in.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Cassianto: This article is an extremely well researched and comprehensive account of its subject. It is a credit to both the nominator KJP1 and Dr.Blofeld. However, I do have some comments:

  • "Among the greatest of the Victorian art-architects..." - I have no doubt he was, although this does sound as if it's a bit of a puffery sentence.
Mmm the thing is he was and this is backed by countless sources. To not mention his status as a Victorian architect I think would be censoring.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Could we not say "Among the countries better known art architects" like this in the lead and then say "greatest" in the body with an inline citation?
I have had a think and I don't have a big problem with this. I'm certainly not insistent on it and it won't sway my inevitable support. -- Cassianto (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I think his death is mentioned too early on. I think the lede would be better in chronological order, with the death being mentioned at the end.
In principle yes but its in the right context as it says about his career being short but illustrious and it makes sense to write it there.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
That makes sense. -- Cassianto (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
* There are date ranges for the list of building's. What are these? Are they how long the building took to build, to design, or both?
Construction I think. Thanks for your comments. KJP will affirm that.
They are indeed dates of construction. We could remove them but I think they're helpful. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I think personally that they are not necessary as you go onto talk about them later in the article and the dates are listed there. They are also wiki-linked so those wishing to find out the dates can go there. The lede is only an overview of the article itself and as such should only touch upon all the area's of that subjects life; which it does do perfectly but im finding the date ranges are crowding the text. As a bartering tool, you could talk about the first building and explain a little about when it was built and for how long and then do as you have done and keep the other dates in brackets. This will then tell the reader what the other dates mean. However, if it was upto me the dates would go. -- Cassianto (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I hope the use of your suggestion meets your concern. KJP1 (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I think it looks a lot better. -- Cassianto (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Early life and travels

  • "Special Architect" - why is this quoted? If it is a quote, source?
Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Early works

  • "His early architectural career produced little although he won prestigious commissions for Lille Cathedral" - It feels like there is a word missing after "little". Little what? Little work? Little praise?
Changed to "His early architectural career produced nothing of major note"♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

St Fin Barre's Cathedral, Cork

  • "on gloomy days .. takes on a luminous quality, (and) in sunshine sparkles like salt" - "and" would be better in square brackets as per WP:MOSQUOTE.

Cassianto (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted. Fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Skilbeck's Warehouse

  • again here "...much of the drysalter's materials are brought, and over a circular window in the gable (a) ship bringing in its precious freight."
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Christ the Consoler, St Mary's and St Paul's

  • Overlink to "Early English".
  • "full-blown scheme of early Renaissance decoration" - Renaissance has been linked which really shouldn't be within a quote.
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Trinity College Hertford

  • "thoroughly frightened the (College) Trustees." - square brackets needed.
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The Tower House

  • "Of red brick, and in an "L" plan, the exterior is plain" - who said "L"?
Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "it is (Burges's) answer to the dilemma of style." - guess what!
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Is it metal-work or metalwork?
Without I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree. -- Cassianto (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Metalwork and jewellery

  • Link to Pugin in opening quote needs to go.
Done. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "This item, carved in ivory and depicting St George slaying the dragon, was made for the first Bishop of Dunedin, New Zealand." - missing "in" before New Zealand.
Done. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "He also undertook the creation of works as gifts for or commissions from patrons such as the Sneyd dessert service or the Bute claret jug." -- This doesn't read well. Is there a word missing from "...creation of works as gifts for or commissions from.. ."?
Re-worded. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep caps consistent. It's "Gothic" sometimes and "gothic" at other times.
Done here, but will need to check for others. KJP1 (talk)
  • whilst on the same text, "G" is quoted again. Why?
Changed. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Furniture

  • Overlink to Edward Burne-Jones
Done. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "The re-developed Gallery & Museum will re-open in Spring 2013." -- This will obviously become out of date and will require changing. I would delete.
Done. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal life

  • "Eccentric, unpredictable, over-indulgent and flamboyant," opens this section. It would look and read better if it had "Burges was known to be eccentric, unpredictable, over-indulgent and flamboyant"
Changed - hopefully for the better? KJP1 (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
agreed. -- Cassianto (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Short, fat, and so near-sighted that he once mistook a peacock for a man, he never married." -- The marriage bit at the end looks poorly placed.
Moved to the end of the section, following the style of Daily Telegraph obituaries. But I warn you, the Dr and I have argued over this placement before! KJP1 (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not surprised. The sentence is suggesting that it was as a result of his appearance, that he never married. This may not be true. He may have chosen not to marry, never met the right person, been a confirmed bachelor, a whole number of things. The sentence is misleading. -- Cassianto (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Not a fan of short sentences, that was why.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I see. But it still looks strange seeing it tacked on at the end of a completely unrelated sentence. I'm pretty sure it can be added somewhere else, which won't make it look so out of place. We may have to ask about on this one if it's not resolved. I have replaced this on the article and have added, what I think, could make the line a little longer. Revert if your not kean. -- Cassianto (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, I hope the compromise meets your concerns and the Doctor's. KJP1 (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
It certainly meets mine. -- Cassianto (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Another overlink for Burne-Jones
Done. KJP1 (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "His vocation is Art... (a) matter of Uncommon Sense..." -- wrong brackets.
Changed - hopefully to the right ones? KJP1 (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • link to "Freemason" may be possible?
Done. KJP1 (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • does "first tasted opium" need to be quoted?
Removed. KJP1 (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Death

  • overlink to The Tower House.
Removed. KJP1 (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • another link to Burne-Jones.
Removed. KJP1 (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

-- Cassianto (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Legacy
  • "At Burges's death in 1881, his contemporary, the architect Edward William Godwin, said of Burges that" - I think this needs jiggling about a bit. I would say something like "When Burges died in 1881 it prompted his contemporary, Edward William Godwin to say..."
Oops. Edit conflict. So - from memory. Tweaked slightly. I was trying to emphasise the decline of his reputation, from near-reverence at his death, to loathing shortly thereafter. Does it work now? KJP1 (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
That's fine! -- Cassianto (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "From the 1890s to the later twentieth century Victorian art was under constant assault..." - is there a comma missing somewhere?
Done. KJP1 (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The following quote is not introduced and gives no explanation at the end as to who said it - "He founded no school,..had few adherents outside the circle of his practice..and trained no further generation of designers."
Done - by attribution to Aldrich. KJP1 (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "own strange genius turn(ing) the Middle Ages into magic." - it's our old friend again!
Done. KJP1

Study of Burges

  • "The current (2012) curator of Cardiff Castle, Matthew Williams",...- again this will become out of date if he leaves. I would say something like "The 2012 curator of Cardiff Castle, Matthew Williams" it's 'current' which should be omitted here.
Done. KJP1 (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That's it from me. I really like this article, but I do think there are possibly too many quotes. Having said that, I'm not listing this as a comment and it will not sway my opinion. I think it's good that Tim has highlighted this below and I hope some can be trimmed back. This is certainly well on it's to becoming a FA, something which Burges and it's main editors deserve. -- Cassianto (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Really appreciate your comments and delighted that you like the article. It's much improved for your involvement. Re. the in-line quotes, as I add up the current consensus, it's you, Dr. Blofeld and Tim riley for cutting them back or attributing them, and me for retaining them. So I reckon I'll be editing soon! KJP1 (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
And now edited and attributed in line with your comments and those of the Dr and Tim Riley. KJP1 (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Cassianto (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Comments

As mentioned at the top of the page, I reviewed the article at GAC stage. I made a few suggestions at the time about further improvements that would be needed if the article were to qualify for promotion to FA. Some have been addressed, but one that hasn't and strikes me as important concerns quotations: there are dozens throughout the article that in my view ought to be attributed in the text. For a few quotations there are inline attributions, such as "Pevsner describes St Mary's as 'a dream of Early English glory' and Crook writes, 'although Cork Cathedral may stand as Burges's greatest Gothic work, Studley Royal is his "ecclesiastical" masterpiece.'" This is, in my view, just right, but is lacking with other quotations in the article, such as:

  • "a wide-ranging scholar, an intrepid traveller, a coruscating lecturer, a brilliant decorative designer and an architect of genius"
  • "once established, after twenty years' preparation, his 'design language' had merely to be applied, and he applied and re-applied the same vocabulary with increasing subtlety and gusto."
  • "not so much muscular (gothic) as muscle-bound."
  • "a re-creation of a thirteenth century dream world…"
  • "on gloomy days .. takes on…"
  • "redeem the evils of industrialism by re-living the art of the Middle Ages"
  • "fervent Celt, an enthusiastic builder, and an inveterate antiquarian"
  • "Bute's most memorable overall achievement."
  • "a prime example of the partnership of aristocratic patron and talented architect produc(ing) the marvels of Cardiff Castle and Castell Coch"
  • "amongst the most magnificent the Gothic Revival ever achieved."
  • "most successful of all the fantasy castles of the nineteenth century."
  • "a superb example of Burges's genius in the construction of roofs."
  • "was required to cover areas rather greater than his talents deserved."
  • "rarely been equalled."
  • "he executed few buildings as his rich fantastic gothic required equally rich patrons (..) his finished works are outstanding monuments to nineteenth century gothic," "the most magnificent that the gothic revival ever achieved,"
  • "three dimensional passports to fairy kingdoms and realms of gold. In Cardiff Castle we enter a land of dreams."
  • "that has become the skyline of the capital of Wales. The dream of one great patron and one great architect has almost become the symbol of a whole nation."

There are many more later, but I'll refrain from listing them. It may be that the absence of inline attribution won't bother other reviewers as it bothers me, and if there is a consensus that I'm making too much of this I'll pipe down.

Occasionally you put in quotation marks a phrase that, to my mind, doesn't gain by being a direct quotation. For instance, "the only private town house to be included." I don't think anyone could accuse you of plagiarism if you used the phrase without the quotation marks.

Agreed, and I think we could possibly cut back on some of the quotes and simply remove them. I said that from the beginning.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
OK. Have gone through the article inserting inline attributions, removing redundant quotation marks and even - oh, the pain! - deleting some quotations altogether. I very much hope it addresses the concerns Tim, and everyone else but me, had. But I now need to re-read the whole thing as I fear I will have made the prose clunky. Also, although I've tried to "introduce" those I quote on first doing so, I'm not sure I've succeeded throughout. So, have I addressed this point satisfactorily or is there more I need do? KJP1 (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Re-reading, I find I haven't got all the books quoted, and I can't seem to find them all in the References Section. I'll list them as I go and would much appreciate assistance.
The final sentence of the first para. of Early Works has a quote relating to the Cerberus Privy at Gayhurst. The footnote says Cooper but I'm not sure who? KJP1 (talk) 17:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking you've now addressed the need to cite Cooper's text in the references? I've added an attribution to him in the text. KJP1 (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Done, now. KJP1 (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That point apart, here are some miscellaneous comments and suggestions:

  • Lead
    • "mediaeval" or (as elsewhere in your text) "medieval"? (I vote for the former, but consistency is the real point.)
Agreed, changed all to mediaeval. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Name of the thoroughfare: "The Strand" or (as later in the text) "the Strand"? (I vote for the latter, but ... as above)
  • Early life and travels
    • Hideous rash of overlinking in the third para: France, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Germany etc do not need blue links.
Delinked.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Early works
    • "he did obtain a commission" – he obtained?
    • "the Lefroy's tomb" – the Lefroys' tomb (i.e. the tomb of the Lefroys)?
Changed both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • St Fin Barre's Cathedral, Cork
    • "first major commission for St Fin Barre's Cathedral" – there's a slight ambiguity here which you can eliminate by putting a comma after "commission"
Added.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Cardiff Castle
    • "re-building" – the OED doesn't allow the hyphen
    • "fulfill his civic duties" – the OED doesn't admit "fulfill", but only "fulfil"
Changed both.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Castell Coch
    • This is one of my bonnet's bees, and I don't press the point, but what has "whilst" got that "while" hasn't?
An s and a t? Hehe, changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe the quote beat a little around the Mulberry bush and have removed it and reworded slightly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    • "It does contain" – it contains?
Fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    • "A superb fireplace" – does the source at ref 102 justify the adjective?
Changed to stone fireplace and changed ref to one I've verified in Rowan's Art in Wales: An Illustrated History, 1850-1980♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Knightshayes Court
    • "the building was still incomplete, due to ongoing difficulties" – either "owing to" or "because of" in UK English (I believe "due to" without a verb is acceptable in American usage)
Changed to "owing to"♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Park House
    • "Burges's signature Early French Gothic" – this is, I think, the fifth time we have had Burges's signature so-and-so, and the phrase is rather outstaying its welcome
Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Christ the Consoler, St Mary's and St Paul's
    • We have a confusion of marquesses. "George Robinson, 1st Marquess of Ripon, although not as rich as Bute, was the Marquess's equal ... Both churches were built as memorial churches for the Marquess's brother-in-law" I suggest something like "George Robinson, 1st Marquess of Ripon, although not as rich as Bute, was his equal ... Both churches were built as memorial churches for Ripon's brother-in-law"
Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Personal life
    • "The Graphic of 1871" – italics wanted, I think
Done.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    • "the Athenaeum" – a small point, but I wouldn't include the definite article in the piping
Linked Athenaeum Club instead.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    • "Sir John Heathcoat-Amory" – I'm not sure you need to blue-link him again here, but if you do, you should include the 'Sir' in the piping as you do earlier, in the Knightshayes Court section
Removed link.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Death
    • "wrote, somewhat more prosaically" – some austere souls might regard this as editorialising, though in my view it's just on the right side of the line.
Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Legacy
    • "his jewellery and stained glass was lost" – were lost?
Changed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
    • "a relatively short career" – another of my minor pedantries: relative to what? I'd let the facts speak for themselves: "In a career of twenty years…"
Removed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Study of Burges
    • "bequeathed to Crook following Handley-Read's suicide" – it is at least arguable that they were bequeathed before H-R's suicide. The OED: "To make a formal assignation of (property of which one is possessed) to any one, so as to pass to the recipient after one's death: To 'leave' by will."
Changed to just "bequeathed to Crook without making judgement of timing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

After that litany of carping and quibbling, let me add that I think this is a magnificent article, and will be FA material once the necessary adjustments are in place. – Tim riley (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your very constructive comments!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I have struck all my ad hoc comments, but before adding my support I must in conscience wait to see what other reviewers think about the point I raised about attributing quotations within the text. I admit that the MoS says merely "the author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote", and there are few if any full sentences in quotes within the text. I rather hope other reviewers tell me I'm fussing about nothing, in which case it will be my privilege and pleasure to support this outstanding article. Tim riley (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Morning Tim. I was going to come and talk about the quotes on your page, but it's probably better done here. Firstly, I really appreciate all of the further comments and observations you've made - they, and Dr. Blofeld's responses, have again improved the article greatly. Re. the in-line quotes, I have to say that I don't think I share your concern, although I quite accept I'm rather less experienced in the FA arena! But I think they add substantially to the article and not just in length. They give the opinions of authoritative writers as to Burges's importance etc. They are, or should be, referenced in the notes so that any reader wishing to verify, or source them, can do so. I've blocked out today to go through the article again so will certainly check that they are. And I have sought to "fold" them into the text so that the prose flows and is interesting for the reader. The alternatives would seem to be: remove them - which I think would seriously diminish the quality of the article; or source them all within the text. This would, I think, become as repetitive as my use of "Burges's signature ...", in that it would be "Crook says", again, and again, or clumsy variants where I would try to use other words for "says". But I fully accept others, with more experience than I, may share your view. Shall we see? If the consensus is that they should all be sourced in the text - I can certainly do this, as I have all the books from which they come. Again, very many thanks for your time, your constructive engagement, and your very kind words. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
See above. I hope the amendments address the concern. KJP1 (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Support - the above (together with its execution within the article) removes my one reservation about adding wholehearted support for this remarkably fine article. Tim riley (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And thankyou for an equally fine review and constructive criticism which have helped improve it considerably.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:25, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

First set of comments by User:GuillaumeTell

Lead

  • Is "art-architects" a genuine expression? I haven't come across it before.
I think so. Certainly Crook, no mean scholar (!), uses it in his guide to the centenary Burges exhibition, "The Strange Genius of William Burges Art-Architect, 1827-1881". This ] discusses the concept. KJP1 (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Mediaeval" Aargh! Please, please, revert to "medieval". "Mediaeval" is, IMNSHO, old-fashioned and pedantic. Have a look at WP's List of history journals - 7 journals have "medieval" in their title and none have "mediaeval".
I have no strong feelings but perhaps we shouldn't be old-fashioned. Is the consensus to revert back? If so, I'll happily do so. KJP1 (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the ae like in Encyclopaedia is wonderfully pedantic and represents its origins very well. In my opinion it makes it more authentically "mediaeval"! But the universal spelling like that was suggested by Tim.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Dr B has kindly removed the "a" which caused you such pain! KJP1 (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
"In short, my mediaevalism's affectation, born of a morbid love of admiration." Oh, all right! (I know Guillaume knows where this comes from, so bah to you, ha-ha to you, and that's what I shall say.) – Tim riley (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I can't resist having the last word. My 2nd edition of Fowler, published 44 years ago in the Swinging sixties, says on p.356: "medi(a)eval. The shorter spelling is recommended; see Æ, Œ ." --GuillaumeTell 10:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Rapid and inglorious retreat by Riley: I have all three editions of Fowler, and the old boy himself recommended the shorter spelling in the 1926 original. I shall examine my conscience about my own practice and will meanwhile keep my lip zipped when commenting on other people's prose. Tim riley (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "he designed churches, cathedrals..." Only one cathedral was actually built, so this is somewhat misleading
Done. Point taken and re-worded. KJP1 (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • (Ahem!) "Worcester College, Oxford (1864-79)" rather implies that Burges worked on the college for the whole of that period. In fact, work on the chapel took place in 1864-5 (I think) and work on the hall started in 1877.
Done. Point taken. Already removed in the lead, but I've changed the dates in the list of buildings to reflect those given by Crook in his appendix. KJP1 (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Early life

  • "entered King's College London in 1839 to study engineering" What, at the age of 12?!? Was there some sort of feeder school?
Odd indeed but exactly what Crook says on page 39 of WB&THVD. But the next sentence reads "In those days King's College School (my italics) occupied the basement stories of building next to Somerset House in the Strand." So I think you're right and the college had some sort of preparatory school. Have re-worded. KJP1 (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
And Knowledge gives me the answer King's College School. KJP1 (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Blore was an established architect, being architect to both William IV and Queen Victoria" Inelegant - suggest "Blore was an established architect who worked for both W IV and Queen Vic" or similar.
Done, and re-done. KJP1 (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "medieval Court" - shouldn't this be either Medieval Court or medieval court (I suggest the former)?
Done with a capital M. Left the extra "a" until we decide otherwise. KJP1 (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Now withoutthe extra a. KJP1 (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Enabled by his private income" followed by list of miscellaneous countries. First, no dates for the eighteen months are given. Second, "Germany and Spain, Italy and Sicily" - why are Germany and Spain linked? Also, what is now Italy consisted then of a number of states of various sorts - I'd zap Sicily.
Done. KJP1 (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Your comments are very helpful and your continued interest in the article much appreciated. Look forward to more. KJP1 (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Second set of comments by User:GuillaumeTell

Early works

  • "Rooms there contain some of his large, signature, fireplaces, with carving by Burges's long-time collaborator Thomas Nicholls" - superfluous commas after large and signature; also Nicholls needs a wikilink here
Done and Done. KJP1 (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. KJP1 (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. KJP1 (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Burges later designed the Council Chamber at the end of the hall" - what hall? How many halls have Council Chambers at their end? Is this something to do with the Maison Dieu having become the Town Hall? NB: the Maison Dieu, Dover article ought to be aligned with this one, e.g. it seems to say that Poynter was out of the picture by the time Burges started work, plus it doesn't refer to Connaught Hall or include wikilinks apart from one for Burges.
Done. I shall head across to the main article later. KJP1 (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "In 1859–60, Burges took over from Poynter in the restoration of Waltham Abbey" - suggest "took over the restoration of Waltham Abbey from Poynter"
Done. KJP1 (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. KJP1 (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

St Fin Barre's Cathedral, Cork

I'm sure you're right but I don't know how to link to a sub-section within an article. Can anyone else help? KJP1 (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I've fixed this - will give you a how-to-do-it tutorial on your Talk page later today. --GuillaumeTell 21:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "For the exterior, Burges re-used earlier plans" - maybe something like "re-used some of his ?earlier unexecuted plans"?
Done. KJP1 (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "three-spired frontage" - to me, the frontage is at the West end, which only has two spires. Maybe "Three-spired exterior"?
Done. KJP1 (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, I could only link to the main page. Can anyone assist? KJP1 (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I've also fixed this. --GuillaumeTell 21:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Much appreciated and the article much improved thereby. KJP1 (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Burges's architectural team

  • First sentence ends rather inelegantly with "perhaps was" - needs a bit of recasting?
Done. Heavens, it was clumsy. KJP1 (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "It was Chapple who completed the restoration of Castell Coch after Burges's death and designed most of its furniture" - is that the right way round or did he design the furniture first?
Done. KJP1 (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Excellent. Shall address them tomorrow.

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Haven't quite addressed them all yet, and we may have a few queries, but I did want to thank you very much for your excellent review of the sources. Everything you picked up has been exceptionally helpful and much improved the article's accuracy. You do have an absolutely deadly eye for detail. I hope you don't mind, but I've struck through those comments which I think we've addressed - I was developing a major headache trying to work out what still needed to be done. I think I've accurately struck those we've done and left those we have yet to do, but do, of course, revert if I've made an error. KJP1 (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
OK. I think we've addressed most of them but would appreciate clarification on the following:
FN143 when you reviewed it, now FN147. You indicate a problem with page formatting but we can't see what it is.
Now 151, uses hyphen instead of endash. 158 is also missing a period. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Done and done. KJP1 (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
FN259 when you reviewed it, now FN266. You indicate a formatting problem but we can't see what it is.
Now 271, you're using a comma format where other refs use periods, and are missing a retrieval date for the URL. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Fixed.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
FN179 when you reviewed it, now FN186. This is a sales catalogue from Vost's Auctioneers. It's not on the web, as far as I can see, it's not a Google book and it has no ISBN. Advice on what's wrong with the formatting would be appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 22:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This seems to correspond to an entry on the References list, but is not linked, and the italicization doesn't match. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Now worked out what the problem is and resolved. KJP1 (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, you ask "How are you ordering sources with the same author(s)?" Neither Dr. B nor I are sure what the issue is here. Could you clarify? KJP1 (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
When you have multiple sources by the same author (for example, Crook), you can order these in the References list either by date or by title. I wondered which you were doing, as it doesn't seem to be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
They are but Crook's books are both 1981 so we had to include the date and a/b to differentiate. Is this what you mean?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Despite the protestations of fellow competitors, it won, though the final cost was to be in excess of £100,000." - source?
Done. FN46. KJP1 (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Missing bibliographic info for Cooper
Done, I think. Dr. Blofeld, am I right in thinking you've already corrected this? KJP1 (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Looks OK to me?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Definitely done, now. KJP1 (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Pevsner and Wharton or Lloyd?
Done, I think? I'd messed up and included Wharton's surname in the list of authors of the 1967 Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, which was only authored by Pevsner and Lloyd. Can you let me know if I haven't addressed the right problem. KJP1 (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • FN41, 209, 223, Karlin: doubled period
Done, I think. I realise I've made this somewhat more difficult by adding some footnotes in respect of the three instances you identified below, where referenced works weren't actually cited in the text. As a consequence, the footnotes in the article as it now stands don't match the numbering as it was when you did your review. But I think I can work it out by going from an earlier version of the article. I shall know better next time. KJP1 (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • FN120: citation incomplete, missing italicization
Done. Presuming that the incompleteness relates solely to the lack of italicization. KJP1 (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • FN127: formatting
NOT DONE. Dr. Blofeld, this relates to what is now FN129, Sherwood and Pevsner's Oxfordshire. But I don't know what's wrong with the formatting. Can you help. KJP1 (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Now Done, I think I may have sorted this. When getting the references in alphabetic order, I found I'd put Pevsner first and Sherwood second as the authors, when it is, in fact, the other way round. So, assuming this is the issue referred to, it's sorted. KJP1 (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • FN141: page?
Done. p=291. KJP1 (talk) 08:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • FN143: page formatting
NOT DONE. Dr. Blofeld, this relates to what is now FN145, Christopher Drew Armstrong's article. But I don't know what's wrong with the formatting. Can you help. KJP1 (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Now Done. See above. KJP1 (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • FN148: pages?
Done. p=504. But done correctly? It's now FN149. KJP1 (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • FN151, 153, 200, 202: what kind of sources are these?
First, due to my adding extra footnotes, these are now, FN153, 156, 205 and 207.
FN153 is a source, Marks, within a source, Crook (1981a) I don't know how to quote a source within a source. What I will do is just quote the Crook page. Can somebody tell me if this is wrong. KJP1 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. KJP1 (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
FN156 - same issue, and proposed resolution, as above. KJP1 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. KJP1 (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
FN205 - This is from the Dictionary of Scottish Architects. Can't remember where I sourced it. Shall check and, hopefully, resolve. KJP1 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Done'ish. Have added a link to the right web page but it's a bare URL and my Reflinks tool doesn't work any more. Can someone assist. Thanks. KJP1 (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Done now. Dr B has fixed the bare URL. KJP1 (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
FN207 - same issue, and proposed resolution, as FN153 and FN156. KJP1 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. KJP1 (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • FN222: pages, formatting
Done. It's now FN226. I've added the page numbers. Also corrected the text as I found a third mention of "Burgess". But have I formatted it correctly? KJP1 (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • FN259, 179, 191: formatting
As above, these are now FN263, 184 and 196
FN263 - Don't know what's wrong with this as it seems to link perfectly to the Chicago Institute's website. Advice please. KJP1 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Now done. KJP1 (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
FN184 - This is a sales catalogue from Vost's Auctioneers. It's not on the web, as far as I can see, it's not a Google book and it has no ISBN. Advice on what's wrong with the formatting would be appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Now done - see above. KJP1 (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
FN196 - I think this relates to a superfluous "&". Shall try to correct. KJP1 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, can't. The FN reads "Crook & 1981a Explanation. I can't see where the "&" is coming from, however. KJP1 (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Dr B has somehow sorted it. KJP1 (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • No citations to Burges 2009, Cherry & Pevsner 2002, Sargent 1977
Done for Burges. Text and FN181. KJP1 (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Done for Cherry and Pevsner (2002). Text and FN153. KJP1 (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Done for Sargent. Text and FN169. KJP1 (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Buckingham: Don't need to say "The book does not have an ISBN Number." for books of that age, but does it have an OCLC?
Removed. Looked in google books, no isbn or OCLC unless I'm mistaken?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books
Removed two mentions of location, should be OK now?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • How are you ordering sources with the same author(s)?
NOT DONE. Dr. Blofeld, I'll need to pass on this as well. Can you help. Again, I'll do it, if you tell me what needs doing. KJP1 (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Now done, we think. KJP1 (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Check alphabetization of sources
Done. KJP1 (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Done, I believe.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll need some assistance on this, can't see anything wrong with citation 128 or 144, How are you ordering sources with the same author? etc. Can somebody help out with the sources here? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Now done, we think. KJP1 (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Third set of comments by User:GuillaumeTell

Partnership with the Marquess of Bute

  • "This may have resulted from his father's own connection with the 2nd Marquess, Alfred Burges's engineering firm, Walker, Burges and Cooper, having undertaken work on the East Bute Docks at Cardiff in 1855. The 3rd Marquess of Bute...": a bit convoluted - suggest "This may have resulted from Alfred Burges's engineering firm (Walker, Burges and Cooper) having worked for the 2nd Marquess on the East Bute Docks at Cardiff in 1855. The 3rd Marquess , who was..." or similar.
Done. KJP1 (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "landed aristocrat, industrial magnate, antiquarian, scholar, philanthropist, High Tory, and Roman Catholic convert": some of this is repeated later in the para - "But, as a scholar, antiquarian, compulsive builder and enthusiastic medievalist ..." - suggest amalgamating these strings by adding "compulsive builder and enthusiastic medievalist" to the first and replacing the second with the sentence beginning "Bute brought more than money "
Done. KJP1 (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "re-building" should be "rebuilding"
Done. KJP1 (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Cardiff Castle

  • "In the early nineteenth century, the original Norman castle had been enlarged and refashioned by Henry Holland for the 2nd Marquess, Bute's father." I don't think that this is accurate. As I understand it (from Newman's Glamorgan), all that was left of the Norman castle was the Keep, the (rebuilt) perimeter walls, the Black Tower and a few bits of wall that were later incorporated in the Western Apartments, built in the 15th and 16th century. Holland's work started around 1776 and the 2nd Marquess was born in 1793!
Done. Heavens, you saved us from a major error there! I should have checked the pre-Burges period more thoroughly.
  • "Bute" is mentioned twice in the first para - it ought to be made clearer that this is the 3rd Marquess.
Done. KJP1 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "a building which John Newman describes in The Buildings of Wales" - actually Glamorgan in the B of W series.
Done. KJP1 (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Forest of Dean ashlar" - no mention of ashlar in the F of D article. Newman (p.36) reveals that this is sandstone.
Checked. I haven't changed this as I think we're ok. It is sandstone but Girouard says ashlar and Knowledge describes ashlar as "prepared stone work (i.e., dressed, cut) of any type of stone" (my italics). That said, I could make it sandstone if you think it would be clearer but we do have the link. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "gildings" - shouldn't this be gilding?
Done. It certainly should. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "The Marquess's name, John, in Greek" - Newman says "John, in Greek letters". It would be nice to reproduce the Greek letters here (I'm sure that WP does Greek letters).
NOT DONE - yet. That would indeed be very nice. I shall try it but both my Greek, and my dexterity with Wiki fonts are poor. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I've now found a picture of Bute's bedroom in Williams's "The essential Cardiff Castle" (pp 26-7) and the name is in capitals, and looks like this: ΙΩΑИΣ (forwards, but also backwards as in a mirror). That's approximately IOANS, i.e. something like Johannes. --GuillaumeTell 21:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. Excellent! KJP1 (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "extensive reconstructions on the outlines of the walls of the original Roman fort" - what does this mean? Reconstructions of what? Outlines?? Newman's p.209 mentions the reconstruction of the Roman walls and that's it.
Done, I hope. You're right, a poor sentence which I've tried to make clearer. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "nine sculptures by Thomas Nicholls, with a further six being sculpted in the 1930s" - I don't think we need "being". And it might be worth mentioning that the six were by Alexander Carrick and that it was William Frame who continued Burges's work after his death.
Done, done and done. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Fourth set of comments by User:GuillaumeTell

Castell Coch

  • I'm dubious about the abbreviation "Le Duc" for Viollet-le-Duc.
Corrected. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Castell Coch was built on the site of a thirteenth-century castle"in the 2nd para more or less duplicates the description in the first para, except that one says fort and the other says castle. Suggest starting para with "Severely damaged..."
Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Girouard states it is King David while McLees suggests it depicts St Lucius." Suggest inserting "that" after "states" and after "suggests". Is King David the David-and-Goliath (David) in the Bible or another King David? And which Saint Lucius is the correct one? (Newman votes for St Lucius over King David, btw.)
Done and done. Although I'm not sure I can answer the questions. I would say King David is the biblical King David and is there really more than one St Lucius?. Actually, I know the St Lucius is the legendary King of Britain who introduced Christianity. But I can't remember where I read that and will check my books. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Suggest that the Three Fates image move down a few lines so that it appears closer to the Three Fates text at the end of the para.
Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Next para - I think "murder holes" needs a link to murder-holes.
Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Worcester College, Oxford

  • Masonic redirects to Freemasonry in the same sentence - one blue-link is fine, two look like carelessness, as Lady Bracknell might have said.
Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "significant; Gillingham suggesting that..." - if using semi-colon, then "significant; Gillingham suggests that...", otherwise use comma instead of semi-colon ("significant, Gillingham suggesting that...")
Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Still on the chapel, it might be worth mentioning that the stained glass and the ceiling paintings are by Henry Holiday and perhaps also that the statues, lectern and candlesticks are by William Grinsell Nicholl (1796-1871), who also made the reredos for Waltham Abbey (abbey) in 1862 (and carved decorations for the exteriors of the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, the Oxford and Cambridge Club in London, the Taylor Institution in Oxford and St George's Hall, Liverpool - maybe I could knock up a stub for him). Interestingly, the carved animals on the bench-ends are by a Mr Fisher, rather than Nicholls - so none of Burges's usual team seem to have been involved. I wonder why?
Done. But I think a couple of sources are therefore needed. Sherwood and Pevsner doesn't help. Help! KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Fixed - Chapel, not Hall(!), and extra S&P ref does provide the details. --GuillaumeTell 10:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Hall - not exactly a sequel, as it was done somewhat after the Chapel - dates needed.
Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "the East Window, above the high table, was resorted circa 2009" - resorted??? Maybe restored?
Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Fifth set of comments by User:GuillaumeTell

Knightshayes Court

  • I've made a couple of minor alterations which I hope are uncontroversial. Also, in the blue Lonely Planet quote box, who is Mallory? Is this a brainstorm version of Heathcoat-Amery? And did he really have a boudoir (I associate them with ladies rather than gentlemen, but perhaps he was a transvestite)?
I don't know Mallory either. Can the Dr. assist? As to the boudoir, the NT guide, the only single volume I have on the house, describes it as "an essentially feminine retreat." So I think it unlikely it was Sir John's, but one never knows. KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I think its a printing error. I've added a note in the ref as I believe the quote is informative and useful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Now done, with Dr. B's note. KJP1 (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Park House

  • "This can be seen evidenced in many of Cardiff's inner suburbs, where traces of Burges's influence can be seen." Well, if Park House really was widely imitated, then "traces" can't be right - something stronger is needed. Also, "seen" twice in the same sentence doesn't look right. And I think this sentence needs a ref, e.g. Newman's para, p.219, starting "Further N" (or maybe move the ref from the previous sentence to this one).
Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Christ the Consoler, St Mary's and St Paul's

  • Heading: Suggest "Christ the Consoler, St Mary's, and St Paul's Cathedral" instead of just St Paul's, otherwise it looks like three churches rather than the two mentioned immediately in the text (and St Paul's doesn't reappear until the last para).
Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Important note: Pevsner & Radcliffe have been superseded by Leach, Peter (2009). Yorkshire West Riding: Leeds, Bradford and the North. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-12665-5. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) and the Pevsner quote has disappeared. If you don't have access to this I can update the description. Same applies to St Mary, Studley Royal (where I see that there is an 1873 house by Burges in the grounds). There's also more detail on Oakwood Hall and probably other Burges works in the northern W Riding (15 references in the index).
Noted with thanks. Dear Lord, you're determined to increase the size of this article even more! Fortunately, I do have Leach and Pevsner and have added it to the References, and also added a couple of comments from it re. Skelton and Studley Royal. I shall also add some extra details to the main articles, including the reference to the estate house at Studley Royal. But not here, I think, and not until this is done and dusted. Unless of course, your nudging me in the direction of those 15 index references throws up something that can't be ignored. In which case, it'll be a repeat of Worcester College and I'll need to add a whole new section. KJP1 (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Your comments have improved the article greatly and are much appreciated. Even if it does sometimes seem like a second GAR! KJP1 (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Luckily for me, on checking the 15 Leach references, I don't find anything that really demands inclusion. Apart from Oakwood, Skelton and Studley Royal, they refer either to competitions for civic buildings that he didn't win or to his influence upon others. Except for some gate piers at Newby Hall, of which I wasn't aware. Whilst I don't think they need mentioning, they do need visiting. P.S. You shall certainly enjoy the Gillingham. And no, I didn't know she was the wife of the last Provost. Looking forward to the remaining comments. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Sixth and final (!) set of comments by User:GuillaumeTell

Metalwork and jewellery

  • The Elephant Inkstand appears twice in this section and also in the Tower House section - looks rather like overkill. The Cat Cup also figures in both sections.
Done. In all three instances. Overkill indeed. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Furniture

  • "Burges's furniture is characterised by its historical style, its mythical iconography ..." - shouldn't that be mythological?
Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Others were created as commissions, such as the Yatman Cabinet" - suggest "Others, such as the Yatman Cabinet, were created as commissions."
Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • No need for comma after Crocker Dressing Table
Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Evelyn Waugh was given at least three pieces by Betjeman. Given current prices, Waugh's descendants should be very grateful. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal life

  • "the medieval Society" - should be the Medieval Society?
Done. Yes, it should. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Legacy and influence

  • Missing quotation marks at the end of the Goodwin quote
Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "...Crook contends Burges's place at the centre of that world" - needs "that" after "contends"
Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Architectural scholarship

  • "In the same year, the only full study of Burges was published, Crook's William Burges and the High Victorian Dream." - suggest "In the same year, the only full study of Burges, Crook's William Burges and the High Victorian Dream, was published."
Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

List of works

  • right at the end, "Philosophy cabinet, 1878–79 – designed for the guest bedroom at Tower House" - OK, but where is it? If not known, then it needs "present location unknown" as in some other pieces above.
Done. It's owned by Andrew Lloyd-Weber, and sits in Sydmonton Court amongst his rather splendid collection of Pre-Raphaelite pictures but I can't find a reliable source to confirm this. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

See also

  • I'm a but dubious about these:
  • Victorian architecture - no mention of Burges (nor any picture of any of his works) in this rather short article.
  • Gothic Revival architecture - one glancing reference to Burges in the context of West Norwood Cemetery!
Removed. I agree they add little to the study of Burges and if one doesn't know, by the end of the article, that Burges was a Victorian architect working in the Gothic Revival tradition, one hasn't read it very carefully. I've also removed the only external link. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
It is a labour of quite long-standing love. But, for all my affection for Burges, I could never have made the article what it now is, without contributions such as your own. I appreciate it hugely. KJP1 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Image/spot checks? Don't think I can see either of these above, we'll need people to perform them before we wrap up this review... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Images should all be fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

As the Dr. says, I think all the images will be fine. But I'm not really eligible to say this, so if someone else was able to do so, I shall try to respond as promptly as possible, in the event that any issues are raised. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Am I eligible to do a spot check? I reviewed the article at GAN, and have contributed extensively above, though my contribution to the article itself has been de minimis. If I qualify as a disinterested party I shall be happy to nip down to the British Library and spot-check a sample of the citations for accuracy and for innocence of excessively close paraphrase. – Tim riley (talk) 15:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, I don't think I can comment on your eligiblity, but if you are able to do so, I would appreciate it enormously. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Go for it. I think you can be more than trusted to ensure the spot check is done correctly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. I don't anticipate any difficulties but it is, of course, quite possible that I've made a mistake. I have them all here so should be able to respond very promptly to any queries. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Ah, Tim, I must confess that when I asked for the spotcheck, I had you in mind -- it hadn't escaped my notice that you'd already been involved in the review and I was hoping to see you do more... ;-) Seriously, your involvement in the article itself would be the key thing COI-wise, and as you say that's relatively minor -- so pls go for it, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Image review from Crisco 1492
Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Missed the US PD tag. Got it.
Done. Thank you. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Done and done, I think. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Done-ish. Have added PD-unknown. Can we assume, as you're unsure, that it doesn't need US PD, and thus proof of publication, as I don't think we can provide this. KJP1 (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Please don't cross out my comments; I will cross them out if they have been addressed. I added PD-US just to be safe (work created before 1892, so certainly free in the US)
Done. I've added PD OLD as it is inconceivable, ??, that it wasn't first published in the UK. KJP1 (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Please don't cross out my comments; I will cross them out if they have been addressed. First published in the US, so PD-1923 added. Fine now.
Done the tag. Hope the lifetime's not critical. KJP1 (talk) 23:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Please don't cross out my comments; I will cross them out if they have been addressed. If you are to use PD-Old or the like, you need at least a death date for persons from the 19th century or later. A person aged 20 in 1872 may have died as late as 1945, or later.
It is, a bit, but I can't find an image that better shows the castle's frontage. Not sure what the required info. box should contain but will try. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC) If the information box is not absolutely essential, can I ask that someone with more understanding of these matters than I, add it. KJP1 (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Have replaced as I cannot address the issues. KJP1 (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Please don't cross out my comments; I will cross them out if they have been addressed. What image did you replace it with?
Afraid so. Added US PD tag. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
*PD-70 is not enough for the US, as many works are still protected. This falls under PD-100, which works. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
And now a much lighter image with the appropriate tag. KJP1 (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
A little faint maybe but I'm of the opinion its a better image that the one you suggest. It looks dull not to mention the cars being an eyesore... This is better and can be uploaded if desired? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
All superseded by the above, but it is an original photo, which I took a long time ago.
Quite understand why, if my memory serves, it's pre-digital and then scanned. KJP1 (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • File:BLW Decanter.jpg - Looks fine, although I'd prefer another free image of the decanter (the light under it is really distracting)
I agree but don't think we can find a better one. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Agreed but, again, we shalln't find better, I think. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Done, and done. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • To be safe, we shouldn't include PD-100 with persons from the 19th century. PD-US covers unpublished works. All that were taken before 1892 are free.
The latter done but shall need to think about the former. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Spot check of sources
Crook 1981a
  • 1 – fine
  • 4 – The source doesn't actually say this, but the inference is entirely justified
  • 6 – fine

*9 – I can't find this in in the source

I see what you mean. I've re-worded as "Burges's work with Wyatt, particularly on the Medieval Court for this exhibition, was influential on the subsequent course of his career." I think this is supported by Crook's ""Wyatt's influence set Burges on a path which shaped much of his career." I'd be loathe to lose all reference to the Medieval Court as it was B's work with W on this that had a greater influence on him than any other aspect of his apprenticeship to Wyatt. KJP1 (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 11a and b – fine
  • 12 – All the places are mentioned in Crook, but on pp. 44–48, not 53
Corrected. I've put 45-50 but I agree you could say 44-48, the earlier covering his first French visit and the latter covering his arrival in Turkey, not his departure. KJP1 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 14a and b – fine
  • 15 – The source confirms the Japanese element but makes no mention on the cited page of Moorish influences or the Arab Room
You're right. I've added both Near and Far, and changed the first reference to p.51. I was trying to say two things in one sentence. The new referencing is supported by Crook "the art of Islamic Cairo became a key ingredient" p.51, and his reference to the Japanese Court on p.52. KJP1 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 26a, b, and c – fine
  • 27 – fine
  • 37 – fine
  • 45a and b – fine
  • 45c – I can't find this in the source
Quite right. It's p.200. ""Cork would never be able to afford a really large cathedral." Changed. KJP1 (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 48a – ditto
Corrected. 199, not 190. KJP1 (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 48b – fine
  • 49 – fine
  • 50 – fine
  • 51 – fine
  • 54 – fine
  • 55 – fine
  • 57 – fine
  • 59 – There's no mention that I could find in the cited source of "best glass" or of St FB's Cathedral.
Again, I see what you mean. P.188 gives his starting work with B and I've added 204 which gives details of Saunders working at St FB. KJP1 (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 61 – fine
  • 62 – I can't find this in the cited source
Corrected. 305, ".. employed by Messrs. Burges and Walker on Cardiff's Bute East Dock."
  • 63a – I can't find this in the cited source
Corrected 259, "Bute's potential as a patron was vast: Burges released the spring." Apologies. No idea what happened to these two. KJP1 (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 63b – fine
  • 69 – fine
  • 75a and b – fine
  • 85 – fine
  • 90 – fine
  • 100 – fine
  • 105 – fine
  • 110 – fine
  • 113 – fine
  • 121a and b – fine
  • 121c – correct page is 239, not 238, and these aren't Crook's words but those of the obituarist in The Echo
Corrected to p.239 and re-attributed. KJP1 (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 123 – fine
  • 125 – fine (We won't fall out over the omitted 11 shilliings)
  • 126 – fine
  • 129 – fine
  • 130 – I can't find this in the cited source
Nor can I. Changed to Cherry and Pevsner "were toned down and altered." KJP1 (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 136 – fine
  • 137 – I can't find this in the cited source
Unfortunately, neither can I. Removed cite. KJP1 (talk) 20:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 138 – The source doesn't say this in so many words, but the interpretation here is justified, IMO.
  • 142 – fine
  • 153a–c – fine
  • 154a and b – fine
  • 156 – fine
  • 157 – fine
  • 158 – fine
  • 161 – fine
  • 165 – fine
  • 179 – fine
  • 185 – fine
  • 192 – fine
  • 201a and b – fine
  • 202a and b – fine
  • 204 – fine
  • 210 – fine
  • 211 – fine
  • 212 – fine
  • 213 – fine
  • 214 – fine
  • 215 – fine
  • 216 – fine
  • 217 – fine
  • 218 – fine
  • 221a and b – fine
  • 222a and b – fine
  • 226 – fine – fine
  • 236 – fine
  • 237 – fine
  • 238 – fine
  • 239 – fine
  • 253 – fine
  • 266 – fine
  • 267 – fine
  • 268 – fine
  • 269 – fine
  • 270 – fine
  • 271 – fine
  • 272 – fine
  • 273 – fine
  • 277 – fine
  • 279 – fine
  • 281 – fine
  • 284 – fine
  • 285 – fine
Lawrence and Wilson
  • 40a – I couldn't find in the text anything relating to the "Early French" reference or to the quote.
Me neither. Removed. KJP1 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 40b – fine
  • 43a and b – fine
  • 44 – fine
  • 46 – fine
  • 52a and b – fine
  • 69a and b – fine
  • 182 – fine except that Lawrence (like all right-thinking people) spells "mediaeval" thus
"All right thinking people", except Fowler, of course. KJP1 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Devoted as I am to Fowler, he had his off-moments, e.g. urging us to eschew "chiropodist" in favour of "corn-cutter". Tim riley (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 183 – fine
  • 184 – fine
  • 223 – fine
Girouard
  • 76a – fine, except for the ashlar, of which Girouard makes no mention
Done by moving citation. KJP1 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 76b – fine
  • 78 – fine
  • 80a – three words in brackets in the source are omitted in your quotation with no indication that you have edited it; three dots wanted here, I think
Done. KJP1 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 80b – fine
  • 81 – fine
  • 84a – Girouard is not as definite as you represent him as being: he says that the room "appears" to be B's last work, and Bute "probably" had the initials put there as a memorial
Caveated, appropriately, I hope. KJP1 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • 84b – fine
  • 97 – This was the only bit of paraphrasing that struck me as in any way dubious. Your text reads, "Burges defended their use by reference to a body of doubtful historical evidence, but, in truth, he incorporated them for their architectural effect". The original reads, "Burges supported his roofs with a considerable body of examples of doubtful validity; the truth was that he wanted them for their architectural effect." I'd say that's much too similar for comfort.
That's my fault. In removing the long quote that was there I reworded it slightly and didn't have the Crook source at my fingertips to be aware of that... I've changed it to a quote.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I checked the four JSTOR references, 152, 193, 227 and 241, which are all fine, as regards both accuracy and freedom from close paraphrase.

Where I have said, above, that I couldn't find something in the source I mean just that; Crook, in particular, is in fairly dense prose, and I shall be quite happy to be told that I have overlooked something I was seeking. – Tim riley (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the responses above and consequent changes to the text. Tim riley (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- while we're on the subject of sources/citations, there are a few spots where I'd expect to see citations as a matter of course, mainly at the end of paragraphs:

  • Cardiff Castle -- 4th para
Done. Crook a p.84. KJP1 (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Castle Coch -- 4th para
Done. KJP1 (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

*Knightshayes Court -- 2nd para

Done. KJP1 (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Christ the Consoler, St Mary's and St Paul's Cathedral -- 1st para
Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • The Tower House -- 1st para
Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Furniture -- last para
Done by removing text. KJP1 (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Personal life -- "Contemporaries referred to Burges's child-like nature; Dante Gabriel Rossetti composed a limerick about him (see box)." (either this sentence or the quote box referred to should be cited).
Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Architectural scholarship
Done. KJP1 (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I HAVE TO SAY I COULD HAVE DONE WITHOUT WIKIPEDIA HAVING A SERVER PROBLEM ON THE VERY NIGHT I TRY TO FINISH THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! KJP1 (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

This is really becoming very, very trying. 21:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


A question about the References section

I'm not well up on the minutiae of this section, but I've noticed that only one author in the References list has an authorlink to his/her Knowledge article - and that is the only one supplied by me (Falconer Madan)! I had a look at Knowledge:Citing sources to see whether there's any guidance on this but there doesn't seem to be anything (or else I'm looking in the wrong place). Personally, I would link all authors who have WP articles when they first appear in the Refs section (e.g. Christopher Hibbert, Elizabeth Eastlake, maybe others) unless they're already linked in the text of the article (which a lot of them are, e.g. Pevsner, Crook, Betjeman - but it might be helpful if they were also linked in the Refs section as well). Anyway, I'd be happier if people who know more about this than I do could point to some guidance somewhere that sayeth yea or nay. --GuillaumeTell 09:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I see exactly what you mean and having a single linked author in the references certainly looks odd. I have no idea what the "right" answer is but I hope you will forgive my solution, with which I fear you won't be entirely happy. I've de-linked Madan. I've neither the heart, nor the energy nor the skill, nor even, this evening, the enthusiasm for the article, to try and link all the others and I fear I would just make a mess. If there is a MOS ruling which says they should all be linked, please could someone with more wiki editing skill than I undertake the task. KJP1 (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't link any of them, that's easiest...♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. I think there is only one issue remaining from the above. This is:

The latter done but shall need to think about the former. KJP1 (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
The picture is hugely valuable to the article and I should be loathe to lose it. Can somebody address Crisco 1492 (talk)'s concerns, to whom I repeat my thanks for a wonderfully thorough image review. Alternatively, I could delete it because the article can survive its loss.
Subject to the resolution of the above, I believe all issues raised at FAC have been addressed. KJP1 (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

While (not whilst) being in the happy position of not having any FAC comments to address, I did want to record my enormous thanks to all of the editors who have improved this article; with no apology, I make specific mention of Cassianto for his unflagging interest and insightful comments, Crisco 1492 for his invaluable image review, User:GuillaumeTell for his second GAR, and for his humour and User:Tim riley for his orginal GAR which drove the article forward, for his source review and for his unfailing support. Lastly, User:Dr Blofeld - the first to see the article's potential, the first to see that I could be made to learn some rudiments of wikipedia editing, the first to provide encouragement when I most needed it, and this article's co-author. KJP1 (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's note - Please address Crisco's remaining comments on the reference formatting and the image source, this can be done post FAC. My thanks to the reviewers. Graham Colm (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 18:11, 20 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): Mark Arsten (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

William T. Anderson was one of the deadliest Confederate guerrillas in the American Civil War, though he died by the age of 25. Anderson was a run of the mill horse thief in Kansas until his father and sister were killed by Union forces; he subsequently devoted his life to revenge. Historians have debated whether he was a consummate sadist, or merely forced to resort to violence by the times in which he lived. This article has been peer reviewed and passed as a GA and a MilHist A-class article. Thanks to all the people who helped review and copyedit this, I think it now meets the FA criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Looks interesting, don't know if I'll be able to do a full review. On skimming I noticed this - "In the late 1850s, Ellis Anderson fled to Iowa" - Who is Ellis? I saw mention of a brother Elias but didn't see mention of Ellis beforehand. BlueBonnet 17:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the note, this is a pretty long article, so it's understandable if you don't have time for the whole thing. Ellis is the right name, the other was a typo on my part, I guess. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments: This looks very good so far; interesting and well written. I've read down to the end of "Horse trading and outlawry" so far. Just a few minor comments so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

  • "Historians formed disparate appraisals of Anderson": Not sure you can form an appraisal. Either made an appraisal or formed disparate views possibly?
  • "In 1856, William C. Anderson transported freight to New Mexico on a wagon train, and upon his return, built a cabin in Kansas.": Suggests he did this just once. Seems a little odd to include a one-off job of his father, if this is actually a one-off.
  • "after the man allegedly tried to rob him as he traveled outside of Council Grove": Not a fan of "allegedly". Who is alleging? If it was Anderson's claim, I think it should be made clear.
  • "purportedly because his horses had disappeared with the cargo": Similar problem: purported by who?

Hopefully more to follow later. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

    • Thanks for the comments, changed the first and clarified the last two. I had originally included the information about his dad's trip to New Mexico because it gave Anderson the idea to do the same, but I guess it's not necessary so I removed it. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

More comments: Up to the end of "Texas". Looking extremely good. Nitpicks only: Sarastro1 (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

  • "the state suffered up to 25,000 deaths from guerrilla warfare, more than any other state.": I suspect this may be an issue with the source, but it may be better, if possible, to give a minimum number. Saying "up to" leaves too much wiggle room to state that it was more than any other state. It may be better to rephrase if possible, but not an issue if nothing can be done.
  • "…Quantrill's Raiders on a raid near Council Grove": Raiders…raid. Possibly rephrase?
  • "Castel and Goodrich speculated that this raid may have given Quantrill the idea of a launching an attack deep in Kansas": Not a big issue, but why would a raid in which some of his men were captured and killed give him this idea. Does not quite follow.
  • "Anderson apparently believed this": Apparently sounds a little weak. It may be better to say "may have". I think uncertainty is better than "apparently", but if it can be firmed up, even better.
  • It is not clear in this section how much Anderson was acting independently and how much he was under the "control" of Quantrill. Could this be clarified, or is it not known?
  • "Anderson did not noticeably change after his marriage": This seems to be a bit of a random comment in the middle of the narrative. Is there any particular reason that he would have done? More interesting is why did he marry so quickly?
  • "Wood, Castel and Goodrich, and Daniel Sutherland of the University of Arkansas record that this incident angered Anderson": Unless there is significant opposition to this idea, why do we need to record this as the opinion of four historians? Even if it is controversial, maybe just say something like "it is likely" would be enough? Sarastro1 (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Support: This is a great read. The prose is excellent and everything is clearly explained and set in context. Although I cannot comment on the comprehensiveness or sourcing, knowing nothing about this period of history or the people involved, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it! Just three more minor points which do not affect my support in any way. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

  • "In June 1864, Todd usurped Quantrill's leadership of their group, forcing him to leave the area": Not clear who "him" is.
  • "On August 27, Union soldiers killed at least three of Anderson's men, and the next day, the 4th Missouri Volunteer Cavalry pursued them, but Anderson launched an ambush that killed seven Union soldiers": Where did all this take place?
  • "Anderson visited Confederate sympathizers as he traveled, some of whom viewed him as a hero for fighting the Union. Many of Anderson's men had a deep hatred of the Union, and he was adept at tapping into this emotion." I can't quite see the connection between these sentences. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Comments from Crisco 1492
  • Image review:

Comment Shouldn't self-defense be hyphenated under 'claim of self defense'? -- Lemonade51 (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Support

  • Reviewed, copyedited and supported at MilHist A-Class Review.
  • Reviewing changes since then, while I don't think all have been necessary from a prose perspective, I don't think they've done any harm; just found one slightly 'off' phrase this time round, and corrected.
  • I spotchecked a few sources in Mark's last FAC and found only a couple of relatively minor things that needed tweaking so don't feel the necessity to see one here; I am of course speaking purely as a reviewer here, and not on behalf of other delegates... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I was enjoyed the U.S. Civil War topic (obviously, not the war itself, I don't like bloodshed) and it's quite good to see lesser known figures having their own spotlight here. I wonder how hard it must have been to do the research. This article is very well written to the point that a non-American like myself, with basic knowledge (I wouldn't dare to call myself an experienced reader) of U.S. history is quite able to enjoy and understand with no problem at all the context given. I give my full support to this one. --Lecen (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your support and praise, I'm glad that you liked it. I wasn't too familiar with this part of the Civil War, I hadn't heard of Anderson until I reverted some vandalism while patrolling recent changes. Perhaps my own lack of Civil War expertise made me more inclined to add context. The research took a lot of reading, I had to take a break from it halfway through and work on other projects for a while. I'm glad I came back to it though! Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

So far so good, down to where I stopped, William_T._Anderson#Texas. I did some minor copyediting. Good job. - Dank (push to talk) 02:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the copyediting. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Support. I participated in this article's peer review and thought it was very, very close to FA standard at that time. Just took the time to re-read it, and found nothing even worth quibbling about. A deserving FAC. Acdixon 17:56, 20 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 17:39, 20 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): AustralianRupert and Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

AustralianRupert and I would like to present our collaboration on the first Aboriginal Australian to be commissioned an officer in the Australian Army. For Rupert, Saunders epitomises the characteristics of a generation of Australians who, forged by the hardships of the Depression and the bush, proved their mettle in the crucible of war. What struck me about his story was how he thrived in the heat of battle, when he was judged purely by his considerable talents as a soldier, but had to deal with entrenched discrimination as soon as he took off his uniform -- and rose above that too. The article recently passed GA and MilHist A-Class reviews, and we believe it's ready for the bronze star. Thanks to Nick-D for various contributions along the way and to our other reviewers at ACR and GAN, Anotherclown, Zawed and Thurgate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Comments by Ling
    • "After sitting a selection board on the Atherton Tablelands". I'm sorry, I don't know what this means. A draft board? Why is the location significant? – Ling.Nut (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I've added some more to clarify. No, it wasn't a draft board. Saunders was a volunteer. It was/is (we still use them) an interview/recruitment process used to determine a person's suitability to be appointed as an officer (as opposed to a soldier in the ranks). The location is not especially significant, it is really only included as context. For example, if it wasn't mentioned that it was on the Atherton Tablelands, a reader might ask if the board sat in New Guinea. Anyway, I've tried to clarify in the article. Does that work? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Forged by War: Australians in Combat and Back Home by Gina Lennox (Mar 1, 2006)
      • "continued to serve with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs..." One of only three aboriginals to do so (1969)? p. 174
      • reading through this chapter of the book, it seems s though his gov't work does not rec'v the coverage it deserves... – Ling.Nut (talk)
        • I was a little dubious about relying too much on Forbes as it is primarily family reminiscences, but happy to look around for more material on his govt work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
          • As a general comment, for whatever reason little gets written about the experiences of public servants in Australia. Even the heads of major departments rarely receive much coverage. If there isn't a history of the department (which is often a PhD thesis rather than a published book) then you're probably out of luck. Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
            • I just did a bit of digging, and all I found were photos of Saunders wearing a suit in 1975 and 1985 . Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
              • Tks Nick, yep, I saw those while searching through Picture Australia. On the other hand, per below, Ling did find a useful nugget (pun completely unintended, of course!) in Coombs' story, Obliged to be Difficult, on Saunders' main OAA duties at the beginning. Cheers. Ian Rose (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
      • wikipedia: "Due to the discriminatory laws in force at the time, Saunders had fewer rights as a citizen" are you sure he was a citizen? Not 'til 1967, right? same page as above, iirc.... oh wait, Fighters from the Fringe: Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Recall the Second World War by Robert A. Hall (Jan 1, 1995) p. 65-66 says Aborigines were full citizens in Victoria. So they were citizens in some states but not others? – Ling.Nut (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Correct -- Ramsland also states that Aborigines had the rights of citizens in Victoria but not elsewhere. On the other hand "as a citizen" could be confusing so perhaps we should drop that clause and leave as "had fewer rights"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
      • ashes scattered at lake condah, p. 166 & again several pages later – Ling.Nut (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Funny, I thought we had that already... Done, and tks for pointing out -- it seemed that the location must be of special significance, which based on a quick search turned to out to be the case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Timothy Ashplant, Graham Dawson, Michael Roper Commemorating War: The Politics of Memory
    • Obliged to be Difficult Nugget Coombs' Legacy in Indigenous Affairs Tim Rowse, University of Sydney
    • Melbourne historical journal: Volumes 27-30; Volumes 27-30
      • I dunno if this is legit: "As Djumbi (Reg Saunders) said in 1978; The Aboriginal speaks in many languages and like all people will disagree on many things material. Today when we speak of Land Rights we do so with one voice, because Land Rights is both spiritual..." a lot of talk of land rights in all these volumes, though in the first one one of his relatives says saunders said land rights weren't enough, need skills. – Ling.Nut (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Happy to Support – Ling.Nut (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Image review

  • The placement of the Chris image creates a large white block on my screen - any way to avoid this?
    • Heh,I thought the "stack" parameter was supposed to avoid that, as well as place it immediately below the section heading. I mean it's probably not a big deal if it's placed on the left, it's just odd that no-one else has reported the issue.
  • File:Australian_Army_Emblem.JPG: I believe we would need the copyright info for the original emblem as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Just to confirm, you mean add copyright info for the original Army emblem to this file? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
      • I have been looking into this and to be honest, I haven't been able to find anything definitive on the copyright status of that emblem in general. That particular version was adopted in 1991, when the Australian Army had it redesigned (although it was tweaked slightly again in 1995 when the metal was changed). I don't know if that affects anything, though. I'd be happy to lose the image from the article as I don't believe it is vital to the topic, although in the absence of anything definitive against the image, I'd be happy to AGF its copyright status. Of course, if it needs to go, I can live with that. Thanks for the review. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment – Second World War: Minor, but I don't think the last two words of "Australian Rules Football" need the capitalization. That's about it from me. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

  • I would talk about my edits, except that of course I haven't found any to make so far.
  • "During this time he largely educated himself and in 1937 he went into business with his father and brother, operating their own sawmill in Portland, Victoria, until it was destroyed in a bushfire in 1939.": It's hard to know when to insist on a comma between independent clauses. MOS is silent (I think). Most style guides, including the ones I'm most likely to use, insist on them. The trend is to drop some of these commas ... but I think you need a PhD in commaology to know when it's okay. What I've been doing so far at FAC is to let them slide if the writers seem to have "good taste" and don't overdo it, but to insist on using them consistently otherwise. That's a little inconsistent, and makes me feel guilty. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 20:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Heh, funny you pick that sentence because it's not my favourite either, though not necessarily due lack of commas. I've never liked the expression "during this time", though I admit I can't think of anything better. Also "their own" sawmill is probably redundant because we've just said they're in business together. As to commas, I'd probably use them "parenthetically" around "in 1937". All that would make it: "During this time he largely educated himself and, in 1937, went into business with his father and brother, operating a sawmill in Portland, Victoria, until it was destroyed in a bushfire in 1939." Another option might be to simply make "During this time he largely educated himself" a sentence on its own, since it doesn't relate that closely to going into business. Thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
      • How about "He worked and furthered his own education until 1937, when he ..."? Do you have an opinion on whether I should ask for commas between independent clauses? Garner's, Chicago, and some FAC reviewers require them ... some BritEng style guides do too, but now I'm out of my depth. - Dank (push to talk) 01:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
        • Sorry, Dan, although I went to a "grammar school", I learnt precious little theory on speaking and writing and picked up practically all I know from my parents, who were taught the theory... ;-) I'm fine with your suggestion, but want to avoid two "until"s in one sentence. How about "He worked and furthered his own education until 1937, when he went into business with his father and brother operating a sawmill in Portland, Victoria; it was destroyed in a bushfire in 1939." Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 03:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Not sure this is an important point (probably not), but the grammar might be different depending on who legally owned the sawmill: "After three years of working and educating himself in his free time, in 1937 he went into business with his father and brother in a sawmill they jointly owned and operated in Portland, Victoria. Saunders worked with them until the mill was destroyed in a bushfire in 1939." – Ling.Nut (talk) 03:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
  • CommentsSupport
    • I reviewed this at ACR so I'm comfortable that it is very close to meeting the FA criteria. Some fairly minor points:
    • 1(a) well-written:
      • maybe a word missing here: "was the first Aboriginal Australian to be commissioned an officer...", perhaps "was the first Aboriginal Australian to be commissioned as an officer..."
      • This sentence seems to only make half that point: "Due to the discriminatory laws in force at the time, Saunders had fewer rights as a citizen than the white Australians he led...", perhaps consider something like: "Ironically, Saunders had fewer rights as a citizen than the white Australians he led due to the discriminatory laws in force at the time." (suggestion only - the reader should understand the inference I admit).
      • Incorrect terminology here: "In February 1951, he took charge of A Company when its commanding officer was wounded...", in the Australian Army a rifle company is commanded by an Officer Commanding (OC), not a CO (they command battalions).
        • Well that's Army for you -- I'm used to Air Force, where OCs command larger formations than COs... ;-) Altered to more generic "commander" because I think "officer commanding" may puzzle the uninitiated and even it we were to link it, I see the old OC article now redirects to commanding officer, which doesn't help... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
      • This seems awkward to me: "He was also involved in a veterans organisation, the Returned and Services League (RSL), though he fell out with leaders Alf Garland and Bruce Ruxton over Garland's...", perhaps consider: "He was also involved in the Returned and Services League (RSL), a a veterans organisation, though he fell out with leaders Alf Garland and Bruce Ruxton over Garland's..." (suggestion only - I know this has been the product of other reviewers comments so if you want to keep it that way I'm happy)
      • Lake Condah, Victoria should be wikilinked at first instance (it is currently linked in the "Later life" section, but mentioned in "Early life").
    • 1(b) comprehensive:
      • "Saunders' mother died in 1924 from complications caused by pneumonia while giving birth to her third child, a girl, who also died...", do we know his mother's name?
        • I think someone asked at ACR and we didn't have the info, but it's possible that was before the last source or two came our way -- will see. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
    • 1(c) well-researched: no issues here - I've spot checked the fol refs:
      • 1: "Captain Reginald Walter (Reg) Saunders, MBE". Australian War Memorial. Retrieved 21 July 2009" - citations checks out, no issues with close paraphrase
      • 4: ""Walter Christopher George Saunders". The AIF Project. Australian Defence Force Academy. Retrieved 12 May 2012." - citation checks out, no issues with close paraphrase
      • 10:"Captain Reginald Saunders". Australian Broadcasting Corporation, South West Victoria. Retrieved 21 July 2009." - citations check out, no issues with close paraphrase
      • 22: "Battle of 42nd Street". Australian War Memorial. Retrieved 13 April 2012." - citation checks out, no issues with close paraphrase
      • 35: "Reginald Walter Saunders, MBE (1920–1990)". Fifty Australians. Australian War Memorial. Retrieved 18 May 2012." - citations check out, no issues with close paraphrase
      • 60: "Flanagan, Martin (25 April 1989). "We can make peace, says an old warrior". The Age: p. 9. Retrieved 28 May 2012." - citation checks out, no issues with close paraphase
    • 1(d) neutral: no issues here - article seems to present subject in a balanced manner.
    • 1(e) stable: no issues here - all recent changes appear to be constructive
    • 2(a) a lead: no issues here - lead is a little short but summarises all key points
    • 2(b) appropriate structure: yes
    • 2(c) consistent citations: yes
    • 3.Media - images look fine to me but I'm not an expert so I'll leave this up to others
    • 4.Length - article is succint and covers all key points. Anotherclown (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 05:38, 20 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Typhoon Gay was one of the worst tropical cyclones to strike Thailand on record. Its unusual origin an unprecedented intensification within the Gulf of Thailand caught hundreds of vessels off-guard, leading to tragic loss of life. Its unprecedented intensity in the region led to immense damage onshore as well, with tens of thousands of buildings damaged or destroyed and nearly 600 lives lost. The storm's trail of damage continued into India where a further 69 people were killed. All told, the typhoon was responsible for nearly 1,000 fatalities and ranks as one of the worst natural disasters in Thailand's history.

Over the past several months, I've rebuilt this article from the meager piece it was into what I believe is the most complete account of the storm available. Relative scarcity of information made writing this a bit of a challenge and for the scale of damage caused by this storm, the article's size may seem a bit short. I've read through every journal mentioning the storm I could find and I fully believe there is nothing left to add. With that, it's time for this to enter the spotlight. I hope you enjoy reading this article as much as I did writing it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Expect a review of the article soon. hf24 14:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Comments
Lede
Shouldn't "Kavali Cyclone of 1989" be bolded per MOS:BOLDTITLE?
It's not an official name for the storm, it's just a common name for it in India. Cyclonebiskit (talk)
"800 fatalities" needs an &nbsp;
Done Cyclonebiskit (talk)
Same with "November 1989"
Done Cyclonebiskit (talk)
"more than"? What does track file say? If it says 120, then do 120, not "more than"...?
It's another way of saying that it attained typhoon status to avoid using "typhoon" too many times. It also works well with the track since it attained 120 km/h winds early on Nov. 3 and continued to intensify throughout the day. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
"first typhoon since 1891" – linky?
Reference #8 Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
"after temporarily weakening over land and gradually reorganized" doesn't flow too well
Removed "after temporarily weakening over land" Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
"by surprise" seems a bit informal. I don't have a problem with it, but the tone seems a bit too casual.
I'd prefer to leave it as is for now unless another editor has similar concerns. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
"275 offshore fatalities" needs an &nbsp;
Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
"amid" seems a bit like "during"..."under" or something might be a better word IMO
During and under don't work as well in this context. Would amidst work better? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
How can a ship be "under" swells? "Amid" is the perfect choice of words here (btw, "amidst" = "amid", just a much more archaic BrE version of it) Auree ★ 01:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
"588 people" needs an &nbsp;
Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
"1989 United States dollars" ^
Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
"Striking India as a powerful cyclone" isn't too relevant at this point; it was mentioned earlier in the lede and readers should understand that...
It notifies the reader that the focus is shifting from effects in Thailand to effects in India. It's just there for transitory purposes. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
"20,000 homes" – nbsp...
Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
"100,000 people" ^
Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

hf24 14:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

hf24, for future reference, instead of cluttering the FAC page by listing every single instance where &nbsp; are required, could you leave a more general and much more helpful comment like "add &nbsp; for numbers throughout"? Auree ★ 01:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Prose at top

  • Mmmm, who's doing this writing? I can barely fault the lead. I've just made a few trivial edits based on personal pref. Please revert if you don't like. Since you're using US spelling, you might consider the US dash for Category 5–equivalent, which avoids the need for double hyphenation. Range dashes are more readable when there are conversions to range as well, I think (done). The weird symbols won't be internationally recognised (remember the topic is both India- and Thailand-related, and the readers are everywhere); it's up to you, but my pref would be to put them in parentheses and make the US$ the main currency. My, there are an awful lot of nbsp syntaxes in the edit box. I don't mind, but it is daunting for newbies. Let's hope we can organise an easy shortcut for this, soon. Nice work, but I haven't looked further. Tony (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Prose in top sections—if this is a contender for the Cup, I wonder why closer audits of the prose haven't been done.

  • Integrated theme and paragraphing. The storm is awkwardly personified: "Despite the narrowness of the gulf, the storm was able to take advantage of warm waters and good outflow, owing to its small size."—please consider "the storm took advantage of". But I still feel it's awkward every with this change. Unsure ... "gulf, the small size of the storm ...". I don't have the technical knowledge of the field to fix this, but something tells me this should be more clearly a lead-in to the subsequent statements (is it the ultimate causal factor in what then happened, this small size combined with the warm waters and good outflow?). Then the fact that the strengthening was faster (and perhaps stronger? ... unsaid) than anticipated is separated by a paragraph break. Isn't this part of the same integrated idea? I don't mind if the next para starts with "Gay attained typhoon status early on November 3", or even "Later on November 3, ...". The access to warm waters is an interesting issue that reappears at the end of the section ... I'm starting to get it, but in reverse.
  • Repetitions et al.. "the typhoon attained winds of 185 km/h (115 mph)"—second "attained" in five seconds; here it's less suitable, don't you think? And in another five seconds there's a third "attained", again of wind. (I sense here, too, there's a slight feel in the writing process of personifying a storm; perhaps this should be reserved for the human managers and victims.)
  • "... Gay resumed strengthening as the ridge to its north intensified and ..."—the "resumed strengthening" is a little clunky. Could it be just "strengthened", given the strong temporal context in the adjacent clauses? There's another "strengthening" in the next sentence, too. Do watch the repetitions. Then there's another "attained" (its peak intensity), but here entirely appropriate (it wouldn't pall if one or two previous usages of the word, and the immediately following one, were changed).
  • "Winds fluctuated violently and changed direction, preventing the ship from remaining stabilized despite being within safe operating limits."—I guess the limits are to tonnage? Sorry to be dumb.
  • "with gale-force winds located within 95 km (60 mi) of the center."—you could remove "located".
  • "Two days after the sinking, four rescue ships and two helicopters in the region were searching for survivors; four people were rescued from the vessel by November 6."—Three issues: (1) by November 6 ... not on? I guess the sources allow no greater precision ... (2) This is the first date in the section; was Nov. 6 two days after the sinking? (3) Were the four people rescued from the vessel underwater? (4) Are these four included in the six crew who survived? I'm confused.
  • "collectively" could be removed. Tony (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments; I've tried to deal with all of these, except for the tonnage limit and the vessel part (I'll leave those to Cyclonebiskit). Auree ★ 17:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your help Auree, it's much appreciated. As for the tonnage, the article didn't specify what it meant by "safe operating limits," so we can only guess that it was tonnage. I'll get to the second comment about the sinking later when I have more time. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
There was no information from what I read on where the four people were rescued (if they were in the ship or floating in the sea around it). The four survivors mentioned are part of the six overall that survived the sinking. I'm not sure where that becomes vague so could you clarify what causes the confusion? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Very accessible, well written article--great work guys. A few minor comments that don't affect my support:
  • "classifying Gay as a modern-day Super Cyclonic Storm" Why is "modern-day" included here?
  • "before passing over the Seacrest, an oil drilling ship." Should "oil drilling" be hyphenated here?
  • Some repeated wikilinks: Andhra Pradesh, Thailand, Gulf of Thailand, Andaman Islands, and Kavali.
  • Some overlinking, India, Thailand, and the United States probably shouldn't be linked.
  • "Throughout Andhra Pradesh, 69 fatalities and 410 million Rupees ($25.27 million USD) worth of damage was attributed to Typhoon Gay." Is "was" correct here, or should it be "were"? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 05:09, 20 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): PumpkinSky (talk) and Montanabw (talk)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it's ready and many have helped; a hearty thank you to Montanabw as co-nom extensive help since the very beginning, Vsmith for professional geological input, Jesse V. for a great GA review, and two formal Peer Reviews; extensive pre-FAC input from Wehwalt and Nikkimaria; and too many others I can't thank enough. This is a unique article on a gemstone found only in one location in the world. PumpkinSky talk 00:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC) "This is a unique article on a precious gemstone

Support and Image check I had a part in the peer review, and my concerns were answered at that time.

Regarding images: Most are uploads by the photographers, especially the gemstones (pretty). However,

On this, I don't think fair use works, but the brooch, as a item of adornment, may not be under copyright. I think the uploader can probably change it to a CC license of his choice, but someone else should probably doublecheck this one.

Good work.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. According to commons:Licensing#United States, an anon work over 95 years old is PD. This would clearly make the Ringold and Hoover photos PD, AFAIK and possibly the other two. As for the FU photo, I've notified the uploader so he can respond here. PumpkinSky talk 15:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I just went by the tags, which claim pre-1923 publication. We'll work it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Clarification: Anonymous photos published before 1923 are always in the public domain. Anonymous unpublished photos are only in the public domain if they were taken before 1892, as later unpublished photos are copyrighted. Unpublished here means that the photo hasn't been published anywhere before 2003 as any later publications do not affect anything. Anonymous photos first published between 1923 and the end of February 1989 are sometimes in the public domain (requires more information about the publication). Anonymous photos first published between 1 March 1989 and the end of 2002 are never in the public domain unless the photo was published without permission from the copyright holder (in which case it doesn't count as "publication"). All photos appear to have been taken after 1891, so they are only in the public domain if they have been published somewhere. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Wehwalt's assessment, and I personally do not feel that a non-free use rationale is required for the image in question. However, it is currently tagged as both public domain and non-free, which is something of a nightmare- there can't really be any middle ground. Every image is, for our purposes, only one of "free" and "non-free". The old images, if they are public domain because they have been published, require evidence of publication- if they are public domain for some other reason, they require a change of copyright tags. J Milburn (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
See User_talk:Tim1965#Conchita_image where Nikkimaria and Tim1965 say an image can have two licenses and I said I didn't get it then either. People smarter than me on images need to resolve this. Are you saying it's PD?PumpkinSky talk 18:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
My reasoning for the double licensing on Conchita was that as a 3D work, the copyright on both the photo and the work itself needed to be accounted for - the PD tag is from the photographer, while the FUR is for the work. If the work is not actually under copyright (I'm not sure), so much the better. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Update: One file has been proposed for deletion, see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:JakeHoover1894.png. It would really be necessary to find an early publication of the other files discussed above. If they haven't been published until recently, they are still copyrighted. I can't tell if they are private photos (which are unlikely to be published soon after taking them) or press photos (which are likely to be published soon after taking them) or some other kind of photos. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Photo update--I've deleted the four old photos that may or may not have been published prior to 1923 and replaced them with some photos published by the US Geological Survey in 1900 (currently they are all in ref 5), definitely PD1923 and probably PD-USGov-USGS. This leaves the Conchita butterly photo license tag, which I need help with. Uploader was notified yesterday. PumpkinSky talk 23:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Has anyone looked at the Talk page for the Conchita Butterfly image? There was discussion there about what copyright license to use on this image. Jewelry is copyrightable, and it is not clear to me that the idea "butterfly" is inseparable from the particular butterfly created by Crevoshay and Kane. I think we have to presume copyright of the Conchita Butterfly until proven otherwise (e.g., a denial of copyright from the two authors of the work). This would then require a fair use license by Knowledge's part, which has been asserted by me in the image licensure documentation. Perhaps I am wrong, but an expert opinion would be useful here. (As they used to say, "I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV.") - Tim1965 (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree that an expert opinion would be helpful. While I accept that there can be multiple copyrights acting upon an image, I'm saying that, for our purposes, an image must either be completely free, or treated as completely non-free. Tagging it as free and non-free is something of a nightmare, and a practice I really think needs to be done away with. I certainly accept that a piece of jewellery can be copyrighted, but I'm not sure that a cut gemstone could be, and that seems to be what this picture is showing. J Milburn (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • We have had previous FA articles pass with a couple of fair use images; I don't think FA requires "completely" one way or the other, so long as justifiable; here we have a known wikipedian who shot a detail of the piece showing the second most famous cut Yogo in the world (the most famous is probably the Tiffany Iris Brooch, and though the creator is deceased, we have no way to get a free image of it unless someone can find it in the museum in Baltimore...). So somehow this image has to be "kosher," however we get there. Nikki, any thoughts? Montanabw 23:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I've asked here: Knowledge:Media_copyright_questions#Photos_of_a_part_of_a_piece_of_jewelry for help.PumpkinSky talk 19:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
  • As the author of the photograph, I'm completely willing to apply whatever license is appropriate (insofar as my photograph is concerned). I myself have no desire to retain any copyright interest in the image itself, so if my license needs to change to bring it in line with the jewelry's copyright status--by all means, I will change it. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Per Wehwalt and J.Milburn it may well be that the FU can be removed and the photo is in fact PD. Also note no one has responded to my post at the media copyright page. PumpkinSky talk 14:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments by MONGO:
Check MOS here for image placement. I sorted a few out, but the History section is pretty crowded and all the images seem to be relevent to the section.--MONGO 02:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I was watching that while you were doing it. I understand. I just moved two in history for now. We may need to relook after licensing is sorted out. PumpkinSky talk 02:09, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Toolserver peer review says the article is missing a few non-breaking stops &nbsp; but I only saw one as an embedded note (1 mm)--MONGO 03:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I fixed that one. I also fixed some whitespace with a script.PumpkinSky talk 10:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Will endorse for FA if and when image issues are cleaned up.--MONGO 17:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support...image issues have been addressed. It was a pity to lose some images, but they have been replaced with some others that are suitable. I read through the article over this past weekend and though it is written in different stylistic manner than I might have followed, the prose is tight and well referenced. I see no MOS issues, reflinks checks out and this article now meets FA criteria. Nice job!--MONGO 00:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Source review

  • FN31: how does this source meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • It supplements a source showing the different colors of gemstones with a photo, May not be needed but is a good visual. Further comment?
  • FN57: painting title should be italicized
  • Why provide province for Vancouver and not Toronto? Those are of about equivalent recognizability IMO, so either include it for both or neither. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
    • FN31-Vsmith, who has an MS in geology, told me it was "quite good" and usable, so I've asked him to elaborate; Gemstones-Guide is a CIRCA site and CIRCA is a worldwide dealer in gemstones, they are very knowledgeable in the gem field; FN57 fixed; ON added to Toronto. FYI, what I'm trying to back up is a known scientific fact--that chromium cause corundum w/o other traces to be red or pink and with blue sapphires they result in purple (blue+red=purple), there's no outlandish claim being supported here, just plain basic science. The Royal Society of Chemistry clearly states Cr makes corundum red (ruby), others clearly state Fe+Ti makes blue sapphire, and the two sources listed are the best ones that state Cr in Yogos makes them purple. Shall I add the RSC ref? PumpkinSky talk 23:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
      • The Gauthier thesis is the result of a detailed study of the deposit. The chemistry/color connection it is used for seems non-controversial. As a scientific study it would seem more reliable than a gemstone website. I haven't found references to it, so I guess it fails one criterion in WP:scholarship. It is used only for linking purple to chromium and the existence of rubies in the area. Neither of the two facts seem critical to the article, although interesting. Vsmith (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Not critical, but useful, the point is there are few Yogos that are anything but blue, something not true of other Montana sapphire deposits, where boring and yellow are common. Montanabw 23:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Note on spotchecking - I performed an in-depth spotcheck of this article just over a month ago, and all issues found at that time were addressed. However, I did not (and do not) have access to two significant sources (Voynick 1985 and Kane 2003), and there have of course been changes since then, so it's to delegate discretion whether a spotcheck is needed here. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments - as someone interested in Rocky Mountain minerals and who likes sapphires a lot, I've always thought this was an interesting article since first editing it last January. I've only read about half-way through and will leave comments as I go - most are nitpicks. Also, I've made a few copyedits but feel free to revert.

Lead
  • I think the lead is a bit long and maybe could be tightened up a bit, example here: "This became the highly profitable "English Mine" which flourished from 1899 until the late 1920s and, under a series of changing owners and names, periodically operated into the early 21st century." > can be tightened a bit
  • "ultimately bought out by the syndicate" > rem "ultimately"
  • "Although Intergem ultimately went out of business," > rem "ultimately"
  • organization > suggest keeping the mining companies together in one paragraph & trim back a bit re Intergem
  • Para two ends w/ the Vortex mine in the 1980s, para 3 switches topics Montana sapphires, and para 4 switches back to the mining operations, introducing, again in the 1980s, Intergem. For better flow, I'd suggest switching the paragraphs around so that the mining operations aren't separated by a different topic. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Ah, the problem here is that others, prior to FAC, have asked for it in chronlogical sequence. If it is put in company sequence, the time would be out of sync. IMHO it's better in time sequence and so far more have asked for it in chronological sequence (talk page, GAC, etc). Is it okay to leave this way? PumpkinSky talk 00:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
        Ditto what PSKY said. We need to keep it as is. (Room to tweak the Montana state gem bit, though. I moved it elsewhere) I tried doing it chronologically; I tried it mine-by-mine. But by the mine is even more confusing. Consensus of editors was to stick to the chronology as much as possible, and NOT go mine-by-mine except where completely unavoidable. Open to ideas for making it flow better within that structure, though. Montanabw 16:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Location
  • "The westernmost end of the Yogo dike occurs just west of Yogo Creek, about 3 miles (4.8 km) north of Yogo Creek's confluence with the Middle Fork of the Judith River; from that point it runs east-northeast (ENE) and ends about 0.5 miles (0.80 km) before reaching the Judith River." Hard to follow sentence > can this be simplified?
Mineralogy
  • "Yogos present an advantage to gemcutters: since they are found as primary constituent minerals within an igneous bedrock rather than in sedimentary alluvial deposits where most other sapphires are located, they retain a perfect or near perfect crystalline shape, making cutting much easier, as does their lack of inclusions, color zoning, or cloudiness." > Have you considered bundling the citations at the end of the sentence instead of breaking up the sentence w/ cites?
  • "The United States Geological Survey and many gem experts have stated that Yogos are "among the world's finest sapphires." > Which of the three sources has the direct quote?
  • Because of the rarity of large rough Yogo sapphires, gem prices begin rising sharply when they are over 0.5 carats (0.10 g), and skyrocket when they are over 1 carat (0.20 g). > clarify? gem prices in general or the price of a gem quality Yogo?
  • "A very small number of rubies have been found at Yogo Gulch." > this seems off-topic. Is a ruby simply a sapphire of another color?
    • Strictly due to historical development, ruby and sapphires are all corundum. But when corundum is red, it's called a ruby, all other colors are called sapphires, so in a way a ruby is a sapphire of another color.PumpkinSky talk 23:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Clarify that Kashimir is in the Himalayas, probably in parenthesis, only because it's a big jump (literally) from Montana
  • "Alluvial sapphires are found in the Orient" > Asia?
  • "The host rock for the sapphires, the Yogo dike, is a dark gray to green porphyritic lamprophyre consisting of clinopyroxene and phlogopite phenocrysts set in a matrix of clinopyroxene, titanian magnetite, apatite, chlorite, serpentine and calcite. The phlogopite composition suggests a 900 °C (1,650 °F) crystallization temperature. Xenoliths of limestone, clastic sedimentary rocks, and gneiss are present. In some locations, due to the abundance of xenoliths, the dike has the appearance of a limestone breccia in an igneous matrix." > Difficult to read here because of the jargon. Can it be simplified or some of it go to a note?
  • "Recent erosion in the area removed the overlying shales and again exposed the limestone to groundwater action which again produced collapse breccias which include fragments of the dike rock. He determined that the erosion of the dike in the current erosion cycle was minimal. > repetition of again, again
Misc
  • "Corundum was also found at Dry Cottonwood Creek near Butte in 1889, Rock Creek near Philipsburg in 1892, and Quartz Gulch near Bozeman in 1894."> minor point, but citations should be in numerical order; I've noticed a number of these.

Hopefully I'll get back to this. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your help so far, hopefully VSmith and Tim1965 can take a peek at the stuff only they know how to fix. PSKY did you drop each of them a heads up on this? The tightening up that has occurred has been quite helpful. I'm bummed to lost Millie Ringwold, but maybe we can fix that license and get it back in. Montanabw 16:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Comments from Crisco 1492
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk
Comment from Gerda Arendt
  • Comments: Supported below Starting a read through, look like it's in pretty good shape thus far.
  • "The cornflower blue color" Should this be hyphenated?
  • No. Hyphens discouraged in this context. --MTBW
  • "Montana sapphires in general come in a variety of colors, but Yogos are almost always blue. About two percent of Yogos are purple, rather than blue." I'm not sure "rather than blue" is needed here, since we were told they're almost always blue in the previous sentence. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Could the first section of "History" be tightened up at all? The middle two paragraphs seem to wander a bit.
  • Will peek at it --MTBW Follow up: Tightened, moved last sentence to start, consolidated paragraphs and chopped a little (after consulting sources) --MTBW
  • "One story credits a local school teacher for recognizing the blue pebbles as sapphires. A variation is that the schoolteacher lived in Maine" Is this a typo? "school teacher" vs "schoolteacher".
    • Except Google has 103 million hits for "school teacher" vs 4 million hits for "schoolteacher," and I was one, so let's keep it two words (grin) --MTBW
      • Except that you need to put the phrase in quotes if you want the two words together. Searching for ""school teacher"" and "school teacher" are quite different. But you're right, since in quotes "school teacher" returns 33.3 million results, and "schoolteacher" is 4 million. Jesse V. (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Consider adding modern equivalents to historical dollar figures, it's not required (I don't think it is, anyway), but might be interesting.
    • Here it is for $86,151 dollars in 1957. (approximately $934,600 as of 2024) Where all should we plop it in? --MTBW Follow up: I put it into the earliest figures, figured after 1929, it would be overkill, but now that y'all have the template, do as you see fit. --MTBW

Mark Arsten (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Some inconsistency in "Early mining": " The vein turned out to be five miles long" vs "This site was 5 miles (8.0 km) from Yogo City"
Fixed, used convert template for both.PumpkinSky talk 21:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "The sale was finally completed for $65,000 cash and some stock considerations, because the company's capital was exhausted" Is the comma needed here?
    No. Done. Jesse V. (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • In the second paragraph of "1940s–1970s" you use actually or actual a couple times, is there a better way of saying this?
  • Done--MTBW
  • "By 1980, only four American owners had been successful at Yogo Gulch, all early in its mining history. The English syndicate had been the most successful of any venture, and even its success was short-lived." You have "success" three times in two sentences here, might want to try for some more variation.
  • Fixed --MTBW


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 GrahamColm 11:47, 16 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) , Novice7, Adabow 15:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I continue to believe that this article compares favorably to its peers that are current FAs of songs within 10 years of the original version of this ("Hey Jude", "The Long and Winding Road", "What'd I Say", "Like a Rolling Stone", "Layla"). I have included my co-nominators from the prior nominations. I have been in contact with the two reviewers with outstanding issues on the prior nomination: Nikkimaria (talk · contribs) (I have had extensive communications on her talk page where I have sort of been directed on how to satisfy her concerns) and Kitchen roll (talk · contribs) who has been unresponsive to my attempts to determine if removing one of the two catalog number references was sufficient. I feel these were the only two outstanding issues on the prior nomination.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - with comments
  • I would eliminate the small lists and incorporate the names into the text somewhere as I don't think they offer much in their current format.
  • Thats fine. Like I say, there is no insistence and I'm sure this is the norm. It's merely a personal preference to eliminate lists from prose articles. -- Cassianto (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Also there is some slight squeezing of text as a result of the image and infobox and the images opposite halfway down. Location of text would have a lot to do with this I know. -- Cassianto (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Sorry, yes the Norah Jones image. Could the sound recording be moved down to the left side of the last para of that section? I know that it is difficult to accommodate the info box, Jones image and the sound recording in such a small section, so some squeezing is going to be inevitable. The moving down of the sound recording could lessen this somewhat. -- Cassianto (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "They also commended Sinatra's vocal performance, writing it was 'fine'." This to me doesn't sound right. Maybe something like "They also commended Sinatra's singing, calling it a "fine" performance. -- Cassianto (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Original version
  • To clarify, in the Orignal version section, ABC Records is mentioned. It maybe good to link this to prevent the reader having to stop and go back to the lede to enquire about this prominent record company as per WP:REPEATLINK. No worries if you disagree. -- Cassianto (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Fine. Your choice. Still a good article though.

Comments by Pyrrhus16 - Didn't spot any big issues. Just a few minor things.

Those are the only issues that I have noticed. Pyrrhus16 18:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Support My issues have been resolved. Great article. Pyrrhus16 20:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The entire article seems to be essentially a compilation of stats and quotes. Nowhere does it actually describe what the song is about. What does the title mean? What are the lyrics about? "It's primarily a country song, but it contains gospel influences." Please elaborate (as an aside, should avoid using contractions in formal writing).
    • I am going to have to get back to you on this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
      • In the LEAD, I note that this is a song from the 1960s and that expectations should be calibrated against its peers rather than against 21st century music articles. This article for example does not have a music tour with a confirmed playlist including this song or a list of promotional appearances. I am pretty sure it did not appear on American Bandstand or The Ed Sullivan Show. Musical guest appearances on late night TV and morning news shows were not common in that era. Thus, the article compensates by talking about the album tour and major appearances before the next album was produced under the assumption that most performances made after Ray Charles Invites You To Listen was released and before the next album was released probably included the top-charting song from the album. That is an example of expectation calibration for 1960s music. In terms of "What does the title mean? What are the lyrics about?" We are limited on what he was thinking about. From what I gather it was a song Steagall wrote while recovering from polio or soon thereafter. I can not tell what relationship in his life inspired the song. I'll add what I can find.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • This source says that Charles used a completely different voice when singing this song. Also from this source, who are the Raelettes, and why aren't they mentioned in the article?
  • has the song been part of the soundtrack for any notable films? (Fassbinder's Gods of the Plague is one example; surely there must be more). Sasata (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Comments by Wehwalt.

I have a few issues, though I'm leaning to support.

Lede
  • " the Grammy Award for Record of the Year and Best Pop Collaboration " There needs to be either a plural for "Awards" or something like "for" in there.
*"ll had duet vocal arrangements." perhaps, "has been sung as a duet" or similar? I would fold the next sentence into this one, too, perhaps with something like "most recently (as of 2012) by ..."
*" It was released " I would say "The song" for "It". I don't think there's great confusion it just "sounds better"."
  • "Covers have also appeared on some artists' compilation albums who never released "Here We Go Again" as a single." Maybe "Cover versions have appeared on albums by a number of artists, even some who did not release it as a single."
Original version
  • You may want to make clearer what the connection of the contract expiration is to Charles' desire to appeal across genre lines. The fact that the labels (I assume) specialized in certain kinds of music may be lost on the reader.
  • I am not sure I even understand your point. He signed a 3-year contract with ABC in 1959. He wanted to wait until he built up a track record with them before experimenting with country. He resigned with ABC several times thereafter. He did not change albums to do country.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Alright, perhaps I misunderstood the passage.
  • "a lot of" possibly a bit informal.
  • While Ray Charles Invites You to Listen is introduced in the lede, it should (in my view) be introduced in the body as well.
  • It might be convenient to mention the year the song came out before you mention the year that it was reused in.
  • Do you really want to start the "composition" subsection with so much biographical detail about Steagall? It had me scratching my head, a bit.
It is not a significant concern, as you have thought about it, I will withdraw it.
  • "Nevada Casino performances," query capitalization of Casino.
  • "a writer for Billboard magazine said that" I would say "wrote", myself. Consider reversing the order of the two sentences.
  • "his background singers" consider putting these in parenthesis or a footnote, it is awkward as it is.
Nancy Sinatra
  • "which was later remastered and reissued in 1996." I don't think this is important enough to put in the introductory sentence to this topic. Suggest moving or deleting that info and combining the first two sentences.
  • was a "smooth" An odd phrasing.
  • calling it a "fine" performance. This seems a bit unremarkable. I would either lose this bit of faint praise or put in something more interesting.
*"The following week it debuted on the Hot 100 chart at number 98. The song then spent two weeks on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart, with a high of 98" The two bits of information about 98 can be combined, surely. Also, it seems a bit odd that you are calling it the "Hot 100" chart and THEN the more full "US Billboard Hot 100 chart". Usually the more thorough one would come first.
I played with it a bit directly.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "According to Allmusic databases, 1969 was the final year in her career that Sinatra reached the Hot 100 chart." If it was with this song, say so. If it was not, say what song.
  • "According to Allmusic the original track was 3:09, but when it appeared on the 2006 compilation album Essential Nancy Sinatra, it was 3:11." Perhaps better for a footnote.
Norah Jones, etc.
  • I am not a musical expert, but I think this has something to do with the way a song is faded out and how much space is put between songs. I believe the same recording has been used. I am not a musical person capable of explaining the actual details that cause these differences.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough,--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Why were the Sinatra and Jones versions selected for discussion? You say it's been recorded lots of times. What's going on with these two (and the original) in particular?
  • "On the record, the two singers' vocals are in harmony" I would move later in the paragraph, and avoid "harmony" due to the other use (or change the other). This sentence might make a good conclusion to the paragraph.
  • i would suggest dividing the paragraph with all the reviews at least once.
  • "the song was nominated in two categories" I would suggest making it clearer we are talking about the new version.
  • The material about U2, and the distinction between song and record of the year should probably be consigned to footnotes.
Alright, fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "Opening week sales earned Charles his highest charting album in over 40 years." Suggest merging into prior sentence with ", Charles' highest-charting album in over 40 years".
  • "Digital singles sales saw 12 of the 13 tracks on the album make the US Billboard Hot Digital Tracks Top 50 chart. "Here We Go Again" was the download sales leader among the albums tracks, but the other 12 tracks totaled 52,000 digital downloads." the number of digital single sales for this song might be helpful. Also, "albums tracks"??
  • How does the 2004 release of the song, as part of an album download, but obviously available individually, with the January 2005 release?
  • "The song charted for a week" This sentence has "chart" or "charted" in it five times. Suggest two would be better.
Other versions
  • I think the discussions of the track time can be omitted, or dropped to a footnote. The reader is probably not going to care very much whether the song is 3:05 or 3:08
  • "The album included a track entitled "Here We Go Again". The album was released on March 29, 2011." combine
  • " but it is not clear what he felt of the album version." I would omit. It doesn't help the reader.
Good effort.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I think at this distance, no one is going to care, besides, entertainment figures don't seem to age like normal folks.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I added the file and will remove the FU image if a reviewer requests it. I would rather remove the 1961 photo since she was a brunette and wearing her hair differently, in addition to the fact that the photo is 8 years before the album.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, all issues are resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2012 (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 Ian Rose 02:00, 13 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Myriostoma coliforme, aka the "salt-shaker earthstar", is a widely distributed fungus, and one of 33 species proposed for protection under the Bern Convention. The article has been a good article for about two years, and with the help of Circeus, I've recently updated the literature and smoothed out some rough edges. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Looking good; a few quick thoughts-

  • "As they mature, the exoperidium (the outer tissue layer of the peridium) splits open into rays and curves backward, which pushes the fruit body above the substrate." Singular/plural switch
  • "Fully opened individuals" Fully-opened? Also, is "individuals" the best wording?
  • "tip to tip" tip-to-tip?
  • "The rays number 8–14, of unequal size and with tips that often roll back inward." Doesn't quite read right
  • "There are columellae (sterile tissue usually in the base of the gleba, and extending up through the gleba)" columellae is countable; tissue is not. Areas of sterile tissue? I'm not sure what columellae are.
  • "by Woodward (1797):" Who? He's not been introduced yet.
  • The "Similar species" section would really benefit from something like "and so can readily be distinguished from other species", but, without a source, I think this would be a tiny bit OR-y. It's OK as is if there is no source, though.
  • Circeus has already changed this, but at least a couple of my sources explicitly state that this species is hard to confuse with other earthstars. I could cite this, but I don't think it's likely to be challenged. Sasata (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Why have you chosen the Sowerby illustration over the lectotype illustration? Surely the latter would have more value? I admit that Sowerby's is easier on the eye... Is there a chance both could fit into the article?

Short, but it seems everything which needs to be covered is covered. As ever, I'm impressed by your very detailed account of the taxonomy. I made a few small changes. J Milburn (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: the first point, there is no switch. "Which" is referring to the entie sentence, the action described being what pushes the fruit body, but I agree the sentence can be confusing.
I'm fairly sure there is- "As they mature, the exoperidium". J Milburn (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
The point is moot, since I replaced the pronoun with a different one which makes the construction clearer, but I insist, in this case, "which" was not a relative pronoun, but a summative one, which (oh look, it's another summative "which" to boot!) the replacement with "this" makes clear. Circéus (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
the full sentence is "from ray tip to tip", and I'm fairly confident that never takes hyphens.
Agree, because it's not being used as an attributive adjective, per here. Sasata (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Re: the lectotype image, have you _looked_ at it? I did and I immediately concluded putting it in the article wasn't that good. Linking to it, though, might be a good idea (the way we link to the spore pics).
I agree it's hardly easy on the eye. I'm happy to defer to what you two think, I just thought I'd throw it out there. J Milburn (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought about adding it, but it's simply a poor black & white scan of something that was originally color, and it doesn't fit with the FAC ideal of using the best images available. At any rate, the link is prominently displayed, and it's only a single click away. Sasata (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Tried to improve the other bits. Circéus (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Support. Everything's looking great. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

  • "so named because outer wall of the spore-bearing body splits open into the shape of a star." Just me perhaps, but I think it could use another "the" before "outer wall".
  • Habitat and distribution: Minor, but I don't think the first word of "The Netherlands" needs the capitalization.
  • Not sure about the external link in note 2. We tend to discourage them in-text, and the image is avaliable in the cited material anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The article things are definitely not just you! They're fixed now. As for the link, well, that's why it's in a footnote! It's a highly informative image to make it obvious what is being described. There's a reason we have {{external media}}, but this is far less invasive. Circéus (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – I'll go with your judgement on the external link, although I wouldn't use one myself. My couple of other comments have been resolved, and the article rises to the level of the other mushroom FAs by this editor. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Comments: Supported below looks good thus far, a few small comments:
  • I'm not sure if Middle East should be linked.
  • A few repeated wikilinks: check spore, Geastrum, peridium, mycelial, and gleba.
  • "while it prefers similar habitat on north-facing slopes in Australia" should this be "a similar habitat"?
  • "The species occurs in both deciduous and mixed forests, gardens, along hedges and grassy road banks as well as grazed grasslands." I'm not sure, but this reads a little awkwardly to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Alright, I've finished my review and found very little not complain about. I don't know much about mushrooms, so I can't evaluate accuracy, but as best as I can tell, the article seems to be up to FA quality. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for adding this. As this was my only nitpicky comment, I now Support its promotion to featured status. Regards.--GoPTN 07:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear reviewers After a conversation with Circeus, I decided to overhaul the presentation of distribution. It's about the same length, but about twenty references were removed as they were no longer necessary. I hope this change meets with everyone's approval, but let me know if you disagree with the new format. Sasata (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

In my mind, we'd keep a couple selected references to carry over the "all over" distribution (since otherwise the statement that it's "found on all five continents in its natural habitat" is unsourced), so I'll restore a couple refs along some rewriting, but otherwise the paragraph sits okay with me. Circéus (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2012 (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 Ian Rose 01:46, 13 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): DrKay (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The spy master of Queen Elizabeth I; he constructed the means to entrap and eventually execute Mary, Queen of Scots. DrKay (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


Support. Comprehensive, well balanced, good prose, impressively referenced. Not all that many images, but perhaps no relevant ones are available. A few minor comments on the prose, none of which affect my support:

  • General
  • Rise to power
    • "she was succeeded by her half-sister Elizabeth I" – having called Mary " Edward's Catholic half-sister" in the previous para, it might be balanced to mention here that Elizabeth was a Protestant.
  • Secretary of State
    • "by embarrassing and weakening the Spanish, as well as to seize Spanish treasure." – ought this to read "seizing" instead of "to seize"?
    • "to both sound out a potential peace deal and gather military intelligence" – some people (not me) still cling to the superstition that splitting an infinitive is a sin.
    • "despite the Queen initially objecting" – gerund wanted here: "despite the Queen's initially objecting"
    • "was in Spanish pay" – unfamiliar idiom; perhaps "in the pay of the Spanish"?
  • Espionage
    • "was ever mindful" – a touch poetic?
  • Entrapment of Mary, Queen of Scots
    • "Paulet replied in disgust" – editorialising a bit, I think. His reply speaks for itself.
  • Spanish Armada
    • "Walsingham's near kinsman" – perhaps "Walsingham's close kinsman", thus avoiding the suggestion that Thomas was nearly a kinsman. (And is first cousin once removed really a close (or near) kinsman?)
  • Death and legacy
    • I can imagine some readers not much liking the phrase "Catholic apologists".

That's my lot. I enjoyed this article a good deal. – Tim riley (talk) 13:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the support and review. Changes on all points bar two. "to seize" is meant to mirror "to promote" rather than "by embarrassing". Cooper, Fraser and Hutchinson do characterise Paulet's reply with an appropriate adjective: "horrified", "most trenchant", "indignant anguished"; and so I prefer to retain one as I think it helps set up the quote for the reader, particularly since the idiom of the quote is unfamiliar and may be difficult for younger readers or non-native english speakers. DrKay (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Support: My recent peer review comments are here; my view is still that the "In fiction" section is a distraction that adds nothing to a distinguished historical article and risks taking something away (by encouraging drive-by additions the next time Walsingham is portrayed on screen). I don't intend to press the point, however. In all other respects this is high quality work. Brianboulton (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Brian. I do agree that generally "in fiction" sections are unwelcome, but there was some concern at my last FAC (Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Mary, Queen of Scots/archive1) that fictional portrayals were not covered within the nominated article. I also agree that drive-by additions that simply list portrayals should be discouraged, and reverted. DrKay (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Images are fine; a long way out of copyright in most cases, and all properly sourced. J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources: (Spotchecks not done).

  • It may be worth separating your notes providing extra information from your notes providing references.
  • Check formatting on notes 37 ("Wilson, pp. 98 99, 127"), 93 ("Adams et al.; Cooper, pp. 209–211; Fraser, pp. 482–483; Hutchinson, p. 121: Wilson, p. 210") and 135 ("Thomas Watson quoted in Hutchinson, p. 261", comma after "Watson"?)
  • "(an exhaustive three-volume biography that is still valuable despite its age)" Very POV
  • I had to hide the footnote supporting this as it does not format properly. I don't know how to format footnotes that come after the reflist template. DrKay (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Why are some of those on the further reading not cited in the article?
  • The three main biographies used for the footnotes (Cooper, Hutchinson and Wilson) are the three most recent biographies; Read, Haynes and Budiansky are all older. I've included Bossy because his work is mentioned in the text (and in the text of Adams et al., Hutchinson and Cooper). The point made in the text though is that Bossy identifies Giordano Bruno as a spy, not that Bruno was a spy, so for the footnotes I'm using the sources that say "Bossy identifies Bruno as a spy", not Bossy directly. DrKay (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Sources seem completely appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, with comments, by Ling
    • "identified as Giordano Bruno by author John Bossy". Identified conclusively, or speculatively? In a novel, or in a serious analysis? Was Bossy a contemporary of Walsingham, or more modern (oh, I see 1991), or... oh wait, I see text about this above. If others have asked, then I too am confused about this little verb phrase. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Bossy's analysis is taken seriously. The spy in the French embassy signed his letters "Henry Fagot", which is generally presumed to be a pseudonym. Bossy thinks Fagot is Bruno, but not everyone agrees with Bossy's view. However, the criticisms of Bossy's work are not of the directly challenging "Bossy is wrong" type; they are more of the sort "Bossy builds a circumstantial case; but there is no direct proof and problems of identifying Fagot remain." There are also those who are convinced by Bossy's analysis. So, to bring all this together into a simple phrase, I've chosen to say "Bossy identifies Bruno as the spy" (a fact on which everyone is agreed) rather than attempt to balance different viewpoints on whether Bossy is correct. If this is going to be problematic, I prefer to just ditch the clause entirely in favor of "Walsingham had a spy in the French embassy" and forget about trying to decipher who the spy might have been. DrKay (talk) 10:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • This is trivial and quite possibly regional, but to my AmerEng ears "Walsingham was mindful".. was a bit incongruous. "Mindful" is, in my exp., used for things that are less serious etc. But feel free to ignore this. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 05:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm reading from bottom to top, and so you may have said this previously, but in my opinion the "Secretary of State" section could use an organizing sentence or two at the top. Putting things in chronological order is of course quite acceptable, but without some text to indicate a plan of development, it reads a little too much like a timeline rather than prose. hard to put it together into a whole. This is admittedly minor, but not quite trivial. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I've just put in one extra sentence at the top to explain the duties of the secretary, which does help set up the section. DrKay (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Added a two sentence summary of the section. DrKay (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
    • trivial: Privy Seal or privy seal? – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • "and he is credited with" and who is credited with? – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I see a few references/wikilinks to "mercantile communities" etc., but no mention of Mercantilism. According to my philosophy on the function/purpose/value of wikilinks (which others disagree with in general), this is a case where the article would profit from an extra phrase somewhere relatively prominent that wls that topic. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 06:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • "Walsingham acquired a Surrey county seat in Parliament from 1572 that he retained until his death, but he was not a major parliamentarian." Why is this in the SOS section?
    • "Elizabeth... moor" Why is this also in the SOS section?– Ling.Nut3 (talk)


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 Ian Rose 16:39, 4 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): Noleander (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for featured article because π is a well-known number, famed among geeks and non-geeks alike. The article is the 483rd most-visited WP article, and it is a vital article. The article reached GA status in November 2007. It recently went through two peer reviews, one here, and another on the article's Talk page – the latter review was by user Jakob scholbach who successfully pushed the math article logarithm to FA status last year. My prior featured articles are W. E. B. Du Bois and Birth control movement in the United States. I believe the π article meets all FA criteria, and I am ready and willing to make any improvements suggested by the reviewers. Noleander (talk) 02:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I helped push this article to GA status, and while I haven't been as involved lately, I'm excited that you've opened up the FAC. If I have a couple spare minutes during the process, I'll try to help. :) Disavian (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll be happy to lend my hand at reviewing the article for CE, and a few other things. L1ght5h0w (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • π ≃ 355/1133 ≃ 141592920. — neither of these equalities make sense.
Done - That was a typo introduced about an hour ago by an overzealous editor. I've corrected it. --Noleander (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I doubt the assertion that Pi day is celebrated around the world, since 3/14 is US style. Elsewhere, like the UK, the 14th day of March would be 14/3
Done - You are correct, the sources seem to give only US celebrations in their examples. Changed to US. --Noleander (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for prompt response, I may do a proper review, but a bit tied up at present Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
It does not make sense to celebrate Pi on other days in the rest of the world. The day was introduced in the US, and it has of course been adopted in other countries, though the extent of celebrations is probably not the same. Nageh (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Support – Thank you for addressing my concerns. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC) Comments – I've been through this article a few times already and it has undergone significant improvement. There are a few emotive statements that may or may not be encyclopedic; I'll leave that for others to argue. Here's a few points that caught my eye:

  • "For this reason, most mathematicians prefer definitions of π based on calculus or trigonometry that do not rely on the circle": I'm sure it's probably true, but it's such a broad assertion that it would seem difficult to verify. Is this opinion covered by the citations on the subsequent sentence?
Done - The sources do mention this alternative definition, but the "most mathematicians" is not exactly in the sources. I changed it to "some mathematicians". --Noleander (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "The Greek letter π represents the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter": This sentence stands out because it appears redundant with the first sentence of the previous section, apart from the words "Greek letter".
Done - Changed to: "The symbol used by mathematicians to represent the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter is the Greek letter π. " --Noleander (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the sentence below needs work. For one, it has two contrary sub-components that begin with 'but'. For another, "estimated to be larger than the irrationality measure of other transcendental numbers" is vague. Is it saying all transcendental numbers, or is it just saying that some well-known transendental numbers are larger than others? The latter doesn't seem particularly significant.
"The degree to which π can be approximated by rational numbers (called the irrationality measure) is not precisely known, but it is estimated to be larger than the irrationality measure of other transcendental numbers such as e or ln(2), but smaller than the measure of Liouville numbers."
Done - Changed to " The degree to which π can be approximated by rational numbers (called the irrationality measure) is not precisely known; estimates have established that the irrationality measure is larger than the measure of e or ln(2), but smaller than the measure of Liouville numbers." - Let me know if that does not address your concerns. --Noleander (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "An infinite series for π that converges more rapidly than the Gregory–Leibniz series is": do we know the origin of this series?
No, I have not been able to find a name or origin for that series. A PR reviewer asked that 2 series be compared to illustrate convergence rates; I picked this series because it is understandable to the layman, and because it is attractive. It is a valid series, and is documented in reliable sources. Other series for pi that have names (or well documented origins) are much more complex and would defeat the purpose of illustrating convergence rates. So, it is a balancing act: fame vs clarity. If anyone can find a series that has a name/origin and is simple, I'd be happy to utilize it. --Noleander (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
This source attributes it to Nilakantha. I haven't been able to find a better source, perhaps in part because Google limits book access. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that web site: at least it gives a hint about the origin, even if it is not truly a reliable source. I've posted a query on the Talk page of the Math project: with luck, someone there may have more information. I don't think it is a show-stopper if a description of the origin is absent. --Noleander (talk) 20:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Aha! It's the same formula as 16.10 from here. (n - 1)n(n + 1) = n(n - 1) = n - n. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Great! Thanks for finding that. I'll update the citations accordingly. --Noleander (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "that the values of within a closed boundary": is lacking some sort of clarification. A bound, continuous function perhaps? It's been a few decades since I saw that stuff, so I'm a little rusty.
Done - Thanks for catching that. Fixed to: " including the remarkable fact that the values of a complex function within a closed boundary are entirely determined by the values on the boundary" --Noleander (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • First use of "divisible" should be linked, just for clarity.
Done --Noleander (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "Recent decades have seen a surge..." is a dated statement.
Done - changed this picture caption to the simpler "The record for number of memorized digits of π.". --Noleander (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Regards, RJH (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure. None of the sources which describe the history of pi mention these mathematicians; and the source you've provided doesn't give any details (what algorithm did they use?). That, coupled with the fact that their precision was only 1 digit (way behind other countries in the 17th century) may make this not suitable for inclusion. But, if others want it included, I have no objection. --Noleander (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't do a full review, but including the information "square root of 10 had long been a common value for pi in India, China and Arabia" would be a good idea. Non-western approaches to the problem are relevant, I think. Buttonwillowite (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Oops. I see that this information is included under the "Antiquity" section. Nevermind! Buttonwillowite (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Question What does "The digits in the decimal representation of π appear to be random" mean? The digits of pi are not random. They can be predicted, by many of the formulae presented later on. This needs clarification.
The Properties section explains that in detail. It says "The digits of π appear to be random, with no observable pattern. A mathematical test for randomness is normality, meaning that all possible sequences of digits (of any given length) are equally likely." Is that sufficient? or do you think more detail is needed? We could remove the term "random" and use "normal" exclusively, but that would be confusing to lay readers ... the word "random" has a few meanings, and one of them is that the digits normal. --Noleander (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, good. I would nevertheless prefer precision here. Simply "The digits of pi have no observable pattern" seems the best to me.
Now that I think of it I'm a bit concerned as well. Randomness is used in a pretty informal way here, and especially combining the words "mathematical" and "randomness" doesn't seem right. Neither does normality imply randomness, nor is normality a test to measure (statistical) randomness. Nageh (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
See comment below under random/normal. --Noleander (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Prior to the nomination of this article, I have done a FA-like review (see Talk:Pi#Review), which did bring up a number of issues, but all of these are now fixed. So, I'm happy to support this Fa nomination. As far as I can tell, the article is factually correct and covers everything that is relevant. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 08:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • "π is an irrational number, which means that it cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers (such as 22/7)" IMO, it needs to be clarified here that "however" pi is generally approximated as 22/7 since 22/7 is one of the most famous approximations.
Done - I changed it to the following: "π is an irrational number, meaning that it cannot be written as the ratio of two integers, such as 22/7 (where 22/7 was a commonly used approximation to π)." but that doesn't seem optimal to me. Can you suggest a better wording? --Noleander (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
"...such as 22/7 and other fractions that were commonly used to approximate π." Maybe not perfect, but probably better. Nageh (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Done - In lead and body. --Noleander (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Done - Changed to ". Several people have endeavored to memorize ..." --Noleander (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • "mathematicians have worked strenuously to compute π to thousands and millions of digits" -> Many of the people involved in those computations are not mathematicians.
Done - Good catch. I tried "scientists" but a couple of them were just amateurs, so I ended up with "Despite this, people have worked strenuously to compute ...". --Noleander (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "providing raw data to evaluate the randomness or normality of the digits of π" -> This suggests that "randomness" and "normality" are two different concepts, contradicting your remarks above.
Done - Changed to "to evaluate the randomness of the digits... ". - "Normality" is the official term of the primary math test for randomness. A random number generator's output can be tested for normality. Can the digits of π be used as a random number generator? Yes, because they appear to be normal. Let me know if it is satisfactory now. --Noleander (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Huh? You obviously have a different definition for what constitutes a random number generator. In any definition that I'm aware of unpredictability is a key requirement. Uniformity/normality is a necessary but not sufficient criterion. Nageh (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I have no personal opinion on the matter: I'm just trying to capture what the major secondary sources that discuss pi for the layman say. Those sources do use the word "random" for pi very explicitly: as in "the digits of pi appear to be random" or " ... meet statistical tests for randomness". And the sources do say that normality is a major (the major?) test for randomness. And the sources say normality is generally considered to be a key attribute of randomness, but that there are some normal sequences that are not random (so n. is necessary but not sufficient for r.). And they say that "random" sometimes means unpredictable, but also means "predictable, but digits are scattered in a hapazard way" (my paraphrase). All that said, I'm happy to reword the sentence in question provided that the new wording (1) is consistent with the sources; and (2) is understandable to lay readers. Can someone suggest a better wording? --Noleander (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
How about introducing the notion of Pseudorandomness? The sources on pi don't really get into that much, but if it helps resolve this concern, it may be a good path to take. The text could be something like: "Pi's digits pass have no apparent pattern and pass tests for randomness such as normality. The digits of pi can be used as a Pseudorandom number generator since they generate a sequence of digits which meet tests for randomness, but the digits are not truly random because they are predictable." Is that better? --Noleander (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Referring to pseudo-randomness seems no less hairy, and the sentence could be quite misleading. There are basically two definition for pseudo-randomness: one (more informal) is that it satisfies certain statistical randomness tests; the other formal one from complexity theory states that it must be computationally (polynomially) indistinguishable from random data, which includes normality and unpredictability. I would rather go only with the first sentence, and replace "randomness" by "statistical randomness". Nageh (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I changed the text in the Properties section to read "The digits of π have no apparent pattern and pass tests for statistical randomness such as normality; normal means that all possible sequences of digits (of any given length) are equally likely.". That takes the above-discussed sentence, and merges it with a pre-existing sentence which gives a brief idea what "normal" means. Let me know if you think more needs to be done. --Noleander (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the wording could be improved. How about this: "The digits of π have no apparent pattern and pass tests for statistical randomness such as normality; a number is called normal when all possible sequences of digits (of any given length) are equally likely." Nageh (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Done --Noleander (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Nageh (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "Computing a large number of digits of π does have some practical benefits" -> Simplify wording, "does have some" can simply be "has"
Done -- Noleander (talk) 13:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • PSLQ needs to be explained or linked
Done - The link for PSLQ is already there, in integer relation algorithm. But I did add a footnote giving the origin of PSLQ as follows: "... using the PSLQ integer relation algorithm found several ..." where footnote #9 says: "PSLQ means Partial Sum of Least Squares." Normally, acronyms should be spelled out on first occurrence, but PSLQ is more of a proper name than an acronym (that is, sources that use PSLQ do not spell it out). --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • are certain rational numbers that Plouffe computed -> Why is "rational numbers" suddenly linked here?
Done - Removed that link and linked 1st occurrence. --Noleander (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • the concept of a "pi hunter" is used at least 4 times. Needs explanation.
Done - Yes, that is too colloquial, may be hard on non-English readers. I replaced that term in all four places with plainer words. --Noleander (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • the "History" section has a misleading title. It's rather more "History of the computation of pi".
I was trying to follow the guidance of MOS:HEADINGS which says "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer.". Plus, the History section includes subsection on "Irrationality and transcendence", so I'm not certain the proposed alternative is better. If other editors endorse the longer title, I have no objection to changing it. --Noleander (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • " algebraic operations (powers, roots, sums, etc.)" -> I would link "algebraic operation" and clarify the "etc." There aren't that many algebraic operations.
Done - Eliminated the etc & included "Product" so it now reads " (powers, sums, and products)" based on the interpretation that sums includes subtraction & products includes division. Re the "operation": Link was done. --Noleander (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  • "The transcendence of π means that it is impossible to solve the ancient challenge of squaring the circle" -> Are the two statements "transcendence of pi" and "cannot square the circle" equivalent? Certainly "The transcendence of pi implies that..." is true.
Done - Changed as suggested. --Noleander (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • In the list of formulae involving pi, I think the volume of an n-sphere would be very appropriate. (And would subsume many of the already given examples.)
    • I've suggested that before, but in retrospect it's likely one of those things that are primarily of interest to mathematicians because of the abstract nature of higher dimensional spheres. It's probably better just see the two and three dimensional cases covered, as they are now. The topic is covered well on the n-sphere article, so it would make sense to add that to the "See also" list. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't recall any secondary source on pi mentioning n-spheres. A better place for that info might be the sub-article List of formulae involving π. --Noleander (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Support Since my comments above, I've had another read through and I have no further concerns. I'm not a mathematician, and I felt this was pitched at just the right level for any reasonably numerate reader (and the innumerate would run off into the bushes when they saw the title — unless they were illiterate too and thought it was about food). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Leonhard_Euler.jpg is tagged as lacking source information, and the licensing tags given are incorrect
Thanks for doing an image review. I fixed the license tag (changed it to Public Domain based on life-of-author +100 years). The source is more problematic: I was able to add information about the location of the actual painting itself, but I am unable to find out who/how it was digitized. But, since the painter died in 1781, it is clear that any digitization should be acceptable for use in WP. --Noleander (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • File:JohnvonNeumann-LosAlamos.gif: source link returns error
    • Sorry, but a dead link cannot be an argument for the license information being invalid. We also do not delete text within articles when their sources become dead. In any case, there is always the web archive. Nageh (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
As Nageh points out, the image is no longer located in its original location in the Los Alamos web site (I also checked and could not find a new location within that site: so it may no longer be available there at all). However, the WayBack machine does show that that was, indeed, the original source of the image. --Noleander (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The picture in the article, File:JohnvonNeumann-LosAlamos.gif, is exceptional. It is an uncropped version of File:JohnvonNeumann-LosAlamos.jpg (names are the same; extensions are different). However, the JPEG version has a specific requirement for attribution of Los Alamos National Laboratories information:
Unless otherwise indicated, this information has been authored by an employee or employees of the University of California, operator of the Los Alamos National Laboratory under Contract No. W-7405-ENG-36 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The U.S. Government has rights to use, reproduce, and distribute this information. The public may copy and use this information without charge, provided that this Notice and any statement of authorship are reproduced on all copies. Neither the Government nor the University makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any liability or responsibility for the use of this information.
The GIF version does not have attribution.
Glrx (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Another image from the same session at the Smithsonian: http://airandspace.si.edu/imagedetail.cfm?imageID=2689 stating "No known copyright restrictions on this image". Glrx (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Glrx: thanks for that information. The GIF image is superior to the JPG image, so Ive left the GIF image in the article, and updated its Commons licensing info to incude the "los alamos PD" blurbs (copied from the JPG image). --Noleander (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • File:Ramanujan.jpg: no source provided; based on information given, licensing tag may or may not be correct.
I was not able to justify a copyright exemption for that image, so I changed the article to use another image File:Srinivasa Ramanujan - OPC - 1.jpg which has a clearly permitted usage in WP. --Noleander (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Similar images
http://www.math.rochester.edu/u/faculty/doug/UGpages/ramanujan.html (image on postage stamp)
http://www.myspace.com/sramanujan/photos/859081 (stamp apparently from 1962)
http://www.white-rabbit.jp/Column/essay29.html (same image, different stamp)
http://www.usna.edu/Users/math/meh/ramanujan.html (same/simliar to stamp image)
http://www.nndb.com/people/578/000240855/ (folded collar / collar tag) (possibly the source for reworked stamp image)
http://www.visualphotos.com/image/1x6063087/indian_mathematician_srinivasa_ramanujan (folded collar / collar tag / managed rights)
Glrx (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It seems that the original image was scanned from an 1962 Indian postal stamp. If this is the case, the copyright on the stamp image should expire no later than by the end of this year according to commons:Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#India. Nageh (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The 1962 stamp commemorates his 75th birthday, so the issue date was probably 22 December 1962. Glrx (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
http://www.indianpostagestamps.com/gallery/1962.html says issued Dec 22, 1962. Glrx (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I can't count anyway. It's gonna expire by 2022, not 2012. :P Nageh (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Sigh. Nominated for deletion on Commons. Glrx (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
To closing delegate: The article no longer uses this suspect image being discussed here. The article was changed to use another image which has no problems. --Noleander (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Upon further research it appears that the photography used in the stamp is taken from Ramanujan's passport. Now the question is how could we get ahold of a digital copy of that? Nageh (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
See . Nageh (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
BTW: I think the stamp/passport pic is superior, so if we can obtain a WP-safe version of it, that would be wonderful. --Noleander (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
http://www.imsc.res.in/~rao/ramanujan/newnow/garnlund.htm shows poor quality passport image. Image from R's Notebook (1985) may be derivative work, so it may not be free. Glrx (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree. This book seems like the most comprehensive source on images. It appears that the wife of Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar is the current owner of the passport photo. Nageh (talk) 00:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, that is some good news. We cannot use any image that was enhanced after 1927 (e.g., head slant removed, collar altered, image effects added). Your source states that the passport photo was taken in 1919 (see page 4). The passport picture was photographically copied in India around October 1936 (page 4, 17 years after the passport was issued), but it would be a straight reproduction of a 2D image and not a derivative work. The copy of the passport picture was then printed in Hardy's Ramanujan: Twelve Lectures, 1940. Google books only gives a snippet view of Hardy. However, your source states the image on page xix is the passport photo (meaning the copy of the passport photo, and it shows the passport embossing). Ordinarily, that picture would not be a derivative work, but there may be a small argument about the shadows cast by the embossing (it is not truly a 2D image), but if the embossing is cropped out, then the image date of 1919 should apply. Well, save for the vertical striations, that I'm not sure how to interpret. At least that is how my feeble understanding of copyright goes. Therefore, I think we can copy the image out of source, crop the embossing, remove the striations, and have a free image (that we can then improve on our own). I'd like to hear comments from those more up on copyright law than I. Glrx (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe it is even more complicated; clock starts after the death of the author -- not the subject (or after it was made). If the author lived to, say, 1950, then the passport photo may not be in the public domain. We need an exception for government documents/passports. Glrx (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Leonxlin's concerns

  • "The continued fraction can be used to generate the best possible rational approximation (that is, no other approximation with a smaller denominator will be closer to π)." Well, the parenthetical note is good, but the sentence should be true if the parenthetical comment were removed, which it is not, since there is no "best possible rational approximation".
Done - Changed sentence so the comment is now an integral part of the sentence. --Noleander (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I hate to be so nitpicky, but the revised sentence still contains the independent clause "The continued fraction can be used to generate the best possible rational approximation", which is a mathematically inaccurate statement, since there is no such thing as "the best possible rational approximation". It would be like saying, "Jupiter is the closest planet to the sun; no other gas giant is as close to the sun as Jupiter." Now the situation is slightly complicated by the fact that, as I have just learned from here that best rational approximation is an accepted way of talking about rational approximations that are the best among all rational numbers with equal or less denominators. But the article the still seems quite off. The fractions 22/7, 355/113 etc. are each a best rational approximation to π. Furthermore, it seems to me that the phrase "best rational approximation" should not be used without somehow indicating that it is a technical term that is more than the sum of its parts. May I suggest the following phrasing?
Truncating the continued fraction at any point generates a fraction that provides an approximation for π; two such fractions (22/7 and 355/113) have been used historically to approximate the constant. Each approximation generated in this way is a best rational approximation; that is, each is closer to π than any other fraction with the same or a smaller denominator.
Leonxlin (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Done - Used the suggested wording. Nitpicky is good ... this is FAC after all :-) --Noleander (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • There seem to be some missing equals signs in the "Antiquity" subsection.
I cannot see anything missing. Could you be more specific so I can fix the problem? --Noleander (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Could it be the approximately-equal signs:? Can you see the following symbol ≃ ? If not, your platfor's font is not showing that particular character, and I can use math markup instead. --Noleander (talk) 02:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I replaced the symbol ≃ (which is not visible on this pedestrian system) with ≈ when inexact and = when exact. Glrx (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Yay! Leonxlin (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "Thirty-nine digits are sufficient to support most cosmological calculations, because that is the accuracy which is necessary to calculate the diameter of the observable universe with a precision of one atom." This sentence has a cite. I do not have access to it, but I am suspicious that only the part of the sentence after "because" is confirmed in the cite, and the "sufficient to support most cosmological calculations" is someone's interpretation. The sentence may be true, but it's not clear at all that just because 39 digits suffice to calculate the diameter of the observable universe, they suffice for all other calculations. Also, I find the use of the word "support" a little strange.
Done - Added an attribution to the source, to make it clear there is some interpretation happening. There are two sentences that use that source (Arndt, p 17): "According to Jörg Arndt, thirty-nine digits are sufficient to perform most cosmological calculations, because that is the accuracy which is necessary to calculate the diameter of the observable universe with a precision of one atom. Accounting for additional digits needed to compensate for computational round-off errors, Arndt concludes that a few hundred digits would suffice for any scientific application." - That is a direct paraphrase (but not too close :-) of what Arndt says. Also, I changed "support" to "perform". --Noleander (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Again, I hate to be difficult. But I would be much happier if we got rid of the second sentence. I don't think Arndt's speculation merits a whole sentence here. (A quick Google search, and I have found nothing to lend him any repute in math or physics. Then again, he is published and I am not.) Also, what about Haenel? Leonxlin (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Done - Removed that second sentence from the article body; (kept it in a footnote so curious readers can still enrich themselves). Also: added Haenel so it now reads: "According to Jörg Arndt and Christoph Haenel, thirty-nine digits are sufficient ..." --Noleander (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The first two paragraphs of the section on spigot algorithms are a bit awkward. The definition of a spigot algorithm is repeated at least twice, and the way "characterized" is used is strange.
Done - Removed one of the defnitions. Changed "characterized" to "The algorithms are called ...". --Noleander (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Yay! Leonxlin (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I am concerned about the science sections, and feel that an expert should look over it to make sure that it's coherent. I'm no physicist, but I would have expected Coulomb to be mentioned before Heisenberg, since that's the order a student would probably see them. (Or is there some other reason why the formulae there are ordered the way they are?) And why doesn't, say, Biot-Savart show up? Is there a good reason the Fourier transform appears under "Engineering and geology" rather than "Physics"? I'm not qualified to judge whether this list is not just a bunch of random formulae, but I have some suspicions.
The π article is a top-level article which summarizes about ten child sub-articles. The Usage section you are referring to is summarizing the List of formulae involving π sub-article which is, indeed, a list of formulae. This list was pretty well reviewed during the Peer Review process, and some items were removed since (1) the formulae are not directly relevant to the importance or history of pi; and (2) it is impossible to come up with a good litmus test for which should be included or excluded. There are two extremes: omitting the list entirely; or including all of List of formulae involving π . Niether extreme is proper, and the article is striving for a good middle ground. Regarding Biot Savart: that used to be in the article, but a Peer Reviewer explicitly asked that it be removed from the article, so I'm a bit reluctant to restore it, but I can if you really think it is important. As for the sequence: the sources are very skimpy in this area, and any choherent ordering is feasible. Regarding Fourier transform: there are several items that could appear in either of two subsections, in those cases, I chose the subsection that seemed most appropriate. If you think Fourier transform should be moved to Physics, that can be easily done. --Noleander (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Strongly object moving FT to the physics section. ;) FT is fundamental to signal processing, which is of primary importance to communication technologies and computer science applications. Nageh (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "π is a transcendental number, which means that it is not the solution of any non-constant polynomial with rational coefficients, such as: x 5 120 − x 3 6 + x = 0. {\displaystyle {\frac {x^{5}}{120}}-{\frac {x^{3}}{6}}+x=0.} " This polynomial, which is an example of something π is not a solution to (the only root is 0), and which does not appear to be special in any way, really should not be given so much space. (In the article, it gets its own line.)
Done - I made the formula smaller and put it in-line. Can you check and see if it is okay, or is too small? WP has a limitation that there are only two sizes available for formulae: in my opinion, one is too large, and the other too small :-) So this is a recurring problem that is not specific to this article. That particular formula was specifically added during the Peer Review process at the request of the reviewer, so I am reluctant to remove it entirely. --Noleander (talk) 01:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
  • The "ε" used in the paragraph about the Mandelbrot set should be "e", I think.
The source (Aaron Klebanoff) uses "ε" so I followed that in the article. If you can provide some rationale for "e", we can consider going that route. --Noleander (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Well my concern is just that I have no idea what "ε" is supposed to mean. If it is the base of the natural logarithm, then I would recommend "e" or "e". Leonxlin (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
ε is a small number that tends to zero. I've rewritten it to clarify this and added a link for the source.--JohnBlackburnedeeds 20:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Some dates (e.g., "100 BC") need non-breaking spaces.
Done - put nbsp before all "BC"s. --Noleander (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Leonxlin (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

  • "This formula was a breakthrough for people who calculated π because ..." An odd phrase.

Leonxlin (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Source spotchecks

The following footnote numbers refer to those in this version of the article.

Leonxlin has started checking multiples of 5. The ones he skipped are the ones he doesn't have access to. Leonxlin (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

  • #5 Arndt & Haenel 2006, p. 165.: The paragraph citing this footnote (as well as #6 and #7) says that "The first mathematician to use the Greek letter π to represent the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter was William Jones", later mentioning "speculation that Machin may have employed the Greek letter before Jones". Arndt and Haenel, however, seem to give more weight to this speculation: they say that "The person who invented the symbol π is assumed to have been the Englishman William Jones", but then later, "The symbol π must therefore be attributed to the same man who had already earned his place in history with his arctan formula " (link to Google Books in the article). Wolfram doesn't mention Machin at all on this issue, though. Leonxlin (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Only one source (Arndt) mentions the possibility that Machin used the letter before Jones, and they suggest it rather strongly. But no other sources echo that. So I tried to capture that by characterizing Arndt's thesis using the wording "Jones writes that his equations for π are from the "ready pen of the truly ingenious Mr. John Machin", leading to speculation that Machin may have employed the Greek letter before Jones." Is this adequate? Or can you suggest a better wording? Do you think Arndt should be mentioned in the article here? --Noleander (talk) 02:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
This makes sense. Leonxlin (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • #15 Arndt & Haenel 2006, p. 21 BAD BAD BAD: The article reads "The digits of π have no apparent pattern and pass tests for statistical randomness such as normality". Arndt and Haenel say this: "No one has succeeded in proving either than π is normal or that it is not". Leonxlin (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
There are three footnotes that apply: #15, #16, and #17. It looks like a sentence got split and the correct footnote (#17) was separated from the accompanying text. I'll fix that. --Noleander (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think you are confusing statistical tests with the actual normality of a number. The sentence can easily be referenced to page 23 of the book. However, I would suggest saying "...measuring normality" rather than "...such as normality"; normality is not a randomness test but a property. Nageh (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Done - Aligned the footnotes with the sentences (and included page 23 in addition to 21 and 22). Also improved wording per Nageh suggestion to "The digits of π have no apparent pattern and pass tests for statistical randomness including tests measuring normality" (because some of the statistical tests were not related to normality). --Noleander (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
I now understand where my confusion comes from. The definition of normality does not imply that all sequences are equally "likely", meaning, that their probabilities are equal and independent, as the article claimed. Instead, the definition only states that the frequency of all sequences appear equally often asymptotically. This is also wrong in the normal number article. I have reworded it in the pi article to: "a number of infinite length is called normal when all possible sequences of digits (of any given length) appear equally often." Nageh (talk) 08:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Never mind, I was thinking too complicated. Though, do you think the new wording is more clear than the previous one? If not, please revert my edit in the article. Nageh (talk) 09:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
The new wording is fine. --Noleander (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
(Please forgive the tone of the subsequent sentences and correct any misunderstandings I have; I'm just trying to get as much done as possible quickly. I am not an expert on this subject.) It seems weird to me to say that π "passes ... tests measuring normality". If normality is a property of a number, a yes or no, than what does it mean to "measure" normality? And where on page 23 of Arndt and Haenel does it say that any tests have been done on π regarding normality? The word "normal(ity)" does not even appear on that page. To say a number is normal seems like a very strong statement about all of its digits, so that if statistical tests are done on the first X digits of π, no matter how large X is, that will say exactly nothing about the normality of π. Why not simply get rid of the "including normality" part of that sentence? Leonxlin (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
It is a yes-or-no property, so maybe "measuring" is the wrong word and we should simply say "tests for normality". However, note that the answer is not known, so these statistical tests only provide indication to a particular answer. I don't understand your issue with the references: Did you read the last paragraph of page 22 of Arndt's book? That provides the connection to the statistical tests discussed at page 23. Nageh (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Changed wording to: "The digits of π have no apparent pattern and pass tests for statistical randomness including tests for normality". --Noleander (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • #50 Roy 1990, pp. 101–102 and Arndt & Haenel 2006, pp. 185–186. Check. (Though I'm not sure about the Roy page numbers; I don't have the same version of the article.) Leonxlin (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • #100 Bellard, Fabrice. Knowledge currently says "Between 1998 and 2000, the distributed computing project PiHex used Bellard's formula (a modification of the BBP algorithm) to compute the quadrillionth (1015th) bit of π, which turned out to be 0." In the cited article, Bellard says nothing about PiHex or the quadrillionth bit of π. Leonxlin (talk) 20:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Done - Thanks for finding that ... there were two sources, and one of them (Arndt, p 20) got dropped from the footnote. I've added the missing source. --Noleander (talk) 02:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Per the above concerns, unfortunately I will have to Oppose. Leonxlin (talk) 21:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. It looks like all the issues you found are resolvable. I'll start working on them promptly. --Noleander (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Leonxlin: I've addressed most of the issues you raised, and posed a couple of questions to get clarification. --Noleander (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Opposed rescinded, due to concerns being largely addressed. Leonxlin (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead is saucy, spunky, and wonderful. It makes me quiver with nerd joy. Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Lead should include pronunciation
Done - Although I only put the IPA in the lead; the body has both IPA and respelling.
  • "The number π is a mathematical constant that is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter." Shouldn't "a circle" be "any circle"?
"a circle" sounds better to my ear. Comparing to other articles: the 1st sentence in perimeter is "A perimeter is a path that surrounds an area." If you can cite a few well-written articles that use "any" I could perhaps be persuaded. --Noleander (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, on second thought, "a circle" doesn't seem that bad. I'm not sure what bugged me about it the first time. Take note, however, that comparing an issue to one in another article, even another FA, is not sufficient justification for allowing the issue to persist. All it does is highlight a way in which the other article can be improved. This diff gives more details, if you're curious. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree with you point; I was just trying to say that the MOS was silent on that particular issue, and I could not find any examples that were consistent your proposal (didn't mean to suggest that examples would be determinative). --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Inconsistency:
    • Lead: "Scientific applications require no more than a few hundred digits of π"
    • Body: "For most numerical calculations involving π, a handful of digits provide sufficient precision. According to Jörg Arndt and Christoph Haenel, thirty-nine digits are sufficient to perform most cosmological calculations"
Done - Changed lead too " about 40 digits". Let me know if you can think of a better wording. --Noleander (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I changed it to "Scientific applications generally require no more than 40 digits". You dig? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is even better. --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "The peculiar properties of π" Does this refer to the properties described in the first paragraph? I don't see how any of these are peculiar. There are, after all, infinitely many transcendental numbers.
Done - That is a good point, changed to "The widespread use of π in science and engineering has ..." --Noleander (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I am of the opinion that the lead suffers from WP:recentism. It places too much emphasis on modern pop-culture shenaniganry and not enough emphasis on the early history. The only information presented about the early history is a shopping list of mathematicians who were interested in the number, whereas world records are mentioned twice.
Done - Added some more historical detail to the lead. I kept the names of important mathematicians in the lead, but interspersed in the historical sentences. --Noleander (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Much better! Thanks a bundle for doing this. And, more generally, thanks for taking the time to built this article. I imagine it was not easy. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the review. --Noleander (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegate notes

  • Generally a paragraph in the body of the article should end with a citation, unless summarising cited info to follow -- you seem to maintain that standard everywhere except in the first para of Name.
The sentence you are referring to is "The lower-case letter π (or π in sans-serif font) is not to be confused with the capital letter Π, which denotes a product of a sequence." I don't have a source for that. It is comparable to a disambiguation hatnote at the top of the article: an aside to the reader which sheds some light on other topics with similar names. I can certainly remove that sentence, but I wonder if this is one of those situations where an exception can be made? --Noleander (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
No, that's fair enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, I don't see the need to repeat the same citation after each sentence, as you do in the last para of Name for instance (an exception might be where a quote has to be clearly attributed) -- although if it's your preferred style and doesn't annoy the reviewers I shan't make a fuss about it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that is my style. I do that for a couple of reasons: (1) in case the sentences get rearranged in the future, the cites will go with them (see WP:INTEGRITY); and (2) it is a common practice in articles covering controversial topics, so I've developed that habit. But I would not object to an editor removing those footnotes. --Noleander (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Heh, I'm probably more immune to the rearranging issue as "my" articles are pretty specialised and don't tend to attract a lot of edits. One like this on the other hand could well benefit from the insurance of having more consecutive duplicate citations that might otherwise be warranted. So, again, fair enough. Anyway, as things have been quiet here for a few days and we have the requisite checks and support, I think we can wrap this up... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2012 (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 Ian Rose 15:02, 4 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): Mark Arsten (talk)

The lynching of Jesse Washington was part of a sad chapter in American history, during which hatred and mob violence reigned supreme. This lynching is unusual in that it was captured in detail by a local photographer who was on hand as the events unfolded. I believe the article is up to the featured criteria; it has received a good article review from Grapple X and a peer review from Wehwalt and Crisco 1492. Note: contains graphic content, discretion advised. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. I checked out the images during the article's GA review; all of them checked out fine then and no new files have been added in the meantime. I'm about to check the article again to review the subsequent prose changes but I figured I'd note this early to save it being done twice. GRAPPLE X 02:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
    Support. Both my own GA review and the fixes below have addressed any concerns I've had. Happy to support this one now. GRAPPLE X 11:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments from Noleander - Provided final items in my comments below are addressed.

  • Wording: "With the attrition of lynching in central Texas ..." - The word "attrition" may confuse some readers. If you mean decrease, use a plainer word. Is there a better wording?
  • Non sequitur: "With the attrition of lynching in central Texas, local historians often avoided discussing the practice." - it is not clear to me why the latter follows from the former.
  • Clarify: "Waco developed a reputation for racism—seen in American history textbooks—to the vexation ..." - What was seen in the textbooks? that there was racism, or merely that Waco had a reputation (unfounded?). Clarify.
  • Need info on modern guesses about guilt. Footnote (a) says " In 2011, Manfred Berg of Heidelberg University concluded that Washington likely murdered Fryer, ...". That seems like critical material that should be in the body of the article (in the Analysis section) not in a footnote.
  • Paragraph on theories of murder: The article says "George Fryer also sued the college for libel; his vehemence caused some Robinson residents to suspect that he played a part in his wife's death ...". Do any modern 2ndary sources support that theory? If so, it may be good to include a paragr in the article listing the possible scenarios of what happened to the victim.
    • I haven't seen any contemporary sources that speculate that George was guilty, I included a quote from Bernstein on the issue.
  • Specify years: "The practice of lynching gradually declined, ..." - needs more specificity on the year, because the prior sentence says "The number of lynchings in the U.S. increased in the three years ..."
    • I rephrased and brought it a bit closer to the text, hope it works now.
  • Need external link: The Crisis is available online, and this article should contain a link, perhaps in References section, or in External Links section, pointing the reader to the issue that contained the Waco Horror article.
  • Mentally handicapped? - The article says "James M. SoRelle of Baylor University notes that may have been mentally handicapped ..." - is it true that only one historian came to that conclusion? If it is the consensus of multiple historians, that fact should be in the lead; if not, leave it alone.
    • This is tricky, the source for his possibly retardation is a schoolteacher who was interviewed by Freeman. The teacher said he was unable to learn to read, most writers have assumed that he was retarded on the basis of her comments. It's not known for sure though, so now I just have an account of Freeman's interview of the teacher and her comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Wording: "... have contained dubious low crowd estimates..." - I know that dubious is modifying "estimates" but maybe "dubiously low" would be better? or re-word entirely to make it plainer.
  • Capitalization of book titles: In Ref section: some book titles cap all leading letters; some only the first letter. Should be consistent.
  • Citation needed: " ... some disparaged it, including local ministers and leaders of Baylor University." - Im guessing that the cite from the following sentence applies; but may as well include it for this sentence as well. See WP:INTEGRITY.
    • Alright, I tweaked the sentence and added a ref.
  • Crisis article name: "After receiving Freeman's report, he placed an image of Washington's body on the cover of an issue of The Crisis, the NAACP's newsletter, which discussed the event. In 1916, The Crisis had a circulation of about 30,000, three times the size of the NAACP's membership. Du Bois popularized "Waco Horror" as a name ..." - You should include the name of the article ... was it "Waco Horror"? if so, include it and re-word this sentence.
    • Added another sentence with title.
  • Crisis article date/month - include the month of publication.
    • Added.
  • Ambiguity: "Their campaign saw some success in raising funds, but it was scaled back as the U.S. entered World War I. Bernstein describes this effort as the "barest beginnings of a battle that would last many years"" - What was the battle? Fund raising? or against lynching?
  • More background: "After it became associated with violence in the 19th century, community leaders sought to change its reputation,..." - What was that 19th c reputation? For lynchings? for wild-west shoot outs? Never mind: the prior paragraph covers that.
  • Grammar? - "There was a small number of anti-lynching activists ..." - Was or were? I'm not sure.
  • Wording - "Apologists of lynching justified the practice as a way to assert dominance over African Americans ..." - "Apologists" seems wrong here: isn't that normally used in political/religious contexts? Maybe another word like proponents or defenders or supporters would be better.
  • Non sequitur: "She spoke with Fleming and the judge who presided over the trial; both argued that they did not deserve blame for the lynching. Local African Americans gave her a better reception." - Not clear how "better" relates to prior sentence.
  • Mind reading: "The individuals in the photographs made no attempts to hide their identities, indicating that they knew that no one would be prosecuted." - Perhaps reword to indicate that that is the interpretation or assessment of analysts/historians. The voice of WP shouldn't be making conclusive statements about persons intentions/thoughts.
  • Sic link? - ""That's what I done " - Sic is linked here. Is that (the link) consistent with WP manual of style?
  • Date needed: "On the morning of the trial, Waco's courthouse quickly filled to capacity:" - that 1st sentence of the Trial section needs to include the date.
  • Wording: "However, descendants of Fryer have spoken out against the idea." - Probably should reword because (1) avoid beginning sentences with But or However; (2) generally should use plain past tense. Perhaps "Some descendants of Fryer objected to the proposed memorial".
  • Ambiguity: "White leaders of Waco took a non-violent approach to demonstrations ..." - Were the leaders organizing the demonstrations? or responding to them?
  • Ambiguity: " Washington was accused of raping and murdering his employer's wife after she was found dead." - Could be read that he raped her (and murdered her) after she was dead. Perhaps simplify to "Washington was accused of raping and murdering his employer's wife." and later make it clear there were no eye witnesses.
  • Conjunction: "His lawyers prepared no defense, but noted that he appeared placid in the days before the trial." - Should change "but" to "and" since the latter does not contradict the former.
  • Leaning towards support, once the above are addressed.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

From my point of view, the only remaining issue is prose quality. I'll make one more pass through the article soon and see what I can find ... in the meantime, you may want to go through the article yourself, reading each sentence out loud, and see if you can find some incremental improvements. --Noleander (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, will do, thanks for the note. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Wording - "and many children used their lunch hour to attend." - better as "and many children attended during their lunch hour."
  • "Chronological order" - Flip 2 sentences: "Fleming traveled to Robinson on May 13 to ask residents to remain calm; his address was well received. The Times-Herald of Waco published a notice on May 12 requesting that residents let the justice system determine Washington's fate."
  • Attribute thought: "the executioners attempted to keep him alive to increase his suffering" - The intentions of people generally should not be stated in WP voice: attribute that to a specific source/historian or reword as "Historians concluded that ..." or similar.
  • Job title: " mayor and the chief of police, although lynching was illegal in Texas. Fleming told his deputies ..." - I've forgotten who Fleming is. I suppose he is the chief of police? Probably best to restate that connection at this point in the article.
  • Ambiguity: " the Houston Chronicle and the Austin American criticized the lynch mob, but spoke highly of their city. " - What city? Houston or Waco?

End additional Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Washington_hanging_side_view.jpg and similar: can you be more specific about when and where this was first published?
  • File:Postcard_of_the_lynched_Jesse_Washington,_front_and_back.jpg: publisher/author and date for source?
  • File:Freeman200.jpg: need more information. When/where was this first published? Who took the photo? What is the source?
  • File:AmericaAfrica.png is tagged as lacking source information. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Ok, I've specified the details in the images your refer to in your first point, so they should be all set: . Unfortunately, I was unable to find the publishers and authors of the latter three points, and removed them from the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Mark: It looks like you removed some pictures. I think they were very important to the article, especially Freeman's. Is it possible to spend some time looking for either (a) justification/sources for those images; or (b) alternative images? Just because an image is missing a sources does not automatically mean it must be removed from the article to meet FAC: sometimes an image may be okay even if the source cannot be found. Even copyright images can be occasionally used if a fair-use rationale is available (see Knowledge:Non-free content criteria). I encourage you to spend some time hunting down background info on the images and seeing if you can restore them to the article. --Noleander (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Mark: A couple more thoughts: If you cannot find a photo of Freeman, consider a pic of Du Bois instead. Also: the postcard is public domain, and another version of it which has a Public Domain tag is File:Lynching-of-jesse-washington.jpg ... use the latter at least. --Noleander (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Mark: here is an image of Freeman that is in the public domain: I dont think it is in WP yet, so you'd need to upload it and crop it): http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/ggbain.12470/. PS: The reason I'm pushing for this is that the FA criteria require an ample amount of illustrations, and I think the article is a bit deficient at this point. Images are available. --Noleander (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the link, I uploaded that and will try to get it cropped soon. What's tripping me up with the postcard is that I can't find evidence of when it was first published. Will check some more though. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Freeman image is fine. If you could find a date for first publication for the postcard (or a date for the NAACP publication), that would be great. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, the postcards with that image went on sale the day after the lynching (May 16, 1916) at latest . The surviving copy has a note that refers to the lynching as happening "last night". I removed the other one because I couldn't figure out when the picture of the back of the postcard was published. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • "quickly sentenced to receive capital punishment" -> quickly sentenced to death
  • "In Robinson, Texas, Lucy Fryer, was murdered while alone at her house " - don't need comma after Fryer
  • "one of them stated that had seen" -> that he had seen
  • "On the morning of May 15, Waco's courthouse quickly filled to capacity in anticipation of the trial: the crowd nearly prevented some jurors from entering." semi-colon instead of colon, I think
  • "Jury selection proceeded quickly: the defense did not challenge any selections of the prosecution." semi-colon instead of colon
  • link kangaroo court
  • "the jury's foreman announced a guilty verdict and a sentence of capital punishment" -> sentence of death
  • "biting one man, but soon beaten into submission by the mob" -> but he was soon beaten
  • "Some people from nearby rural communities, possibly including George Fryer, traveled to the city before the trial to witness the events." - The mention of George Fryer here seems out of place because the paragraph is about people coming to watch the lynching but it would be reasonable for George Fryer to be there for the trial about his wife's murder, not especally for the lynching.
  • "His photographs provide rare depictions of a lynching in process" - in progress?
  • "The Morning News reported the story" -> clarify that this is a Dallas paper
  • "Although many Waco residents did not condemn the lynching, some disparaged it, including local ministers and leaders of Baylor University." -> Some Waco residents condemned the lynching, including local ministers and leaders of Baylor University. (already clear that many did not condemn it)
  • "There were no negative repercussions for Dollins or Police Chief John McNamara: although they made no attempt to stop the mob, they remained well respected in Waco" -> Mayor Dollins; colon should be semi-colon
  • "By the end of the investigation, Freeman had concluded that Washington killed Fryer, and that he was motivated by harsh treatment he had received from her husband." -> Freeman concluded that Washington killed Fryer, and that he was motivated by harsh treatment he had received from her husband.
  • "The NAACP had struggled financially around that time. Their campaign saw some success in raising funds, but it was scaled back as the U.S. entered World War I. NAACP president Joel Elias Spingarn later stated that the group's campaign placed "lynching into the public mind as something like a national problem". Bernstein describes this anti-lynching campaign as the "barest beginnings of a battle that would last many years". - The paragraph is about the lynching, it veers off topic here as this language is just about the NAACP. Move to another paragraph or delete.
  • "In 2011, Berg concluded that Washington likely murdered Fryer, but doubted that he raped her. The same year, Julie Armstrong of the University of South Florida argued that Washington was likely innocent of both charges. Bernstein notes that Washington's motives have never been established. She also states that his confession could have been coerced, and that the murder weapon—perhaps the strongest evidence against him—could have been planted by authorities." - It's clear that we can't really know what happened. I think the facts automatically raise these kinds of doubts/possibilities in the reader's mind. I don't think this commentary is necessary. If you decide to keep it, I think there should some mention of what their conclusions are based on. (Again, seems pretty obvious to me but if the conclusions are worth mentioning then the bases for the conclusions should be worth mentioning too.)
  • "as they saw as the presence of evil in the community" -> saw him as the presence?
  • "The ideas received discussion, but proved unfruitful." -> The ideas were discussed
  • Several times as you're going through the facts you insert commentary. Here are some of them:
    1. "In her 2006 study of lynching, journalist Patricia Bernstein describes the city as then having a "thin veneer" of peace and respectability."
    2. "Manfred Berg of Heidelberg University posits that the executioners attempted to keep him alive to increase his suffering."
    3. "Berg believes that their willingness to be photographed indicates that they knew that no one would be prosecuted for Washington's death."
    4. "Bernstein states that it is "highly unlikely" that George Fryer played a role in Lucy's murder, but notes that there is the "shadow of a possibility" that he bore some guilt."
1,2,3 are pretty obvious, I don't think we need the commentary, and I found it distracting. #4 - "shadow of possibility" - pretty vague and I assume the writer means he bore some guilt because he mistreated Washington. That is mentioned elsewhere, so I don't think that is helpful either. If you decide to keep the information, I think it would work better in the "Analysis and legacy" section rather than interspersed with the facts because it would be less distracting and it would keep the commentator's introduction and what they said all in one section. By the time I was to that last section, I found myself thinking "who is Berg", "who is Hale".
While a WP article should not make editorial comments in the encyclopedia's voice, it is entirely appropriate for the article to reflect the opinions of notable commentators and analysts. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV covers this issue, and requires that the commentator/analyst be identified whenever the article contains speculation or interpretation that is not entirely objective. The way the article names the source (Hale, Berg) could perhaps be improved. --Noleander (talk) 02:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • In the last paragraph of the "Murder and arrest" section, a lot of the information is qualified by the word "may". It ends up sounding like speculation and doesn't really tell the reader anything. If there's no basis for really making a statement - Onlookers estimated the crowd numbered 15,000; There were reports a child initially lit the fire - then I think it should not be included. The motivations of Fleming and Dollins especially sound like speculation. Is there some verifiable basis for these statements? If not, they should be removed.
Ditto. "May" speculation is okay as long as Reliable Sources are responsible (and identified). --Noleander (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

BlueBonnet 02:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've made the changes you've suggested, with the exception of linking Kangaroo court (see the MOS instructions on linking.) Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
If I can butt in ... BlueBonnet has asked for my feedback. I think your comments are outstanding ... I'm excited we've got a new reviewer with such good taste! On both the "commentary" points and the "may" point, you see these calls going both ways at FAC ... which may not be helpful, but ... you asked :) - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I restored the useful & informative material from Bernstien & Berg sources. Those are outstanding sources: reliable, secondary, and scholarly. Historical articles are supposed to contain interpretive assessments, provided they are clearly identified as interpretations or speculations. Some of this material is in a section titled 'Analysis and legacy", and that section title indicates the analytical nature of the material; other instances of the material clearly identify the historian in the sentence (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV). The only reason to remove such analytical material would be if the sources were biased or unreliable, which is not the case here. --Noleander (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with the reinsertion, I was too hasty in removing those. I might put a couple remarks into footnotes for flow, but, yeah, that should be in there. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Note to delegates: BlueBonnet does not plan on offering a support or oppose for this nomination: . Mark Arsten (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
  • request for info
    • "Freeman concluded that Washington killed Fryer, and that he was motivated by harsh treatment he had received from her husband". Any idea what kind of harsh treatment? Any verification? – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
      • The source I cited simply says "According to an NAACP report by white suffragist Elizabeth Freeman, the attack was an example of an enraged employee striking out in anger at an overbearing boss". There might be some more detail in another source, though, I'll see what I can turn up. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Ok, in the original NAACP publication it states that Lucy Fryer "scolded him for beating the mules" immediately before he attacked her, I assume that's what Apel was referring to in what I quoted above. I've tweaked the sentence a little. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Mark, has this article had a spotcheck of sources during its various reviews? If not I'll look at what I can do myself later today, unless someone else volunteers. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

  • No, it has not been spotchecked, thanks for offering to do so, that would be great. Also, I can email you the three journal articles if you want. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks, found a bit in GoogleBooks -- just a couple of relatively minor inconsistencies:
      • Bernstein: FNs 12, 18, 98, 111 -- all okay.
      • DuRocher:
        • FNs 30, 41 -- both okay.
        • FN 35 -- You mention "the crowd numbered over 10,000 at its peak", source says 15,000.
        • FN 47 -- You mention "images of adolescents, some as young as fourteen", source says twelve to fourteen.
      • BTW, I notice that the page number(s) for FN 28 are missing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 22:38, 2 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

These "large light cruisers" were the brainchild of Sir Jackie Fisher, First Lord of the Admiralty, during World War I, but were too lightly armored to have be of much use after World War I. All three were converted to aircraft carriers during the 1920s as a result of the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty that severely limited the tonnage of capital ships that each nation could muster. Courageous was the first ship sunk by the Germans in World War II, Glorious was the first aircraft carrier sunk in a surface action, and only Furious survived the war before being scrapped. The article received a MilHist ACR about a year and a half ago and I've tweaked it since then to better meet the FAC criteria.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

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

  • It's looking very good so far. "charthouse" could use a link. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Done by somebody.
  • "untenable": unbearable? uninhabitable? uncomfortable?
  • "which allowed the ship to ... or to speedily fly off ...": so that the ship could ... or could speedily fly off ... ("which" dangles.)
  • "46-by-48-foot (14.0 × 14.6 m)": by, ×
    • Fixed
  • After I substituted an "also", we have: "Furious's long exhaust ducting had also proved to be a bad idea as it restricted the size of the hangars, and thus the number of aircraft that could be carried, and it hampered landing operations. By 1939 both ships could carry 34,500 imperial gallons (157,000 L; 41,400 US gal) of petrol." That's kind of a non-sequitur.
  • "an increase of over 3,000 long tons (3,000 t).": I changed that to "increases", assuming both figures were increases of over 3K long tons; correct that if it's wrong please.
  • ".75 inches": You know this, but in case anyone wants to look it up: see WP:MOSNUM#Decimal points. (Search throughout this article for .75)
  • "equally divided between three boiler rooms": The argument for "among" is stronger here.
  • Courageous_class_aircraft_carrier#Propulsion: Several missing periods/full stops and a missing space.
  • Different subsections shouldn't have the same name.
  • "were removed in 1926–27": Some of the work in 1926 and some in 1927? ("1926 and 1927") In one of the years, but you don't know which? ("1926 or 1927") During a one-year span beginning some time in 1926? ("fiscal year" works sometimes, other times "and" or "or" suffice, if the special time period is not worth explaining). Moral: avoid dashes when they're ambiguous.
    • clarified.
  • "HE": define at first occurrence
  • "to explode the torpedo": "explode" isn't wrong, but "detonate" sounds a little better.
  • "vent the underwater explosion to the surface rather than into the ship": Better is "deflect the underwater explosion to the surface, away from the ship"
  • So far so good otherwise down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at Courageous_class_aircraft_carrier#Pre-war service. Very readable, given the subject matter. - Dank (push to talk) 21:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I made the edits I was asking for; please check to make sure I got it right. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done.

Comments

  • I tweaked a few things in the article.
  • I don't think the range is cited correctly for the ships - for furious the infobox has 4300nmi instead of the prose's 5300nmi this might be just a typo, for the other two ships the article says there's no endurance figures, but the infobox has figures. There's also no citations for the nmi at x speed for any of the ships. And the battlecruiser class article doesn't have these figures in the infobox so maybe you can just delete it.
  • During the Second World War, Furious, the only surviving ship, was fitted with.. the only surviving ship seemed weird in that sentence. Also, I wasn't clear in the rest of that sentence if a bunch more AA guns were added or they replaced all the old guns. Might be worth adding to the infobox?
  • There's one World War II in the lead vs. the rest as Second World War; stay consistent (and I would double check that its not supposed to be World War II everywhere).
  • Further down, ...Furious sailed unescorted for Halifax carrying £18,000,000 in gold bullion. I wondered why the gold was moved (was it one of the occupied countries gold reserves, for instance)?Kirk (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to respond to these comments this weekend. Life's been kinda hectic these last two weeks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Support - I tried in vain to find out what was going on with the gold shipment, otherwise assuming the citation for that fact was Jenkins, p. 283 that's ok and the rest looks good. Kirk (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Read the article through Fire control and radar...

  • Conversions: "An island with the bridge, flying control station, and funnel were added...". Since "were" refers to the island, shouldn't it be "was" for proper tense? Also, "an island" repeats in this sentence, which is a prose redundancy that should be looked at.
    • Hi Giants, thanks for the comments. I'm starting a collaboration with Sturm on a few articles, I might as well get started. Looking at the image there, I think you're right, all 3 of those seem to be on the island, so I went with: "An island was added on the starboard side with the bridge, flying control station, and funnel, as an island ..." - Dank (push to talk)
  • Description: Don't think multiple draught links are needed here.
    • Done.
  • There's 3000 and 3,000 here; these should be made consistent.
    • Done.
  • Propulsion: "The turbines were arranged in two engine rooms and each of the turbines...". Usage of "the turbines" is redundant. I don't think the second usage is needed at all, as it seems obvious what "each" means.
    • I went with: "Arranged in two engine rooms, each of the turbines drove ..."
  • Armament: "and the effective range was 4,800 yards although the effective range was under 1,000 yards." Quite confusing. How could it have been almost 5,000 yards and under 1,000? Or is one of the terms incorrect?
  • I see "yards" and "yd" here, which I imagine should also be made consistent throughout. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Query Nice read, interesting topic

  • "Four single QF 2-pounder pom-poms were installed after in 1927". after what in 1927?
  • "lacked an island to minimise any turbulence over the flight deck" I'd have thought the opposite was the case - in order to minimise turbulence it was built without an island.
    • Used your word order
  • I'm curious as to why 36 planes needed a much larger Air group than 48. Would you mind checking that?
  • Some of the linkage could be improved. Egypt for example could be piped to the Desert Air Force or its precursor

Otherwise as far as prose and completeness its about there, (though I haven't checked MOS or sources). Nice work. ϢereSpielChequers 23:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Questions/comments from Ling
    • I read a few paragraphs, and saw a relatively large number of compound sentences without a comma between the independent clauses. As far as I know, comma placement there is fairly firm rule. I changed one instance, but refrained from altering others for fear of offending. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • You never offend, Ling. Garner's and Chicago support a comma between independent clauses except when the clauses are short and connected in meaning. MOS is silent. I don't generally insist because it's a battle I'll never win ... and maybe I shouldn't win it, since many of these commas are disappearing in even well-copyedited prose. Having said that: your request is perfectly reasonable, and has solid support in style guides. If you want to insert more commas, please feel free, and if any truly offend me, I'll pluck them out. - Dank (push to talk) 12:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Tks. I didn't mention the short clause thing because it's relatively rare: "Eat more fruit and live longer" etc. I think the boundary is usually three or maybe maybe maybe four words. I'll salt 'n pepper the article with commas some day soonish. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • "were ordered withdrawn" – I'm assuming this is OK in BritEng? AmerEng = "were ordered to withdraw". – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    • "263 Squadron was flown off and their own aircraft attacked targets" ambiguous on two counts. I'm assuming "their own aircraft" = the aircraft officially associated with the vessels.. Is there a specific military term for this sort of unit? – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    • "Transverse arresting gear was fitted sometime during the mid-1930s" but then two paragraphs down "In the early 1930s, transverse arresting gear was installed".. why are we jumping around in time? Actually, there seems to be more than one instance of it: "She was given a more extensive refit from January to May 1939" but next paragraph "'Courageous was recommissioned on 21 February 1928" – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Not sure about these. Sturm? Also, great edits Ling, but I'm not sure about "Hunter-killer Groups". - Dank (push to talk) 11:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Oh, the time warp... I missed that it was discussing different ships. Hey... is there a way to make that a bit more salient? Just very generally, several sentence start with the name of the ship in italics, and the names are similar (well, semantically, though not morphologically).. so they tend to blur together... It's not recommended to have such repetitive sentence beginnings anyhow... is there any way to help readers keep track.. like "The difference between Courageous and Furious" or "While Courageous was doing this, Furious was doing that.." or.. something better than those, with the same function.. a bit like Shakespeare did to remind the audience where the play was set: "Something is rotten in Denmark".... I think separate sub- sub- sections for each ship would probably be overkill, though... – Ling.Nut3 (talk)
        • I see your point. I don't have a preference. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
          • The whole article is laid out on a ship-by-ship basis (or the two later conversions vs the first). I suppose that I could distinguish between them by using subheadings in the operational history section if you think that that would help.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
            • Do whatever you think best (or do nothing at all). I did notice that it takes a while before the reader knows which three ships we're discussing. Would you be averse to somehow listing the names of the ships in the first para of the lede? – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support images all free and check ok, with tweaks already made, I support. PumpkinSky talk 22:17, 28 May 2012 (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 GrahamColm 15:47, 2 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): Keilana| 01:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it's been thoroughly worked up by Hurricanehink (GA) and Malleus Fatuorum (PR) and I think it's the most comprehensive treatment of the subject on the Internet. Thanks for your consideration and reviews. Keilana| 01:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Support with minor modifications. I am reviewing on 1a-e; though without paraphrasing/verification check. Iridia (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  • "Andromeda is most prominent during autumn evenings in the Northern Hemisphere" - clarify that it is too far north to be visible in most of the Southern Hemisphere, per WP:SYSTEMATIC - I notice this was brought up in the GA review. "Due to its northern declination, it can only be viewed as far south as 37 deg latitude, southward of which it is below the horizon." Or some such.
  • Added a similar sentence, how does it look now?
  • That's fine. Technically it can't be viewed southward of 53 deg, not 40: the equation is phi - 90; but that allows for the ten degrees or so of stuff like trees that tends to obscure the horizon, so it seems reasonable. Iridia (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "founded Mycenae, originating the Persideae dynasty" - 'originating' is a little awkward.
  • Reworded as "founded Mycenae and its Persideae dynasty".
  • "although it is now defined as a specific region of the sky including both Ptolemy's pattern and the surrounding stars" - probably worth clarifying that being defined as a specific region of the sky is how all modern constellations are defined, eg. "although like all modern constellations, it is"
  • I like that wording, so I went with it.
  • The para on Hubble's use of M31 is oddly placed; it should be together with its subject further down.
  • I'm concerned here about cluttering up the deep-sky objects section; do you think that would be a problem?
  • "An Arab constellation called "al-Hut" (the fish)" - better suited to the other cultures section.
  • I moved it to before the Hindus. Is that an ok placement?
  • "Andromeda does not contain any globular clusters or bright nebulae because of its location above the plane of the Milky Way. However, because it lies in a direction away from our home galaxy, Andromeda is home to many galaxies and planetary nebulae." Several issues here. Clarify that the constellation doesn't contain any of the Milky Way's globular clusters or nebulae. Clarify that the plane of the Milky Way is dense with stars and obscuring gas. Clarify that the area of sky is not near the plane. Clarify which objects are within and without the Milky Way. There is that big gorgeous image of M31 over on the right which is then immediately discussed, and that's also 'Andromeda'. I think within this section, it should only be referred to as M31, never Andromeda Galaxy or even Great Galaxy, to prevent reader confusion.
  • OK, I've reworded that part to reflect this. I've also tried to clarify when I'm talking about the constellation and when I'm talking about the galaxy, but I'm a little wary of becoming redundant. Would you mind taking another look at this section?
  • wikilink Messier 31
  • Done.
  • "However, it was centuries before the first observations of M31 were made with a telescope" - so as soon as telescopes were invented, it was observed. That's not really surprising....
  • Obvious sentence is obvious. I rewrote it as "M31 was first observed telescopically shortly after its invention by Simon Marius, who observed it in 1612."
  • "The Andromeda Galaxy's two main companions" - This paragraph offers a nice opportunity to lead into some missing information: M31 and its neighbours show extensive interaction and there are many more dwarf galaxies there than the ones that are mentioned. A plot like this to illustrate would be great (consider asking the authors if the copyright isn't immediately clear).
  • There's no obvious copyright or lack thereof for that image. I've searched through Commons and found nothing like that. I did dig up some information on M31's satellites and added a couple sentences.
  • In that case, drop the contact author on that paper a nice email asking if a version of the figure could be made available, as it's for outreach (astro jargon for 'telling the public what we do'). The interaction covers such a large area of the sky (which was the main finding of that PANDaS survey) that it counts as significant in the constellation. Nice work adding the info on the satellites. Iridia (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not overly comfortable about the use of Universe Today, Space.com and Meteor Showers Online when peer-reviewed papers on the meteor shower are likely to exist. Was an ADS search done for that?
  • I've replaced the Universe Today citation and the Meteor Showers Online citation. However, the Space.com article is by Peter Jenniskens, who wrote one of the other sources I replaced it with. Nevertheless, I can find another citation for that information if you want.
  • I see from other citations (including in that paragraph) that you have access to his major book; can that be used to cite all the information instead? If it can't, in that case it can stand. Thank you for adding the AJ paper. Iridia (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I actually only have access through Google Books right now, though I know the book is in the local community college's library. I'll see what I can do in the next few days - I'm a bit busy until Tuesday. Since the FAC will likely still be running then, is it OK if we let it stand now and I run off and get the book in a few days? Keilana| 12:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "representing astrologically something honorable" - something?
  • Yeah, that's as specific as the source got. I reworded it as "representing honor in astrology and a great general in mythology".
  • - much better
  • The External links could probably be pruned more tightly.
  • I cut it down to two.

Nice tight summary of what could be quite an overwhelming topic. Iridia (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments

  • Reference: Ridpath 2001 does not exist in Bibliography
  • Reference: Bakich is formatted differently, not harv
  • I think Malleus fixed that recently. Is it resolved now?

--Redtigerxyz 17:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  • A Complete Manual of Amateur Astronomy: Tools and Techniques for Astronomical Observations is mentioned twice in Bibliography. I realized this while fixing a ref
  • Rey, H. A. (1997) is not used.
  • Organization: "In non-Western astronomy" can be merged in "History and mythology" as its History and mythology is discussed there too. --Redtigerxyz 15:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I removed Rey and one of the Manuals; I also made "In non-Western astronomy" a subsection for "History and mythology". Keilana| 21:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
fix "Koed & Sherrod 2003". No Koed now??? --Redtigerxyz 04:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Hm. That's weird. I added Koed back, should be fixed. Keilana| 05:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Changed the ref sequence. Now harv link is fixed. --Redtigerxyz 05:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments Support - Would it be possible to create paragraphs in the lead? Readability is difficult. The star list would also be much clearer with a line break between each entry, in edit mode it's quite difficult to navigate (a sea of unbroken text). The meteor shower should be briefly mentioned in the lead. Content and referencing look very good. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I put breaks in the lead and the list. I hope that helps. I also added a sentence about the Andromedids to the lead. Keilana| 02:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I removed the break in the lead, having introduced the paragraphs. Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Oops. Thanks. Keilana| 03:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Much better, thanks. Would be nice if a way could be found to avoid repetition of the word 'shower' so close together, perhaps pipe Andromedids or think of another word for the second instance (...annual event..?). Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 11:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I reworded that sentence as " Andromeda is the location of the radiant for the Andromedids, a weak meteor shower that occurs in November." Keilana| 04:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Commnent - Footnotes #27, 57, 59 contain links to refs, but the links do not work. --Noleander (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hrm, they work for me. Not sure what's going on here. Keilana| 02:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I fixed them. Malleus Fatuorum 02:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
That would be why. Thank you so much! Keilana| 03:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment First impressions are very good. Do we know roughly when Andromeda was first described as a constellation, yearwise? I think the earliest year mentioned in the article is 1787; it is mentioned that it is included in the work of Ptolemy, but a rough year would be good. Were there any earlier mentions? Simon Burchell (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of hard for us to pin down. I'm pretty sure the first writing we can find is Ptolemy, but a similar figure was mentioned in Babylonian works, as is mentioned in the "Non-Western astronomy" section. As of right now, the only date mentioned is in reference to the Almagest as "2nd century", and this is as specific as my sources get. What do you think? Keilana| 04:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, if that's all there is - but it would be good to mention the 2nd century in the "History" section as well as the lead. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Done. Keilana| 14:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments from Noleander

  • Lead: 1st sentence: I'd recommend that the first two sentences be flipped, so the 1st sentence says "A is a constellation in the N hemisphere representing a princess ...; and the 2nd sentence says "It is one of the 48 ...".
  • China/Hindu confusion: "In Chinese astronomy, the stars that make up Andromeda were members of four different constellations that had astrological and mythological significance, and were also part of a similar constellation in Hindu mythology. " - Needs to be clarified. as it stands, it implies that Hindu Mythology is a subset of Chinese astronomy.
  • Reworded as "In Chinese astronomy, the stars that make up Andromeda were members of four different constellations that had astrological and mythological significance; a constellation related to Andromeda also exists in Hindu mythology." Keilana| 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Reword: " ... a weak November shower." - I know what you mean here, but that may throw some readers for a loop. Maybe "a weak meteor shower which occurs in November".
  • Reword: "in the Greek tradition, a female figure in Andromeda's place .." - What does "place" mean here? in that location in the sky? or in that position in the tradition?
  • Confusing: "American astronomer Edwin Hubble included what was then known as the Andromeda Nebula in his groundbreaking 1923 research on galaxies." - (1) this could be read as the Nebula is the constellation; (2) I think the narrative here is shifting from the constellation to its most important component: the galaxy, correct? If so, that shift needs to be explicit.
  • Yes, it is switching temporarily. I added "now known as the Andromeda Galaxy" as a parenthetical phrase. Does that help some? Keilana| 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Consider a disambig hatnote at the top of the article: especially for contrast to Andromeda galaxy.
  • Deep-sky objects - Flip first 2 sentences: order should be: (1) A is not in the plane of our MW galaxy, but instead is "above" the plane: (2) thus the stuff from MW is not within A's borders; (3) thus A contains mostly things far away.
  • Clarify: "It is an enormous – 192.4 by 62.2 arcminutes ..." - I presume the "enormous" is referring to the apparent size in the sky, not the absolute size?
  • Wording: "Despite being visible to the naked eye, the "little cloud" near Andromeda's figure was first recorded in 964 C.E." - Not sure what "despite" does here. Perhaps reword to "..was not recorded until .." if that is the intention?
  • I wrote "despite" to indicate that the ancient astronomers could definitely see it, they just did not record it in any surviving atlases. Should that still be changed? Keilana| 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Wording: ", but that connection is somewhat disputed." - I think "somewhat" should be removed.
  • Star list: The list of stars probably cannot be improved upon, although lists are a bit off-putting. Consider moving it to the bottom of the article?
  • I could potentially prosify it, but I feel like it would end up being the same thing, just without bullet points. Not to be argumentative (I feel like I'm being so!) but I did want to group all of the objects - stars and deep-sky. I'm also not sure what moving the stars would do to the flow of the article. Perhaps moving the "Non-Western astronomy" section to after "History and mythology" would help with this. Thoughts? Keilana| 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree a bullet approach is acceptable. I was thinking of moving the "Objects" section to the bottom; and the "stars" subsection to the bottom within Objects. But it is not a show-stopper for FA. --Noleander (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, or perhaps just moving it to after "Deep-sky objects". What do you think is the most useful? Keilana| 12:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Either way seems okay. Aesthetically, in my opinion, all bullet lists should be pushed as far towards the bottom of the article as practical. --Noleander (talk) 12:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Ambiguity: "M32, visible with a far smaller size of 8.7 by 6.4 arcminutes,.." - Not clear what other object is being compared for "smaller". The prior sentence names several objects.
  • Standard layout of stars? - Based on the illustrations in the article, it appears that there is not a standard (uniform, universal) layout of how the lady's body aligns with the stars. That should probably be mentioned somewhere. Or say something like "A's body is typically represented as ... or sometimes as ..." or similar.
  • I mentioned after the bit about the Almagest that we get our typical depiction there but it's fairly varied. I cited that to Staal because he offers a comparison of several different depictions. Keilana| 04:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Obsolete? - "In Chinese astronomy, the stars that make up Andromeda were members of four .." - Does that imply that those consts are no longer used in China? If so, reword to "In traditional Chinese astronomy ... " or something to distinguish from modern.
  • Unqualify: " The most famous deep-sky object in Andromeda is the spiral galaxy named ..." - Probably should remove "deep-sky".
  • Images -> commons: Image File:Andromedaurania.jpg is in WP, not in the commons. Not sure if FA requires that images be in commons (except for images requiring fair-use notes). In any case, it should be moved to commons.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Support – Thank you for addressing my concerns. Comments – It looks good but I have a few concerns:

  • I've removed one of the instances. Do you think a paragraph like that would be beneficial? I'm quite willing to write one. Keilana| 19:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    • It's your call really. I just thought the article may benefit from some more information about the IAU conventions and when they came to be. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "She was chained to a rock ... who used the head of Medusa to turn the monster into stone and subsequently married Andromeda...": subject change. Please move the "subsequently married Andromeda" into the "The myth recounts that the couple..." sentence.
  • "...but has since become obsolete": I think a better statement would be that it was not widely adopted.
  • It calls "δ And" a "K3 class orange giant"; orange is redundant here. Also, why is this one identified as a giant but not the earlier giant and bright giant stars?
  • Removed "orange"; I was going on what my sources gave me. Only one (Ridpath, I think) classified them as "giant" or not. I'm not sure what database, if any, would have that data. I'll keep searching. Keilana| 15:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Usually you can get the spectral classification from SIMBAD. Most of the star articles have a link to that database, or you can go there and do a lookup.
  • "μ And is a white star"; "π And is a blue-white binary star"; "56 And is ... a G-type (yellow) giant ... secondary is a K-type (orange) giant". Can the star classifications be presented in a consistent manner?
  • What did you have in mind? I see several options for this. Keilana| 15:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    • The concern I have with listing the colors is that they are very subjective. The color can vary depending on the size of the scope, nearby comparison stars, and the observer. By comparison, stellar classification is more objective because it's based on the spectrum/temperature. I'd suggest listing at least the general stellar class (A-type, K-type, ...) and the name of the luminosity class (main sequence, giant, bright giant, ...). I don't think "orange giant" is standard usage and may even be confusing to some; to me it seems better to say something like "orange-hued giant star of type K0", for example.
  • "The constellation of Andromeda lies well away from the galactic plane, so it does not contain any of the globular clusters or bright nebulae of the Milky Way": being located away from the galactic plane has little to do with whether it has any globular clusters. It does have to do with whether it has any open clusters.

A few more comments:

  • "Because of its distance in the sky from the band of obscuring dust, gas, and abundant stars of our home galaxy, Andromeda's borders contain many distant galaxies": the lack of attenuation is why they're visible; it's not the reason they exist.
  • "Despite being visible to the naked eye, the "little cloud" near Andromeda's figure was first recorded in 964 C.E. by the Arab astronomer al-Sufi...": He saw it even though it is visible to the naked eye? The wording might need a tweak.
  • Hmm, I think I was trying to say that it wasn't mapped until 964. I've reworded as "was not recorded until 964 C.E. when the Arab astronomer al-Sufi wrote his book...". Keilana| 17:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay I'm done. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments, a few brief comments for now, maybe more later if time. Carcharoth (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree with RJH that something on 'the IAU conventions and when they came to be' would be useful. It should be possible to find out the year or approximate year that the IAU began publishing the modern definitions of constellations (and specifically the definition of Andromeda). This is something I've tried to look up on Knowledge before, and it is something that does seem to be lacking generally from Knowledge articles. Whether this is because the IAU stuff is mostly not online or is just too obscure, I'm not sure.
  • The 'Urania's Mirror' picture is not (as far as I can tell) an example of non-Western astronomy, so shouldn't be used in that section. There is a fair amount of information available about Urania's Mirror, so you could double-check the year as more recent research might have clarified that.
  • The image caption for the Johannes Hevelius depiction should include the year of publication, or some other indication of when it dates from.
  • Done. Keilana| 16:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    Doesn't seem to have been done? The image file says 1690, but it is the article image caption that I'm looking to see that date in. Also best to check whether the image scanned here is from the original (first) edition, or a later edition and/or state. Some of these celestial atlases went through a large number of editions and/or states, with errors corrected and/or added over the years. Though that sort of detail is mainly of interest to those who collect such publications, some of which fetch quite a lot of money! Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
    I could have sworn I did that...Damn wiki eating my edits. It should have gone through now! Keilana| 02:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Neither the Urania's Mirror depiction nor the Hevelius depiction are mentioned in the main text of the article. It is unclear whether these are random depictions picked out to illustrate the article because they were available, or whether they were chosen for a reason. In general, it is the history of the constellation that seems to be lacking in this article. Between the time of Ptolemy and the IAU there is a vast span of history for this and other constellations. It would be possible to write a paragraph or two about some of the more famous celestial atlases that were published (such as Bode's 'Uranographia and Bayer's Uranometria and Flamsteed's Atlas Coelestis), and how the depiction of Andromeda varied between them. There is some published literature on this, though again rather obscure. I'll try and dig out some references if I have time. There is also the Poeticon astronomicon of Hyginus.
  • I would really appreciate that as I don't have anything in that detail. If you don't have time to find those references, could you perhaps point me in the right direction? Keilana| 16:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You might also want to check the orientation of the Hevelius and Urania's Mirror images. The orientation between them isn't consistent (as can be seen from the position of the head and feet and the Triangulum constellation). I'm not sure what the convention is on Knowledge articles, but if the image orientation (direction of celestial north) is different to that of the constellation diagram in the infobox, the image caption should mention this to avoid confusion.
  • I'm pretty sure there's a sentence in there about how different stars were used to represent different parts of our chained lady here. I'm actually really concerned about the Urania's Mirror images now, as I did some research and found where I believe they were taken from . The author (Ian Ridpath) states that the images there - identical to the set uploaded by User:Urania's Muse - is under copyright, even though the cards were created in 1825. I'm not an expert on copyright, as all I know is that close paraphrasing and copying is bad, but this smells fishy. I'm not entirely sure what to do here. Keilana| 16:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    It is unlikely that they are still under copyright if they were published circa 1825. He may be referring to the scans he made being copyrighted, which is not true for 2D material (it is true for 3D material, or angled shots of 2D material), but it is more courteous to scan from originals than to take someone else's scans of public domain material without permission (if the scans are from from someone else's website, rather than scanned from originals that someone owns, that absolutely has to be stated and acknowledged on the image page - even if copyright can't be asserted over the scans, the source has to be credited to establish provenance (the image equivalent of WP:SAY WHERE YOU GOT IT FROM). If you are concerned, do get someone to check that. About the orientation, I'm not talking about different stars being placed in different parts of the Andromeda figure (or even in adjacent constellations), but the east-west orientation. The Hevelius image is the constellation as seen when looking at the celestial sphere from the outside (west at left, east at right). All the other images show Andromeda as seen from the inside of the celestial sphere, i.e. as seen from looking up into the sky from the surface of the Earth (west at right, east at left). Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
    Ah, that makes sense. And explains why I never work at CCI! I've specified in the captions where the constellation is being viewed from now. Keilana| 02:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You may have room for another picture. Maybe of the meteor shower, or an example of a deep-sky object not visible to the naked eye (I'm sure there is a gorgeous Hubble image around somewhere of one of those objects)?
  • One more thought: are there any published figures on the number of stars and deep-sky objects in this constellation as recorded in various modern catalogues?
  • Not in the sources I have right now. Maybe Burnham's Celestial Handbook? Keilana| 16:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    The reason I asked is that something should be said (briefly) on how the perception of the universe changed over time, from stars thought to be contained on a crystal sphere in unchanging skies, to the modern view that space is immense with the stars varying distances from Earth, and the telescope revealing steadily more and more stars (the numbers increasing as you go from the first telescopes up to the modern era), with today's telescopes revealing the deep-sky objects. The trouble is, I think most catalogue statistics on this tend to cover the whole sky (numbers of stars of each magnitude and so on), not individual constellations. But I thought something should be said on how perceptions and numbers changed over time (from x stars identified by Ptolemy, to the numbers in a modern catalogue). The same can be said of each constellation, and the overall history is covered at celestial cartography, but there may be some way to touch on this without overdoing it.

    The other thoughts were: identifying the nearest object to Earth in this constellation (presumably one of the foreground stars), and the direction of this view relative to the solar system and the Milky Way. i.e. Do planets pass through this constellation or not (i.e. zodiacal or non-zodiacal constellation), have supernovae, or novae, or gamma-ray bursts been observed in this constellation. What I'm imagining is those zoom-out images you have of the Sun and solar system seen from a distance relative to the rest of the galaxy and universe, with the view of Andromeda shown as a 3D 'light' cone reaching out into the universe. What areas does that cone pass through?

    And looking at the infobox, I see the nearest star is identified there, and also the brightest star. Some infoboxes have so much information, it can't all be communicated in the text of the article, but in this case I think some of the infobox information needs to appear in the main text as well. Material that I'd include in both infobox and main article text include the area (722 square degrees) and that it is 19th among the constellations by area (and since freeform text is less restrictive than an infobox, you can compare the size to that of the Full Moon, one of the traditional comparisons, and to the smallest and largest constellations), the brightest and nearest stars (you already mention the brightest star in both infobox and article text, but the nearest star is only in the infobox), stars with planets (the infobox says ten, which begs the question which stars are these?), the three Messier objects, the three stars within 10 parsecs (some of the infobox stuff needs sources, though). One thing that confused me, the infobox says 'Main stars 4, 18' - what does that mean? Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I hope I get everything in response here. I can count all of the stars in Ptolemy's figure, then count the Bayer stars, then the Flamsteed stars, and then try to find something catalogued and put a sentence at the beginning of the Stars section. Would that work? I'd really like to put this, one of the oldest constellations, in a historical context as you've suggested, and that may be the only way to frame it. I added a sentence in the lead saying that it's not a zodiacal constellation. I haven't found anything about supernovae/novae/gamma ray bursts specifically in my sources. I can dig some information about recurrent novae up from the AAVSO, but I'm not sure that's what you're looking for. This database also lists a couple of novae in Andromeda, but I'm also not sure that they're noteworthy enough to merit a mention. What do you think about that? Furthermore, I think the "cone" issue is addressed in the discussion of its position in the sky; I don't know what else to write on that. I've added some discussion of some of the infobox material to the lead, where I feel it'll be most helpful. Is that an improvement? I also added a paragraph about Ross 248 to the Stars section. As for the exoplanets, I have written about the most notable ones in the Stars section, Upsilon Andromedae and 14 Andromedae. I honestly have no idea what the "main stars" parameter means either. Keilana| 02:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry for the delay in responding here. What you describes sounds OK (Ptolemy-Bayer-Flamsteed), as this would expand on the infobox designation 'Bayer/Flamsteed stars = 65' (that confuses me as well, is it an aggregate, or was the number the same for Andromeda in both surveys?). Bayer was 1,564 stars, Flamsteed was 2554 stars. I would suggest rather than counting the stars in Ptolemy, find a source that lists them for each of Ptolemy's constellation (or attempts to). This will all stand you in good stead for the other constellations you are planning on working on. Similarly, it would be good to find out what the 'main stars' parameter is all about, as it may be wrong and/or misleading, and that needs sorting out at the featured article level. The novae stuff I'm not too bothered about, as long as some effort has been made to look for stuff like that (you could also check 'what links here' to see if any notable objects listed in Andromeda have been linked from here, or look at the list of objects in Andromeda). Carcharoth (talk) 09:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Overall, some care needs to be taken to get the balance right between the article being a history of the concept and nature of the constellation, and a whistle-stop tour of objects contained in the constellation. With a bit more of the history, I think the balance could be improved. The most critical bit, in my view, is pinning down the year the modern definition of the constellation was defined by the IAU, and then fleshing out a bit more of the history that preceded that. Carcharoth (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd rejig the second para of the lead - at the moment you mention binaries, then M31, then a binary, then some galaxies. The objects flow better according to type.
I reordered it; better now? Keilana| 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Err, I rejigged again - "Several binaries..." is really vague. So I stuck in Mirach and Almach (I recall this colourful binary as a popular target for binocs or small telescopes). Was tempted to add a line about Ross 248 too but am ok either way on this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh thank you! That looks excellent. I'll leave Ross 248 for the body; I don't think it'd add anything particularly special to the lead anyways. I did switch it to American spelling for consistency though. My English family are rolling over in their graves... Keilana| 03:52, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
....is the 9th closest star to Earth..... - easier on the eyes as "ninth"
Fixed. Keilana| 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
In the Deep-sky objects section you have Almach linking to alpha And (mixup?)
Fixed. Oops. Keilana| 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
M31 is often referred to as a twin sister to the Milky Way,... - I'd drop the "sister" unless part of the source... ok, not hugely fussed either way.
Language like that is pretty common in amateur astronomy texts, and though I don't have the source in front of me, I'm fairly sure Wilkins and Dunn referred to the two as twin sisters. If you still feel it's unencyclopedic, I can remove it; it's not a big deal. Keilana| 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I am wondering if there is a tad too much detail on M31 here....but not a big issue.
What can I say, I'm an astronomy fangirl! :) What would you suggest removing? Keilana| 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the History and mythology section needs a one liner about how several neighbouring constellation are part of the Perseus myth.
I stuck a sentence after the retelling of the myth so the reader's aware of who all the characters are. Is that good? Keilana| 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise, looking good on prose and comprehensiveness Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I've removed Rey but there was one incorrectly formatted citation to Koed.
  • I fixed source 17 and checked the others for similar problems. Everything should be in order now.
  • I also fixed the dash thing. Keilana| 17:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Delegate note -- Hi Keilana, I don't think we've 'met'... ;-) Can you point me to a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing on one of your previous FAC noms? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ian, nice to meet you! My previous FAC noms were Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Cannon and Knowledge:Featured article candidates/History of timekeeping devices. Cannon got a source review from GrahamColm and the clocks got a source review from Nishkid64. I remember them going through every source and pointing out problems with verifiability and accuracy, which I'm assuming is what you're asking for. Keilana| 01:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Heh, those go back a ways, don't they...?! We'd better have one here -- I'll list a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
It's been a long while for sure! Given that most of my sources are dead trees, I can provide stuff for anyone who needs to verify them. Keilana| 16:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Can do, but not till Thursday. Happy to make way for anyone quicker off the mark. Tim riley (talk) 07:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Source spot check

There are a few queries below, with regard to which I add this disclaimer: I am to astronomy what whales are to hang-gliding, and my queries probably come under the heading of "ask a silly question".

  • Hoskin & Dewhirst
    • 35a – fine
    • 35b - fine
  • Bakich
    • 3a – text says 0h 47m; source says 0h 46m
    • 3b – fine
    • 6a – fine
    • 6b – fine
    • 7 – fine
    • 17a – fine
    • 17b – fine
    • 18 – fine
    • 50 – the figure 3.5 is there on p. 51, but not the statement that it is one of the brightest deep-sky objects in the northern sky (but see my disclaimer, above)
    • 60 – fine
  • Ridpath
    • 26a – text says "magnitude of 2.06"; source says "2.1"
    • 26b – fine
    • 26c – fine
    • 26d – fine
    • 26e – fine
    • 26f – fine
    • 26g – source doesn't say apparent magnitude, but (see disclaimer) this may go without saying to anyone who knows anything about astronomy. I see the source here contradicts the source at ref 42, but, again perhaps that is within the usual range of precision in such matters.
    • 26h – fine
    • 26i – fine
    • 26j – fine
    • 26k - fine
  • Thompson and Thompson
    • 11a – fine
    • 11b – fine
    • 11c – fine
    • 11d – fine
    • 11e – fine
    • 11f – fine
    • 11g – fine
    • 11h – fine
    • 11i – fine
    • 11j – fine
    • 11k – fine
    • 11l – fine
    • 11m – fine
    • 11n – fine
    • 11o – fine
  • Moore
    • 14a – fine
    • 14b – fine
    • 14c – fine
    • 14d – fine
    • 14e – fine
    • 14f – fine
    • 14g – I couldn't track the "6 other Mira variables" in the source, but see disclaimer
    • 14h – fine
    • 14i – fine
    • 14j – fine
    • 14k – the source is correctly quoted as to the figures, but doesn't say that this is Andromeda's "most celebrated" open cluster
    • 14l – figures are correctly quoted, but (disclaimer again) the source doesn't say that the figures "mak it a tighter cluster than NGC 752". That's probably obvious, but I just mention it.
    • 14m – fine
    • 14n – fine.

Most of the information in the above sources consists of figures, and except where mentioned in my review is correctly quoted. References to prose text are accurate but without any close paraphrasing. – Tim riley (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Afterthought. I forgot to add this while I still had the books before me, but I noticed that there were spelling differences between the various sources. For instance, Almach was (from memory) rendered Almaak by, I think, Ridpath. I wonder if these orthographical discrepancies might be mentioned in the relevant parts of the article, or would that be needless clutter? Merely a thought. And I ought to have added, and now do, that I am as hugely impressed by the article in toto as a layman has any right to be. Loud applause! Tim riley (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much! For 3a, I just looked it up on Google books and it says 0h46m. Not sure what's up with that. For 50, I think that explicit fact was in another source and got lost in the shuffle, but it can easily be implied from the table in Bakich which lists the Messier objects and their brightness; the Andromeda Galaxy is clearly very very bright in comparison. For 26a, I'm pretty sure that number came from Moore, but Google books doesn't have the preview and I had to return it to the library. Should I change it to 2.1? For 26g, "apparent" magnitude is implied, it's in contrast to "absolute" magnitude. When an astronomy text gives a magnitude without specifying, it's assumed to be the "apparent magnitude", the brightness as visible from the Earth. For 14g, I just counted the other major Mira variables in the source; Moore specifically stated in the introduction that he lists all the major variable stars in each constellation. For 14k, I believe that came from Thompson, but that went back to the library with Moore. Should I remove it? And for 14l, that comes from its listed classification; I just compared the two. As for the spelling issues, I considered putting them in but since they sound phonetically the same, I didn't want to clutter the article with a million different (sometimes terrible) transcriptions/corruptions of Arabic phrases.Thanks again for the excellent, thorough review! Keilana| 18:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
  • 3a - yes, the source does indeed say 0h46, but your text in the infobox says 0h47.
  • 26a - I had the source before me this morning and, yes, I think you ought to change to 2.1.
  • If you are happy with 14k I shouldn't presume to quibble.
As for your other replies, above, I'd say no change to your text is called for. Compliments and regards. Tim riley (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Wow, typing fail, I even had it right in the coordinates. I've changed to 2.1 and fixed the infobox. Thanks again! Keilana| 18:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment on ENGVAR This article has used American English from its inception, and, as written contained for several years a sentence which mentioned that the constellation was named for the goddess. In 2008 the article was changed to say the constellation was named after the goddess. While both forms exist in American English, 'for' is more common in that dialect whereas 'after' predominates enormously in British English. For me, "named after" currently reads a little awkwardly. --John (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed this. Thanks for the comment! Keilana| 23:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I tightened the lead and made a couple of other minor changes. It's a lovely article and I think I now support. --John (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Following on from John's comment, we have "neighbor" and "neighbour" and "color" and "colour" -- perhaps there are other Engvar conflicts... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I Americanised one "neighbouring" and am cross with myself for missing another. The "colour" is in a quote. I didn't spot any other Anglicisms in the text, and I have fed the text through a spell-checker using American spelling and nothing untoward came up. Tim riley (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Heh, well I overlooked that "colour" was in a quote, so don't be too hard on yourself... ;-) Tks for dealing with that, Tim, and for the spotcheck. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
My pleasure. Glad to be of use. What's the etiquette with your request at WT:FAC? Do I delete it or do you? Tim riley (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again Tim. I am happy for you to delete the request. Graham Colm (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
(ec)Tks for reminding me -- there's no ceremony to it, whoever gets there first... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's note - Have I missed an image review? I don't foresee any problems except, possibly, the chart used as the Lead image. Graham Colm (talk) 15:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Graham, images appear to have been checked by various reviewers, if not in one hit. I double-checked myself and all appear okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Graham Colm (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2012 (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 GrahamColm 15:35, 2 June 2012 .

Nominator(s): Pyrrhus16 11:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I created the article back in 2009, brought it to GA status, and now feel that it meets the FA criteria. The article is relatively short but I believe that it is a comprehensive account of an interesting storybook album. Pyrrhus16 11:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

  • FN 3: page(s)? Volume/issue number?
  • FN 6: is this the online or print version? Missing some details here
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books or not
  • Is there not a better source for release date than Box Office Mojo? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Crisco 1492 comments
Resolved comments by Crisco 1492 moved to talk
Support - Short but sweet. Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments: Opening sentence is a mouthful—trying to fit too much into it?

"E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is an audiobook and soundtrack album narrated by American recording artist Michael Jackson for the 1982 Steven Spielberg-directed blockbuster film of the same name. The album was produced by music composer Quincy Jones and distributed under MCA Records. The production of the audiobook brought Jackson together with several former collaborators and acquaintances, such as Rod Temperton, Freddy DeMann and Bruce Swedien."

What I first saw was "Steven Spielberg-directed", which American style guides suggest might be "Steven Spielberg–directed", to avoid the other proper typography, which is two hyphens (try to avoid, I think). OR reword it and solve the long-sentence problem:

"E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial is an audiobook and soundtrack album for the 1982 blockbuster film of the same name directed by Steven Spielberg. Narrated by American recording artist Michael Jackson, the album was produced by music composer Quincy Jones and distributed under MCA Records. The production of the audiobook brought Jackson together with several former collaborators and acquaintances, such as Rod Temperton, Freddy DeMann and Bruce Swedien."

Just a suggestion, and you may want Jackson's name to be more thematic (i.e. in the opening sentence), which is fair enough.

  • "The book also contains"—is "also" necessary?
  • "which Jackson's sings on the audiobook"—typo?
  • I'm unsure (any grammar nerds around?): can "had" be removed since "prior to" is announced? "Prior to the recording of the E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial album, Jackson had released four solo studio albums with ..."
  • "selling over 20 million copies"—well, you know me; I'd prefer "more than". But over to you (that's just a personal opinion of mine).
  • "over 1 million copies"; consider "more than a million copies" ... does it flow better that way? Unsure.
  • I think MoS says to regularise the typography in quotes to that pertaining in the article text (Allowable typographical changes). So could the "He's in a strange ..." have an unspaced em dash? After all, you haven't duplicated the font and font-size and justification of the original, have you! :-)
  • "Both of the conditions were breached"—remove two words? then "they" is slightly wobbly, so why not, "... by MCA Records, which released, ..."?

Well, I wouldn't rave about this article in terms of prose, but I can't see that it fails cr. 1a either. Tony (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've implemented those helpful suggestions. Pyrrhus16 18:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments from WWB Too: Overall I think this article is in good shape, although I do have some questions and small changes to suggest. I'm new to the FA review process, so please let me know if any of these are not things that need to be addressed here.

  • Some of the material in the "Background" section seems to not be directly related to the album. Specifically, I'm thinking of the following information about Michael Jackson's previous albums:
"Following a move to Epic Records, Jackson released Off the Wall (1979). The album was a critical and commercial success, receiving favorable reviews and eventually selling more than 20 million copies worldwide."
I wonder if it would make sense to simplify the information on Jackson's previous albums a little? Here's my suggestion:
"Prior to recording the E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial album, Jackson released four solo studio albums with Motown Records, as well as several with his brothers as part of The Jackson 5. In 1975, he moved to Epic Records and in 1979 released Off the Wall, to critical and commercial success."
  • There are a few grammatical issues here or areas of awkward phrasing that I think need to be resolved:
  • "The film tells the story of Elliott, a boy who befriends a good-natured extraterrestrial called E.T., who is stranded on Earth." --comma is not needed after E.T.
  • "It was, wrote a journalist for Billboard, one of the "most ambitious" projects that MCA Records had taken on." --sounds awkward, perhaps the following wording would work better:
"In 1982, a journalist for Billboard wrote that it was one of the "most ambitious" projects that MCA Records had taken on to date."
  • "Jackson later revealed in the December 1982 issue of Ebony magazine—on which both he and E.T. appear on the cover—" --should be "in which both he and E.T."
  • "The promo copies of "Someone In the Dark" have since become one of the singer's rarest and most sought after singles" --should it be "sought-after"?

Based on my understanding of the FA criteria, I would say that this article passes. Great work, Pyrrhus. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I've implemented them into the article. Pyrrhus16 20:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Comments by User:TonyTheTiger
Content
Background
  • I've added the production studio and distributor of ET. I don't believe that they had any type of relationship with Epic, and no sources that I have checked note a relationship. Pyrrhus16 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Production
  • None of the Jackson books or other sources that I have seen describe the exact contractual agreements that he or Jones were under in terms of being able to work with other studios. Pyrrhus16 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Release and legal issues
  • No sources describe the exact contractual agreements that Jackson was under that would allow Epic to make the demands and conditions that they did. Pyrrhus16 17:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • "The promo copies of "Someone In the Dark" have since become one of the singer's rarest..." This should be preceded by a statement that following the violation of terms Epic demanded xyz (all copies be returned to the studio, all copies be destroyed, all copies be turned over to epic) or some such that would make the remaining copies rare.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Reception
  • This linkage is confusing. One would expect the general article in the current link and if the specific show were linked it would be expected under the 1984 as written. It would be better to move the link under 1984 or use it unpiped in the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Weak Oppose I saw on your talk page that you have a Highbeam account. When I do highbeam search on the term "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" soundtrack the second thing to come up is the 20th anniversary re-release of E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial with a digitally remixed soundtrack. Since you did not mention that, I am wondering how thoroughly you have researched this article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. The article on the 20th anniversary re-release is in regard to E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (soundtrack), which is a different record. I'll look into resolving and addressing your other queries in the morning. Thanks. :) Pyrrhus16 22:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Weak Support I am a bit disappointed at how hard it is to find some of the details. For a album that was only briefly in circulation, this is quite a detailed article, I guess.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Support — Given the latest updates, including those following suggestions by Tony the Tiger, I think this is ready. I also know how difficult it can be to track down every possible source on a subject where sources are limited, and I'm satisfied that this represents the best kind of that effort. Impressively detailed, well-written, a great article. WWB Too (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Delegate's note - Spotchecks are still required – any volunteers? Graham Colm (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments: the rest needs scrutinising for flab.

  • "while one of the extraterrestrial's fingers illuminates"—I'm pretty sure the verb is transitive only (illuminates what?).
  • "This picture is further included within the album package as a ..."
  • "The recording itself is contained on a 12-inch vinyl and features"
  • Second "as well as" in five seconds. What about just "and" ... "Michael), as well as several with his brothers as part of The Jackson 5."
  • "a then-subsidary of MCA Inc." -> "then a subsidiary of ..."
  • "and it was ranked as the best science fiction film ever made in a Rotten Tomatoes survey"—ambiguous. Shift part of it to before or after "it was ranked".
  • "around the same time that he began recording his sixth"
  • "had previously worked with Jackson on his solo projects in the past"—can you spot the redundancy?
  • "As a result of the legal restrictions which prohibited "Someone In the Dark" from being released as a single to the public"—isn't there a neater way? "As a result of the legal restrictions that prohibited the public release of "Someone In the Dark" as a single".

Tony (talk) 08:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Changed "illuminates" to "glows"
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Done
  • Removed redundancy
  • Done
Thanks for those comments. Pyrrhus16 18:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Source spotchecks. Well, a small sample. I don't have access to any of the books. Reference numbers based on this version. Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Ref 1: all material covered, no plagiarism
  • Refs 12, 13, 14: material covered, no plagiarism
  • Refs 24, 25: material covered, no plagiarism
  • Ref 37: material covered, no plagiarism

References

  1. ...
  2. ^ George, pp. 31–40
  3. Taraborrelli, pp. 610–612
  4. Holden, Stephen (November 1, 1979). "Off the Wall: Michael Jackson". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on December 23, 2007. Retrieved July 23, 2008.
  5. "Michael Jackson: Off the Wall – Classic albums – Music – Virgin media". Virgin Media. Retrieved December 12, 2008.
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.

↑